# Interceptor vs Escort.



## Soren (Jun 28, 2005)

*Bf 109K-4 vs P-51D Mustang *






*Bf 109K-4 Statistics:*

Engine: Daimler Benz DB-605D with MW-50 boost.
Power: 2,000 HP. 
Max. Speed: 727 km/h. (452 mph.) 
Max. Climb: 1,470 m/min (4,823 ft/min.)
Empty Weight: 2,673 kg. (5,298 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 3,148 kg. (6,940 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 3,373 kg. (7,438 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 9.97 m. (32.7 ft.)
Wing-Area: 16.4 sq.m. (176.6 sq.ft.)
Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) 1x 30mm cannon (MK 108). 

*Bf 109K-4 Aerodynamic statistics:*

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 191.9 kg/sq.m. (39.2 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.06 . 
Airfoil: NACA 2R1 14.2 - 2R1 11.35. 
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.2% Tip= 11.35%.
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.48 . (No slats or flaps deployed)

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 129.69 kg/sq.m. (26.5 lbs/sq.ft.) 
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.57 kg/hp. (3.47 lbs/hp.)

*Bf 109K-4 Additional features:*

-Automatic-Slats Flettner-Tabs. 
-Inclined seat position for better G-load resistance Friese ailerons.





*P-51D Mustang Statistics: *

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7. 
Power: 1,720 HP. 
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph). 
Max. Climb: 1,060 m/min. (3,478 ft/min)
Empty Weight: 3,175 kg. (7,000 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,286 kg. (9,449 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 5,487 kg. (12,096 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.)
Wing-Area: 21.83 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.)
Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2). 

*P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics: *

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 196.33 kg/sq.m. (40.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 . 
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.28 . (No flaps deployed)

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 153.38 kg/sq.m. (31.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.49 kg/hp. ( 5.49 lbs/hp.)

*P-51D Mustang Additional features: *

-Laminar wing Tear-shaped canopy.
-Gyro-Gunsight.

----------------------------------------------------------------
*Aerodynamic Facts:* 

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Wing CL-max - Higher is better.
Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.

Lift-loading - Lower is better.
Power-loading - Lower is better.

Automatic leading edge slats info:
Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Without slats a wing would stall at a certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with a sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall. The automatic-slats work at all speeds, and significantly increase the stall angle and CL-max of the airfoil.
Illustration: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/fig63.jpg

Laminar wing info:
Laminar flow wings lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing. 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 

Wing Cl-max were obtained from:

Bf-109: from full scale Windtunnel test in Charlais Meudan. 
P-51: from Naca Report 829, Page 26 in the PDF of the Naca Report server.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Damn very good comparison, and this I believe proves that the P-51D was not as good as most would like to think it is. Not that she was not a great fighter because she was but that she wasn't as good as made out to be.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

Superiority in numbers.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Exactly. I have come to conclusion after more and more research since joining the site that the best US fighter in the ETO was the P-47. I used to really think it was the P-51D. I still think though that the P-51D made the biggest impact for the allies. Its long range allowed it to escort the bombers deep into Germany. Without the bomber losses may have been much higher.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 28, 2005)

Thats a good start and the stats show the Bf-109K should have an edge but it also doesn't show anything overwelming.

Can we dig into it further? Does anyone have roll rates, acceleration, turn rates etc.? Strictly using these numbers doesn't tell the whole story.

P-51 acceleration is 2.2mph/sec between 10k 15k at METO power
P-51 Roll Rate 90deg/sec @ 300mph

I have read several test results that the P-51 was fully controlable to 606mph, airframe max. While all direct control aircraft are going to be affected to some extent, by speed, the P-51s controlability has always been rated above average even by people outside the "I love Mustangs" club.

Remember guy's, I've never been a big advocate of the P-51 but were all here to learn the truth and the historys of these fine aircraft and their pilots. My contention, as accepted in this thread is that the P-51 was compettitive, the question is, how compettitive? Lets compare them 1:1 and without bias and get a honest answer.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly. I have come to conclusion after more and more research since joining the site that the best US fighter in the ETO was the P-47. I used to really think it was the P-51D. I still think though that the P-51D made the biggest impact for the allies. Its long range allowed it to escort the bombers deep into Germany. Without the bomber losses may have been much higher.



I agree to a point though I feel the P-47 w/paddle prop was as good as the P-51 until the M model which never really had a chance to prove itself. The P-47 made a significant impact that never has been recognized. And the P-51 blanket for the deeper raids was a major impact. Escort, whether P-38, P-47 or P-51 dropped the loss rate from fighters more than 50% and allowed the daylite raids to continue.

The P-38 was the best in the ETO and at the time it was used widely, I think criticle. Without the P-38 the arial offensive in Europe would have been stopped or delayed 6 months or more until the P-51/P-47D were available in the quantity required. It's been argued that the P-47/P-51 crushed the Germans but it was after the P-38s (P-51s went from 0 to dominant in this period) held the line.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I agree its a great idea. In all of my searches though I have never seen anythign that actually states the 109's roll rate for any version.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree its a great idea. In all of my searches though I have never seen anythign that actually states the 109's roll rate for any version.



I just want to know, right now everybody is saying "Mines better" with no real answer. I think there close enough it's not really an issue and that seems to rile everybody up.  

wmaxt


----------



## poprune (Jun 28, 2005)

Aerodynamicists have proved that a bee can't fly: the power to weight ratio is all wrong and they've got damn-all in the way of aspect ratio and C of L.

Bees do fly, but do they fly better than flies fly? If they do, at what speed, height, power, weight and load configuration do they fly better or worse? And who polished what or didn't beat out those dents where someone dropped a spanner? (Sorry, fly)

In short: on the day, in the conditions and given the circumstances... who knows?


(Sorry, Soren; I'm being rude and disrespectful, for which apologies)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I thought it was quite funny.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2005)

> Aerodynamicists have proved that a bee can't fly: the power to weight ratio is all wrong and they've got damn-all in the way of aspect ratio and C of L.



No aerodynamists havent proven it wrong at all  

What they have proved is that the "bumblebee" (not the "Bee") can't 'Glide', but it 'can' fly because of its static wings moving rapidly up and down creating much more lift than a similar sized fixed wing would be capable of.

So the "Its proven the bumblebee can't fly" myth, is infact just a myth.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

It's the many muscles and strange movement of the wing that allow it to fly. It's amazing really, I saw it on this programme where they filmed one close up and slowed it right down...

Amazing piece of natural engineering!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

Ouch.......


----------



## poprune (Jun 28, 2005)

I know I was trying, in my own small way, to make a point of quite another colour...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Another kick in the nuts.


----------



## poprune (Jun 29, 2005)

Not intended as such, I assure you. What I was trying to get over - somewhat clumsily, as it turned out - is that quoting numbers can't be taken as a basis of comparison on the efficiency (or effectiveness) of any two aircraft because so many secondary factors come into play. How, for instance do the (wholly admirable) figures supplied by Soren convey the fact that the view from a 109 - any 109 - was practically non-existent?
A 262 could leave everything panting in its wake, but those engines had a live of just 25 hours or less and were as thirsty as all hell. Gliders are sitting ducks. And just think of the way the Luftwaffe was outnumbered in the last year or so...

See what I mean?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

Bottom line the -109 K4 was a better performer than the Mustang. The Mustang could compete but it was the shear numbers of Mustangs and Germany's lack of fuel that led to the ultimate demise!


----------



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

agreed........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

The one thing I give accolades to the Mustang is it was competitive and was able to bring the fight into Germany. Other than that I have always felt it was over-rated. I think later model P-38s and P-47s were better aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

The P-51 was an easy plane to handle though, it was largely forgiving for the many rookie pilots that flew her. It took the fight to Germany, it also must have had something going for it because the Soviet Union used weight in numbers as well but their numbers were much-much higher. 

The P-51 was also easy to build and maintain. So, personally the performance of plane as a dogfighter is over-rated. The plane itself is not nor is it's contribution to the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The P-51 was an easy plane to handle though, it was largely forgiving for the many rookie pilots that flew her. It took the fight to Germany, it also must have had something going for it because the Soviet Union used weight in numbers as well but their numbers were much-much higher.
> 
> The P-51 was also easy to build and maintain. So, personally the performance of plane as a dogfighter is over-rated. The plane itself is not nor is it's contribution to the war.



Agreed! A fair pilot became a good pilot in a -51. To fly a P-38 you had to be a good pilot!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

I assume everyone has already seen the Tactical Comparison Between the 109G/K and Mk. XIV.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/109gtacvspit14.html

The Mk XIV isn't a Mustang but there's some good useful information in there.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 29, 2005)

Heres an enormous webpage about the me 109 and spitfire
http://kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

I think that is what I had been saying earlier in this post. The P-51 was not the greatest dog fighter but she possibly made the biggest impact of the Allied fighters (post BoB fighters) of the war. She took the fight to the Germans were most fighters would have to sit back and wait for a chance.

I agree with flyboy the best allied fighters were the P-47 and the P-38.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

> I agree with flyboy the best allied fighters were the P-47 and the P-38.



Ill agree to that too.


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 29, 2005)

I would agree with Flyboy that the P-38 Lighting and P-47 Thunderbolt were the best USAAF fighters.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I assume everyone has already seen the Tactical Comparison Between the 109G/K and Mk. XIV.
> 
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/109gtacvspit14.html
> 
> The Mk XIV isn't a Mustang but there's some good useful information in there.



Oh no, not those British tests again... 

Remember, the British hardly dared to fly the plane.

Consequently, British tests with the 109 are worthless...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Agreed and the Spitfire ofcourse fall into the best catagories of allied.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The P-51 was an easy plane to handle though, it was largely forgiving for the many rookie pilots that flew her. It took the fight to Germany, it also must have had something going for it because the Soviet Union used weight in numbers as well but their numbers were much-much higher.
> 
> The P-51 was also easy to build and maintain. So, personally the performance of plane as a dogfighter is over-rated. The plane itself is not nor is it's contribution to the war.



The P-51 was explained by its pilots as a pilots airplane, BUT, get into a stall with it "And your in deeeeep trouble !". The P-51's stalls were some of the most vicious of any fighter in WW2. (In the P-51's pilot's flight manual this is highly warned about) 

The 109 on the other hand had a VERY forgiving stall, and it took 'much' longer to reach the stalling point aswell.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed and the Spitfire ofcourse fall into the best catagories of allied.



There's no doubt that the 109's best rival was the Spit, and that they were very equal in every aspect of flight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> The P-51 was explained by its pilots as a pilots airplane, BUT, get into a stall with it "And your in deeeeep trouble !". The P-51's stalls were some of the most vicious of any fighter in WW2. (In the P-51's pilot's flight manual this is highly warned about)
> 
> The 109 on the other hand had a VERY forgiving stall, and it took 'much' longer to reach the stalling point aswell.



The Spit stalled better than both the -109 and -51.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > The P-51 was explained by its pilots as a pilots airplane, BUT, get into a stall with it "And your in deeeeep trouble !". The P-51's stalls were some of the most vicious of any fighter in WW2. (In the P-51's pilot's flight manual this is highly warned about)
> ...



British fairytale  

The slats on the 109 made it much more forgiving in the stall than the Spitfire. 

However the Spitfire did have good stall characteristics nontheless, because of the 2 degree twist (washout) of the wing tips that was needed for at least partially taming the nasty and violent stall behaviour of the elliptcal shape wing. 

So the truth is that the Bf-109 had much better stall characteristics than the Spitfire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


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



Don't think so Soren - An Elliptical wing will ALWAYS give great advanced stall warning characteristcs. The Stall starts at the wing tips and moves inboard - exactly what is desired in any aircraft! 3/4 of good stall characteristics is knowing when the stall is going to happen. The other 1/4 is knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it does stalls.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


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



This is what was "Assumed" during the development of the elliptical wing, but sadly it was infact just theoretical, in reality it gave no difference. Besides automatic-slats has a much better effect on stall characteristics than a elliptical planform.

The elliptical planform has a very small theoretical advantage, but only theoretical, and only valid if the planform is truely elliptical. Spitfire's planform is only approximating elliptical, and what is left has been sold out by the aerodynamic twist it's wing has. 
It has effect on just one of several factors of wing efficiency, causing a whopping 0.05 improvement in comparison to a trapezoidal planform used in for example Bf 109, that is, IF Spit's wing were truely elliptical... 
You also have to take into account the fact that the profile thicknes ratio of Spit's wing is VERY thin, both in maximum and in average. This in turn leads to the small coefficient of lift. This pretty much takes away the advantage of the large wing area. 
BTW, ever wondered where did all the elliptical wings go? If they are so magically efficient, why nobody uses them anymore? 
The answer is simple, later aerodynamic research has proven that most of the benefits of elliptical wing were a fallacy created by insufficient or faulty research methods. They simply were not worth the trouble. 
Even the developements of Spitfire, Spiteful and Seafang gave up on the elliptic planform and went to normal trapezoid form. Wonder why?
Only thing special in it is the elliptic planform, that dropped of favour just after it, when it was found out that the theoretical benefits of an elliptic planform were actually only theoretical, and practical applications did not yield benefits that would justify the almost astronomical manufacturing difficulties and costs. 
In the Spitfire's case the benefits of elliptic planform (even lift distribution along the span) are nullified by the 2 degree twist (washout) that was needed for at least partially taming the nasty and violent stall behaviour of such wing. 

Besides, wing aspect ratio has a much larger effect on the lift/drag characteristics than the Oswald efficiency factor (where the theoretical difference between Spit's and Bf 109's wing is only of magnitude of 0.05), and Bf 109's wing has higher aspect ratio than Spit's...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

I'm going to agree to disagree - PPL 101 - its actually a test question. An elliptical wing will give the best stall warning. Once in the stall, what prevents the spin? Application of rudder! 

I'll Repeat - The Stall starts at the wing tips and moves inboard - exactly what is desired in any aircraft! 3/4 of good stall characteristics is knowing when the stall is going to happen. The other 1/4 is knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it does stalls.

The elliptical wing does this well.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

I recall that the USAAF tested the FW-190 against the P-47 in 1943 and one of the noted characteristics of the Fw-190 was its extremely bad high speed stall that was particularly dangerous because the aircraft exhibited no advance warning.

The P-47's wing shape may have had something to do with its ability to transmit an advanced warning.

The relevance here, if any, is that the P-47's wing shape was closer to the Spitfires whereas the FW-190's was closer to the ME-109's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I recall that the USAAF tested the FW-190 against the P-47 in 1943 and one of the noted characteristics of the Fw-190 was its extremely bad high speed stall that was particularly dangerous because the aircraft exhibited no advance warning.
> 
> The P-47's wing shape may have had something to do with its ability to transmit an advanced warning.
> 
> The relevance here, if any, is that the P-47's wing shape was closer to the Spitfires whereas the FW-190's was closer to the ME-109's.



Even though the -109 had LE slats it doesn't mean the stall warning will be pronounced unless you see or feel them deployed. Power setting and pitch angle will determing how the aircraft will "break" at the stall. High power, lots of torque, at the break one wing will drop. Without opposite rudder the aircraft will spin.

I suspect the -109, because of its slats will not allow the wing to drop as quickly. During stall recovery the Rudder, elevators and aileron gain effectivness in that order.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm going to agree to disagree - PPL 101 - its actually a test question. An elliptical wing will give the best stall warning. Once in the stall, what prevents the spin? Application of rudder!
> 
> I'll Repeat - The Stall starts at the wing tips and moves inboard - exactly what is desired in any aircraft! 3/4 of good stall characteristics is knowing when the stall is going to happen. The other 1/4 is knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it does stalls.
> 
> The elliptical wing does this well.



I agree with you Flyboy The Spit had the best stall of the single engine aircraft.

I also agree the P-51 had a terribly accelerated stall requiring a 10k minimum to recover according to the manual.

I also agree the later P-38, Spit and P-47s were the best Allied Fighters.

As I posted yesterday testing opposing aircraft always includes some bias be it experiance in the other aircraft, condition of the aircraft or something else that may be unknown. The truth, like it or not, is that the tests are still as honest as the pilots can make them. 
1. Intentionaly biasing the tests, endangers the pilots the information is passed to. They need the correct info to allow them to counter the enemy and live.
2. It would prevent incorporating advances in there own aircraft.
3. If caught intentionaly ruining the results of a test like that your reputation would be destroyed maybe your career to. 

They may not be perfect but but to say they mean nothing or are completely wrong is just delousion. At a minimum they represent the perceptions of a pilot with low time in that type of aircraft. Considering the training/replcement issues the Germans had to deal with in '44/'45 those tests may be even more appropriate than they would otherwise.

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

I was actually making a comment concerning your statement that, "_An Elliptical wing will ALWAYS give great advanced stall warning characteristcs._"

The P-47 had no poor stall warning characteristics. It's wing is pseudo-elliptical. The Me-109 had poor stall warning. So did the Fw-190. Their wings were similarly geometrically shaped.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm going to agree to disagree - PPL 101 - its actually a test question. An elliptical wing will give the best stall warning. Once in the stall, what prevents the spin? Application of rudder!
> 
> .



But the Spitfire's wing wasnt elliptical, as the Spitfire's wing had approxmiately 2 degrees of twist, so the lift distribution was 
not elliptical.



> I'll Repeat - The Stall starts at the wing tips and moves inboard - exactly what is desired in any aircraft! 3/4 of good stall characteristics is knowing when the stall is going to happen. The other 1/4 is knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it does stalls.



Note where slats are located on the wing  

The slats are in the area where air is accelerated, thus the air won´t separate as easily as on a wing without slats.



> The elliptical wing does this well



Yes a whopping 0.05 times better than a ordinary trapezoidal wing, but still only "theoreticly". (Not much ) 

Slats have a immensely greater effect on stall characteristics than a elliptical planform ! When deployed the Slats increased the wings CL-max and max AoA by a whole 25% ! 

Even Wing Aspect ratio has a much greater effect than a elliptical planform.

In any case the Spitfire's wing actually wasnt elliptical, so the Microscopic benefits of such a wing actually weren't present with the Spitfire.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I recall that the USAAF tested the FW-190 against the P-47 in 1943 and one of the noted characteristics of the Fw-190 was its extremely bad high speed stall that was particularly dangerous because the aircraft exhibited no advance warning.
> 
> The P-47's wing shape may have had something to do with its ability to transmit an advanced warning.
> 
> The relevance here, if any, is that the P-47's wing shape was closer to the Spitfires whereas the FW-190's was closer to the ME-109's.



A Fw-190 doesnt have slats


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> Yes a whopping 0.05 times better than a ordinary trapezoidal wing, but still only "theoretical". (Not much ) .



On paper it doesn't seem much - I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that 0.05 will make a differance at the end of the stick!



Soren said:


> Slats have a immensely greater effect on stall characteristics than a elliptical planform ! When deployed the Slats increased the wings CL-max and max AoA by a whole 25% ! .



And I agree



Soren said:


> Even Wing Aspect ratio has a much greater effect than a elliptical wing.



Not during stall warning!



Soren said:


> In any case the Spitfire's wing actually wasnt elliptical, so the Microscopic benefits of such a wing actually weren't present with the Spitfire.



If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck.....  

As I said before: 3/4 of good stall characteristics is knowing when the stall is going to happen. The other 1/4 is knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it does stall.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> DAVIDICUS said:
> 
> 
> > I recall that the USAAF tested the FW-190 against the P-47 in 1943 and one of the noted characteristics of the Fw-190 was its extremely bad high speed stall that was particularly dangerous because the aircraft exhibited no advance warning.
> ...



I was just commenting on wing shapes and the relationship to advanced stall warning.

FLYBOYJ said, "An Elliptical wing will ALWAYS give great advanced stall warning characteristcs."


----------



## ricardo (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> DAVIDICUS said:
> 
> 
> > I assume everyone has already seen the Tactical Comparison Between the 109G/K and Mk. XIV.
> ...



I'm agree with you Soren.... but that's not all... that captured Bf109G, that the British tested against their Spitfire Mk XIV, was not a pure fighter...it was actually a Bf109G-6/U2 (which carries underwing 20mm cannons). We all know that it is not a 100% objective test as those underwing OVERWEIGHT reduces performance. I saw an image of that captured fighter and what I can tell you is that it looks like a Bf109G-14 with 20mm gondolas under each wing.

Check this out:
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Gladwin-Simms/3600.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren, I will agree with you in as much as the Elliptical did disappear for awhile, it is hard to manufacture. The last aircraft I could think of to use this wing was the Culver Cadet, a trainer (You think you might want good stall warning on a trainer?). I've seen many kit planes starting to use elliptical wings as carbon fiber construction makes building this wing a lot easier over wood or aluminum.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

ricardo said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > DAVIDICUS said:
> ...



"OVERWEIGHT reduces performance" To a point...

The effect of weight on stall speed is usually small, but in the most inopportune circumstances that small effect can have inordinately great consequences. Stall speed changes as the square root of the weight ratio. In more concrete terms, reducing aircraft weight by 10% below the maximum certificated gross weight will cause the stall speed to be reduced by 5%. Conversely, an airplane loaded 10% over the maximum weight will have the stall speed increased by 5% relative to the stall speed at maximum weight. That increase may equate to a difference of only two or three knots in stalling speed. If, however, the pilot is counting on operating the airplane within two or three knots of the published stalling speed, a 10% overloaded condition can reduce that expected stall speed margin to zero.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

The underwing gondolas made the wing heavy, "Not a good thing !", and disturbed the airflow over the wings aswell. All this significantly reducing the aircrafts maneuverability.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> On paper it doesn't seem much - I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that 0.05 will make a differance at the end of the stick!



Not when the stick needs greater force in general  



FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Slats have a immensely greater effect on stall characteristics than a elliptical planform ! When deployed the Slats increased the wings CL-max and max AoA by a whole 25% ! .
> ...



Which means you agree that the 109 is MUCH more forgiving in the stall.



> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Even Wing Aspect ratio has a much greater effect than a elliptical wing.
> ...



Are we only talking stall "warning" here ? 

Anyway Wing aspect ratio reduces induced drag by MUCH larger margin than the elliptic planform. 



> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > In any case the Spitfire's wing actually wasnt elliptical, so the Microscopic benefits of such a wing actually weren't present with the Spitfire.
> ...



Hahaha !   



> As I said before: 3/4 of good stall characteristics is knowing when the stall is going to happen. The other 1/4 is knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it does stall.



But remember the Bf-109 is going to stall later and much more forgivingly than the Spitfire, which is my point.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 29, 2005)

First, the 109 was captured WITH the underwing gondolas installed, Obviously they flew like that so how does that invalidate the test?
Second, Slats may delay the stall but that doesn't have anything to do with the ferocity of the stall.
Third, I've read the stall of the Bf-109 is much closer to the P-51 than the Spit, blaming it on the gondolas alone isn't correct though they might make it worse.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

Auto-Slats makes stall recovery very easy, and thats a fact wmaxt.

As to the ferocity of the stall, German and Finnish pilots describe it as VERY gentle in the 109.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> Auto-Slats makes stall recovery very easy, and thats a fact wmaxt.
> 
> As to the ferocity of the stall, German and Finnish pilots describe it as VERY gentle in the 109.



Very easy in relation to what, permanent loss of control?  

I'm not an an expert on the subject, do you have something more tangable I could look at?

I've never heard of a high speed, hi AoA stall being gentle especialy in a single engine fighter with P-torque to contend with, this includes accounts i've read relating to the Bf-109.

Anybody else?

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren - this got nothing to do with stick forces and little to do with the aspect ratios between a Spit and a -109

Basic Flight 101 - when a wing stalls (except a swept back wing) it stalls at the wing tip first. When this happens the stick vibrates - That is your basic stall warning. That .05 percent cited earlier about the elliptical wing probably equates to a nice little buzz at the stick - no forces, just a "buzz."
An elliptical wing does this the best because of the shape of the wingtip. Many early training aircraft had an elliptical wing or something similar because of this. 

A wing with LE slats is going to stall later (a slower airspeed) the stall warning will not be apparent until the burble starts on the wingtip. The warning is not pronounced as early as an elliptical wing. 

Now perform a power-on stall, the Spit will give warning first, "break" first and require less and slower opposite rudder than the -109, BECAUSE....

While the 109 is hanging there, with its slats out, that big ole prop is building up more and more p factor, to keep level you're already adding opposite rudder. What do you think is going to happen at the break? A nice jerky snap that will require immediate opposite rudder or else the 109 will go spinning.

This characteristc goes back to the Spit out turning the 109 arguement and those who say seasoned 109 pilots could hold the turn with a Spit. You know why? They mastered the feel of stall burble and when the aircraft will break in the stall.

And although I never flown a Spit or -109, I could tell you that any high speed, hi AOA stall IS NOT going to be gentle as wmaxt pointed out and If I have my guess, the 109 will be a lot more violent than the Spit although the Spit won't be a parachute ride either. (I've done these in a T-34 felt like I spent 3 hours in a gym afterwards))


----------



## Maestro (Jun 30, 2005)

FBJ is right. Listen to the pro, Soren.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> First, the 109 was captured WITH the underwing gondolas installed, Obviously they flew like that so how does that invalidate the test?
> Second, Slats may delay the stall but that doesn't have anything to do with the ferocity of the stall.
> Third, I've read the stall of the Bf-109 is much closer to the P-51 than the Spit, blaming it on the gondolas alone isn't correct though they might make it worse.
> 
> wmaxt



I agree and disagree with you. At the same time I would want to test the aircaft as found but also I would want to compare it to an aircraft in a similar configuration. So I agree and disagree with you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2005)

Found some actual pilot reports with regards to ME-109 and Spitfire Stall characteristics:

This was taken from the RAF pilot report on the first captured -109 May 4, 1940

Stalling Test
“The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both rudder and ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slots are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. With flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slots open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. *There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sole adverse stalling feature;* it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide.”

From James Robert Feuilherade, flies a IX Spit in South Africa

“The aircraft has very gentle stall characteristics, and there is nothing "nasty" about it. *You get a nice buzz on the stick as you approach the stall giving you plenty of warning.”*
And below is a section of an Air Ministry report on the Spitfire Vc Stalling characteristics........

According to this information it turned out that both aircraft possessed good stall characteristics, however the -109 gave no stall warning "dirty" the most critical time you need stall warning. This may have attributed to the many landing accidents that the -109 encountered. It seems the Spitfire gives ample stall warning both dirty and clean, and I believe this is due to the Elliptical wing. With this, I would feel a lot more comfortable flying a Spit than a -109.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

First off I wasnt specificly talking a high speed stall FJ, so I don't know why wmaxt mentioned this.

Now about the 109 and its stall characteristics...

Messerschmitt put automatic slats on the 'outer' part of the wings. At sufficient AoA, these open, effectively extending the lift vs AoA curve. Basically this means that on the Bf-109, the outer wing sections stall at a considerably higher AoA than the inboard parts of the wing. What does this do? It virtually eliminates the wing-drop of the wing when the wing starts to stall. Plus, it allows full aileron usage up to the point at which the outer part of the wing starts to stall. This leads to a very gentle stall until the wing slats themselves stall. 

So the Bf-109 will stall later and much more gently than the Spitfire, but(Assuming the Spitfire atcually had an elliptic wing "Which it didnt") I would agree that its final stall warning 'might' not be as pronounced as in the Spitfire, however it is reached much later in the 109. So nontheless the Spitfire doesnt have better stall characteristics than the 109. This is what my point was all about...

Now about the Spitfire's wing, well as I've already said it has a 2 degree twist to it, so the lift distribution IS NOT elliptical.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2005)

Soren said:


> First off I wasnt specificly talking a high speed stall FJ, so I don't know why wmaxt mentioned this.
> 
> Now about the 109 and its stall characteristics...
> 
> ...



Soren, I know that the LE slats do, I've flown aircraft with them, and the slats don't stall, the whole wing does. The Slats change the shape of the wing, increasing the wing area, they're a great device. Just because you stall later (or slower), it doesn't mean anything if you don't know its coming. As shown, the Spit talks to you - its telling you its going to stall - the 109 doesn't do this at the most critical time the aircraft is in the air, at landing! A 2nd Lt. Eliminator! Besides even with the slats both aircraft carry very similar stall speeds! 

The tests posted show the data, sure the LE slats help, but they also hurt as well. I'll rephrase my comment from yesterday - good aircraft stall characteristics? 1. - 25% stall warning, 2 - 25% knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it stalls and 3 - 50% winding up in a desired attitude after the stall.

Now as far as aerodynamics on the Spit's wing - we could discuss this all day if its really elliptical aerodynamically, but the bottom line, it carries the shape, the tips stall earlier than a rectangular wing and that's my point. As seen by the posted pilot reports, both aircraft stall well, but with the -109 giving no stall indication when its dirty, well that's an accident waiting to happen and apparently it did on many occasions!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 30, 2005)

As we were talking about max performance capabilities and related issues I was talking about the stall charecteristics in the same performance regime ie. high speed/high AoA. 

Slow speed power off stalls were good in all the major aircraft in WWII. In that situation the slats would be very nice. Power on stalls were more interesting and rapid application of power in any of them could prove fatal (some were better than others) without the proper attention to procedures.

Flyboy is correct.

Back to the subject.
We still don't have enough infrmation to quantify the relative performance of the P-51/Bf-109 other than they were close and the Bf-109K should have had an edge.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2005)

Soren. I am with FJ on this point. Adaquate warning of a stall is of vital importance in particular when under pressure and heads up, not looking at the instruments, which is most likely in a combat situation. 
We often talk about this stalling speed compared to that. In reality it varies quite a lot depending on the position of the plane, a little bank or a slight angle on the climb makes all the difference. 
If an aircraft doesn't give you warning of a stall then its almost certain that the average pilot is going to play it safe as to stall in combat is going to result in: -
a) Losing position compared to the oppinent
b) a stall which loses speed and momentum
c) which makes you an easy target if anyone is close to the right position

The fact that a plane has good stalling characteristics doesn't help you avoid the stall in the first place.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > First off I wasnt specificly talking a high speed stall FJ, so I don't know why wmaxt mentioned this.
> ...



Well then we agree.... the Spitfire didnt have better overall stall characteristics than the 109. 

Upon landing the Spit's stall characteristics were better, but in a dogfight the 109's were better. (Not that the Spit's werent good)



> Now as far as aerodynamics on the Spit's wing - we could discuss this all day if its really elliptical aerodynamically, but the bottom line, it carries the shape, the tips stall earlier than a rectangular wing and that's my point.



FJ there's nothing to discuss about the Spit's wing being Elliptical or not, cause it simply wasnt. The "Wash-out" was there to help the wing the same way the 109's slats did(although not as effectively), but at the same time it ruined the microscopic advantage of the elliptical shape.



> As seen by the posted pilot reports, both aircraft stall well, but with the -109 giving no stall indication when its dirty, well that's an accident waiting to happen *and apparently it did on many occasions! *



Yes because of the landing gear.  Other than that pilots quote the 109 as very predictable, and stalls were very gentle.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree and disagree with you. At the same time I would want to test the aircaft as found but also I would want to compare it to an aircraft in a similar configuration. So I agree and disagree with you.



No, your right it should be tested both ways. My point was the test was still valid even with the gondolas.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

Glider said:


> The fact that a plane has good stalling characteristics doesn't help you avoid the stall in the first place.



No but if your behind an enemy a/c with a ealier stall, you will be able to follow this a/c without stalling yourself- An Advantage.

And actually I don't really disagree with FJ, as I said its possible the Spitfire gave better warning of the stall, but it also stalled ealier on.

What started this discussion was FJ saying the Spitfire had better stall characteristics than the 109, which it clearly doesnt. But then we got to talk about stall "warning", in which the Spitfire might very well be superior. I just disagree with the first point....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2005)

Soren said:


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



Nope - we're going to agree to disagree. From the information gathered as a pilot, I would have reservations about an aircraft that gave no stall warning when dirty. True, the slats help, but I could tell you in a power on or departure stall, the wing will drop without opposite rudder, slats or not, this due to "P" factor.

My personnel opinion on this is the Spitfire will stall "better" (early stall warning, stall perdictability, and a recoverable attitude after stall). I don't believe the -109 meets all of these and again this is apparent in the -109 vs Spitfire turning discussion. The only way to really prove this is to go out and fly em. You know anyone with a spare Spitfire and -109?


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

So overall you think the Spit has a 25% advantage in stall characteristics because of its stall warning ?

In almost every other area the 109 is superior, it stalls later, more gently, and recovers equally well...

Charlie Brown on the 109E-4:
_"I was amazed at how docile the aircraft was and how difficult it was to depart, particularly from manoeuvre - in a level turn there was lots of warning from a wide buffet margin and the aircraft would not depart unless it was out of balance. Once departted the aircraft was recovered easily by centralizing the controls." _


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2005)

Soren said:


> So overall you think the Spit has a 25% advantage in stall characteristics because of its stall warning ?



ABSOLUTELY! - There is nothing worse than being in an aircraft doing departure or power on stalls and not knowing when the break is going to happen! Could imagine this in combat! It's no wonder why the Spit was argumentatively believed to be superior in a turn! I also believe this, compiled with a narrow track landing gear is what attributed to the -109s high accident rate.



Soren said:


> it stalls later, more gently, and recovers equally well...



Later? yes, not by much - don't make it better except on landing, Gently? I think they're the same, Recovery? the same. The Spit gives stall warning about 10-15 knots before the stall- perfect!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

Well here is my question. In the stuff you posted up there FJ about the stall warnings, 2 said that there were no stall warnings at all and one said you got a nice buzz in the stick. So could this mean that unless you knew what to look for you would know the aircraft is about to stall however if you knew what to look for the stall warning was there and quite good? Just a theory since that would explain how German pilots enjoyed flying the aircraft and got the best out of it and the British did not. They simply did not know the aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well here is my question. In the stuff you posted up there FJ about the stall warnings, 2 said that there were no stall warnings at all and one said you got a nice buzz in the stick. So could this mean that unless you knew what to look for you would know the aircraft is about to stall however if you knew what to look for the stall warning was there and quite good? Just a theory since that would explain how German pilots enjoyed flying the aircraft and got the best out of it and the British did not. They simply did not know the aircraft.



You want an aircraft to give you stall warning about 10 knots before the stall, probably 15 knots for a high performance aircraft. Both -109 and Spitfire did this well however it seems the Spitfire gave earlier stall warning. The 109 gave no warning when it was dirty, gear down, flaps down. This is very bad as when you're landing where you normally carry an airspeed just a few knots above stall speed. Combine the narrow landing gear on the 109 and throw in a green pilot and you have an accident waiting to happen......

There has always been the argument of the 109 being able to turn with the Spit. I believe that the un-nerving opening of the 109s slats perhaps combined with late stall warning during tight turns probably gave rise to this scenario. I believe the more experienced 109 pilots eventually learned when the break would exactly happen based on bank angle, AOA and airspeed.

My final comments in this discussion is even with the LE slats, both aircraft gave very similar stall performace. In most cases the 109 had a slightly lower stall speed but it seems this was not an advantage when compared to the earlier stall warning characteristics of the Spit.


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2005)

In this debate I have found the following that may be of interest.
Yugoslavia had both 109E's and Hurricanes in its airforce when Germany attacked. Before the war started the 109 had a much heavier accident rate, so much so that new pilots converting from the Fury started on the Hurricane before moving on to the 109 via a training session in the 108.
The accident rate was according to them due to the narrow track undercarriage (no surprise there) and the variable pitch prop. In the article they didn't mention the stall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

Glider said:


> The accident rate was according to them due to the narrow track undercarriage (no surprise there) and the variable pitch prop. In the article they didn't mention the stall.



What I would surmise is the narrow track landing gear gave problems during landing, especially in a crosswind. Combine this with carrying a few extra knots on landing and it makes sense.

It interesting that they mentioned the variable pitch propeller. It's an extra task but usually a variable pitch prop is pretty simple to operate.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2005)

FJ, 

Did you read my quote on the E-4 ? 

Note this part: "_in a level turn there was lots of warning from a wide buffet margin_"

So the 109 does infact warn the pilot of the stall, but 'maybe' not as early on as in the Spitfire. 

All in all I think the two fighters were very much equal in combat, with the Bf-109 having the advantage of stalling later and being able to achieve higher angles of attack, while the Spitfire would warn its pilot a little sooner of the stall.

One thing is for sure though, they were both excellent fighters, the best of their breed....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

Agree


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2005)

Glad to hear it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

I agree also. 

FJ I was not attacking you with my post up there I was just wondering your thoughts on it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree also.
> 
> FJ I was not attacking you with my post up there I was just wondering your thoughts on it.



Hey no sweat Adler


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 2, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What I would surmise is the narrow track landing gear gave problems during landing, especially in a crosswind. Combine this with carrying a few extra knots on landing and it makes sense.



The Spitfire had a narrower track than the 109. The Russians did not use the Spit as a front line fighter partly because of its weak gear and nose heaviness.

What gave problems to the 109 was the toe in the wheels had. If the landing was not 'square' (wings level) then the a/c would begin a ground loop (to the opposite direction of the wheel touching) and if not caught in time would put too much stress on the leg and it would collapse.

An old Spit pilot once told me that a flick stall in a Spit could be very deadly > almost impossible to get out of the resulting spin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > What I would surmise is the narrow track landing gear gave problems during landing, especially in a crosswind. Combine this with carrying a few extra knots on landing and it makes sense.
> ...



I believe the -109 had a seamless tube oleo, light but not too strong. I also believe the -109s landing gear were "toe out, camber in" potentially causing a "wheell barrel" effect if one tire contacts the runway first further adding to the problem.



KraziKanuK said:


> An old Spit pilot once told me that a flick stall in a Spit could be very deadly > almost impossible to get out of the resulting spin.



A "flick stall" is similar to a snap roll except you're flying at a lower power setting and is very susceptible to spin entry in any high-torque, high power aircraft, especially at a low propeller pitch setting. I don't see doing this in combat unless you're caught by surprise at a low-cruise power setting and you want to confuse your opponent who by now is filling your aircraft full of cannon shells (providing you're flying a Spit). If you attempt this maneuver too tightly, not only will you spin but you could easily over-stress the airframe. If you spin you need to immediately come back to idle power and apply opposite rudder and forward stick before you allow the aircraft to get too "wound up." 

I would suspect a Mustang would be real susceptible to this especially with its fuselage fuel tank full of fuel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe the -109 had a seamless tube oleo, light but not too strong. I also believe the -109s landing gear were "toe out, camber in" potentially causing a "wheell barrel" effect if one tire contacts the runway first further adding to the problem.



I think you are correct.


----------



## vanir (Jul 25, 2005)

WRT the OP and K4 vs Mustang, I've just been watching some war footage of the allied bombing campaign prior to the introduction of P51 escorts (a fatality rate of 8+% for US bomber crews, or less than 13 mission survivability), in which 109's massed to intercept bomber flights and were followed by 110's which really carved them up with rockets.
At this time the Luftwaffe were enjoying an 8:1 kill ratio against RAF fighters that tried to cross the channel, btw.
Even so, during some missions every single Luftwaffe fighter would have as many as 540 machineguns trained on them each pass by the bombers overlapping cover zones. It is considered their effort and that of their industry to rebuild was phenominal.
But it was becoming a war of attrition and the Luftwaffe were quickly running out of experienced pilots.

When Mustangs came with the bombers, they attacked the German fighters while they were still massing, and made mince meat of pursuing 110's. This changed the bombing campaign through 1943 into one in which the allies gained total air superiority.

So by the time magnificent aircraft like the K4 made it to squadron service, you had pilots who were still pimpled and anxious about dating girls.
There were so many allied aircraft flying over Germany at this time,
"fighter bombers often had to wait in line to attack targets."
-Wings of War documentary.

I think while the Mustang's appearance can not be understated, I'd agree that its performance as a contemporary dogfighter may be somewhat a little overrated.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2005)

vanir said:


> some missions every single Luftwaffe fighter would have as many as 540 machineguns trained on them each pass by the bombers overlapping cover zones.



This is a point sometimes missed in some of the fourms here. There was an element of teamwork between the gunners within the cover zones and as we know thee zones were effictive but not absolute in defence of the bomber formations.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 26, 2005)

Another thing often missed is that before escorts the loss rate was ~9/10% per mission of which the AAA acounted for the first 3/4%. In late '43 P-38s were used and the loss rate immediately dropped to 4/5%. Many times the attacking fighters would by pass the groups with P-38 escort to go after the unescorted bombers - in other words the escort was still effective even when they didn't get into a fight. Escort was the key not so much which airplane was doing the escorting.

wmaxt


----------



## vanir (Jul 26, 2005)

Whoa, makes perfect sense in every fashion but I had no idea the P38 was used as bomber escort.
From late 1943 you say? Anybody know a typical bomber flight configuration through the 8th's campaign?

Say, B-25's and I dunno, B-17F's in 1942
B-17G's and P51B's in 1943
B-17G's and P38's in late 1943
B-17G's and P51D's in 1944 onwards
???


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 27, 2005)

vanir said:


> Whoa, makes perfect sense in every fashion but I had no idea the P38 was used as bomber escort.
> From late 1943 you say? Anybody know a typical bomber flight configuration through the 8th's campaign?
> 
> Say, B-25's and I dunno, B-17F's in 1942
> ...



The first escorts were P-38s starting very late in October '43. The first P-51B/Cs started the last week in December '43 (354th FG 9th AF). P-38s were the dominant escort untill the D-Day preperations began in mid May '44. the P-51 reached 50% in late June '44. then the P-51s did the majority of the escort to the end of the war. P-47D-25s ( 4 groups the 356th, 353th, 78th, 56th) worked with the P-51s and the 474FG P-38s till the end of the war. The P-51 was never the only long range escort. After June '44 the P-38s went to the 9th AF and ground attack duties except for the 474th FG.

This was only in the ETO The P-38 was the prime escort everywhere else from early '43 until April '45 when long range P-47s/P-51s were escorting B-29s (P-38s also escorted B-29 but is rarely mentioned).

Politicaly if the admission that P-38 were available and able to escort 8th AF bombers in early/mid '43 were made, people like H. Arnold, C. Spatz and others would have been fired for sacrificing so many airmen unnecisarily. The official line was that there was no long range escort available until the P-51 arrived. The excuse they used was the problems the first P-38s had Frost bit pilots and engine problems plus the 8th never supported the P-38s properly, poor training, bad gas, small drop tanks (the ETO only used the 165gal drop tanks limiting the range some). In the end these were not nearly as bad as the AAF made it seem.

The bomber mix went from primarily +/- 600 B-17E/Fs in '43 to 1,000+ B-17Gs and B-24s in '45 covered by 175 P-38s in '43 to 1,000+ P-51/P-47/P-38s in '45. P-47s/Spitfires Always escorted from the channel to the western border of Germany where the shorter range aircraft had to return to base.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Jul 27, 2005)

Gents I think we need to remember that in late 43 and early 44 in the 8th AF the Jug was the mainstay of the 8th AF fighter escorts and in fact there is more Jug combat footage than P-38 ETO footage available. Several 8th AF groups were never even equipped with the P-38. The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing. Of course that can be contended by the 9th AF 354th fg with the P-51 in December 43 who were blowing out Bf 110G's at a tremendous rate as well as Fw 190's and Bf 109G's, and then secondary hitting the deck and slaughtering everything in site. The 56th fg of the 8th flying the Jug all through the war would also argue this point with again high scoring claims.....

back in a few days


----------



## Glider (Jul 27, 2005)

'The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing'.

I wonder what those RAF flights over occupied France and other occupied countries were for from 1941 on. Must have been navigation tests.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 27, 2005)

Erich said:


> Gents I think we need to remember that in late 43 and early 44 in the 8th AF the Jug was the mainstay of the 8th AF fighter escorts and in fact there is more Jug combat footage than P-38 ETO footage available. Several 8th AF groups were never even equipped with the P-38. The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing. Of course that can be contended by the 9th AF 354th fg with the P-51 in December 43 who were blowing out Bf 110G's at a tremendous rate as well as Fw 190's and Bf 109G's, and then secondary hitting the deck and slaughtering everything in site. The 56th fg of the 8th flying the Jug all through the war would also argue this point with again high scoring claims.....
> 
> back in a few days



True enough, in the ETO the P-38 flew 130,000sorties the P-51 214,000 and the P-47 427,000. The Jugs on the whole outnumbered the P-51s by a factor of two the whole time. However, in reference to escorts, In the 8th AF though it was different, Until late June '44 the P-38 outnumbered the P-51. Escort wise in June '44 there were 4 FGs of P-38s in the 8th, 8 P-51 FGs and 4 P-47 groups. After July '44 the P-38s was phased into the 9th AF except for the 474th, while the 4FGs of P-47s remained escorting. The P-47 had such a high sortie rate for several reasons.
1. The short range leg from Britian to the German border (and back) was Always P-47 territory because of the short range of the earlier models and often Two sorties were made. These flights were not contested much by the Germans. It wasn't until the P-47-25s became available in the summer of '44 that they began long range escort.
2. ground attack is a much shorter mission and the majority of P-47s
were 9th AF and used for ground attack.
3. There were twice as many of them.

The Jug was an excellent aircraft and was very effective and I did not intentionaly lessen it's impact on the war, I was just answering a question about escorting when before June '44 the P-38 was the prime long range escort and like the Jug never gets credit for that. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.



No doubt. The P-38 was in the ETO when it was needed most and did the jobs it was asked to do effectively. The timing and effectiveness of the P-38 in the ETO have been ignored and missrepresented for far to long. I guess thats true to other aircraft too.

wmaxt


----------



## ricardo (Jul 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.
> ...



I think the P-38s enjoyed their "Indian Summer" during the North African Campaign. In the ETO it was a different story. The USAAF lost more P-38s than shot down enemies by P-38s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

ricardo said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



Don't think so.....

I think it's been posted and PROVEN here before that the worse the P-38 did in the ETO was a 1.1 to 1 kill ratio. More liberal claims show a 4 to 1 kill ratio.

Reference: http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 29, 2005)

I seriously doubt that claim.


----------



## ricardo (Jul 29, 2005)

Proof? well.... according to AVIATION magazine (Best WW2 fighter), the P-38 was in #7 position in the ETO (behind the P-47(#1), Fw190(#2), Spitfire(#3), P-51(#4), Yak-3 Yak-9(#5) and Bf109(#6). Statistics clearly shows that they lost more than twice of their P-38s than enemy aircraft shot down by P-38s. That's not success!!

In the Pacific, it was a different story.... the P-38s were punishing japanese aircraft with almost impunity. They were very successful in the PTO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

ricardo said:


> Proof? well.... according to AVIATION magazine (Best WW2 fighter), the P-38 was in #7 position in the ETO (behind the P-47(#1), Fw190(#2), Spitfire(#3), P-51(#4), Yak-3 Yak-9(#5) and Bf109(#6). Statistics clearly shows that they lost more than twice of their P-38s than enemy aircraft shot down by P-38s. That's not success!!



And that's not proof - AVIATION MAGAZINE? Who wrote the article? Go the the sources shown here - historians who tracked both Allied and Axis records. While I agree the P-38s performance in the ETO was less than stellar, your comments are wrong. See below for an accurate and honest assessment of the P-38.....

The Lightning had a mediocre record at best in the ETO. It destroyed 1,771 enemy aircraft for the loss of 1,758 P-38s, almost an even ratio, and its loss rate of 1.35% in the theater was by far the highest of any USAAF fighter, including the P-40 and P-39! For comparison, here are the ETO/MTO kill ratios and loss rates of the Mustang, Spitfire (USAAF Spits only), and Lightning:

Kill ratio: P-51, 1.96 to 1; Spitfire, 1.34 to 1; P-38, 1.01 to 1.

Loss rate: Spitfire 0.66%; P-51, 1.18%; P-38, 1.35%.

The P-38 had three major problems in the ETO:

1. Its Allison engines suffered severely reduced performance at high altitude, making it unsuitable for long-range escort work.

2. Its cockpit heating system was inadequate for the low temperatures encountered over Northern Europe in winter, often leaving pilots with frostbite.

3. With one engine out, the P-38 was a sitting duck for Luftwaffe fighters, meaning that the twin-engined configuration was a handicap, not a help.

"The extrememly low temperatures encountered at altitudes above 20,000 ft was the primary cause of engine trouble. At -50 degrees, lubricating oil became sluggish and the full application of full power, particularly in a climb, could cause piston rod bearings to break up with dire consequences. Above 22,000 ft the Allison engines would also begin to throw oil...Turbo-supercharger regulators also gave trouble, eventually traced to moisture from the vapor trail, gathering behind the engine exhaust stubs, getting into the balance lines and freezing.

"[On Febrary 4, 1944] nearly half the P-38s had been forced to abort when once again extreme cold forced a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation when a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propeller. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence Me 109 top cover, which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark, had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."

- from The Mighty Eighth by Roger Freeman

And to be fair I believe much of this is directed to earlier J models and the losses were for all losses, including those shot down by ground fire and those lost due to non-combat mishaps. Do the math - I think the air-to-air kill ratio might of come out to be 4 to 1!

Late L models would of proved a lot more effective.......


----------



## ricardo (Jul 29, 2005)

There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.

Do I have to believe that some sources claim that Kill ratios were 4:1 in favor of the P-38 against german aircraft?

But if another source claims that actually kill ratios were 2:1 in favor of german aircraft against P-38 then that's totally false.

On the other hand.... according to your trusty source the P-38s destroyed 1,771 german aircraft for the loss of 1,758 of their own. It brings me to the point to wonder how many of those 1,771 german aircraft were single engine fighters and how many were "easy picks". 

Does that number (1,771) includes german aircraft destroyed on the ground?

I'm asking because we all know that USAAF used to count enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground as a confirmed "victory".


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 29, 2005)

Flyboy is right,

The engine problems was often due to improper cruise tecniques they used a higher rpm setting and low boost caused low coolant temps. Also fuel was bad, to low octain for turbo charging. Lastly the early planes had intercooler problems limiting power available. With Proper tecniques Art Heiden flew over 300hrs in combat without a problem. Cocpit heat was roughly the same as outside. The support by the 8th was terrible. The J-15 on fixed the performance issues and the J-25/Ls fixed the heat (mostly). 

Accoeding to the AAF 8th combat losses page only 451 P-38s failed to return to base (the remaining 1,307 were unfit for further flight using numbers that have been normaly accepted) remember the P-38 was also used extensively for ground attack too. 1,771 E/A - 451= 3.92:1 P-38.

Whatever else is said it must be remembered the bomber loss rate from fighters dropped from 5/6% to 1/2% at a time the escorts were outnumbered by 10:1 odds by more experianced German pilots, they still got the job done
wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

ricardo said:


> There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.



That's right, and that's why you substantiate all claims, USAAF and Luftwaffe.....



ricardo said:


> Do I have to believe that some sources claim that Kill ratios were 4:1 in favor of the P-38 against German aircraft?



Yes - the Proven numbers show it - proven numbers substantiated from US AND Luftwaffle sources.....



ricardo said:


> But if another source claims that actually kill ratios were 2:1 in favor of German aircraft against P-38 then that's totally false.



Its false if it states 2 to 1 - do the math!



ricardo said:


> On the other hand.... according to your trusty source the P-38s destroyed 1,771 German aircraft for the loss of 1,758 of their own. It brings me to the point to wonder how many of those 1,771 German aircraft were single engine fighters and how many were "easy picks".



As stated, those losses INCLUDE ground fire and non-combat losses. Easy picks? Give me a break! How many of the P-38 losses were "easy picks? A kill is a kill and by the way he Luftwaffe would purposely "gang up" on crippled P-38s so that blows you "easy picks" theory out of the water. This is documented by both USAAF and Luftwaffle sources.....



ricardo said:


> Does that number (1,771) includes German aircraft destroyed on the ground?



No - Air to Air Kills!



ricardo said:


> I'm asking because we all know that USAAF used to count enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground as a confirmed "victory".



And well aware of that - The USAAF did that in the ETO only - again those are air-to-air kills. If you want to count ground kills it will probably go to 8 to 1!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ricardo said:
> 
> 
> > There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.
> ...


----------



## ricardo (Jul 29, 2005)

Okay, I see that you feel very confident of your sources. Well, you have your sources and I have my sources. Next step? we are going to compare... there must be at least one agreement between your sources and my sources. I don't have the sources that I'm talking about at hand, but I have it at home. I'm going to look for it and then I'll write here the numbers that I read.

See you in a couple of hours.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

Agree!


----------



## ricardo (Jul 29, 2005)

Okay, I'm at home right now, and guess what? I found the info. As a fact, it is not AVIATION... actually it is FLIGHT JOURNAL (august 2003). I go to page #36 at the bottom.

*P-38:* 
Sorties = *129,820* 
bomb tonnage = *1,771*
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = *749*
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = *1,951*
combat losses = *1,758* 
loss rate per sortie = *1.7%*

The 1,771 enemy aircraft shot down that you were talking about correspond to bomb tonnage dropped by the P-38s on the ETO. 

I understand that combat losses does not include accidents... only aircraft lost due to enemy action.

*P-51:*
Sorties = *213,873* 
bomb tonnage = *5,668*
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = *4,950*
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = *4,218*
combat losses = *2,520* 
loss rate per sortie = *1.2%*

*P-47:*
Sorties = *423,435* 
bomb tonnage = *113,913*
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = *3,082*
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = *3,202*
combat losses = *3,077* 
loss rate per sortie = *0.7%*

Now, send me your comments.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

ricardo said:


> Okay, I'm at home right now, and guess what? I found the info. As a fact, it is not AVIATION... actually it is FLIGHT JOURNAL (august 2003). I go to page #36 at the bottom.
> 
> *P-38:*
> Sorties = *129,820*
> ...



I believe everything but the air-to-air kills, there should be one in front of that seven based on the previously posted comments from Roger Freeman, author of "The Mighty Eight." I believe its a typo error. I got family coming over tonight, but I am going to find some of my books on this subject as well as internet sources. I've seen those numbers before and it shows the P-38 had slightly more air-to-air kills than losses.


----------



## vanir (Jul 29, 2005)

While everyone's looking up info, does anyone have the approximate flight distances of a round trip during the bombing campaign? I don't even know which field the 8th were stationed at but I'm doing up some missions on IL2.
I wanna see these aircraft go at it myself.

Also, not wanting to get into something out of my league here, but I thought the P38's twin-engine reliability was related to actually turning up at the combat zone.
There was always a percentage of aircraft, flying an appreciable distance to target not actually making it there due to simple navigation problems and engine troubles. Especially in the case of the latter I'd imagine this would be a little like rolling dice...don't get the snake-eyes whatever you do (like you get a choice). Probably be a little scary coming down over occupied Europe or in the midsts of something like a hundred seperate battlefields. Even ditching in the channel wouldn't be fun.
A P38 would certainly make you feel a little safer.

But combat reliability in the face of multiple cannon equipped enemy fighters I should think comes down more to not getting hit than anything else. And a one-engined P38 in combat is probably as good as a dead P38 anyway.

And yeah, a turbo-supercharged Allison isn't the best setup for cold northern Europe. European fighters used a centrifugal supercharger (which is like a mechanically driven turbocharger), more reliable when temperatures plummet. Conventional superchargers like those used on US engines are much less forgiving and prefer drag racing tracks to mountaineering. You need huge intercoolers for them when it's hot and you've gotta get out your engineering cap when it's cold.


----------



## ricardo (Jul 30, 2005)

Maybe it is a type error, as you said... maybe not.  

Anyway, the P-38 did a good job on the MTO and the PTO.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2005)

One thing to keep in mind is the pure size difference of the P-38 verses say a P-51... The -38 was one hell of a big target inside ur gunsight...

With 2 engines, a very skilled pilot could make his plane do things a single engine plane could not...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 30, 2005)

The P-38 was not actually that bigger target as you may think...only the top views show any notable differences...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2005)

I think that pic is misleading CC... U put both of em on the ground next to each other and the size difference is real visible.... The -47 is bigger than the -51 so its not so evident..


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2005)

Yeah, I have 1:72 models of both the P-51 and P-38; there's quite a bit of extension on the wing span with the P-38. It's a bigger plane, a bigger target.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 30, 2005)

http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html Heres a report dedicated to the issue.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2005)

ricardo said:


> Maybe it is a type error, as you said... maybe not.
> 
> Anyway, the P-38 did a good job on the MTO and the PTO.



I'll agree the P-38 was less than stellar in the ETO - some reasons for that lay with the aircraft (conditions that could of been corrected) however history is history. The FACT remains that the P-38 destroyed well over 1700 aircraft in AIR-TO-AIR combat over Europe.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 30, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ricardo said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I'm at home right now, and guess what? I found the info. As a fact, it is not AVIATION... actually it is FLIGHT JOURNAL (august 2003). I go to page #36 at the bottom.
> ...



This site shows the number of aircraft that did not return to Britain after their combat missions - these are the numbers that generate the 4:1 comes from http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml 

This site has the Overall losses (those lost to all causes whearthe they returned or not) kills and sorties. http://www.ww2guide.com/fighters.shtml

In the Med 113 P-38s were lost for 608 kills for a 5.32:1 ratio against the same aircraft.

The bomb tonnage number is also wrong 1 P-38FG alone dropped 660,000lbs and the P-51 number is high the P-51s did minimal ground attack with bombs. P-51s did most of their ground attacks on the return from escorts.

This site has an article on the various sizes of US aircraft and some very good articles on the P-38 in general. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html 

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > ricardo said:
> ...




Thanks wmaxt - I didn't have a lot of time this weekend to research this - I got family coming over and I'm supposed to fly later today - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P-38 air-to-air kill ratio was still 1.01 to 1 or was the non-combat losses included in the P-38 losses?


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 30, 2005)

Thanks wmaxt - I didn't have a lot of time this weekend to research this - I got family coming over and I'm supposed to fly later today - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P-38 air-to-air kill ratio was still 1.01 to 1 or was the non-combat losses included in the P-38 losses?[/quote]

I added a web site above that shows the total losses/kills/sorties.

Ya, short form, if you use the Total kills 1771 (the Journal had a missprint) to 1758 (all even noncombattants) it's 1.01:1 if you use non returns (obviously shot down) it's 1771 to 451 or 3.92:1

The P-38 had 451 that did not return to Britain, the 1758 number is all p38s lost to all causes training, ferrying, collisions, aircraft that returned with damage to great to repair and including, I belive, the "Lost Squadron" in Greenland (ferry loss of aircraft assigned to the 8th). BTW the P-47 had a similar ratio of aircraft returned but unable to fly again if I 1,043 non returns and 3,077 total lost while the P-51 had 2,201 non returns for 2,520 total - if you got hit in a P-51 you went down. 

If you look at all the numbers and leave the politics out of it the P-38 was the best by a fair margin.

People forget or don't realize the people in control of the 8th airforce controled the information about the ETO they Arnold, Eaker, Spaatz staked everything on unescorted bombers not using the P-38 to stop the carnage would be criminal unless the P-38 couldn't do it so they didn't support it. The only place the P-38 did badly is the ETO, they said it was the range, the cold, and the engines. In Alaska they had -50 on the ground and -70 at altitude and flew the same distances as in the ETO. There were very few aborts from cold cockpits or bad engines. In the PTO it was common for strike and top cover missions to be at 25/30k and -50 with distances up to 700 mi radii, very few aborts from engines or cold cocpits. Only in the ETO were there problems.

If you examine the problems of the P-38 in the ETO most are at least in part are operational ie running the engines to cool and congealing the oil in Alaska they ran 1700rpm 45"/hg saving engine life, fuel, warm oil, AND warm exaust kept the cockpits warmer (still not very good but tollerable). The other problems were lack of support ie. Octain was adjusted in the field before fueling BY HAND, sometimes in 55gal drums, if the TEL didn't mix you lost an engine. The 8th contended the P-51 had more range but they NEVER ordered the 300gal drop tanks for the P-38.

The P-38 still did the job.

Sorry If I got redundant  

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2005)

I knew there was no way the P-38 shot down less than 1750 aircraft and had a least a 1 to 1 kill ratio with the Luftwaffle. Wmaxt, excellent information on the P-38 - I thought with 10+ years at Lockheed I was the P-38 authority, but you always come up with great information!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Also you have to look at the fact that combat losses does not neccessarily mean it was shot down. The aircraft could have had mechanical problems on a mission and not returned to base. That is still a combat loss.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 31, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Also you have to look at the fact that combat losses does not neccessarily mean it was shot down. The aircraft could have had mechanical problems on a mission and not returned to base. That is still a combat loss.



Very True. The P-38 and P-47 had a large percentage of ground attack missions which, I think, account for the large number of aircraft that made it back from missions but were non reparable ie anti aircraft weposn, trees, poles tend to wrench airframes out of true when hit making them un repairable.

Also Adler, the numbers for total aircraft losses, kills, sorties for US fighters are at http://www.ww2guide.com/fighters.shtml There are a lot of other specs though the P-38 specs are still a mixture and not quite right. it shows ranges for the early J model no wing tanks and small drop tanks ETO configuration. For numbers of aircraft that did not return from missions go to http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml 

Thanks, Flyboy have you seen this page in has several good articles. I like the F4U-4 article where he make a case for the Corsair against the P-51 but has several comments that run except for the P-38 the Corsair is ...
Http://home.att.net/C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Yeap I did not meantion AA. I bet you quite a bit did not return because of AA.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 31, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap I did not meantion AA. I bet you quite a bit did not return because of AA.



I'm sure you are right, so the nonreturn of 451 is even better looking. The "if you are hit but still made it home" percentages are as follows:
P-38 - 75%
P-47 - 66%
P-51 - 13%

wmaxt


----------



## ricardo (Aug 1, 2005)

Read carefully what this link ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml ) displays:

Other losses occurred too. Collisions, training accidents and so on. The table below summarizes *all losses in the ETO* during the war:

Aircraft Type Number Lost 
B-17---------------4,754 
B-24---------------2,112 
P-47---------------1,043 
P-38-----------------451 
P-51---------------2,201 
Total-------------10,561

On the other hand, this site ( http://www.ww2guide.com/fighters.shtml )tells another story:

Fighter Losses ETO 

Type-------*Combat Losses*
P-47--------3077 
P-51--------2520 
P-38--------1758 

These two sources does not complement each other, they are giving different numbers. One must be right and the other one must be wrong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

Or one is including all Combat losses ground and air or air-to-air losses only.

NOTE - The top line is 8AF only.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2005)

ric said:


> One must be right and the other one must be wrong.



or they could both be wrong, when checking stats it's best to get sources from several different media types to confirm data.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ric said:
> 
> 
> > One must be right and the other one must be wrong.
> ...



YEP!


----------



## ricardo (Aug 1, 2005)

The first source is a SUMMARY OF LOSSES TO ALL CAUSES IN ETO (including accidents, combat losses, unknown):

P-47---------------1,043 
P-38-----------------451 
P-51---------------2,201

And the other source states the actual combat losses in the ETO (doesn't mention non-combat losses or unknown) were:

P-47--------3077 
P-51--------2520 
P-38--------1758 

Definitively there is wide range of losses: P-47 (at least 1043 to 3077 or more), P-51 (at least 2,201 to 2520 or more) and P-38 (at least 451 to 1758 or more).

My point of view:

If the first source is right, then anyone can easily say that only 200 out of 450 P-38s were actually lost due to air to air combat. The other 251 were lost due to accidents, flak, unknown. But wait!! don't you think that 200 is too little??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

ricardo said:


> The first source is a SUMMARY OF LOSSES TO ALL CAUSES IN ETO (including accidents, combat losses, unknown):
> 
> P-47---------------1,043
> P-38-----------------451
> ...



Actually I do - I know that wmaxt posted data to show that the P-38 had the best survival rate if damaged (2nd engine obviously), but I would agree that 200 is too few. Match that with the P-38 air-to-air kills it gives the P-38 an 8 to 1 ETO kill ratio, and even though I am a P-38 fan, I know that is wrong!


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 1, 2005)

ricardo said:


> The first source is a SUMMARY OF LOSSES TO ALL CAUSES IN ETO (including accidents, combat losses, unknown):
> 
> P-47---------------1,043
> P-38-----------------451
> ...



One thing about the numbers the AAF statistics branch claims 5,320 fighters lost in the ETO from all causes which is in the middle of the two sets of numbers shown above. 
Secondly, I agree that the 8th losses page says Summary of all losses, however the paragraph above mentions returned aircraft that had to be written off were not always listed and these numbers are the right magnitude for that catagory while the second, larger, set would seem to fit the ALL losses catagory. I have seen the same/similar numbers in those very catagories. 
Third, the numbers do match those I have seen elsewhere so I'm sure I'm using them correctly and they are close if not exactly correct. 
Lastly, I have submitted a request to the records branch of the AAF stats. staff for information to confirm/modify these numbers.

In the METO the ratio works out to 5.32:1 Axis airplane, In the ETO defending the home front with a few more planes and more experianced pilots the 3.92:1 is probably correct. Another thing is the mission mix is about the same in the two theaters.

I think the P-38 was the best AAF fighter (until maybe the P-47M/N and the F4U-4) in the war but It has to stand on it's own record. I would like to expose that record in spite of the crud that has floated around for 60 years, not add anything that does not belong.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I do - I know that wmaxt posted data to show that the P-38 had the best survival rate if damaged (2nd engine obviously), but I would agree that 200 is too few. Match that with the P-38 air-to-air kills it gives the P-38 an 8 to 1 ETO kill ratio, and even though I am a P-38 fan, I know that is wrong!



One thought I had on P-38 surviveability is the layout of the P-38 Everything is redundant. It was also spread out. It might have been easier to hit something but to hit enough critacle stuff was much harder.
A number came home with 1 boom and the elevator shreadded. 
Lots came home from as far as 600mi on one engine. 
At least Two came home after collisions with Bf-109s.
Phone/power poles were almost standard strikes
1 even came home on 1 engine with a Halifax rudder, flat to the aitstream on the other wing (the good engine was between the bad one and the rudder) after a collision.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

I posted a story on another link about an engineer I used to work with who flew P-38s in the MTO during the war. Long story short (the long one is on the other link) he got jumped by an ME-110 who blasted away at his P-38, shooting out an engine and filling the cockpit full of holes. In his panic he grabbed the yoke and fired off the guns point blank and exploded the -110 right in front of him as the -110 over shot. He flew his P-38 across the Med back to his base where it was scrapped.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2005)

> Everything is redundant. It was also spread out. It might have been easier to hit something but to hit enough critacle stuff was much harder.


I will agree with that....

I honestly dont believe that there will ever be a surefire # for combat losses/non-combat losses.....


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I posted a story on another link about an engineer I used to work with who flew P-38s in the MTO during the war. Long story short (the long one is on the other link) he got jumped by an ME-110 who blasted away at his P-38, shooting out an engine and filling the cockpit full of holes. In his panic he grabbed the yoke and fired off the guns point blank and exploded the -110 right in front of him as the -110 over shot. He flew his P-38 across the Med back to his base where it was scrapped.



P-38s were good for that. How did he rate the P-38 compared to others?

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

He loved it, and what made it neat was he was working at Lockheed before the war and actually built the P-38 prototypes. 

During this mission he told me the top canopy was blown away, most of the instument panel was gone, he could see through the floorboard and had no radio!

He did tell me he liked the P-40, but thought the -38 was the best fighter of WW2. In another thread I posted comments about my old neighbor who flew both -51s and -38s. He thought the -38 was a much better aircraft although was one of those "freezing" ETO pilots.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2005)

There was also a compressability problem with the -38 in the ETO, diving from altitude would fog and ice up the windscreen and u were blind..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> There was also a compressability problem with the -38 in the ETO, diving from altitude would fog and ice up the windscreen and u were blind..



Yep - Mike Alba did mention that as well......


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He loved it, and what made it neat was he was working at Lockheed before the war and actually built the P-38 prototypes.
> 
> During this mission he told me the top canopy was blown away, most of the instument panel was gone, he could see through the floorboard and had no radio!
> 
> He did tell me he liked the P-40, but thought the -38 was the best fighter of WW2. In another thread I posted comments about my old neighbor who flew both -51s and -38s. He thought the -38 was a much better aircraft although was one of those "freezing" ETO pilots.



I've been trying to see how many pilots were of that opinion. So far I've come across 2 that just didn't like the P-38. The vast majority I've come across so far, 15 or so, If they flew the P-38 and the others the thought the P-38 was best. 

Many P-38 drivers complained about the cold. Why they never installed a hot/coolant heater is beyond me, two pipes through the mid wing maybe 12' of pipe max, it would have cleared the problem easily.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Many P-38 drivers complained about the cold. Why they never installed a hot/coolant heater is beyond me two pipes through the mid wing, maybe 12' of pipe max, it would have cleared the problem easily. wmaxt



Remember the plane was developed in Southern California. In Burbank summer temps are in the high 90s, in the winter you may see 40s. at night. I was told by some at Lockheed that some of the engineers choose to ignore the heat issue until it became a "hot potato."


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > Many P-38 drivers complained about the cold. Why they never installed a hot/coolant heater is beyond me two pipes through the mid wing, maybe 12' of pipe max, it would have cleared the problem easily. wmaxt
> ...



I wonder how many fingers, toes and pilots died because of that.

Les, your right on both counts, frosting and the numbers will never be fully right. Compressability was a problem but an experianced pilot could pull the throttles back, put the props in flat pitch and s-turn to keep the plane out of serious trouble. 

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2005)

> but an experianced pilot could pull the throttles back, put the props in flat pitch and s-turn to keep the plane out of serious trouble.


Dont know if he would want to do that in a combat situation tho.... Bouncing from High Outta the Sun in the ETO was a problem for -38 pilots that never really got resolved, other than sendin them to the PTO...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



It seems they were more concerned with compressibility


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 1, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > but an experianced pilot could pull the throttles back, put the props in flat pitch and s-turn to keep the plane out of serious trouble.
> 
> 
> Dont know if he would want to do that in a combat situation tho.... Bouncing from High Outta the Sun in the ETO was a problem for -38 pilots that never really got resolved, other than sendin them to the PTO...



The P-38s and the other escorts at the time were restricted to "close escort" they were not allowed to get further than 2,000ft from the bombers. Early P-38s through H models had a service ceiling of 40,000 to 42,000ft it's not that they couldn't, they wern't allowed to. The late P-38s J/L had a service ceiling of 44,000ft and were allowed to roam, that stopped the high altitude bounces. 

Most issues with the P-38 in the ETO stemmed directly from 8th AF operating policies. Cold Cockpits and inadequate intercoolers (up to the J) and Compressability were the only issues that were inhearent in the P-38 it self (and that was enough). All these issues were corrected by the J-25 model which entered service early spring of '44. Remember Alaska they flew Colder (-70 in the air -50 on the ground), just as far and had very few aborts from any cause except weather over the target. They flew higher manifold pressure and lower RPM keeping the engines and cockpits warmer than the ETO where the operating policies were Higher RPM and low (cold) manifold pressure.

The late J/Ls also had dive flaps that kept them out of compressability.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2005)

Some of that equipment (ie the intercoolers) were GFE - equipment that sucked, but the government wanted it installed and Lockheed took the blame by the operators


----------



## evangilder (Aug 1, 2005)

The dive flaps helped the compressibility, but did not eliminate it altogether. I spoke with veteran P-38 pilot that had very inadequate training, and this was in 1945. He said the airplane scared the devil out of him until he got used to it. He also said that if he had lost an engine on takeoff in his first 15-20 hours, he would have been in serious trouble.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 2, 2005)

evangilder said:


> The dive flaps helped the compressibility, but did not eliminate it altogether. I spoke with veteran P-38 pilot that had very inadequate training, and this was in 1945. He said the airplane scared the devil out of him until he got used to it. He also said that if he had lost an engine on takeoff in his first 15-20 hours, he would have been in serious trouble.



That doesn't surprise me but heres something about the training vrs accidents in the P-38. In rates per 100,000 flying hours, in 42 the rate of operational fifgters were as follows:
A-36 - 409
P-38 - 234
P-39 - 351
P-40 - 507
P-47 - 245
P-51 - 102

By 45 and with more experiance in training it was 
A-36 - Discontinued
P-38 - 78
P-39 - 156
P-40 - 115
P-47 - 94
P-51 - 79

The P-38 had its quirks but it really wasn't a killer like it it gets accused of sometimes, nor was it hard to fly, even though it was more complicated than, say the P-51.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Aug 2, 2005)

Yes, but a few of the late war pilots I spoke with all said that the training on the P-38 was inadequate, at best. Most of those guys came from single engine fighters, so they had some flying experience already. But they had no experience with multi-engines.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 2, 2005)

I just saw an interesting interview with Robin Olds. In his second encounter with German aircraft and his third kill he dropped his external tanks without switching his fuel selector so both fans quit durring his attack, which he brought down dead stick. His first and second kills were Fw-190s in a turning fight below 15,000ft.

In Vietnam he was creditted with 4 kills but there are rumors that he had at least 1 or 2 more but didn't take credit because if he did he would be pulled out of combat. When asked, his comment was "I Choose not to answer".

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I just saw an interesting interview with Robin Olds. In his second encounter with German aircraft and his third kill he dropped his external tanks without switching his fuel selector so both fans quit durring his attack, which he brought down dead stick. His first and second kills were Fw-190s in a turning fight below 15,000ft.
> 
> In Vietnam he was creditted with 4 kills but there are rumors that he had at least 1 or 2 more but didn't take credit because if he did he would be pulled out of combat. When asked, his comment was "I Choose not to answer".
> 
> wmaxt



I'm working with a guy right now who flew with him in the 555th.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 2, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm working with a guy right now who flew with him in the 555th.



Cool!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm working with a guy right now who flew with him in the 555th.
> ...



He actually flew with him in Nam - I'll hit him up for some info tomorrow!


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2005)

Excellent... My Dad met Robin Olds several times before.... Ill have to see what he says about that....

I talked to a few -38 pilots in my time, and just about 100% of them were intimidated by the aircraft and the many different challenges that a dual engined plane can throw at u... The plane just flew differently with the twin boom...

But once they mastered it, they were efficient killing machines and thought the craft the best thing in the sky...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 2, 2005)

Yep, that's been my experience as well, intimidated at first. But once they got used to them, they did like them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> But once they mastered it, they were efficient killing machines and thought the craft the best thing in the sky...



Agree - so good it was used to assinate an Admiral!


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2005)

Still one of the greatest things that happened in WWII for me... What a mission......

DAMN!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

Cool cant wait to here what he has to say about him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2005)

The fellow I work with who served under Robin Olds, Larry Rider is a Sales Rep for Ximango Aircraft - didn't come in today - I'll hit him up the next time I see him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

Cant wait FBJ.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 3, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The fellow I work with who served under Robin Olds, Larry Rider is a Sales Rep for Ximango Aircraft - didn't come in today - I'll hit him up the next time I see him.


Yeah, that should be interesting!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2005)

OK FOLKS! - Got together today with Larry Rider (Lt.Col USAF Ret.) He flew with Robin Olds during Operation Bolo in 1966, had some interesting stuff to say......

Larry told me when you went into a briefing with Olds, he started out low key, but as the briefing went on you could see him get fired up to the point where you felt like you were preparing for a football game and the coach was giving you the pre-game pep-talk. Real inspirational leader....

When I asked Larry about Olds shooting down more than 4 Migs, he grinned and said, "I can't confirm or deny." Actually he did tell me it was rumored that Olds actually had 6 to 8 kills.......

Apparently Olds made Brigadier prior to going to Viet Nam. He allowed himself to be "redlined" so he was reduced in rank and made CO of the 555th as a Bird Colonel - he was not ready to sit behind a desk!

I asked Larry if he ever engaged Migs, he said "a few times, never got a kill." He did say that one time he locked on to something going pretty fast, his WSO thought it was a MiG-21. As he was being vectored toward the target (thinking he was going to get his first kill) a Navy Talos missile was fired from a destroyer (he was off the coast of North Viet Nam) and killed the target


----------



## evangilder (Aug 4, 2005)

Very cool!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2005)

FB said:


> As he was being vectored toward the target (thinking he was going to get his first kill) a Navy Talos missile was fired from a destroyer (he was off the coast of North Viet Nam) and killed the target



well that's just not cricket.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well that's just not cricket.........


Translation: That kinda sucks!

Great story though. Sounds like Olds was a helluva guy. Even takes a demotion to lead the boys, and scores some Mig kills in the process.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2005)

I'll ask Larry if I could post HOW Olds got redlined..... It's been kind of kept under wraps.......


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 4, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll ask Larry if I could post HOW Olds got redlined..... It's been kind of kept under wraps.......



According Olds in the interview he had been put on the roster for confirmation but because he wanted to go to Vietnam he pulled a prank. When his CO. told him off and thretened to pull his name from the roster he said "Yes Sir", smiled and left without being dismissed. All it did was delay things anyway.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2005)

Would be interesting to see what he says about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2005)

OK - "I will not confirm or deny....."

Upon getting one star, things were a bit boring. Olds was part of an aerial demonstration team called the "Acrojets" after WW2, he liked putting on shows. On a whim, I guess he decided to put on an unapproved airshow at a foreign base. I guess this wasn't a matter of a few aircraft, I guess he had a whole wing under his command whiz around this SAC base for a day. The base commander (his boss) didn't take too lightly to this. After some butt-chewing (which probably rolled off him) his name was placed on the red-line list. Not only wasn't he getting a 2nd star, he was actually getting demoted, provided he didn't just retire then (which he could of). After some words with his boss, he was told "That attitude could get you sent to Viet Nam." Olds took that as an order and showed up in Thailand! Eventually he was given the 555th.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2005)

Cool thanks.


----------



## Chocks away! (Aug 14, 2005)

vanir said:


> WRT the OP and K4 vs Mustang, I've just been watching some war footage of the allied bombing campaign prior to the introduction of P51 escorts (a fatality rate of 8+% for US bomber crews, or less than 13 mission survivability), in which 109's massed to intercept bomber flights and were followed by 110's which really carved them up with rockets.
> At this time the Luftwaffe were enjoying an 8:1 kill ratio against RAF fighters that tried to cross the channel, btw.
> Even so, during some missions every single Luftwaffe fighter would have as many as 540 machineguns trained on them each pass by the bombers overlapping cover zones. It is considered their effort and that of their industry to rebuild was phenominal.
> But it was becoming a war of attrition and the Luftwaffe were quickly running out of experienced pilots.
> ...


I think it's more a case of the bf-109 being underrated. Some authors blame the 109 for the large losses in combat while it was an ever able plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

The 109 in my opinion is very underated. It was certainly not the best fighter of WW2 but I dont think it gets the credit that it deserves.


----------



## Chocks away! (Aug 14, 2005)

Agreed. It is the axis equivalent to the Spitfire. It was still competent in 1945


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Yeap certainly agree. Hey since you are from Cypress what can you tell me about the Cypriat Airlines plane that crashed.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 16, 2005)

The 109 was under rated to some extent, and was easily as effective as the P-51 was under equal circumstances. The P-51 was Over rated to a large extent to.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

Certainly agree also.


----------



## Chocks away! (Sep 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap certainly agree. Hey since you are from Cypress what can you tell me about the Cypriat Airlines plane that crashed.


 It's Cyprus  It's tragic, what happened. I know a guy who lost a cousin in the crash. Well it's seems the pressurisation system failed yet for some reason the pilots were unable to do anything about it, even if they were trained to deal with such incidents. Unfortunately I don't know any more details. I'm serving in the Cypriot army and i'm missing all the news. I only found out about the floods today!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The 109 was under rated to some extent, and was easily as effective as the P-51 was under equal circumstances. The P-51 was Over rated to a large extent to.wmaxt



The P51 was faster, flew higher, and had a vastly superior range than the -109. I'd say the -109 was 2nd rate by 1945. Wasn't it Galland that said that all production of the -109's should be stopped and only -190's be built?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > The 109 was under rated to some extent, and was easily as effective as the P-51 was under equal circumstances. The P-51 was Over rated to a large extent to.wmaxt
> ...



What model -109 are you referring to, becuase you're actually very wrong with regards to speed and altitude in the later models.....

SPECIFICATIONS P-51D 
Span: 37 ft. 0 in. 
Length: 32 ft. 3 in. 
Height: 13 ft. 8 in. 
Weight: 12,100 lbs. max. 
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns and ten 5 in. rockets or 2,000 lbs. of bombs. 
Engine: Packard built Rolls-Royce "Merlin" V-1650 of 1,695 hp. 

PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 437 mph. 
Cruising speed: 275 mph. 
Range: 1,000 miles 
Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft. 


ME-109K4
Dimensions Span 9.92m (32' 6.5"); Length 8.94m (29' 4"); Height 2.59m (8' 6"); Wing Area 16.165 sq. meters (174 sq. ft). 
Powerplant Daimler-Benz DB 605 ASCM/DCM twelve cylinder inverted-Vee liquid cooled engine of 1156 kW (1550 HP), (1491 kW (2000 HP) with emergency power). 
Armament Two 13mm MG 131 machine guns mounted above the engine cowling and one 30mm MK 108 cannon firing through the spinner. 
Weights Maximum loaded 3374 kg (7438 lbs). 
Performance Maximum speed 607 kph (377 mph) at sea level, 727 kph (452 mph) at 6000m (19685 ft). Initial climb rate 1470 meters/min (4823 ft/min). Climb to 5000m (16400 ft) was 3 minutes, to 10000m (32800 ft). was 6.7 minutes. Service ceiling 12500m (41000 ft). Range 587 km (365 miles), endurance 50 minutes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

but i can see the logic in only producing -190s, the As to take on the bombers, the Ds to take on the fighters, i'd say in 44/45 that'd be their only hope, they'd still lose, but we'd have a much harder time of it..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

I agree I also would have only produced the 190A and D's however the P-51 was quite overated also. Yes it made its mark because of its range but it was not the Allied wonder aircraft and was not that much better than a later Bf-109G or K. 

Anyhow this argument was discussed in another thread, go look at all the reasons there. And just like other arguments there will never be a desisive answer to confirm either the P-51 or the Bf-109.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

yes i've noticed that, we have long arguments then we never bring them to a conclusion, they just kinda fizzle out and no one wins


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Yeap because there are always such good arguments for either side.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but i can see the logic in only producing -190s, the As to take on the bombers, the Ds to take on the fighters, i'd say in 44/45 that'd be their only hope, they'd still lose, but we'd have a much harder time of it..............



I agree...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

They should have exploited the Me-262 ealier as a fighter and not as a bomber. Even with its engine problems it could have been more effective outright as a fighter earlier. It was a bad trade off more 109s instead of 190s' The 190 was the better overall because you could produce more than the 262 and it was effective.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They should have exploited the Me-262 ealier as a fighter and not as a bomber. Even with its engine problems it could have been more effective outright as a fighter earlier. It was a bad trade off more 109s instead of 190s' The 190 was the better overall because you could produce more than the 262 and it was effective.



Adler, what FB could the Germans use that they could have successfully used instead of the 262?

109 production should have been ramped down, the slack being taken up by the Fw190C with the DB engine that was close to production in 1943. This a/c would have given just as good high altitude performance as the 109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Adler, what FB could the Germans use that they could have successfully used instead of the 262?



Fw-190's ofcourse.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 6, 2005)

Maximum level speed of the P-51D was actually at least 448 mph (documentable), not the 437 mph typically quoted. The 437 mph figure is MP.

The P-51D could sustain a 425 mph cruise at 30,000 feet for 870 miles! That's 35 mph faster than the maximum sustainable cruise of the 109K and several times the range at that speed.

Remember, 90% of the pilots who survived being shot down in WWII reported they never saw the attacking plane until after they were taking hits. This was the P-51's strength. Its ability to sustain high speeds for long distances, combine with its great high altitude performance, stability as a gun platform, and magnificent (British designed) computing gunsight gave it the better chance to catch the oppoenent by surprise and kill him before he could react. This more than anything else was the key to victory in WWII air combat, especially late in the war, and the P-51 was perfectly suited to this kind of combat.

Most of the numbers quoted are meaningless as at the very high combat speeds of 1944-45 the pilot was not able to withstand the turning capability of his plane anyway. And in this the P-51 pilots in their Berger G-suits had a huge edge over their German opponents who had nothing comparable.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)

Bottom line - the -109K WAS faster than the -51 at a specified altitude, range, yes the -51 has it. It was easy to build and maintain, made a mediocre pilot real good and held it's own - bottom line it did it's job well but was overrated.......


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 6, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > They should have exploited the Me-262 ealier as a fighter and not as a bomber. Even with its engine problems it could have been more effective outright as a fighter earlier. It was a bad trade off more 109s instead of 190s' The 190 was the better overall because you could produce more than the 262 and it was effective.
> ...



As we've been through before, there really was no option to introduce the Me262 earlier as a fighter. The whole "Hitler delayed the Me262 as a fighter" myth has been proven as such in previous discussions. His orders were virtually ignored and the first bach of 262's were fighter versions. Engine problems prevented them from being introduced into combat and these would have existed no matter what Hitler did one way or the other. The plane simply was not ready before mid-1944.

Take the integrated control system off the FW190A and replace it with manual controls and it should have done fine at altitude. Or fix the divide by zero condition in the flight control computer.

Because of the difference in the nature of manufacturing I'm not sure if it was possible to divert significant 109 production to 190 production. 109's were produced in large factories, 190's were produced in small factories. Unless the Me factories were refitted to produce 190's, which would have been difficult for many reasons (mostly political).

I certainly agree wherever possible the 190 should have been produced over the 109. The 262 should not have been mass produced at all - it was too resource intensive for its very short life span. 5 or more prop fighters could have been produced for the resources used to produce just one Me262. Then figuring in the combat hours for the planes, lets say 10 for the Me262 and 50 for the prop fighters, we are looking an efficiency ratio of less than 1:25! No one is going to convince me that one Me 262 was more effective than 10 FW190D's + 15 Bf109G's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 6, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Take the integrated control system off the FW190A and replace it with manual controls and it should have done fine at altitude. Or fix the divide by zero condition in the flight control computer.
> 
> Because of the difference in the nature of manufacturing I'm not sure if it was possible to divert significant 109 production to 190 production. 109's were produced in large factories, 190's were produced in small factories. Unless the Me factories were refitted to produce 190's, which would have been difficult for many reasons (mostly political).



The BMW801 would have needed a better supercharger system to get better altitude performance. It was hampered, like the early Merlin's supercharger.

No doubt you are saying this about the Kommandgerat because one single USA report on a faulty unit.

Naturally the Mtt factories would have to be converted dispite Willie's political manuevering not to have it happen. I did not know Fw Bremen, Fw Cottbus were a small factories.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bottom line the -109 K4 was a better performer than the Mustang. The Mustang could compete but it was the shear numbers of Mustangs and Germany's lack of fuel that led to the ultimate demise!



Better late than never....

IIRC, the Bf-109K-4 made its best speed at about 22,000 feet. Up at 25k, where the P-51D was at its speed peak, they were closer. Now, this excludes the fact that by the fall of 1944 the 8th AF was issued 150 octane avgas and they were cleared to pull 72 in/Hg MAP. This resulted in a boost in max speed in excess of 450 mph TAS. Earlier P-51B models (with the V1650-3) were capable of speeds in excess of 440 mph at 27,600 feet. Up that high and higher, the B model was faster than the 109K-4, using standard 100-130 avgas.

Remember, maximum speeds are relative to altitudes. The Tempest was capableof speeds in excess of 427 mph. However, it was a relative pig up at the altitudes where the heavy bombers flew. Up at 30,000 feet, the P-47D had few rivals, and none prior to 1945. Once the P-47M was sorted out, it was, far and away, the best high altitude fighter of the war. This includes the much ballihoo'd Ta 152H, which was far slower than the M Jug at 30k. Even though the 152 was faster at 40k+, it was useless because the fight was far lower. Remember this fact, it held true in every theater of the war: The air war was fought at the altitude of the threat. In the ETO and MTO, this meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to fight between 24,000 and 30,000 feet. Now consider than the 109s and 190s made their best performance below those heights (far below in the case of the Focke Wulfs). Note also that the P-51D was fitted with an engine and supercharger engineered for maximum performance at precisely where the bomber flew.

Personally, I believe that the best prop fighter of the war was the superlative Vought F4U-4, which arrived in combat in February of 1945. If we include fighters that were in squadron service, but didn't see combat before the Japanese surrender, then I must pass the baton on to Grumman's monster F8F-1 Bearcat.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## evangilder (Sep 6, 2005)

I would agree with that. Watching a Bearcat climb is unbelievable too. We have one at our museum and I have seen a couple of times where an aggressive climb was put into use. In-f*cking-credible!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 6, 2005)

> This includes the much ballihoo'd Ta 152H, which was far slower than the M Jug at 30k. Even though the 152 was faster at 40k+, it was *useless* because the fight was far lower. Remember this fact, it held true in every theater of the war: The air war was fought at the altitude of the threat. In the ETO and MTO, this meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to fight between 24,000 and 30,000 feet.


Useles????????
The -152H would do it's intercepts over 40k and bounce outta the sun.... Pilots would never fly at an opponents optimum performance altitude if they could avoid it...


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 7, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > This includes the much ballihoo'd Ta 152H, which was far slower than the M Jug at 30k. Even though the 152 was faster at 40k+, it was *useless* because the fight was far lower. Remember this fact, it held true in every theater of the war: The air war was fought at the altitude of the threat. In the ETO and MTO, this meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to fight between 24,000 and 30,000 feet.
> 
> 
> Useles????????
> The -152H would do it's intercepts over 40k and bounce outta the sun.... Pilots would never fly at an opponents optimum performance altitude if they could avoid it...



But, that's the point... They could not avoid it. You can expect the P-47s up at 35k, the Mustangs below them. To get to the bombers you have to come down... Yet wait a minute, if you're up at 40k+ in a 152, simply pushing the nose down means getting into compressibility almost instantly. This greatly complicates things. Indeed, the 152s will need to pull off power and load the airframe to avoid excessive speed. They must drop 15,000 feet to get at the bombers. Meanwhile, the P-47Ms, with dive recovery flaps, have no worries about compressing. They merely deploy the flaps, push over and accelerate. Indeed, those 480 mph Thunderbolts will chase down the 152s in short order. 

Of course, the 152s have to get to 40k and that's a long process as the 152 is not a stellar climber. Consider also the 8th AF's practice of sending groups out well in advance of the bombers, their purpose being to disrupt German fighters forming up.

I suspect that the 152 would have been better suited to combating B-29s, which frequently flew up at 35k. However, the B-17s and B-24s were about 10,000 feet lower than that. 

Invariably, the fight will be at the level of the bombers. That means that the 152s will have no speed advantage at the altitude where the Mustangs will be encountered.

Now, had the Ta 152C been built... but that's another discussion.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

you like many presume to many what-ifs. the Ta was to take on US Mustangs and any Allied high altitude escort fighter, not bombers.

Because it flew and foought at mid-altitiude does not and was not the preference of the JG 301 fighter pilots flying the TANK. this is just where the engagements took place. To assume it could not perform at higher altitude is a risky statement. you mention 480mph Jugs well the Ta could hit over 500 if neeed be then what.............. ? The JG 301 unit did meet P-47's and shot them down besides Soviet a/c types and Tempests. Their intended foes the P-51's were not met in combat.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> you like many presume to many what-ifs. the Ta was to take on US Mustangs and any Allied high altitude escort fighter, not bombers.
> 
> Because it flew and foought at mid-altitiude does not and was not the preference of the JG 301 fighter pilots flying the TANK. this is just where the engagements took place. To assume it could not perform at higher altitude is a risky statement. you mention 480mph Jugs well the Ta could hit over 500 if neeed be then what.............. ? The JG 301 unit did meet P-47's and shot them down besides Soviet a/c types and Tempests. Their intended foes the P-51's were not met in combat.



No what ifs... Moreover, not much truth in your statement either. Why would the Ta 152 be fitted with a Mk108 30mm cannon if not for attacking bombers? As 262 pilots discovered, the Mk108 was virtually useless for engaging a maneuvering fighter. Lousy ballistics, low rate of fire make it a very poor choice. 

As it is and was, the air war will take place where the threat flies, and in the ETO that was at 25,000 feet. 

Most Ta 152s were used to defend airfields used by Me 262s. That was low level work, decidedly not the best environment for the 152. So, your statement that 152s never encountered P-51s is incorrect. They had Mustangs up the wazoo....

As to 500 mph 152s... nonsense.

"Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and 1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 hp with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332 mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445 feet/minute with MW 50 boost."

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

propagating more myths I see. have you interviewed any of the JG 301 pilots of III. gruppe and Geschwader stab ? I have ! NO p-51's were ever encountered friend. Incidently a cousin of mine served in JG 301......so I'm not pooping here

NO Ta 152's were ever used in airfield defence either, Doras of III./JG 54 were and the weak 5 a/c staffel ~ Würger staffel of JV 44. JG 7 never had any airfield protection niether did the 262 bomber units.

you quote tech specs and nothing else. you do not quote bonafide pilot documentation in the engagements nor in the testing faze when III.gruppe pilots tested fully the high altitiude and dving performance of the bird on way to their airfield. I have the source docs..........

Since the G-6/AS and G-10 could not fulfill the high Altitude requirements to combat the P-51D and K the Dora was outfitted with a rewtructured Jumop to be followed closely and then fazed out by the Ta 152H and the C series although few in number were taken over by GEschwader Stab/JG 301 and used successfully agasint eh Soviets in March/April of 45.

The Mk 108 was the standard hard hitting cannon with few rounds needed and as such the twin 2cm were for hitting the US/RAF fighter at the lower range and while closeing give the coup de grace with the 3cm. Me 262's with the overpowered four 3cm weapons, pilots finding it was actually too much weaponry used at times only two Mk 108's in engageing the US heavies as well as fighters and also in the night flights against the illusive Mossies of the LSNF and the night fighter versions 

In time you would have seen had the war continued TA 152 variants flying high cover for attacking jets and then with advent of more streamlined jets protecting their own selves the TA 152 and marks above it taking on the P-51's and other variable prop driven craft...

the TA was to bring the P-51 up for a tickle now at the TA's best altitudes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> Most Ta 152s were used to defend airfields used by Me 262s. That was low level work, decidedly not the best environment for the 152. So, your statement that 152s never encountered P-51s is incorrect. They had Mustangs up the wazoo....



Big myth, been disproven already. I used to think the same thing.


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

it came from soem very old reads back in the 1960's when author William Greens big boy Third Reich a/c ame into view. His book was an still is taken as the Bible towards Luftwaffe a/c and aerial histories, but fact is he is dead wrong as some of the materails from German author Uwe FEist promted some silly stuff and so did several others.

Pilot of JG 301 Will Reschke came out with his treatise on his unit along with a brief synop by Kagero, mostly Profiles. D. Harmann tried as he may with his tech stuff he did not and still does not have full access to the Docs ~ and ops on JG 301. Monogram printed out a small softback and still a brilliant piece of research on the TA and ops. there was a breif reuion just held at Dresden via a Colonel freind who knew 5 of the pilots personally and I wa able to fill in some blanks with their flying exploits in the Fw 190A and Ta 152H. Friend Jerry Crandall probably the American author who has seen and interviewed the JG 301 guys at length is still working on his book with full details covering the Ta 152......I've been able to fill in some tidbits for him including some pics..


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> In time you would have seen had the war continued TA 152 variants flying high cover for attacking jets and then with advent of more streamlined jets protecting their own selves the TA 152 and marks above it taking on the P-51's and other variable prop driven craft...



Actually if the war had continued a few months longer, it would have been Ta152's and Me262's vs P80's. And even if there were no P80's around, while the Ta152 was lining up for its shots, there would be hordes of --51's, -47's and -38's lined up to take shots at them from 30,000 ft all the way down to the ground.

Also, although the german 20mm cannon was good, by no means think that "just a few" rounds will bring down a bomber. It sure takes a lot more than that. You think the B17 and B24 structures were just peices of tin foil covering hanger wire?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Actually if the war had continued a few months longer, it would have been Ta152's and Me262's vs P80's. And even if there were no P80's around, while the Ta152 was lining up for its shots, there would be hordes of --51's, -47's and -38's lined up to take shots at them from 30,000 ft all the way down to the ground.



Exactly through sheer numbers only, not because of technical superiority.


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

no 3 rounds of 3cm Minengeschoss, 10 rounds of 2cm Minengeschoss to bring down a heavy.

the TA pilots have always said c'mon up to our altitude if you want to die. they never got a chance to prove their statements as they were brought down to the Allies level. had we have seen all non jet units equipped with well trained Ta 152H and pilots then.............. who knows

syscom your last statement is out of line and offensive and I really am tired of saying once again how many US bomber crews I have interviewed over the last 35 years............get a real clue this time please.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Erich has aquired lots of good info from actual air crews in his time researching his books and such. I would believe what he says.


----------



## Udet (Sep 7, 2005)

Can anyone show him the guncamera shot from Willy Maximowitz´s Fw 190 A-8/R8 treating a B-17? It will be illustrative for him to discover how the 2cm and 3cm shells took the intestines out of the fortress. 


Quote:

"No what ifs... Moreover, not much truth in your statement either. Why would the Ta 152 be fitted with a Mk108 30mm cannon if not for attacking bombers? As 262 pilots discovered, the Mk108 was virtually useless for engaging a maneuvering fighter. Lousy ballistics, low rate of fire make it a very poor choice."


There are many who will debate your argument. The Me 262 accounted for an interesting number of P-51´s with the lousy ballistics of its cannon. 


Quote:

"suspect that the 152 would have been better suited to combating B-29s, which frequently flew up at 35k. However, the B-17s and B-24s were about 10,000 feet lower than that. "


In fact, the same path is being followed here. The Ta 152 was suited to deal with everything whatever the altitude it could fly.

Soviet Yaks -depicted as the best low altitude fighter of the war- perished in numbers against the Ta 152, indeed at very low altitude dogfights, while zero 152s were lost in such engagements. 


Erich, I do not think it is accurate to affirm neither the G-6/AS or G-10 could deal with the P-51 D at high altitude. It was the very high altitude combat notion against the bomber escorts that the G-6/AS were trimmed for.

Mr. Navair suggests the Ta 152 is not a very good climber. Well, the ability of the Ta 152 and P-51 D is about identical; we can also keep in mind the P-51 D never surpassed the climbing power of the Bf 109.


Quote:

"But, that's the point... They could not avoid it. You can expect the P-47s up at 35k, the Mustangs below them. To get to the bombers you have to come down... Yet wait a minute, if you're up at 40k+ in a 152, simply pushing the nose down means getting into compressibility almost instantly. This greatly complicates things. Indeed, the 152s will need to pull off power and load the airframe to avoid excessive speed. They must drop 15,000 feet to get at the bombers. Meanwhile, the P-47Ms, with dive recovery flaps, have no worries about compressing. They merely deploy the flaps, push over and accelerate. Indeed, those 480 mph Thunderbolts will chase down the 152s in short order."

In fact: such comment is based upon a very significant "if". Where were this wonderful P-47 Ms located while the Me 262 was already shooting down numbers of heavy bombers and their escorts?

I am not sure as to the actual intention of your comments.

Most of us are fully aware the Me 262 reached service way too late to play any significant role in the outcome of the war. So what is the point?

The lousy ballistics and the poor performance of the Me 262 -as the allies depict the jet- made the first jet aces in the history of airwarfare. Not that they only used the Mk108 cannon, also the R4M air-to-air rockets vaporized some Mustangs in combat.

Furthermore, some of the German jet experten shot down more enemy planes than the bulk of the USAAF fighters aces in the ETO. A remarkable deed when one knows of the dramatic unreliability of the jet the allies describe.

I´m afraid i´m witnessing a very standard allied anomaly: to put down as much as possible the German hardware which in fact saw action and was battle proven while predicting an odd undisputable and overwhelming superiority of allied toys that did not see action against the foe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Udet said:


> Furthermore, some of the German jet experten shot down more enemy planes than the bulk of the USAAF fighters aces in the ETO. A remarkable deed when one knows of the dramatic unreliability of the jet the allies describe.



That could also be due to the fact that there were more allied aircraft in the air. At the same time that is quite a feat though considering they were getting kills while numericaly inferior.


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

most assuredly overwhelming superiority in numbers played the game in the end.

a little story, an ace pilot of Jg 302 serving on the same airfield as some friends of mine in 1944-fall while they were sleeping since they were Moskito-jagd, a day fighter pilot name Andreas /// was having a difficult time playing with P-51's at over 32,000 feet in his G-6/AS and although could boost power to over 450mph with MW 50 it was only for 10 minutes and then he and his staffeln mates were only ordered to use it for just a brief few seconds for dives and a possible jump and escape manuever.
Andreas had already given his little 109G a boost earlier by speeding down the runway as a P-51 came headon and Andreas got the best of the day. during the nosie of this particular fall day while the evening fighter pilots watched above the airfield at Jüterbog, Andreas just about pulling his landing gear up when he was jumped by two Stanags. the stangs never fired a shot but kept pressing Andreas farther and farther downward until he smashed into a small forest of trees with the 2 P-51's flying off


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> propagating more myths I see. have you interviewed any of the JG 301 pilots of III. gruppe and Geschwader stab ? I have ! NO p-51's were ever encountered friend. Incidently a cousin of mine served in JG 301......so I'm not pooping here
> 
> NO Ta 152's were ever used in airfield defence either, Doras of III./JG 54 were and the weak 5 a/c staffel ~ Würger staffel of JV 44. JG 7 never had any airfield protection niether did the 262 bomber units.
> 
> ...



I haven't interviewed any Ta 152 pilots. I have interviewed dozens of surviving American fighter pilots as well as some Canadians and Brits. Indeed, I was the last writer to interview Robert Johnson prior to his death. That interview has been published. I have also worked with Warren Bodie and shared bylines with him in Flight Journal. In addition I have also been published in Air Power International with Dr. Carlo Kopp. 

So you can save your feather puffing for someone who is impressed with that sort of display.

Let's see, 150 Ta 152H models rolled off the line and no production 152Cs ever flew... Sounds like far too little, far too late. And spare us the strawman argument about "if the war had continued..." It could not and did not continue and Germany was utterly crushed. While the Me 262 was a wonder, the Allies were close behind in Jet aircraft technology, especially in engines where the Germans suffered from a serious lack of reliability. Despite the 262's performance, if you can't get off and on to your airfields, they are generally worthless.

Swarms of 152s and 262s are wishful thinking. Besides, the Allies had some serious hardware in the pipeline as well. The P-47N and P-51H were available should they have been needed. To that you can add the P-47M, which was in combat service in similar numbers to the 152H. We cannot overlook the latest Meteor and the new Vampire. We shouldn't forget the P-72 Superbolt, an absolute monster set aside to develop the P-84. 

Robert Muller writes in Air Power Journal:
"The idea of the Me 262 as the potentially decisive wonder weapon is one of the most enduring myths in airpower history. Hitler's oft-quoted order forbidding the employment of this aircraft as a fighter dates from May 1944, by which time no Me 262s were in service. Because design and technical faults still plagued the aircraft, its employment in any role would have to await their resolution--as would the training of a sufficient number of pilots, many of whom found it difficult to master the temperamental interceptor. It is unlikely that the jet could have appeared in combat much earlier than it did, even without Hitler's interference. The 262, although a deadly aircraft in the hands of the right pilot, remained essentially a prototype pressed into combat service. Throughout its short service life, the aircraft suffered from an abnormally high accident rate and scored only a minuscule number of combat victories."

Dr. Richard R. Muller (BA, Franklin and Marshall College; MA, PhD, Ohio State University) is a professor of military history at Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Specializing in the history of World War II and the development of airpower, he teaches core courses in airpower history, international security studies, the nature of war, leadership and command, and the elective course The Second World War and the Operational Art. Dr. Muller's publications include The German Air War in Russia (1992) and The Luftwaffe's Way of War: German Air Force Doctrine, 1911-1945 (with James S. Corum, 1998).

I'm sure many would debate Muller's conclusions, but they would appear as dolts in the effort.

A few years ago, several senior Engineers at Dryden compared the relative development levels of the P-80A and the Me 262 as they appeared in March 1945 and concluded that the P-80 was further along in development and offered greater potential development. Notice that no one bothered to build 262s after the war ended. Ironically, the Bf 109 remained in or re-entered production in at least two countries.

My reading on 190s indicates to me that some pilots preferred the Dora to the 152 due to better performance at low to medium altitudes. By late 1944, the air war was frequently at tree-top level over Luftwaffe airfields. 

As to never meeting P-51s, what about the claim attributed to Kurt Tank that he was forced to out-run P-51s when he encountered them during a 152 flight. If true, at least one Ta 152 encountered P-51s. I suspect that it is not true. Considering the range of P-51s and their ability to follow a fighter anywhere it might fly. An example of this is Major George Ceuleers kill of a 262. Ceuleers chased the 262 for more than 100 miles, finally running it out of fuel over a Luftwaffe field. The pilot baled out. After the war Ceuleers located the German pilot. In their conversation the German stated that while he could handily out-distance the Mustang, he could not sustain that speed due to chronic over-temping of the engines, a common problem.... Had a squadron of P-51s encountered Tank in a 152, he escaped laregly because the Mustangs were not interested in chasing a single fighter. Had they decided to pursue, eventually he would run out of MW50 and be in deep bandini.

I just read a post here claiming that 262s routinely shot down P-51s..Really? Someone should tell the Air Force so they can adjust their loss records... Here's the quote: "There are many who will debate your argument. The Me 262 accounted for an interesting number of P-51´s with the lousy ballistics of its cannon." 

In 1944-45, more P-51s were lost to taxiway accidents than to German jets. Moreover, I've never seen a single verified instance of a 262 shooting down a maneuvering Mustang. Oh, and neither the Yak-3 or the Yak-9U were the best low altitude fighter of the war. I would give that title to the Tempest Mk.V or perhaps the Lavochkin La-7, both of which would fly circles around (figuratively for you anal retentive types) a 152 on the deck.

Now, back to the claim of 500 mph 152s. Post some test data to support that. Personal pilot accounts are not only unreliable due to memory lapse after 60 years, but there technical issues that cannot be overlooked. Tell me, how much horsepower would the Ta 152 require to attain 500 mph in level flight. Without doing the calculation, I'd wager 700 hp more than the Jumo could generate. Where's the test data? 

I know of one P-47 pilot who swears to this day that his Jug exceeded the speed of sound in a dive. He based that upon what he saw on his airspeed indicator. Despite informing him that no P-47 was ever measured at speeds in excess of Mach 0.83, he sticks by his myth. He ignores the proven effect localized transonic airflow has at the pitot tube inlet. Airspeed indicators of the era were wildly inaccurate at high speed and high altitude.

Personally, I believe that Dora was a heck of fighter and far more useful than the 152H. No one is arguing that the 152 was not a tremendous fighter. However, the Allies had several aircraft fully able to match it. Just as the P-47 was not a very effective fighter down low, the 152 would suffer similar limitations. By the time a pitifully small amount of 152s were flight ready, the air war was already long past winning. Even if the Good Fairy had replaced every 190 and 109 with Ta 152s, the outcome would have been the same.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 7, 2005)

Udet, whatever we may agree or disagree on, I must state that your sigline ("In a national survey, 92% of the French people believed they are not ugly: 93% of them were wrong") is hysterically funny.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

Robert Johnson ? Copp ?

have you interviewed any Luftwaffe pilots ?

and yes I have interviewed dozens of US bomber and P-51/Jug chaps buddy. Better yet get rid of your alias and lets talk man to man ok. doesn't matter I already know who you are


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> Robert Johnson ? Copp ?
> 
> have you interviewed any Luftwaffe pilots ?
> 
> and yes I have interviewed dozens of US bomber and P-51/Jug chaps buddy. Better yet get rid of your alias and lets talk man to man ok. doesn't matter I already know who you are



Don't change the subject... This isn't about me or who I am and I sure as hell made no effort to hide my identity. It's about test data for 500 mph Ta 152s... Where is it?

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## Erich (Sep 7, 2005)

wheres your historical fact that the Ta 152H was used for airfield protection ?

where is your fact that the Ta 152C was never used in action ?

on and on we could go man...........let's let it ride ok.

incidently I am not changing the subject, what do these two men have to do with the Ta 152H ?

the 485 to 500 mph test data is from German documentation taken on the pre trials before the initial take over of Tanks by III./JG 301.

another note since you brought it up about Herr Tank and the Stangs. Tank was flying a C variant.

I am going to drop this right now as we are a both bit heated.........agreed ?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 7, 2005)

I am interested in these 150 Ta152H that were produced. Do you have info on WNr 150 041 to 150 166?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 8, 2005)

Erich said:


> syscom your last statement is out of line and offensive and I really am tired of saying once again how many US bomber crews I have interviewed over the last 35 years............get a real clue this time please.



Isnt it really weird how Ive talked to aircrews at Chino the past 25 years, and they all say the total opposite of you. Sometimes the fighters got lucky and hit the pilots with a quick burst...... sometimes they needed to hit the bombers with several dozens of rounds before bringing it down. The fact is that most of those cannon shells are going to explode in a non critical point in the aircraft and just blow some sheetmetal out. There is simply no way a few widely dispersed 20MM shells will bring down a B17, unless it hits both pilots.

As I said, the 20MM gun/round was great, but it wasnt the wonder weapon that could take down a bomber with only a few rounds.

Now you get a clue......... just because you make claim, doesnt make it true. (hey, that rhymes, doesnt it)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 8, 2005)

> I just read a post here claiming that 262s routinely shot down P-51s..Really? Someone should tell the Air Force so they can adjust their loss records... Here's the quote: "There are many who will debate your argument. The Me 262 accounted for an interesting number of P-51´s with the lousy ballistics of its cannon."



Pilots Schall and Wagmann got 4 P-51s in the area of Osnabruck on Nov 8 1944. Schall got another P-51 on Oct 28 1944 near Goesfeld. Lennartz got a P-51 near Beilen on Oct 12 1944.

That is just a short search. Seems the 262 did not have that much trouble getting P-51s.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 8, 2005)

Erich said:


> wheres your historical fact that the Ta 152H was used for airfield protection ?
> 
> where is your fact that the Ta 152C was never used in action ?
> 
> ...



Many historians have written that 152s were used for airfield cover. I do know that the Dora was used in this role as well... Unfortunately, no one was protecting the Doras.... It may very well be that 152s were not used for 262 cover. I'm open to evidence that supports that. I'm not open to wiseguys who posture themselves as professional historians, yet can only claim that they know someone or have interviewed X amount of people... What do you call an interview? Bull sessions aren't interviews. I usually tape interviews. Data gents, unimpeachable documentation. Without this you can be 100% right and the professional historians will ignore you anyway. What historians want to see is reliable documentation, not personal accounts or memories. Reliable documentation excludes oral histories, diaries and the like. God knows, there has been a flood of counterfeit documents surfacing in recent years. Anyone trained in Photoshop or Illustrator can generate authentic looking documents and I've seen some pretty good fakes that fooled many. I know a chap who is an expert at detecting forgeries of Luftwaffe and RAF documents, so be advised, I will send him a copy of any data posted for his evaluation. 

As to the 152C, I never discussed whether or not any saw combat. But considering that only two or three prototypes were built, it'd doubtful anyone noticed them. To my understanding, the Soviets captured the factory before any production 152Cs were completed. While the 152C would have been a formidable fighter, the latest American and British fighters were at least equal. If one or more prototype 152Cs were flown in combat, it was either for evaluation or out of desperation.

I'd still like to see factory test data showing that a Ta 152 could attain 500 mph in level flight, unassisted by gravity... But I won't see it, will I? 

What makes you think I'm getting "heated"? Not in the least. I've been debating aviation on the web since the early days of usenet. You may be getting anxious being unable to support your 500 mph claim and would like to bug out of the discussion. You see, I'm willing to concede that 152s may never have been used for 262 cover. Maybe someone has better information than what I have seen. On the other hand, making a claim of 500 mph for the 152 is very much over the top. The incredible drag rise as a propeller fighter approaches 500 mph required a huge increase in power for tiny gains in speed. There's no way a 152 was going to attain 500 mph on just 2,000 hp. Republic's XP-47J could barely manage to exceed 500 mph and its R2800 C series engine was overboosted to the extent that it was making about 3,200 horsepower. Moreover, this was a one-off technology demonstrator, lighter and cleaner than any production P-47. Yet to exceed 500 mph, this lighter, aerodynamically cleaner aircraft required 600 more horsepower than the the P-47N to gain about 30 mph. To attain 500 mph, the 152 would need around 3,000 hp and it should be noted that the 152 probably had a similar drag coefficient to the 190D-9 which was likely greater than that of the XP-47J (.209).

My contention is that this is a bogus claim made spontaneously. If you have test data supporting it, post the data. By data I mean reliable factory data measured with calibrated test equipment, not anecdotal comments of pilots. As it is, you've already "adjusted" your facts down from "well the Ta could hit over 500 if neeed be then what?" to "485 to 500 mph".

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 8, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> > I just read a post here claiming that 262s routinely shot down P-51s..Really? Someone should tell the Air Force so they can adjust their loss records... Here's the quote: "There are many who will debate your argument. The Me 262 accounted for an interesting number of P-51´s with the lousy ballistics of its cannon."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Undetected bounce or maneuvering Mustangs? Anyone, flying virtually anything, can kill the best fighter on earth if the pilot doesn't see it coming. As I said, I haven't seen any evidence that a 262 shot down a maneuvering P-51.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

I do believe that some people here need to calm down, especially you syscom. This is supposed to be a friendly environment.


----------



## Udet (Sep 8, 2005)

Mr. Navair:

Thanks for the kind comment regarding my signline. My mom has a common said: "how is it that such unpleasant people such as the french created a pretty city like Paris". 


Now the business.
Aha! After introducing yourself to the members of the forum, what can I possibly say? 

*Welcome to the amateur world!*

Putting aside the threatening aroma of your presentation (i.e "so be advised, I will send him a copy of any data posted for his evaluation), have all assurances you´ll have a very rough time when discussing with us amateurs. Not an amateur in the case of Erich though. 

I understand you very well though. You have real strict sets of rules and procedures to abide by as an historian or professional researcher. 

I am sure Erich is not trying to bug out of the discussion.


The most noteworthy news here is many books on the alleged undisputed superiority of the allies over the Germans are being proven wrong over the years. Such books were (let´s assume in most cases) the works of gentlemen like you, constricted to abide by such rules.

I´ll be glad to get back to you with juicy arguments, for now I´m off to the classroom and have my pupils entertained with a differential equations case.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

Alright people again lets calm down with the insults to one another.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 8, 2005)

> As I said, I haven't seen any evidence that a 262 shot down a maneuvering P-51.


And as I said, there is no evidence that those -51's were bounced outta the sun with the Stang pilots unaware of their approaching death....

You fuck ing book geeks crack me up... 

I have met loads of pilots from all different countries, and I trust the word of a 75 year old former Luftwaffe pilot and his "bad" memory than some text book written by some author who hasnt logged a single minute of stick time....

And until u tards prove urself as a viable source of info, erichs research and documentation and opinions stand above all of the other crap u type....


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 8, 2005)

Navair has some valid points. Claiming a production and in service prop plane to fly at 500mph in early 1945, is stretching it. Was the figure derived from an actual test flight under perfect conditions? The laws of aerodynamics and physics of flight at this part of the envelope cant be dismissed if it is inconvenient.

It wouldnt surprise me that many figures of the German aircraft performance in the last part of the war were extrapolations and not fully tested or validated.

And Im also curious about the Ta152 kills at low altitude. Were the victims unaware they were about to be bounced? Or were they shot down in a dogfight? A kill is a kill, but it will shed light on the performance at low altitude.

Ive seen a pix of a B25 strafer shooting down a Zero that was just taking off of an airfield at Rabaul. Does that mean the B25 was a dogfighter? Or was it in the lucky position to bounce an unsuspecting fighter?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 8, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > I have met loads of pilots from all different countries, and I trust the word of a 75 year old former Luftwaffe pilot and his "bad" memory than some text book written by some author who hasnt logged a single minute of stick time....
> >
> > And until u tards prove urself as a viable source of info, erichs research and documentation and opinions stand above all of the other crap u type....
> 
> ...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 8, 2005)

Yea but my perception of u and ur lame ass attitude towards the senior members here will never change...


> What makes you think Erich is 100% correct 100% of the time?


Cause alot of what erich posts I can verify and have heard the same info from different individuals, and probably some of the same guys....


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 8, 2005)

Udet said:


> Mr. Navair:
> 
> Thanks for the kind comment regarding my signline. My mom has a common said: "how is it that such unpleasant people such as the french created a pretty city like Paris".
> 
> ...



Hiya Udet,

I will never look down my nose at amateur researchers. Some of the greatest historical discoveries (mostly centering on the American Civil War) of recent years have been the result of an amateur researcher on a personal crusade for truth. Professionals do not have a monopoly on truth, even thought they often behave as if they do.

Yes, there are strict rules and there should be. However, that should not discourage people, but motivate them to get the details before going public.

Herein is found the greatest problem faced by amateur historians: Professionals, loaded down with PHDs and official sounding titles are incredibly jealous of the work of the "unwashed, self-appointed amateurs" (I've actually seen those words used correspondence). They will close ranks and rip apart research looking for any mistake or omission. Thus, it is absolutely vital not to make claims that are not supported by concrete evidence or that will not hold up under that kind of scrutiny. 

Credibility is essential. I meant Erich no personal disrespect, but wanted to illustrate that you must be prepared to support your argument with facts and documents. God knows, I've been skewered for the same thing myself. I hope that I have established that if someone has better data, documentation or information than I have, I am perfectly happy to accept that, and will do so without arguing for the sake of saving face.

By the way, someday I'll tell you guys how an amateur researcher blew author Clive Cussler out of the water by finding a sunken ship Cussler was out searching for. He found it in the New York City public library...

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

I think everyone here as something to offer to the group.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)

yes everyone here obviously has an area where they are perhaps more knowledgeable that some of the other members, i don't bealieve anyone here will dissagree with that, and by accepting this we can learn allot more from each other.............


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 9, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Yea but my perception of u and ur lame ass attitude towards the senior members here will never change...
> 
> 
> > At least I dont revert to name calling like you do
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)

i wouldn't laugh at les if i were you......


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 9, 2005)

> At least I dont revert to name calling like you do


If u want to start name calling, I will.... Ive seen pussies like u on this board before, and u know what??? They aint here anymore....

If u want to disagree with someone and their information, feel free... But if u continue to do so in the snotty, uppity, "I'm better than u" attitude, I'll break it off in ur ass......


> I was showing my colleagues at work your posts, and they had a good laugh at you.


Have them come down here and laugh at my face...... U internet geeks amuse me to no end....


> One of them teaches at a local college and she said she see's people like you from time to time.


And???? Like u know me, or she knows me.... Ur just like the turd I flushed this morning....


> Know it all's who get emotional when someone challenges their facts.


U mind showing me where I said I was a know it all??? Ur the one that comes in here with all ur little statistics and so called "reference" material, and starts telling everyone ur right and all of us other "Amateurs" that we're wrong.... 

My grandfather was a Black Sheep, and I have been around the Fighter Ace community since I was old enough to walk... Ive accessed more information and data than I can remember... Ive had access to many many different individuals and for u to sit there in ur little computer chair with ur bullshiit "youre wrong" attitude dont belong here....

Blow it out ur ass....

If u want to contribute here, do so in a productive, informative way.... Not in the piss ass way u have been.....

If not, carry ur happy ass to another site and spew ur crap ass attitude on them...

And BTW, remember one thing, arguing with Administrators is not the best way to start out ur membership here.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)

that's true, heck even i can't pull rank over an admin!

but i've gotta say i objected to him calling us ammatures, that's why we're here, to learn, no, some of us, don't know everything about everything in the way you ceem to think you do, but i bet i could make you're knowledge of the lanc look like it came from an osprey book


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 9, 2005)

Were all amatures. Me, you and everyone.

Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.

Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".

lesoprimus, if your admin position makes you think you can call me some funny names, cause you can kick me off, go ahead. I will have a hearty laugh.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 9, 2005)

We're all here because we share an interest in WWII aviation. Some have a great deal of knowledge, others want to learn, and still others just simply enjoy talking about it. Arguments ensue all the time. Sometimes it's a debate and sometimes it's nothing but a pissing match. No one likes to be pissed on (except maybe lanc  ), and many are all too happy to return it in kind. You may even notice a generous helping of spam here and there. 

Nothing wrong with a good heated debate, but bona fide troublemakers will have a short stay.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 9, 2005)

Thanks for the words Nonskimmer. I will consider this little spat as being over and things back to normal.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 9, 2005)

> but i've gotta say i objected to him calling us ammatures





> Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.



I've been in the aircraft industry 28 years. I've worked for Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, Sikorsky, ans Ryan aircraft. I've done aircraft maintenance on everything from a Cessna 150 to a 747 including MiGs F-86s and PBYs. I have 720 hours flight time and Hold a CFI, A&P and IA. My point? I could be considered an amateur by some but a skilled professional by others. I'm still leaning! Aviation amateurs are those who have a perception of an aircraft's history or performance and lock that perception in their mind, either by nationalistic or personal bias and refuse to debut or show no basis for their argument.

(I'm off the soap box now!)


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".



I can actually answer that question myself. I e-mailed a couple of aeronautical engineers, pals of mine, one of which ran the calculation based upon the data he has on the Ta 152H-1 and its powerplant. This gentleman is considered an expert on German aircraft technology. His reply is as follows:

"Of course, the power requirement would be highly altitude-dependend. Using Wilbus' figure of 472 mph @ 41000 ft as standard top speed, it's achieved on just 1080 hp (plus a considerable amount of exhaust thrust).

To get to 500 mph, or 106% of the original speed, you'd just have to produce 118% of the original power, or 1280 hp. Since the original power is achieved on 120 g/s GM-1 injection and the GM-1 system will yield a maximum of 150 g/s, this power increase is well in reach for the Jumo 213E.

However, 150 g/s is only cleared for 42650 ft and above, and I believe you might end up melting important parts of your engines if you engage it below that while aiming for the 500 mph mark.

There are possible explanations how a Ta 152H could have been flown at 500 mph - experimental engine, prototype with low fuel load and without combat equipment, or - maybe the highest probability guess - an airspeed reading not corrected for compressiblity error.

I agree that such a record flight would probably have been mentioned in the extensive literature on the type, and in the absence of data I'd consider the 500 mph claim as plain wishful thinking."

Therefore, if Erich has any test data showing sustained level speeds of 500 mph, it would be received with great interest by a number of people I am in communication with.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## Udet (Sep 9, 2005)

Mr. Navair:

Right. I do understand your comments.


Now, back on topic, I do think I stick to my questions:

What was the purpose of citing this?

*"The idea of the Me 262 as the potentially decisive wonder weapon is one of the most enduring myths in airpower history."*


The debate as to whether the Germans could have deployed it in significant numbers by early/mid 1943 is current. Some say "no, others say "yes". 

Whatever the actual potential of German industry was, there is something for sure: the Schwalbe itself could not win the war. We all know it; not even most of the men who flew it thought of such possibility. 

So I wonder if most allied historians and researchers are fighting ghosts of their own creation.

An amusing issue is it´d appear winners have a real bad taste in their mouths: they must live with the notion it was not them who first flew and operated jets in combat. Following logically, the consequence of such facts is that the very first jet aces in the history of airwarfare are the hated Germans, and not them, the liberators of the world.

One more thing about the Me 262: I do not doubt mr. Richard Miller is a very honorable and devoted researcher, but many, me included, will argue his comment:


*"...remained essentially a prototype pressed into service..."; same when one reads "...a minuscule number of kills...".* ???

The Gloster Meteor was a prototype; it did not see any action (by the way, a piece of crap when compared to the Me 262). The USA designs were located in the same category.

(It´d be interesting to know what their definition of prototype is. Tell me mr. Navair, talking about prototypes, where lies the difference between the dreaded P-51 H, N or M P-47s -which did not see action in the ETO- and the Me 262, fully operational and shooting down enemy bombers and fighters?)

That a significant number of kills achieved by the jets were/are not confirmed is true. Likewise, the bulk of such unconfirmed kills have not been discarded. To say the number of kills remained "minuscule" can be misleading. 

Is it necessary to remind you a number of Luftwaffe experten -flying such an "unreliable jet prototype"- shot down more enemy planes than the vast majority of the USAAF aces attained flying their propelled craft?

A noted man -not necessarily for his exploits during the war- Mr. Chuck Yeager enjoys the chit-chat, chin-wagging very much; a complete especialist when it comes to ridicule the Germans...hold on, he was surpassed in combat and shot down by a German pilot. Well, Kurt Welter more than doubled mr. Yeager´s total bag flying the Me 262.

It is just like if i´d get in the ring, have the fight with my opponent ending with both my eyes bruised, swollen lips, bleeding nose and mauled ribs to then get the microphones and make fun on what a mediocre fighter the man that squeezed the hell out of me is.


Me 262 aces: the "they had a target rich environment" poem does not hold water. The only thing the allies have managed to admit -painfully- is that on the flat run the thing was well beyond the capabilities of anything they had. That´s about it.

Are they so sure flat speed was its sole strong point? The about complete inadequacy of the Me 262, as depicted by Mr. Muller and many others, added to the overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy could not have produced the number of jet aces as it is now recorded.

Also you said anyone flying virtually any plane can shoot down anyone. A wide open statement there. Correct, not entirely though. No matter how genius a fighter pilot is if complete inadequacy of his plane becomes part of the equation.

Even the Mossie, a true great plane, ended with its nuts barbecued when it met with the Me 262 of Kommando Welter.



The Ta 152. Likewise, no one´s suggested here it could change the direction of the war. Yep, only a few dozens reached service. So what?

Again, the Ta 152´s guarding jet bases or runways is another hell of a myth; it´s been duly debunked.

You make a point when stating the fight takes place where the threat is. That i fully agree.

The G-6/AS, G-10 and K-4 could comfortably perform in the altitude where the threat was flying. So why is it the allies enjoy so much the "it did not see the kind of action it was originally conceived to perform". Absolute non-sense.

Your comments on the Fw 190As are too wide and unspecified. Below 22,000 the Butcher Bird is second to none Mr. Navair.


Got to end this posting for it´s gotten too long, not before adding a comment directed to mr. syscom:

I am glad you brought up the "bouncing" issue here. You asked if German jet victories over Mustangs were via bouncing. 

You ought to know it was precisely via "the bouncing" the way the USAAF won the air war over Europe. 

I think I can detect you are another case of the allied propaganda pill swallowed without proper prescription.

What makes you think an air force with the bulk of its pilots flying a fistful of dozens of missions could make the alleged superb pilots history depicts?

Sure they had very capable planes, mainly the Jug, but the overwhelming numerical superiority, whether you like the idea or not, is fundamental in understanding the allied complete and undisputed victory.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 9, 2005)

Udet said:


> Mr. Navair:
> 
> 
> One more thing about the Me 262: I do not doubt mr. Richard Miller is a very honorable and devoted researcher, but many, me included, will argue his comment:
> ...



Udet, I'm going to reply over several posts in order to retain context.

All early jet fighters were prototypes to some degree. All aircraft have a development cycle, usually measured in years. I think Muller is stating the obvious in that the Me 262 was rushed into production without the benefit of a full development program. It's obvious that their "present emergency" precluded that luxury. On the other hand, Britain was able to proceed at a less frenzied rate. While the Meteor III was not especially fast, it eventually resulted in the prototype for the Meteor F Mk. 4, which flew 10 days after Germany threw in the towel. As you may know, the F Mk. 4 offered significantly better performance than the Me 262, but its development took three years.

Lockheed's P-80 was also developed more thoroughly than the 262. Because Lockheed had more time to dedicate to development, the P-80 was more refined than the expedited 262. Had Germany more time to fully develop the 262 and its engines, I believe it would have been competitive for several years to come. As it was, even though the P-80A was in squadron service by late 1945, it was not fully sorted for another 12 months and that is reflected in its high accident rate.

That said, the Me 262 was a remarkable aircraft and even more remarkable when one considers the conditions under which it was developed and manufactured.

As to its effectiveness against fighters... Limited in several regards. Agility was poor and acceleration wasn't great. A 262 could not afford to "dogfight" with P-51Ds or Spitfire Mk. XIVs. Attempting to maneuver with these fighters means loading the airframe, and loading the airframe means burning off energy. "Getting slow means getting dead". 

Therefore, the 262 pilot needs to rely on his speed to get in and out. This means bouncing unsuspecting enemy pilots, or attacking when they are engaged with another German fighter.

Inherent to high-speed engagements it the inability to rapidly adjust point of aim. Should the target aircraft detect the 262, he can easily maneuver out of plane and the 262 will have no ability to get a gun solution. That is, unless he elects to cut power and attempt to maneuver with the prop fighter (an unwise choice). First, because the 262 doesn't have the drag of a propeller to slow it down, so overshooting is the probable outcome. Second, virtually every WWII prop driven fighter will out-turn the 262 with relative ease. I think it's safe to say that fighters where not the primary target of Me 262s, but that the German pilot would not hesitate to clobber a fighter if the fighter's pilot was not paying attention.

While I cannot recite any numbers off the top of my head, I'd wager that the vast majority of 262 victories were bombers.

As to the P-51H: It was in full production and was already deployed to combat units at the war's end. North American had one factory on line and the Dallas plant was about to begin assembly. This was a fully developed, combat ready aircraft. Designated for the PTO, along with the P-47N. Could have been deployed to ETO if needed (had the war been prolonged).

P-47N: Fully operational and heavily involved in combat by August of 1945. Could have been in the ETO if needed.

P-47M: 130 built and delivered. At least 119 saw combat duty. Some teething issues resulting from badly sealed magnetos and ignition wire breakdown (the P-47C suffered the same problems when entering combat service). Developed from the P-47D-27-RE, this was a combat proven airplane. P-47Ms were exclusively operated by the elite 56th FG and saw significant combat in the ETO.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 9, 2005)

Udet said:


> Also you said anyone flying virtually any plane can shoot down anyone. A wide open statement there. Correct, not entirely though. No matter how genius a fighter pilot is if complete inadequacy of his plane becomes part of the equation.
> 
> Even the Mossie, a true great plane, ended with its nuts barbecued when it met with the Me 262 of Kommando Welter.
> 
> ...



Udet, have you had the opportunity to fly one of the online flight sims, such as Aces High, Warbirds or IL-2? Before anyone decides to debate the accuracy of these sims, I'll quickly concede that it is impossible to completely duplicate the environment of actual aerial combat due to the lack of G effect and other factors. However, if the flight physics are excellent, the relative performance of different aircraft can be seen. Moreover, if nothing else, you will understand the tactics of aerial combat. Remember, you do not compete against AI, but against real people in real time.

I've played all of them. I have concluded that Aces High offers the best flight physics of the bunch. Indeed, I have set up the game for former fighter pilots who commented that the P-38, P-51 and P-40 flight models were dead on.

For the historian and WWII aviation buff, these sims can add a lot of perspective on how you view aerial combat and, perhaps of greater importance, your understanding of pilot combat reports.

I would urge anyone with a keen interest in WWII air warfare to try one of these flight sims. Aces High and Warbirds offer free downloads and a free two-week trial period. Offline flight is always free as are head-to head arenas set up on private servers. Be advised to check the minimal system requirements. Aces High requires a top shelf video card and considerable RAM to truly enjoy the graphics. You should also invest in a quality joystick. I use CH Products stick, throttle and rudder pedals (the best in the industry), but Saitek and Thrustmaster offer adequate hardware for a lot less investment. You might also consider checking out the latest TrackIR gear at http://www.naturalpoint.com.

You might find it interesting that more than a few active fighter pilots (from the USN, USAF, RAF and IAF fly Aces High). The learning curve is severe and you will require many hours (literally hundreds) to become proficient enough to survive in the main combat arena. 

That's my job, I teach basic and advanced Air Combat Maneuvering in the training arena. Yo would also be surprised at how the badly the real fighter jocks are abused when they first show up all full of piss and vinegar. Many of the regular sim pilots have tens of thousands of hours flying combat sims and this experience is too much for even a professional fighter pilot to cope with. Like everyone else, they must hone their skills considerably to become competitive; although they already have mastered the theory, giving them a big leg up on a true neophyte.

Here's some screenshots from Aces High, no restrictions on use.

A Finn 109G-10 clobbers a Soviet La-5FN






The Aces High Dora9 attacking a B-24J





Anyway, back on topic.

Flying these sims demontrates that a lowly Hurricane MK.II can utterly obliterate a Me 262 should the Hurricane pilot get within range of his four Hispano cannons. This happens because the 262 pilot made a stupid mistake, exercised poor situational awareness or simply misjudged his energy state relative to the enemy. Within the sim, the 262 pilot is virtually untouchable if he elects to play it safe and stay fast. You will find that these sims completely validate the threat the 262 presented to the Allies in 1944. You will also see that the 262 is as dead as a roadkill skunk if the pilot allows his jet to get too slow or too low.

Remember this as it is the Gospel truth: A highly skilled pilot in a Spitfire Mk.V is far more lethal than a novice in an Me 262. A fast plane will keep you alive, but it will not kill the enemy for you. You will note that there were few, if any novice pilots flying 262s for the Luftwaffe, most were drawn from the surviving ranks of the elite, among the very best on earth. 

The mere thought of running into a guy like Macky Steinhoff flying a 262 would send shivers down my spine.

As to the Ta 152. It had great potential.

My friend and Luftwaffe expert writes: "I'm not sure why the Ta 152H was built at all - it seems that the German leadership feared that the B-29 would be sent to Europe and fly at altitudes where the standard Luftwaffe fighters were out of their element."

Clearly, had the RLM provided the resources to more quickly develop the 152 series (I think that the 152C was the plane that deserved the focus), the Mustangs and Jugs would have had a much rougher time of it, and the higher performance P-51H would have been rushed to the ETO (it was initially planned for ETO deployment, but Gen. Arnold over-ruled this as he wanted the emphasis placed on escorting B-29s to Japan).

As to the Antons... In 1941 the 190A was the best fighter in the world. By 1943, the P-51B was superior below 22,000 feet. Considerably faster, and a better turner (those maneuver flaps really made a difference), the P-51B was still world class when the war ended. I should not overlook the Spitfire LF Mk. IX, which was extremely capable down low. I like the Spitfire Mk. XII too, another monster down low. By 1945 the Antons were outclassed in just about every parameter of flight performance by the Tempest, Spit XIV, P-51D and the latest Thunderbolts. On the other hand, the Dora9 was a match for any of them, assuming its pilot avoided the standard traps of attempting to maneuver with any of these for more than a few turns. Indeed, the Dora9 was as pure an energy fighter as ever existed, working the vertical and maintaining an energy advantage. In this respect it was extremely lethal. However, like 190A-8, it was dogmeat in a sustained turning fight with Spitfires or Mustangs, assuming pilots of equal skill levels. Especially dangerous for the Dora9 was the superlative Spitfire Mk.XIV, which out-performed the Dora in every category with the exception of roll rate. If I had to pick the best air superiority fighter fielded by the Allies in the ETO, the Spit XIV would be my choice.

Consider this; just because the Anton enjoyed reasonable success against the Allied onslaught of 1944, it doesn't mean that the Antons were better or even nearly as good. Their success would properly be laid at the feet of the excellent pilots of the Luftwaffe, who made due with older designs while the RLM dragged its feet getting more competitive fighters into mass production. Of course, that's my opinion, your's may differ.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## plan_D (Sep 9, 2005)

I'd take the Spitfire 21 over the Spitfire XIV. It's handling was practically the same and it's only inferior characteristic to the XIV was it's slower rate of climb to altitude. Deployed to 91 Sqdn. in January 1945, it flew combat sorties before the war ended hunting for anything German, flying or rolling.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 10, 2005)

On the 262 vs the P-80

In the book *Messeschmitt Me 262* by Walter J Boyne (ISBN 0-87474-276-5) it is mentioned that in a post war report by Al Boyd, the report was surpressed because it was so favourable towards the Me262 when compared to the P-80.

Aces High when compared to the Il-2 series is in the second league.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 10, 2005)

I have a couple of comments, Navair. Yes, the P-51H was in full production by the wars end, but none saw combat. It was supplied to a few units in the summer of 1945 and were still going through the process of working toward operational service when the war ended. 

The P-47M would not be what I consider as having seen "significant combat". The early teething problems kep it out of service until the last few weeks of the war. A few weeks of combat against an enemy that was only a few steps away from surrender is not necessarily indicative of a great aircraft. I do believe that it was a good airplane, but I wonder how it would have faired against the earlier experten.

While I agree that there are _some_ things that flight sims are good for, I still would not use it as a basis for performance of all aircraft. They may have "got it right" with some of the American aircraft, but how do we know about the German, Japanese or some of the more obscure aircraft? Also, no G loads or feel for the aircraft take some of the elements of flight out of it.

Knowing that there will be no physical damage to your person or anyone else on the ground or in the sky will make it easier and a person more prone to take risks that they might not be willing to take in a real aircraft. This can be good or bad. While it can make a pilot push the aircraft harder to it's limits, it may also put them into the habit of taking risky manuevers. With jet aircraft, they have to be able to know how to control the G forces on their body. Aerial combat has not only the elements of the aircraft, but the physical effects of the movements on the body. That is something that a flight sim cannot provide.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 10, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".
> ...



Let me add another tidbit to this discussion. This gentleman is a founding member of the White 1 Foundation, which is restoring an Fw 190F-8 for flight. He has more production and test data on Fock Wulfs than anyone I am aware of. Here's his brief comments:

"I have never seen a 500mph Ta152. Now there is a 770kph (+) calculated chart for FW190D12 performance.

For flight tested results the FW-190D12 hit 730kph with the Ta-152C taking the top spot at 745kph."

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2005)

> "I have never seen a 500mph Ta152. Now there is a 770kph (+) calculated chart for FW190D12 performance.
> 
> For flight tested results the FW-190D12 hit 730kph with the Ta-152C taking the top spot at 745kph."


For those of us with a 8th grade math level, what are those figures in MPH???

U posted there Navair that the Ta-152C had the top spot of 745kph....

Please dont compare imperial with metric information.... It confuses us less geekier members.....


----------



## evangilder (Sep 10, 2005)

745 kph would equal about 463 MPH, Les. I use an online converter at 

http://www.onlineconversion.com

It's great for just about any measurement too.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2005)

I know evan, I was just trying to make a point... I have the same conversion site in my bookmarks.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

Im with even on this, and I am sure that FBJ will agree also. As some one who flies daily, I dont get off on flight sims. To me you can not recreate the reality of flying eneogh. That is just my opinion though.



syscom3 said:


> Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.



First of all let me just state that I am not an expert and nor do I claim to be one, except maybe in rotary wing aircraft and mostly the UH-60 Blackhawk because I have flown and worked on for almost 6 years now. However I do agree with what you are saying in that know one can be an exact expert on WW2 aviation except for the people who flew them however there are a lot of people here that have done exceptional research on the field and interviewed hundreds of WW2 fighter pilots. 

Here is the conclusion that I have come to. If you have interviewed US pilots you are going to have a completely different idea of what the truth is than if you had interviewed German pilots and the same is vise versa for those that have interviewed German rather than US pilots. This is probably true because both sides obviously claim the superiority of there aircraft and will make claims that there aircraft could do what the other could not. The same is today in the modern militaries. It is rivalries like this that bring fame to aircraft. Us Blackhawk guys have a never ending rivalry with the Apache guys about whos aircraft is actually better. (We know that ares is though  ) The same can be said for the WW2 pilots. If all you read is allied information than you are obviously going to talk about how much better allied aviation was. If all you read is German information then you are going to believe the opposite. So in this case the only true experts are the pilots themselves and they are unfortunatly dieing off at an alarming rate.

Therefore everyone here can take and learn from others what they have experienced from talking to these great people because lets face it technical manuals, flight sims, and even performance charts will not tell the whole truth, only the crews that flew them can.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 10, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I have a couple of comments, Navair. Yes, the P-51H was in full production by the wars end, but none saw combat. It was supplied to a few units in the summer of 1945 and were still going through the process of working toward operational service when the war ended.
> 
> The P-47M would not be what I consider as having seen "significant combat". The early teething problems kep it out of service until the last few weeks of the war. A few weeks of combat against an enemy that was only a few steps away from surrender is not necessarily indicative of a great aircraft. I do believe that it was a good airplane, but I wonder how it would have faired against the earlier experten.
> 
> ...



Due to the War Production Board's insistance, the P-51D/K series received top priority at North American. Development of the redesigned P-51H was leisurely at best. Initially, Dutch Kindelberger and Lee Atwood tried to expedite the development of the NA-105, which was ordered in 1943. This was to be the redesign that North American so badly wanted to do to better utilize the Packard Merlin. As it was, the XP-51B was a quick cobble-up job that proved successful enough that it was ordered into production immediately. 

Evolving from the Na-105 was the XP-51F and XP-51G. Atwood wanted to rush ahead and develop a production fighter based upon the test data generated from the XP-51F. Atwood wanted to use the Rolls Royce Merlin 145M engine (also fitted to the XP-51G), but was informed that Rolls Royce could not provide more than a few of them. Using the standard V-1650-7 engine, the first prototype XP-51F flew on February 14th, 1944. One was sent to Britain for testing at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down. Prior to this, Atwood and Kindelberger began lobbying to get a contract for a new Mustang, eventually designated the P-51H. Having a commitment from Packard to supply their new V-1650-9, it still took a while to get the program funded. This is where the WPB interferes and demands that no resources be diverted from P-51D/K production. Kindelberger was less than happy with this, and as he stated after the war, "our planning people assured me that we could have delivered the first P-51H by late October of '44." As it was, the first production example didn't fly until February of 1945. Kindelberger informed the WPB that a 21 day suspension of preliminary assembly of P-51Ds would be required to progressively retool the California plant. Kindelberger wrote, "there would be a suspension of delivery for only 3 days between when the last P-51D rolled out and the first P-51H was wheeled out for test flight. Our planning was such that for all intent and purposes, there would be no significant interruption."

However, the WPB was concerned that transitioning to the new fighter would take months and that units receiving the aircraft would not be combat ready before attrition of P-51Ds would be prohibitive. That may seem like a valid concern. However, the WPB ignored the fact that fighter Groups in 8th AF had transitioned on the fly, with combat units getting less than a week to familiarize themselves with the P-51B before going operational. Kindelberger stated this fact and offered to supply a small army of tech reps to ease the transition. No dice, the WPB wasn't willing to allocate the resources, being fat dumb and happy with the P-51D. But just remember, this is the same bunch that continued to fund the XP-75 program that had already been deemed a hopeless failure by Hap Arnold. Countless millions were poured down that bottomless hole and the project sucked up a great deal of people who could better be utilized building viable fighters.

Eventually, the P-51H was transitioned into the production line, but not in time to do anything beyond flying a few combat air patrols far from any action. It could have been in squadron service by January of 1945. Indeed, this situation was not unlike that faced by Kurt Tank as he tried to muster the resources to get his Ta 152 developed and into service. Bureaucrats are always three steps behind the designers....

In recent years more and more of Kindelberger's papers have surfaced. Unfortunately, not much pertains to the Mustangs. Much of is from the post war period, between WWII and Korea. Those researching the evolution of North American jet aircraft have found that this material sheds new light on this transitory period. Of this, the most remarkable stuff appeared in test pilot Al Blackburn's book Aces Wild, which establishes (but does not prove beyond a doubt) that the XP-86 was the first aircraft to exceed Mach 1 on October 1, 1947. That was a full two weeks before Yeager did it in the XS-1 rocket plane. Even the USAF has acknowledged this by revising their claim to the title to include the caveat of "in level flight". Officially, the XP-86 did it in November of 1947, with the press release being being issued in April 1948. By then, the transonic performance of the Sabre was already universally known and there was no need to continue believing that the Soviets didn't already know.

As to the P-47M; have you seen the test data of production aircraft? It's not a question of whether or not it would be a good fighter. It was a superlative fighter. At full combat load it made 373 mph at sea level, and depending upon weight and configuration, between 475 and 485 mph at 30,000 feet. Rate of climb from sea level was better than that of the P-38L. Above 20,000 feet its rate of climb was equal to or better than anything flying in the ETO, Axis or Allied. And this performance is prior to the field reps re-rigging the engines to permit overboosting for combat emergencies (as was done with prior P-47s). This was true monster, but had no future due its limited range, making it unsuitable for the Pacific war. This was rectified by the P-47N.

As to flight sims: I've already stated that they cannot reproduce all the physical inputs of real flight. And yes, there are lots of players who view these online sims as mere games without regard realism.

Nontheless, you find that in organized events, where you but one life, they do come as close to the actual experience possible to attain. Aces High is about to release a new sim, titled Tour of Duty. This sim will reward surviving and completing missions, while penalizing deaths and mission failures. It will far more realistic and immersive than the current crop of online sims. The debilitating effects of sustain G exposure will be modeled as well. Pilots will find that their aircraft will behave as it should when the pilot is fatigued, with progressive lowering limits based upon exposure. This aspect will be adjusted as required during the beta testing.

As to another's comment about IL-2 vs Aces High... I suspect that he hasn't flown Aces High lately, if ever. A new graphic engine and the addition of new, high resolution graphics has closed the eye-candy gap between it and IL-2. In terms of flight physics and accuracy of flight envelope, Aces High has always been more accurate than IL-2 and will remain the leader in that category for the foreseeable future. As I've said, I've tried all of them, I base my assessment on my experience in actual military aircraft, including seat time in TA-4Js and back seat rides in F4-Js. Admittedly, that isn't more than 28 hours of flight time, but it's a heck of a lot more than 99.9% of the guys flying these sims. You can add over 2,300 hours if aircrew time is factored in.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

Well I have almost 1300 hours of crew time and I will tell you that you it still will never be realistic eneogh to compare to real flying. I dont care how many games some one plays. You do not get the feeling of the seat going up your butt crack in tight maneuvers, you dont feel the blood rushing to your head or to your feet. You dont feel the cold or the heat. You dont feel the vibrations or actually hear and feel the bullets hitting your aircraft. Having experienced all of that in my almost 1300 hours and climbing I can say that I dont find them realistic at all.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Were all amatures. Me, you and everyone.
> 
> Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.



Experts are not trained in universities. Schools can only provide the tools required, they cannot make you a master craftsman. That comes as a result of hard work alone. You do not need a degree to become an expert. For example, Warren Bodie was not trained as a historian. He never worked for Republic Aviation. Yet, he is considered to be the foremost expert on the P-47 Thunderbolt. He attained this level of expertise through thousands of hours of research and interviews. In simple terms, through good old-fashioned hard work.

Within the aviation writers community, you will find only a handful of trained historians who are also successful writers. The bulk of this fraternity are ordinary people with an abiding love for aviation. Some are experienced pilots. Others are not. There's no prerequisites for the title of expert beyond the accumulation of vast knowledge. Personally, I prefer the company of the amateurs as they have a genuine passion and none of the attitude frequently displayed by the professionals. Indeed, I'd rather listen to the flawed account of a veteran fighter pilot than the dry recitation of the professional historian. One is real, with all the bumps and warts of reality. The other is often cold and detached from the experience, relying on facts generated by those who performed the deeds themselves. This does not mean that you don't separate the wheat from the chaff. It does mean that it adds color to an otherwise dull image.

We all know the old maxim that "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach (and those that can't teach, teach gym)". 

So, don't be so certain that amateurs can't measure up to the professionals. They can, and often do. Moreover, they usually wear their passion on their sleeve, something that irritates the pros no end. But, I usually prefer the passion to the dull and analytical. 

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 10, 2005)

NAVAIR, didnt the swept back wings of the ME262 hurt its low speed and mid speed handling?

Also, I remember reading several years back that Germany was never going to solve the turbine reliability problems because it didnt have access to the metals they needed for the hot core section of the engine.

Plus, they were overstretched in engineering for that technology, as the V2 rocket program was also using up the engineers and scientists working on turbines.

One final comment/question: Isnt 45,000 ft the altitude where pressure suits should be worn? Something about the air pressure is so low, your lungs dont work properly, even if on a forced oxygen supply. Id hate to be pilot in any fighter in a zoom climb up there and pass through that altitude.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes that was the main problem with the Me-262 engines and that would not have been solved unless the Gemans could get better raw materials, which they were not going to.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> NAVAIR, didnt the swept back wings of the ME262 hurt its low speed and mid speed handling?
> 
> Also, I remember reading several years back that Germany was never going to solve the turbine reliability problems because it didnt have access to the metals they needed for the hot core section of the engine.
> 
> ...



I would defer the first question to someone with greater knowledge of the 262. My understanding is that the wing sweep was not primarily designed in to forestall the onset of compressibility, but to balance lift (as seen in the C-47). 

The typical demand O2 regulators of the era were insufficient at altitudes above 40,000 feet and hypoxia was almost assured should the aircraft remain that high for a prolonged period of time. This is why some aircraft were engineered with pressurized cabins or cockpits. 

