I have already explained that the Germans also had the Bf109G/AS.US data is for ETO, P-51: 819 .Mediterranean force May '44: Heavy bombers 1,499 , Fighters 1,725 .Total Combat planes against Germany May '44 - 12,798 (includes 2-4 engine bombers ,fighters ,night fighters etc...) Source: USAAF statistical digest tables 88,90.
Allied airframes, German parts
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have already explained that the Germans also had the Bf109G/AS.US data is for ETO, P-51: 819 .Mediterranean force May '44: Heavy bombers 1,499 , Fighters 1,725 .Total Combat planes against Germany May '44 - 12,798 (includes 2-4 engine bombers ,fighters ,night fighters etc...) Source: USAAF statistical digest tables 88,90.
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 515
- Apr 23, 2007
To try to answer the question about the DB-605 powered Spitfire, there was a post by the banned antoni http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfires-luftwaffe-3473-4.html which included
"EN830 Spitfire F.Vb (Merlin 45); Presentation aircraft 'CHISLEHURST AND SIDCUP'; TOC/RAF 1.5.42; No.131 Sqn, missing near Ouistreham, force-landed on Jersey after air combat 18.11.42 (P/O BWM Scheidhauer, PoW, murdered); To Messerschmitt factory Augsburg and to Echterdingen (near Boblingen, South of Stuttgart) in 12.42 (test flown by Capt Willy Ellenrieder, DaimlerBenz); Armament radio removed, 24-volt electrical system and DB605A engine installed; To E-Stelle Rechlin, marked 'CJ+ZY'; Comparison trials with Bf 109G in 1943; Later DB601 A engine installed; Technical failure 27.4.44; Destroyed on ground at Echterdingen by an USAAF bombing raid on 14.8.44; Wreck to Klemm company at Boblingen, scrapped there
NOTE: P/O Scheidhauer took part in the Great Escape, but was recaptured at Saarbrucken, and shot dead by the Gestapo on 29 March 1944, along with 50 others who took part"
and a photograph was posted http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfires-luftwaffe-3473.html by cheddar cheese
"EN830 Spitfire F.Vb (Merlin 45); Presentation aircraft 'CHISLEHURST AND SIDCUP'; TOC/RAF 1.5.42; No.131 Sqn, missing near Ouistreham, force-landed on Jersey after air combat 18.11.42 (P/O BWM Scheidhauer, PoW, murdered); To Messerschmitt factory Augsburg and to Echterdingen (near Boblingen, South of Stuttgart) in 12.42 (test flown by Capt Willy Ellenrieder, DaimlerBenz); Armament radio removed, 24-volt electrical system and DB605A engine installed; To E-Stelle Rechlin, marked 'CJ+ZY'; Comparison trials with Bf 109G in 1943; Later DB601 A engine installed; Technical failure 27.4.44; Destroyed on ground at Echterdingen by an USAAF bombing raid on 14.8.44; Wreck to Klemm company at Boblingen, scrapped there
NOTE: P/O Scheidhauer took part in the Great Escape, but was recaptured at Saarbrucken, and shot dead by the Gestapo on 29 March 1944, along with 50 others who took part"
and a photograph was posted http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfires-luftwaffe-3473.html by cheddar cheese
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I did a bit of research on the Bf-109G/AS, Bf-109AM, and the Bf-109ASM. The data I found from Kurfurst site on the AM and ASM, both "mit MW-50" shows that these aircraft are slower at all altitudes, significantly so at bomber altitudes, from SL to 33k than the P-51B (-7 engine), in operation from Jan '44 to May '44, in WEP (67"Hg). And, surprisingly, roughly equal in climb, swapping small advantages back and forth. The only data I have on the AS, other than it seems to be less powerful than the AM/ASM, from a usually reliable source, is that it has a SL max airspeed of 364 mph and a top speed at 25k (?) of 427 mph. If true, and the AS mimics the other DBs, then this aircraft, though equal at SL, is much slower at bomber altitudes. I have no climb data on the AS. If you have more, and reliable, data, I would be glad to update my charts. After May, 1944, with advent of 44-1 fuel, the P-51B and D, are significantly faster than these Bf-109 versions and have notably better climb above 15k. Not until the advent of the Bf-109K, did German aircraft display comparable performance to the P-51 at bomber altitudes.
