Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I broke down and right and caught another FW as he commenced to dive away. At 14,000 ft. approx. I gave a burst of cannon and M/G, 400 yds range, hitting E/A along fuselage. Pieces fell off and E/A continued in straight dive nearly vertical. I followed E/A down to 5,000 ft. over Boulogne and saw him hit the deck just outside of Boulogne and explode and burn up. Returned to base at 0 ft.
1 FW 190 Destroyed.
The leading one then broke off and the rear one started to dive towards France, taking slight evasive action. The dive started at about 10,000 feet and I got many bursts from astern at ranges from 200 to 400 yards. I saw cannon strikes, and his tank burst. Then, after about another second, black smoke and flames poured from his tail. At 2,000 feet my ammunition gave out and I saw him slowly carry on his dive to the right, flaming and smoking, until he crashed in a field (This, I think, was just S.E. of St. Omer). I came back at zero feet.
1 FW 190 Destroyed.
I got a little in front of No. 1 and No. 2 and a little to the left. I got one E/A in my sight but although I had 500 m.p.h. on the clock, I closed in very slowly to 300 yards firing short bursts. It was a very difficult to get in a good deflection shot, as he was using his rudder very hard, and skidding from one side to the other, until I saw a vivid flash in his cockpit. The E/A then dived steeply down and I then realized that I was on the point of diving vertically into the saw and managed to pull out with nothing to spare. The E/A made no attempt to pull out and went straight in.
I got on the tail of one of them as it dived steeply to Port without taking any evasive action. I closed in to 300 yards and fired two or three short bursts from ten to fifteen degrees deflection. The E/A immediately burst into flames, making very little smoke
I positioned myself on the tail of this A/C who, when he saw me, pushed his stick forward and dived very steeply westwards down the coast. It was some time before I could get within firing range and there was 480 I.A.S. on my clock when I opened with a short burst from dead astern 200 yards
I instructed my section to engage these six enemy aircraft but just as I was within range they all dived steeply down. I followed my aircraft and opened fire from 250 yards with cannon and M/G. Several strikes were seen on his fuselage, wing roots and tail unit and he commenced to emit thick black smoke, as I broke away I saw at least one half of a wing break away.
Good post. The Spit IX outclimbed the 51B-5 with both the 1650-3 and 1650-7 in it. It was only with 44-1 fuel, the -7 and 75" boost that the 51B got 4380 fpm with full Gross weight and racks at 9680 pounds..
And the 51B out climbed and was faster than the Fw 190A-5 at SL, at 20,000 feet and far better at 30,000 feet. It turned with it and the Spit outturned the Mustang. It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.
..
It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.
But, all those Fw 190s and 109s must have gone down to acts of God, because no Allied fighter could touch their performance..
Agree completely.
An now that you mention Mustangs, the Mustang 1s were operating during the period covered by this thread, which I beleive were faster than the 190 @ SL and were used in the same type of role as the Jabo 190s. They flew those same Mustang 1s from 41 to 44, and didn't have a lot of losses. Thats one of the unsung heros of the war IMO.
Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.
In fact, that is not the case. I don't believe that you have yet submitted one shred of proof or data to substantiate your own claims despite months of debate on the topic.
You have not retrieved even one anecdotal comparison of the Mustang versus the Gustav at Rechlin or any other LW sources.
You have not refuted by counter evidence any of the comparative tests performed by the RAF, nor demonstrated that slats were not used or effective ion those turn comparisons.
In short - you bring opinions to a fact fight on this subject.
Also the Bf-109 was everybit as good a turn fighter as the Spitfire, the 109 G.2 and Spit IX being close equals in 42 43.
I believe anecdotally that they were close as I believe the 51 and 109 and 190 were 'close' to each other. On the topic of Fw 190 and Me 109, you have yet to drag up comparative tests between the two from Luftwaffe sources in a controlled environment, however - so that question remains open to an objective listener
The FW-190 A-5 was faster, dive quicker and was more maneuverable than both, hence its huge success against the Spitfire.
The P-51B was more of a match for the 190, featuring excellent speed at all altitudes and good high speed control.
And low speed control, and turn, and climb. The 190 was significantly better in roll - each about same in acceleration depending on loading of each fighter when engaged. By 1944 the 51B could do 4350fpm at 9850 pounds - a full combat load without external fuel - by the time it got to Germany and dropped tanks it was more agile than that with full load of internal fuel.
Come on Bill, that's unnecessary and completely useless. I like it better when you hold your composure and commit yourself to a serious debate.
Soren didn't say the Me 109 would greatly out-turn the Spit IX (at least not in the last few pages of this thread) he actually said they would be fairly close matches in this resBill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.
pect.
Actually you are right.. Soren's specific comment was " Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance. so I will modify the checklist above to reflect that
Just by looking at the properties of these a/c (wing loading, wing properties, LE-slats, power loading) the Me 109 (and Spitfire) should out-turn the P-51B and Fw 190. And the 190 should out-turn the P-51 at low altitude (below 18,000 ft) but quickly lose this advantage with altitude. The 190 would hold the advantage of roll over the others and have better low-speed turning ability than the P-51.
Coulda, shoulda, mighta - everything you just said was anecdotal. where is a test flight or comparison to negate the RAF Flight Test comparisons of Spit IX, Mustang III, Me 109G, Fw 190A-5?
Mustang Tacical Trials
Note that the Mustang III in the test against the Spitfire IX with clipped wings is at 10,100 pounds. That is full ammo and oil plus full fuel including internal tanks, including fuselage tank. There is no comment on this but I GUARANTEE that had an effect in turning performance against the Spit IV. No P-51B would be anywhere NEAR that weight over Germany in a combat against either a 109 or 190.
Still it (Mustang III) was described as better and significantly better in contract to 109 and 190 in turn.. no mention of loading for either of those ships either but it wouldn't have been as bad as the hog load for the 51B!
The Spit IX was decribed as 'better' than the 51B. So the heirarchy was Spit IX, clipped wings better than Mustang III; Mustang III better than 190 and significantly better than the 109.
Soren says no. Soren never flew a 109 or 1 190 or a Spit or a Mustang but he knows 'better' than the RAF test pilots. Draw your own conclusions.
Don't go to the encounter reports because the advantage of Mustang over 109 (and 190) was enormous!
THIS~WAS ~NOT ~ALL~DUE~TO~MUSTANG ~PERFORMANCE!
Much to do with LW doctrine, US agressiveness, and the fact that most fights were initiated at altitudes where the Mustang WAS superior. Once a tactical advantage is obtained in an equal or better fighter only greatly superior pilot skill can get you out of the problem.
The 'anecdotal' references of the pilots (including Gunther Rall) is that the 'out manuever' for the 109 with a P-51 on his tail was a steep climbing turn to the right - which my father also agreed with. Turning was never described as the manuever to evade
Though (at least in early models) the Fw 190 began losing its roll advantage above ~250 mph.
It was still better than 51 until 400mph range
Much of this seems to be supported by anecdotal data... (I don't have any off hand though)
Bill,
About the 109 and pilots being vary of the slats, this is a proven fact Bill, something which I have proven to you multiple times by now.
Haven't proven it once, and more specifically not for the RAF test pilots!
I deleted the other blather because there are too many encounter reports describing how the Spit or Mustang cut inside the 109 and shot it down..why do you humiliate yourself with encounter reports when there are 3:1 ANECDOTAL descriptions that the 109 was inferior?
Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:
"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off.
Would you use these as an example of a 109 as far superior to a 51 in turn? LMAO - is this the best you can do? Several 360 degree turns at low speed is an example of 'far better turning performance'
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight?
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection.
- And you was flying a three cannon plane?
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things.
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place?
It must have been about 2000m." (These were actually LaGG-3's which makes it even more amazing)
So mistaken identity with unknown quality of pilots is 'Evidence' to you? That figures. Uh, and have you considered why he mentioned that the Mustang must have 300kmh? like maybe that was his perception a danger zone to the 109?
Mark Hannah, Mordern 109 pilot:"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."
So, you have presented TWO anedotal encounters between a 109 and a p-51, one of which was mistaken identity! You have Mark Hannah's Utube interview.. where are the 3600 encounter reports in which a 51 destroyed a 109 in just the 8th AF?
The one encounter you presented that was a Mustang was self described as making several 360 degree turns at low speed with no closure 'until the Mustang pilot got nervous' and stalled out.
You consider THIS evidence that a 109 is far superior to a P-51 in turn?
Satisfied ?
NFW - for every accolade about the 109 turning ability I will find you two to twentythat demonstrated the 51 truning inside and killing the 109. Anecdotal doesnt't work here. Do you ever go to facts?
As for the comparative tests with the 109 190 I promised, I forgot to provide these that's true, will do so when I find them. I do promise you though Bill, they are there, you can trust me 100% on that! (Ask Gene, he's got them, all of them!)
I have asked Gene. He doesn't have them. Nobody seems to have them. Maybe they were transported to Atlantis in May 1944 as preparation for the Fourth Reich!
I remember quite a few phrases from the tests though, "the 109 getting on the 190's tail in no time" being one of them. LW Chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais also made it clear that the FW-190 was absolutely no match in turn fight against the Bf-109, something which was thuroughly established in all the tests he carried out with the a/c.
And the tests data and results are presented where? and where is the P-51 mentioned in your 'recollections'??
Shall we move on to the aerodynamics ?
Will there be a quiz? I have one for you down below
Bf-109 G-2
Weight: 2,890 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Power: 1,455 HP
Wing AR: 6.09
Clmax: 1.70
Power-loading: 1.98
Lift-loading: 105.26
Spitfire Mk. IX
Weight: 3,356 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Power: 1,580 HP
Wing AR: 5.61
Clmax: 1.36
Power-loading: 2.12
Lift-loading: 109.77
P-51B
Weight: 4,256 kg
Wing area: 21.64 m^2
Wing span: 11.21 m
Power: 1,790 HP
Wing AR: 5.80
Clmax: 1.47
Power-loading: 2.38
Lift-loading: 133.79
As you can see the P-51 aint even close to the Bf-109 or Spitfire?
I guess all the Mustang pilots must have missed your math...But the only tests documented say you are incorrect.
The funny thing about all this though is that I know you're already aware of it, so that I have to explain over and over again is tiring. You have said yourself many times that most Mustangs lost to 109s were so because they engaged in slow speed turn fights.