Having taken numerous altitude chamber rides, I am very familiar with the effects of hypoxia. Frankly, some people would conclude I am stupid enough at sea level...

My regards,

NAVAIR 

My regards,


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well I have almost 1300 hours of crew time and I will tell you that you it still will never be realistic eneogh to compare to real flying. I dont care how many games some one plays. You do not get the feeling of the seat going up your butt crack in tight maneuvers, you dont feel the blood rushing to your head or to your feet. You dont feel the cold or the heat. You dont feel the vibrations or actually hear and feel the bullets hitting your aircraft. Having experienced all of that in my almost 1300 hours and climbing I can say that I dont find them realistic at all.



I certainly appreciate your point, having had the experience of 7g turns that left me feeling like a wet dish rag. However, for old farts like me, the closest I can come to that experience now is via the flight sim.

However, you can add a great deal of reality on your own..

First, there is some preparation required. Drink at least 2 quarts of water 30 minutes prior to playing. Second, take an ice-cold shower in your skivies and do not dry off. Direct your air conditioner at your chair and turn it on full cold (or if in winter, open all the doors and windows). Place your lawn mower outside of the nearest window, start it and open the throttle fully. Next, get Larry's fat girlfriend over and when pulling G, have her sit on your lap. Finally, write a command that reformats your hard drive in the event you get shot down or otherwise crash. Begin playing..

So, now your're so cold your lips are turning blue. You have to pee like Seabiscuit, and every time you pull G your entire body screams out in agony. The constant engine noise has given you a headache and numbs your senses. Finally, you are scared half to death that any mistake will have expensive and troubling results.

That's about as close as one can hope to get sitting in your living room.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 10, 2005)

You must reeeeeeeeeally take your flight sims seriously.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2005)

> First, there is some preparation required. Drink at least 2 quarts of water 30 minutes prior to playing. Second, take an ice-cold shower in your skivies and do not dry off. Direct your air conditioner at your chair and turn it on full cold (or if in winter, open all the doors and windows). Place your lawn mower outside of the nearest window, start it and open the throttle fully. Next, get Larry's fat girlfriend over and when pulling G, have her sit on your lap.


However I may come across to u, THAT was some funny shit.... I have a friend named Larry who is dating a fat chick named Roxanne....

I'm originally from Hauppauge BTW, right off of 347........


----------



## Udet (Sep 10, 2005)

Navair:

Yes I did "fly" in the IL-2 sim for some months. Not a PC game fan though.(differential equations, sea surfing and thongs on the beach are far more appealling) 

I am afraid I´m a fast learner for after a few mere preliminary sessions I creamed absolutely all my foes in my Butcher Bird. La 5FNs made lovely pyrotechnics. Still, my personal "experience" as a sim "pilot" plays no role at all in forging my opinions on WWII airwarfare.


Back to the topic: I do not think you made the job in attempting to establish any clear and sound argument to differentiate a prototype from a (combat) operational plane.

The "protoype" Me 262 as Mr. Muller and many others depict it was in action, scrambling, intercepting and shooting down enemy planes. Yep, had its flaws, but was well ahead anything fielded by the winners.

Gloster Meteor? P-80? No. As I read on other forums, those were mere "hangar queens".

We are not talking about a number of victories you´d count just using your fingers Navair.

Again, Kurt Welter came real close to surpass the top USAAF ace in the ETO, not to mention he doubled or tripled the total scores of the great majority of all USAAF aces in Europe. Does that suggest anything? I do not care to what kind of superior breed pilot Welter did belong, had his plane been such a piece of unreliable crap Welter would have ended his days in quite another fashion.

So, how are we going to call all this Mr. Navair? 

Again: you are predicting an undisputed supremacy of planes that did not reach operational service, but devote immense efforts to defame and put down planes which were combat proven.

It is useless to repeat it came too late, in little numbers; no use in mentioning what the weak points of the jet were, the allies had no jets flying not because "they did not need them" as I´ve heard some saying. Of course they needed jets. There were no allied jets for the simple reason the Germans were ahead of them in that department.


I will argue your comment the Fw 190 A was outclassed by 1945. You do not think the USAAF fighter menu in the ETO included only perfect and flawless machines do you?

Got to end this posting. I have issues with very long postings -hate PC reading-. Thinking of equal consideration toward my peers is that I want to produce the briefest possible postings.

Les: 8th math degree? Come on! Join me in the differential equation life, I can assure you you will love DE!! 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2005)

I was joking... I have a college education........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2005)

Udet said:


> Gloster Meteor? P-80? No. As I read on other forums, those were mere "hangar queens".



Having at least flown a T-33, I think the P-80 would of been a worthy opponent to the 262 in as much the Stormbird would of been overwhelmed like the -109s and -190s were by the P-51. Maybe not as fast and not as hard hitting as the -262, the P-80 was much more reliable and built a hell of a lot better in my book, having the opportunity to see both of them up close and personal.....

Would of, could of, should of - this has been discussed before and was in another thread....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> First, there is some preparation required. Drink at least 2 quarts of water 30 minutes prior to playing. Second, take an ice-cold shower in your skivies and do not dry off. Direct your air conditioner at your chair and turn it on full cold (or if in winter, open all the doors and windows). Place your lawn mower outside of the nearest window, start it and open the throttle fully. Next, get Larry's fat girlfriend over and when pulling G, have her sit on your lap. Finally, write a command that reformats your hard drive in the event you get shot down or otherwise crash. Begin playing..
> 
> So, now your're so cold your lips are turning blue. You have to pee like Seabiscuit, and every time you pull G your entire body screams out in agony. The constant engine noise has given you a headache and numbs your senses. Finally, you are scared half to death that any mistake will have expensive and troubling results.



Very funny, I like that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> NAVAIR said:
> 
> 
> > First, there is some preparation required. Drink at least 2 quarts of water 30 minutes prior to playing. Second, take an ice-cold shower in your skivies and do not dry off. Direct your air conditioner at your chair and turn it on full cold (or if in winter, open all the doors and windows). Place your lawn mower outside of the nearest window, start it and open the throttle fully. Next, get Larry's fat girlfriend over and when pulling G, have her sit on your lap. Finally, write a command that reformats your hard drive in the event you get shot down or otherwise crash. Begin playing..
> ...



PERFECT!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

Next time I am pulling G's and it is -10 degrees here in Germany I will think of this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Next time I am pulling G's and it is -10 degrees here in Germany I will think of this.



Hey Adler, in your case shouldn't sometimes shrouds of shrapnel and small arms fire be flying by? Maybe a small fire could be stared in the corner of the room and then someone throws a handful of .22 rounds into it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

That would be a way to keep warm also!


----------



## GregP (Sep 11, 2005)

The Bf 109 K-4 did, indeed, go 452mph. However, it was only a trickle at the end, and since the basic design wasn't changed, the ailerons were almost immovable at those speeds, and it still didn't have rudder trim.

In short, at a specific altitude, using water-methanol injection, the Bf 1098K-4 could flee in a relatively straight line at 452 mph for a short time.

It could NEVER fight at such a speed. The airframe simply wasn't designed for those speeds.

The Bf 109 was basically a 350 - 375 mph aircraft with a good angle of climb at low airspeeds, and a decent punch via a hub-mounted cannon. It was devently maneuverable, but not as maneuverable as the Spitfire (which had a similar short range) and not as maneuverable as the Mustang.

At normal altitudes and in normal situations, the Mustang was a better fighter. Were there exceptions? Sure. Erich Hartmann could probably down anythinh flying an armed ultralight.

The run-of-the-mill Luftwaffe pilot of 1945, flying a Bf 109K-43, wasn't an expert and was lucky to escape the numerous Mustangs roving around in German airspace in packs.

The Bf 109K-4 was a nice example of what can be done when you strip away all the excess weight from an airframe that has grown in weight beyond the original design intentions.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 11, 2005)

It is questionable that K-4 ever did 452mph other than in testing. Fuel in April 1945 was in short supply and the K-4 @ 1.98ata required *C3*+MW50 to get the 2000hp to reach 452mph. This was ~10mph faster than the 1.80ata boosted K-4. C3 was required by all BMW801 engined a/c like the 190A.

Only 4 Gruppen had authorization to convert to 1.98ata and of the 140 K-4 available only 79 were operational (Apr9 1945 OoB). Did they ever complete the converssion? Never came across any documantaion that they did.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 11, 2005)

Some sources state that the 190K4 WAS flown at 1.98 ata from approximately mid-March 1945 until the German surrender.


OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45

No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
*10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata *
11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
*12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata *
13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
*19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata *
21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -

FROM
Fritz X. Kober - Jakob Maria Mathmann : The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vol.2. Schiffer Publishing, 1996. English edition. 

Overview of unit strenghts for the units that used 1,98ata. As per 9th April 1945.
Source : Alfred Price : The Last year of the Luftwaffe

Unit - On hand - Servicable

I./JG 27 - 29 - 13
III./JG 27 - 19 - 15
III./JG 53 - 40 - 24
IV./JG 53 - 54 - 27
---------------------
Total : 142 on hand, out of which 79 is servicable at the given date


So it seems that there were a probable 140 or so K4s that flew with C3 fuel and the 1.98 ata rating, at least for the last month or two of the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2005)

Im just curious, but if the FW190 and Ta152 were the superior aircraft for bomber intercepts, why did the Luftwaffe ever bother with the -109K4 so late in the war?


----------



## Erich (Sep 11, 2005)

syscom. the K-4 followed along the lines of the GEschwader gruppen that already had the Bf 109G on hands for their units duration previously.........dang I'm tired as it is about 10 after 4am where i am. the K-4 along with the G-10 variant was to take on the US and RAF escorts while the heavier Fw 190A's the bombers. Case in point is III. and IV./JG 4 flying Höhenschutze for the Fw 190A-8/R8's if II.Sturm/JG 4.

if I may add to the excellent geschwader listings the books on the K by JaPo 

also the follwing German info :

Bf 109K-4 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl. L. Dv.T.2109K-4, Teil 1 und 2, leden 1945

Me 109K-4, Beladevorschrift, Mtt-AG Augsburg, 1944

the information packets are sitting on a friends counter right now as I type // see ya all in a couple of days *I hope* ? this running around the world is old news....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 11, 2005)

Jabber,

The problem is your source. Isegrim/Kurfurst is not a realiable source. He twists and manipulates data to suit his German is superior agenda. He will pick and chose what supports his agenda and ignore any info that contradicts. 

If you go to his web site you will find '12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata' that he also has 'III./JG 27 Bf 109 K and some 109 Gs'. So which is it.

Also, it says increase to, not increase with, as in they will be using 1.98, not as they are using 1.98.

There is also the problem with the quality of very late war German aero engines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

GregP said:


> It could NEVER fight at such a speed. The airframe simply wasn't designed for those speeds.



Sure but what aircraft actually would dogfight at 452mph. Not that many. You slow down to about the 350 mph range. You would use the faster speed to get away from you enemy.



GregP said:


> The Bf 109 was basically a 350 - 375 mph aircraft with a good angle of climb at low airspeeds, and a decent punch via a hub-mounted cannon. It was devently maneuverable, but not as maneuverable as the Spitfire (which had a similar short range) and not as maneuverable as the Mustang.



I agree somewhat you are saying. The 109 was not as maneuverable as the Spitfire but I would go as to say the Mustang is more maneuverable at high speeds over 400 but at around the 350 range I would not go as far as to say that the Mustang was much more maneuverable than the 109.




GregP said:


> The run-of-the-mill Luftwaffe pilot of 1945, flying a Bf 109K-43, wasn't an expert and was lucky to escape the numerous Mustangs roving around in German airspace in packs.



This I can agree with fully.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 12, 2005)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 was basically a 350 - 375 mph aircraft with a good angle of climb at low airspeeds, and a decent punch via a hub-mounted cannon. It was devently maneuverable, but not as maneuverable as the Spitfire (which had a similar short range) and not as maneuverable as the Mustang.



By the end of the war Spitfires had actually increased their range significantly over earlier marks.

The Spitfire Mk I had 85 imp gal in fuselage tanks

The Spitfire Mk V had 85 imp gal in fuselage tanks plus the ability to carry 30, 90 or 170 imp gal in a single large slipper tank. An additional 29 imp gal could also be carried in a rear fuserlage tank for ferry flights

The Spitfire Mk VII and Mk VIII had 122 imp gal internally, plus 30, 90 or 170 imp gal drop tanks.

The Spitfire IX/XVI initially had 85 imp gal. Later production saw that increase to either 118 or 126 imp gal,less with the bubbletop models, with some production runs also getting 36 gal wing leading edge tanks. Late production models could have up to 162 imp gal internal tankage, and either a 30, 45 or 90 gallon droptank. This gave the late war Mk IXs around 4 1/2 hours endurance, not too bad for a fighter that started with an endurance of around 90 minutes.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 12, 2005)

Simply stated, any maneuvering at speeds above corner velocity will be limited by G loading. By late 1944, American fighter pilots were being issued the Berger G3 anti-G suits and their fighters were being modified to use them. In short, the P-51/P-47 pilot was able to pull more G than the Bf 109 pilot. That was a significant and telling advantage in a high-speed fight.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> Simply stated, any maneuvering at speeds above corner velocity will be limited by G loading. By late 1944, American fighter pilots were being issued the Berger G3 anti-G suits and their fighters were being modified to use them. In short, the P-51/P-47 pilot was able to pull more G than the Bf 109 pilot. That was a significant and telling advantage in a high-speed fight.
> 
> My regards,
> 
> NAVAIR



Yes you are correct and I believe that was the only real advantage other than range (which was not really a real advantage when the 109's were having ot fight on there own turf) that the P-51 had over the 109/190s of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 13, 2005)

The P-51 should have been fitted with reclined seats like the 109 and 190 had. It then would have been a UFO.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

Range (endurance) is very important. I think its what made the Mustang superior. The Mustangs could loiter way above the German airfields and wait for them to takeoff. Then pounce on them. Even if the -109's maneuvered out of the way, the formations would be disrupted and precious fuel would be consumed.

Im just curious, is the stated endurance for the -109 reflective of a full throttle climb to altitude?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

What was the max endurance for a P-51 once it reached its loiter area over Germany? That has me curious. I know the range in miles or kilometers but what is it in hours, and not flight time but flight time over the target before it had to make its return trip.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

Heres one figure for the "D" Mustang 
Combat range with drop tanks is 2055 miles @ 280 MPH/20,000 ft.
That gives an endurance of 7.3 hours.

Combat range without drop tanks is 1155 miles @ 295 MPH/20,000 ft.
That gives an endurance of 3.9 Hours.

Considering that the Distance from London to Berlin is only 580 miles, the P51D had to have quite some loiter time. (Misison profile would be Fly in with drop tanks, loiter for awhile and return home on internal fuel)

If someone has another figure, please let me know.


----------



## Erich (Sep 13, 2005)

hmmmmmmmmm take in consideration of atmosphere; wind ` resistance. the P-51 units did not loiter over the German airfields as it was usually an attack set up by the squadron commander and done by 2's and 3's but maybe this is what you meant syscom ? anything of value to the German war effort was shot up so the "loiter" may indicate the selection of MT cross roads and associated vehicles and numerous airfields, the drop tanks would of been deleted before the ground attacks naturally..

proof even Prague-Rusin airfields were attacked housing KG 54 ? and JG 7 jet units as well as Ju 88G-6's of NJG 100, so the Mustangs definately had a great overall range


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 13, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Heres one figure for the "D" Mustang
> Combat range with drop tanks is 2055 miles @ 280 MPH/20,000 ft.
> That gives an endurance of 7.3 hours.
> 
> ...



Those numbers are close enough. Info I got from a couple of P-51 pilots was that they tried to run about 55 gph in cruise. Remember METO throttle was 97 gph and WEP was even more which cuts your time drasticaly. High throttle situations were also on internal fuel which was about 240 gal max usable. Combat radius charts in the ETO generaly list the P-51D, with drop tanks, at 650mi to allow climb, cruise, combat and return. In the Pacific where enemy contact is likely only over the target, ranges of 850mi radius are sometimes used.

As someone pointed out loitering was rarely used mission profiles were more like this. Form up, climb out, link up with the proper bomber box, escort to relief point, decend to 10,000ft (or below cloud level) for the return and attack any targets of opertunity. 

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

I was just figuring out a hypothertical scenario where the P51's would just fly over to where the German Airfields were and just loiter, waiting for the -109's and -190's to take off, and then pounce on them. If it means only to just mess up their formations and make them waste precious time and fuel, then thats just as good. They might not have the time or fuel to make an effective intercept.

Perhaps they could even have an escort of their own till on station, so they could use the drop tanks to best effect.

It looks like the P51's could simply out wait them.


----------



## Erich (Sep 13, 2005)

remember during late 44 and all of 45, German piston jobs were warned by airfield ground control to take another airfield after intercpets of heavy bombers as Mustangs were lurking over the fields. It's a very safe bet this of course altered the course of a second attack, but the Mustangs could not be everywhere at once and there were many small airfields of which the German props could land. the one thing that stands out is the way the 262's were hunted down whether on take off or landing, these jet units just didn't seem to be thinking pushing the boys to the limit


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

Good points.

Im curious though how many German fighter groups couldnt get into the air cause there were so many allied fighters in the air lurking around, it would have been suicidal. Or, there was a fighter bomber stike that hit the field at just the right time and holed the airfield.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2005)

Usually the Luftwaffe pilots were already up in the air prior to the Allied fighter sweeps, atleast those that had the fuel to get into the air...


----------



## Erich (Sep 14, 2005)

Italked with several German pilots about this syscom.....and I am paraphrasing this so to speak. the German radar/ground units were very powerful and indeed even in within Germany could pick up signals and I know this is not the right word but i will use it just the same from the US heavies as well as the US fighters all over England. Once in the air the Luftwaffe ground control gave numbered estimates of the opposition to the fighter gruppen to get airborne to confront the US air forces, so all available fighters ~ prop and jet were then ushered into the air to meet the onslaught.

what was taken out on the ground were already damaged, salvaged fighters and towards wars end fighters without fuel causing gapping holes in the fuselages of the German Luftwaffe single engines but no fires...a bit frustrating for P-47/P-51 pilots


----------



## evangilder (Sep 14, 2005)

I have actually seen some ground strafing gun cam films with the scenario. They are shooting away and you see them walk the bullets right on up to the airplane and there is no fire or explosion. My first thought was that they were decoys. Then one of the other guys brought up what you are saying..no fuel to burn or explode.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2005)

The German radar and ground control was excellent. But if the -109 only had 50 minutes of fuel, it only had a limited window of opportunity to get up to altitude and intercept. I would figure almost 20 minutes of the endurance would just be to get up to 30,000 feet and have enough fuel to get down. Thats where my hypothesis starts, that some of the airfields could get blanketed so nothing leaves the ground without being intercepted. Of course not all the fields can get covered, but if a few groups are held down, and cant form up to intercept, then thats a couple of groups not doing any damage.

Just "conjecture/what if" on my part.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 14, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The German radar and ground control was excellent. But if the -109 only had 50 minutes of fuel, it only had a limited window of opportunity to get up to altitude and intercept. I would figure almost 20 minutes of the endurance would just be to get up to 30,000 feet and have enough fuel to get down. Thats where my hypothesis starts, that some of the airfields could get blanketed so nothing leaves the ground without being intercepted. Of course not all the fields can get covered, but if a few groups are held down, and cant form up to intercept, then thats a couple of groups not doing any damage.
> 
> Just "conjecture/what if" on my part.



Is that 50 minutes on internal fuel only or including drop tanks? It seems to me that with a single large drop tank a 109 could extend that time by at least 50%, even if they burnt the drop tank fuel just in the takeoff and climb peirod. 

Even for a short legged interceptor like the 109, 50 minutes seems really limited.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

I'm in the understanding that Allied aircraft loitered over the battlefield in support of the ground forces. The ground forces would call in air support and the aircraft would be there in a matter of minutes. This would be done by the RAF and USAAF. 

Of course, in the escort mission profiles it would be different. The escorts would only drop down after finishing the mission at hand.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

That 50 minutes is without drop tanks....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

I thought it was more like 1.5 hours for the 109. How else did it get to England and have 20 minutes over the target and then still get back to Germany during the Battle of Britain. I may be wrong though, that is why I am throwing this out. If it is please correct me.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 14, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I thought it was more like 1.5 hours for the 109. How else did it get to England and have 20 minutes over the target and then still get back to Germany during the Battle of Britain. I may be wrong though, that is why I am throwing this out. If it is please correct me.



Easily since most, if not all the 109s, flew from French airfields during BoB.

Here is some data on the E-1, E-3

SL
max continuous - 2200rpm, speed - 255mph, duration - 1.05hr, range - 267mi
max economy - 1300rpm, speed - 165mph, duration - 2.20hr, range - 404mi

9842ft
max continuous - 2200rpm, speed - 283mph, duration - 1.00hr, range - 280mi
max economy - 1300rpm, speed - 186mph, duration - 2.05hr, range - 404mi

15,404ft
max continuous - 2400rpm, speed - 323mph, duration - 0.55hr, range - 286mi
max economy - 1400rpm, speed - 217mph, duration - 1.50hr, range - 413mi

19,865ft
max continuous - 2400rpm, speed - 310mph, duration - 1.10hr, range - 323mi
max economy - 1600rpm, speed - 224mph, duration - 1.40hr, range - 395mi

ps - you can find LW unit bases here, http://www.ww2.dk/


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Cool thanks for the info.


----------