It appears to me that the best German point defense fighters with minimum fuel could not intercept bombers without engaging an escort fighter that was faster, climbed better, and probably dove better than they were. This situation existed from the beginning of 1944 until the fall of 1944, the period of time when the issue was still in doubt. In addition, that fighter just flew 400 miles from home, could linger until the Germans fighters ran out of fuel and then flew another 400 miles home. That defines an outstanding aircraft.
A chart on Bf109 ASM is available from Kurfurst .Check combat power.As for the rest of your argument let me repeat : twice the number of German aircraft (even the standard Bf and Fw ) would shut down the Bomber Offensive permanently regardless of the performance of the P-51.Oh and you're talking about 5 min power again.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
As I stated, that is where I got the data and I used the highest power available, WEP on the P-51 and MW-50 on the Bf-109G. If you have better, let me know.
Strange comment. One on one, in bomber defense, the P-51 would always have the advantage. With higher speed and better performance at higher altitudes, the P-51 was always capable of obtaining a higher energy level at onset. It had the high ground. By the way, the P-51B(-3 engine), the first P-51B version and quickly replaced by the -7 engine, operating at mil power (60" Hg) is faster than the Bf-109AM and ASM, operating with MW-50, from SL to 33k. In climb it is equal to or better than either at 15k and up. Pretty pathetic performance by a point defense fighter with only 105 gallons of fuel compared to a long range escort fighter, carrying 180 gallons of fuel, I would think. To be fair, I will say that the Bf-109s discussed here did have acceleration advantage over the P-51 up to at least 20k.
How many times do you have to mention that the P-51 was superior in max level speed? We get it , i don't think there was anyone here that disagreed with you.Would that difference be a war winner? No ,if that was true there should be no LW after the introduction of that aircraft. Many variables are important not just one.By the same logic the Soviet airforce should not exist since LW fighters had speed advantage .Guess what it didn't matter as much as you think.There is an interview with a Russian vet and he was asked how they survived since their planes were seriously underpowered .He said combat is not a race.I'll say it again more aircraft (even the ''inferior'' Bf and Fw) would have shut down Bomber Offensive.Only aircraft that could win a war by its own was Me-262 ( in quantity).
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
And the P-51 did a very good job on many of these, including, uniquely range.
?? And if they had more and better bombers they may have won the BOB. This statement means nothing.
And what made this aircraft so formidable? Speed!
Glider
Captain
Going back to the original thread then I cannot see anything that the Germans had that would have made a significant difference to the allied airframes. I am not a fan of the 0.5 M2 that is no secret but it was fine for what it had to combat, ie single seat fighters and largely pre war / or fragile medium bombers. So giving the USAAF more effective weapons wouldn't make a noticable difference.
We tend to get hung up on fighters but the only difference I would like is the german 13mm replacing the 0.303 in British bomber turrets. The 0.5 M2 was just so much bigger, fitting them in without a significant increase in weight was difficult. Getting hit by a quad 13mm would hurt anything.
Now a thread on allied equipment in Axis airframes would be far more complicated.
We tend to get hung up on fighters but the only difference I would like is the german 13mm replacing the 0.303 in British bomber turrets. The 0.5 M2 was just so much bigger, fitting them in without a significant increase in weight was difficult. Getting hit by a quad 13mm would hurt anything.
Now a thread on allied equipment in Axis airframes would be far more complicated.
Lighthunmust
Banned
There actually was something extremely valuable the Germans "had" that made the airframe of the P-51 better than anything the genius of Willie Messerschmitt put into any version of the Bf109. Does anyone on this forum know what it was?
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
Not me
Yes speed far in advance of the piston fighters.
Lighthunmust
Banned
drgondog
Major
Based on what assumptions? Any fact based observations you care to pose?
Luftflotte Reich had from 8X (Jan 1944) to 2X (April 1944) available S/E fighters to Mustangs/Lightnings over Germany until approximately May 1944. Allied airpower advantage was huge but stopped at German border due to range limits.
Between mid April and end of May the 8th AF Mustang Groups had converted 4 more P-47 groups to P-51s achieveing a growth from 4th, 355th, 357th FG (~45 to 50 'effectives per group) to 4th (end of Feb), 339th(may), 352nd (mid april), 355th (march), 357th (mid feb), 359th (may) and 361st (mid may) FG - raising total escort capacity to ~350 plus three lightning groups to escort a 100 mile bomber stream of 800-1200 effective B-17/B-24s against 450-500 effective Fw 190 and Me 109 based throughout Germany. That does not include JG2 and JG 26 in Luftflotte 3 that were busy fighting P-47/Spits over Holland and France and Belgium.
