Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
TIt would follow that when Gabreski and Johnson were running up their totals, they were flying against an enemy that was both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to what the P51 pilots faced seven months later. The P51 victories relatively speaking were achieved against Luftwaffe pilots in many cases who were inexperienced and outnumbered.
Alright then, lets just get to the important question here, who is the babe on Udets' avatar?
dang.
And landing on a carrier...the only area the F4F really beats the Hurricane is range........
And landing on a carrier...
Reluctant poster:
There were quite a few times during the whole year of 1944 when German fighter pilots had the opportunity to engage P-51s or P-47s in situations where the allied guys did not enjoy a numerical superiority having thus a more balanced match in terms of planes joining the fight...most of such times the Germans taught them real tough lessons, either wiping out the USAAF flight or giving them a battering with minimum or no losses from the German part. More importantly, many of such times the German fliers were mainly rookies..."ill-trained" as depicted on most accounts.
Of course such kind of enagements were not too common as most times the
German boys found themselves overwhelmed by sheer numbers of enemy planes, and even then most of the times the big majority of the German fliers managed to escape and return to base even after having their fighter units enduring very high losses.
So the generally accepted allied tale of "German pilots that were ill-trained and barely capable of flying" for the 1944 period seems quite unaccurate.
No in the instance that I am talking yes you can. Once the P-51D was at its patrol area over Germany it no longer had the 6 hours of flight time (or however long it was), because it had to get back to England. So during that time the Luftwaffe fighters were more on par with the time they could spend in the air. We are not talking about 1943 here or anything.
Understand what I am saying. Sure range is a great thing but lets say an aircraft has 2000mi range and it takes 600mi to get to its loiter spot and 600mi to get back. That leaves 800mi left that it can spend to fly around and search for enemy fighters. A Luftwaffe fighter with 800mi range (not talking about Bf-109 here but any fighter) can now stay in the air for the same amount of time.
Now it is just aircraft vs. aircraft and pilot vs. pilot.
I almost fully agree with you, however, even at low alt the later P-80A would probably be at a disadvantage in acceleration compared to the Me-262, but this is assuming both a/c are running at full throttle - something which was very risky for the Me-262 pilot as the axial flow Jumo engines could reach incredibly high temperatures if run too long at this setting, temperatures higher than the metals at the time could handle. - Like I said I don't think the true maximum speed of the Me-262 was ever recorded as the engines simply couldn't run full throttle for the needed amount of time.
As to the 1946 scenario, well by that time the Me-262 would've had different and more powerful engines while the P-80A had nearly just gotten its fixed.
And about the accounts suggesting the Me-262 broke the soundbarrier, well I agree speed indicators at the time were not accurate those speeds, besides the Me-262 was going to need alot more power to do this, and even then its not certain the airframe could take it - no doubt it came close though, but atleast another 100 - 150 km/h was needed.
The Fw190 was a fine ww2 fighter and it seems that many members here pick the Fw 190D-9 as the best of the war. From a performance point of view I show the D-9 as making 426 mph at 21,650 ft with a time to climb to 19,685 ft of 7 min 6 sec with combat power and a range on internal fuel of 520 miles. The F4U-4 could make 446 mph at 26,200 ft, it's service ceiling was 41, 500 ft, it's rate of climb was 3870 fpm, and it had a range on internal fuel of 1005 miles. It had a better roll rate than the Mustang, was practically unbreakable, had an air cooled engine, (couldn't be brought down by a single round like the liquid cooled engined fighters) and in a pinch could carry a 4000 pound bomb load. It had excellent short field takeoff and landing characteristics. Sounds like a winner to me.
yes just what the RAF were looking for in 1940and she proved she could do it later on...........
And training the muscles in your arm, as the gear was manual retracted with a bicycle chain
Look at it from this point of view. If the P-51 and the 109 swapped places, the P-51 would likely not be as effective in the interceptor role because of it's poor rate of climb and it's meager armament, except for the fact that it wouldn't have enemy fighters to worry about because the 109's would have turned back at the French border. To claim that range doesn't matter takes the very narrow view that only the interceptor role matters.
The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.