The LW put very large numbers of 109s and 190s in the air in November 1944 attaining local air superiority of as much as 5X1 for example over Misburg on November 26, 1944 and was crucified with disappointing effect to the B-24 Task Force (21) considering the overwhelming number of fighters (250+) to the escort (355th FG/2SF ~40 Mustangs). It is also true that other Mustang groups converged on the area and contributed heavily to the local LW losses in that area (50+ to three 339th FG P-51losses).
The simple fact is that the Mustang was a problem the LW failed to solve until the Me 262 and it was a failure comparatively speaking considering the performance and firepower advatage.
The LW never stopped the bomber offensive when they had complete air superiority over Germany but did inflict severe losses until the bombers got several Mustang groups into central Germany... Except on 6 march, 29 April the loss rates of 8th BC never again went over 7% and rarely over 3% thereafter - with most post May 1944 loses going to flak
As to the 5min power vs Mil Power the airspeed difference isn't that significant and still above both the 109G and Fw 190A-6,7 and 8 by substantial margins in comparable power settings
Lighthunmust
Banned
drgondog,
You appear to be very knowledgeable about the Mustang. Would you happen to know the answer to the question I asked?
"There actually was something extremely valuable the Germans "had" that made the airframe of the P-51 better than anything the genius of Willie Messerschmitt put into any version of the Bf109. Does anyone on this forum know what it was?"
You appear to be very knowledgeable about the Mustang. Would you happen to know the answer to the question I asked?
"There actually was something extremely valuable the Germans "had" that made the airframe of the P-51 better than anything the genius of Willie Messerschmitt put into any version of the Bf109. Does anyone on this forum know what it was?"
I don't understand the point you're trying to make ,by your own math : US - 1,150 to 1,550 , German 500 and it is ''quality'' that decides the outcome?
Never stopped the bombers? Check after Schweinfurt, i guess they didn't stop they just decided to give the Germans a chance to catch their breaths
As for late '44 LW could still bite : 2 Nov '44 - US Bombers 1,250 ,Fighters 873 , Total 2,123 .
German fighters 490 .
Losses : Us bombers 40-50 , fighters 16 ( 400-500 killed? )
LW fighters 120 ( 70 pilots killed )
Despite numerical odds , despite no fuel , despite flying (according to you) inferior aircraft it seems they did something that day...
Source: Jagdwaffe vol5 section 3 ''Defending the Reich 1944-45 ''
Glider
Captain
My guess is the Meredith effect however it wasn't something that was unique to the Me109 or the P51, first being discovered before the war by Fredrick Meredith at the RAE in the UK. The theory was used by the UK, USA, Germany, Russia and USA in their designs during the war.
Do I guess right?
Lighthunmust
Banned
What you wrote is correct. It is not the answer.
Clues:
Use non-linear thinking.
It was something the genius of Willie Messerschmitt could not contribute.
Germany had it prior to WW2.
Last edited:
He is probably our resident Mustang expert. His father flew it in WW2, and Bill even has some flight time in the P-51D as well.
drgondog
Major
The three innovative applications of science to airframe for the Mustang was 1.) laminar flow wing/mfg methods to coat and fill rivet sinks, b.) meridith effect to reduce drag (or achieve net thrust depending on which version you want, 3.) second order curve layout of cowl contours to achieve as close to minimum drag.
The Mustang features from day one - lowest drag in the industry until the P-80 and Me 262, longest range from day one (factor of wing fuel and drag) with exception of A6M which sacrificed too much in airframe size to grow with increased tactical mission
Those are my answers and I will stick to them. If I had to guess what Willy had it would be knowledge of Meridith effect as that was in the literature as a theory as early as 1935
The Mustang features from day one - lowest drag in the industry until the P-80 and Me 262, longest range from day one (factor of wing fuel and drag) with exception of A6M which sacrificed too much in airframe size to grow with increased tactical mission
Those are my answers and I will stick to them. If I had to guess what Willy had it would be knowledge of Meridith effect as that was in the literature as a theory as early as 1935
Last edited:
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
I wonder how the P51h would have done with the db603q.
Last edited:
