Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

[Colin1]

While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.

The P-51 was an escort fighter without peer in WW2 because it was specifically designed to be one.
The P-51 was specifically designed to address the British Purchasing Commission's desire to buy new aircraft, NAA threw their hat into the ring and claimed they could build the BPC a better aircraft than the P-40. The RAF realised that range was an issue with their existing stock but no-one envisioned escorting heavy bombers all the way to Berlin, least of all the USAAF who at that stage were not even interested in the P-51.


An escort fighter protects a fleet of bombers at approx 25000ft, climbing isnt at all important.
Really? Would you care to elaborate on that? The simple truth of the reality seems to have escaped me.

The fighters of the Luftwaffe had to attack the bombers which required heavy armour and armament. An Fw190 attacking a fleet of bombers wasnt the same animal as was seen in France.

Some people here speak of the P-51 as if it could fight all over the channel, across Belgium and Holland and then on to Berlin.
Weasel statement. Please indicate, anywhere in the forum, where anyone ACTUALLY said that.

A Mustang with its full load of fuel and external tanks was only just airworthy small changes to the throttle at low altitude after take off could result in a crash.
Take-off is a particularly vulnerable time for an aircraft, esp if combat-loaded. Mustangs certainly were lost during take-off, but do you have any statistical data to support a notion that its 'only just airworthiness' made it more of a liability than any other type, on either side, during the war?

The P-51 was very late in the game it was very slippery in aerodynamics but heavy (the original Mustang was rushed into service)
Fw190A-8 MTOW 9,735lbs; P-51A MTOW 9,000lbs - no heavier than one of its principal adversaries it would seem. I don't recall the Mustang being 'rushed into service', the Brits got roughly half of their original order as a result of Pearl Harbour and the USAAF only really started to warm to it in 1942.

There was little use for the Mustang until the USAAF got hammered on unescorted raids. The Spitfire was the better air superiority fighter and gradually got the better of the 109 variants whereas the Fw190 was a fantastic plane which was pretty much neck and neck with the Spitfire untill the end of hostilities. In fact all these planes were at the peak of their development and jets were already being introduced....
I don't know where to begin with this. I think you'll find there was plenty of use for the Mustang, it was precisely this use that got the USAAF interested and the RAF thinking Merlin power. Mustangs with their decisive range and speed advantage over the Spitfire V were put to use over France, in their one of their earlier engagements vs the Fw190, one P-51 was shot down and the chasing Focke-Wulf of the second P-51 couldn't catch him after pursuing him all the way back to Folkestone.
As regards the Spitfire vs Bf109 debate, I don't think there was a period during the war when the Spitfire was decisively better than the German fighter. Late-war tribulations for German manufacture made it difficult but the Bf109K was a clear example that the Bf109 wasn't finished by any means.
When precisely are you referring to when you say that all of these planes were at the peak of their development, because at the time of the P-51's introduction, they most certainly weren't and jets were nowhere near introduction.

.......just remember most pilots didnt see the plane that shot them down in WW2. Additionally the Spitfire was never designed for absolute top speed its wings had a washout of (from memory) 1 1/2 degrees which induces drag but increases control at the limits of stall, a Mustang with straight laminar flow wings stalls with little warning. The Bf109 had automatic leading edge slats to improve turning performance but towards the end of the war many pilots didnt know how they worked and so didnt make full use of the plane thinking it was at the limit when the slats had only started to work (they made the 'plane vibrate)
That's pretty much a string of incoherent thoughts strung together into a paragraph but I'm interested to know why you think German pilots had forgotten how their wing slats worked.


As far as the P-51 is concerned it was its mass deployment with huge formations of bombers that was the reason for its success.
No it wasn't. There were several reasons, technical and tactical, the most fundamental being its range capability - the ability to put it over targets deep into Germany in the first place. Secondly, once there, it had the fighting qualities that enabled it to meet the best of the Luftwaffe on comparable terms. There was the quality of training of USAAF pilots and the soundness of tactics used to cancel any advantages held by the Luftwaffe. The .50cal allowed the P-51 to hit German fighters with a warhead big enough to cause critical damage, yet small enough to be carried in sufficient amounts to see out the mission. The P-51 generally held the initiative, it was on the side that was doing all the choosing of targets and usually met the defensive fighters at the P-51's best altitude.

Germany in 1944/45 was fighting on at least 4 fronts and running out of pilots fuel and equipment.
FOUR fronts? I don't know anything about that but there were two fronts that mattered to the exclusion of all else to the German High Command in the autumn of 1944; the one rolling in from the west and the one rolling in from the east

Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance. How many Sopwith camels could a Eurofighter cope with before being overwhelmed?

Is the answer 'all of them'?
It was a poor analogy, the P-51 was arguably WWII's high point in piston-engine fighter design and it had trouble containing a jet-engined threat in its infancy but these were two combatants contemporaneous of one another and there was at least a ballpark combat margin in which the two fighters could engage one another.

 

[john brewer]

4 fronts

the eastern front
the western front
the southern front bombers from north africa attacking roumanian refineries for example
the home front ie over Berlin, or maybe you dont consider 1200 bombers with escorts attacking your capital city as any sort of threat.....rolls eyes and leaves the forum

 

[Milosh]

Are we splitting hairs or splitting stripes, the fact is they were black and white stripes to tell friend from foe! I presume the D Day stripes were seen as an improvement although I couldnt honestly be bothered to look it up.

Just pointing out the differences. Besides what already mentioned, the D-Day stripes also wrapped around to cover the upper wing and full wrapped stripes were added to the rear fuselage. The ID stripes were only on the lower wing.

On the 600 escorts, not all would be with the bombers at one given point in time. The 600 would be the number of escorts assigned to escort the bombers. The escorts flew in relays which would relieve those already escorting.

You forgot a Front john brewer, the Northern Front.

Colin,

MustangIA/P-51 > MGW 9000lb
Mustang IV/P-51D/K > MGW 11,600lb

Fw190A-8/R2 > 9822lb

 

[Colin1]

for me a Hawker Typhoon looks nothing like a Fw190...

...a Typhoon is bigger with a huge chin radiator and a different canopy and wing shape.....apart from that they are identical...

I'm confused and frightened...

 

[Colin1]

Colin,

MustangIA/P-51 > MGW 9000lb
Mustang IV/P-51D/K > MGW 11,600lb

Fw190A-8/R2 > 9822lb

True enough Milosh
but I was trying to nail down one period of the P-51's history; at the time of its introduction, it was comparable with the contemporaneous model of the Fw190

 

[Colin1]

Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate...

You're definitely not here to make friends are you?
As sweeping generalisations go, that's possibly one of the most uninformed. Mildly offensive, in an amusing way.

 

[Milosh]

True enough Milosh
but I was trying to nail down one period of the P-51's history; at the time of its introduction, it was comparable with the contemporaneous model of the Fw190

Then you should not be using the A-8 as an example then. Iirc, the correct model should be the A-5.

 

[drgondog]

quote
By the end of February 1945 JG 7 had claimed around 45 four-engine bombers and 15 fighters, but at this stage of war this success rate had no affect whatsoever on the Allied air offensive. During March JG 7 finally began to deliver larger scale attacks against the heavy bomber streams. 3 March saw 29 sorties for 8 kills claimed (one jet was lost). On 18 March III./JG 7 finally managed their biggest attack numerically thus far, some 37 Me 262s engaging a force of 1,200 American bombers and 600 fighters. This action also marked the first use of the new R4M rockets. 12 bombers and 1 fighter were claimed for the loss of 3 Me 262s.

The total numbers of aircraft shot down by JG 7 is difficult to quantify due to the loss of Luftwaffe records, but at least 136 aircraft were claimed, and research indicates as many as 420 Allied aircraft may have been claimed shot down
unquote

I welcome drgondogs comments!!!!!!!!.

Claidmore and Colin have pretty well summed up the debate points..

John you seem to launch into a lot of diverse subjects and time frames without pausing to put each of your comments into context.

Lets take the one above. First of all, with respect to JG7 in March 1945.

In the last several months of the war the LW was in fact severly outnumbered by the 8th AF alone. Having said that the sky is a very large place and the various bomb divisions were tasked to bomb targets all over eastern and southern Germany. Until the point at which the Bomb divisions (1st, 2nd and 3rd) diverged, the bomber stream was 60 to 100 miles long. At this time in the war the 8th FC would typically send one Fighter Group to sweep out in front of one of the Divisions, sometimes two while keeping two to three Fighter Groups in escort.

Broken down, there are now several concentrated formations of fighters arrayed in a proximity to the Bomb Division.

Two 50+ numbers of Mustangs sweeping 20-50 miles out in front perhaps 20-40 miles from each other, and three more Formations of 50+ covering a 20-30 mile bomber stream of one bomb division.

So a battle formation of JG7 Me 262s would seek unescorted boxes in that 20-30 mile length and attack. The bombers would call for help and 8th AF (or 15th AF) or whatever, would converge.

The Me 262 at altitude would always be in a tactical position to then continue to press the attack or speed away to fight another day.

Summary - no Luftwaffe formation attacking a bomb wing (within the Division bomber stream) ever had to engage more than one to possibly two 8th AF fighter groups - unless they stayed to fight to the finish - which they never did, trying to conserve their strength.

In other words, JG7 was likely attacking one Wing of two bomber groups - perhaps 54 B-17s or B-24s - escorted or not by one Fighter Group of 30 to 60 Mustangs (or P-47s in the case of the 56th FG in March 1945). The rest of the 8th AF combat units were way out in front or behind the action.

That is why the claims that 'we were attacking a force of 1200 bombers and 600 fighters' is analogous to saying the attack on the Battle of the Bulge was taking on the entire Allied command... a little 'overstated'.

I'll get back to you on some of your other comments.

 

[drgondog]

Friendly fire WWII - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

This is an excellent, and fact driven, discussion on Friendly Fire.

 

[drgondog]

I remember reading it years ago with reference to the battle of britain, read pilots accounts, there were bullets and planes all over the place, pilots were exhausted and scared. To protect a fellow pilot under attack from the rear frequently involved firing in the enemys (and therefore your friends) direction. Not only did pilots shoot each other down they also collided with depressing regularity.

While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.

Simple truths of the reality? Bring facts to the table before establishing either 'truth' or reality. Friendly fire losses occurred - facts in evidence abound. Frindly fire occurances with 'depressing regularity? I suppose definitions are in order. How would you establish your metric for 'regularity' in context of FF losses per sortie and how does that definition or metric relate to 'all ops losses'?

I suspect that for the strategic forces like 8th, 15th and RAF BC that mid air collisions due to formation disciplines, heavily loaded and sluggish aircraft, cloud cover and terrible weather, fog and rain - that MACs were a far higher number than Friendly Fire due to mis identification or simply bad gunnery.'

The P51 was an escort fighter without peer in WW2 because it was specifically designed to be one.

As an escort fighter with few peers depending on altitude, the Mustang was a happy accident of a very nice airframe, designed high capacity internal fuel which was mated by the RAF with maybe the outstanding in line engine of WWII. It started as a 'better than P-40' proposal from NAA when the RAF inquired of NAAwhether it could tool up to deliver more P-40s. It evolved into a fast low to medium altitude armed Recon ship, medium altitude fighter and fighter bomber (A-36).

The P-51A was roughly superior to the P-40 and P-38 and P-47 at low to medium altitudes but not superior in all comparisons with each.

The Merlin in the P-51B-1 just happened to make it the fastest of the Allied inventory at the altitudes that 8th and 12th and 15th AF were attacking Germany - and its fuel capacity and high performance at that altitude made it equivalent to better than the Me 109 and Fw 190 at those altitudes - over Germany.

That role took two years to firmly establish from first combat ops.

An escort fighter protects a fleet of bombers at approx 25000ft, climbing isnt at all important. The fighters of the Luftwaffe had to attack the bombers which required heavy armour and armament. An FW 190 attacking a fleet of bombers wasnt the same animal as was seen in France. Some people here speak of the P51 as if it could fight all over the channel across belgium and hollan and then on to berlin. A Mustang with its full load of fuel and external tanks was only just airworthy small changes to the throttle at low altitude after take off could result in a crash.

As my Brit friends would say "Rubbish" in general with some valid points scattered within.

Climbing in a dogfight, climbing to intercept a force of German fighters (say Me 109's escorting Fw 190s) was crucial, climbing back to 25,000 feet from the deck to rejoin the formations were all important. What IS true is that the 109 climbed faster, the Spit climbed faster - the latter two probably superior interceptors for short range interception.

ANY combat aircraft loaded to max gross weight is on the ragged edge of unflyable - that is why the engineers state what the max gross weight is for their airplane in perfect condition at standard pressure and temperature.

As for small changes to throttle on a Mustang take off - there was no change - it was max power, throttle to the gate, 3000 rpm. Throttles were adjusted when IAS reached 160 as the bird was manuevered into flights and squadrons then set to cimb settings following the leader.

If you were a pilot you would better understand that speed is first and altitude is second and woe be unto the unworthy that fail to keep these in mind. You DON'T reduce power on take off.

The Mustang pilots burned the aft fuse tank to move the cg forward into the design static margin and permit higher rate of turn without losing control - about 10 minutes of take off and climb would yank 30-40 gallons - enough to achieve complete stability and swith to wing drop tanks.

When the bird reached Brunswick or Nordhausen of Fridrichshafen it was very nimble.


For my tuppence worth on the P51/ spitfire/ bf109/fw190 debate. The p51 was very late in the game it was very slippery in aerodynamics but heavy (the original mustang was rushed into service).

Until the F8F and P-51H, both 1945 production airframes ALL USAAF fighter were heavy - when compared to USSR or RAF or LW.. as to being rushed into service? had nothing to do with the weight and more to do with design structural limit and ultimate load factors. Both the Bearcat and the P-51H were designed to a slightly lower G factor. Having said that, the P-51H was approximately 600 pounds lighter airframe, but a lot more horsepower in the 1650-9 than the 1650-7.

As to late in the game? It entered combat ops (Mk I/P-51A) about the same time as the P-38, before the F6F and F4U and P-47 - only four months after the US entered the war. The first production Merlin Mustang entered combat ops against the LW on December 1 1943. Certainly later than all the key LW and RAF and USSR fighters but hardly 'late' in the battle over Germany. Seven months after the P-47 started combat ops w/56th FG. The Mk I was fighting the LW before the 8th AF started combat ops by four months.

There was little use for the mustang until the USAAF got hammered on unescorted raids. The spitfire was the better air superiority fighter and gradually got the better of the 109 variants wheras the fw190 was a fantasic plane which was pretty much neck and neck with the spitfire untill the end of hostilities. In fact all these planes were at the peak of their development and jets were already being introduced...........just remember most pilots didnt see the plane that shot them down in WW2. Additionally the spitfire was never designed for absolute top speed its wings had a washout of (from memory) 1 1/2 degrees which induces drag but increases control at the limits of stall, a mustang with straight lamilar flow wings stalls with little warning. The Me 109 had automatic leading edge slats to improve turning performance but towards the end of the war many pilots didnt know how they worked and so didnt make full use of the plane thinking it was at the limit when the slats had only started to work (they made the 'plane vibrate)

Back to the 'Rubbish' thing - with certain nuggets of fact. The Mustang was superior to the P-40 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy as well as CBI - with the Allison. The USAAF was slow to accept the Mustang until the Brits proved it was an outstanding performer with great speed, range, climb, dive and pretty good turner in 1942..

The Spitfire Mk IX was indeed a better air superiority fighter from UK to Belgium..but useless in the battle of Germany. The Me 109 was an excellent fighter but woeful range in comparison and not equal to the task of defeating the P-51B/D. The Fw 190 mathed well against the Spit at low and medium altitudes - as well as the Mustang - but woefully short in air to air at 8th AF bomber altitudes

The Spit WAS designed for speed but data on laminar flow wings was marginal so they selected the large chord/thin eliptical wing. As to wash out - ALL fighters were designed with wash out to enable tip/aileron control at low speed. ALL a/c have 'induced drag' without exception. The Mustang, the Fw 190, the Me 109 and Spit in this discussion ALL had washout, only the 109 had LE slats - which did give it a boost in CL at high angles of attack - as to pilots not knowing or not making use of the LE slats - that is presumptuous at best.

Pilot skills for the bomber pilots converting to fighters anbd low time recent graduates tend to force caution in turns. That caution goes away with familiarity gained through experience.

As far as the P51 is concerned it was its mass deployment with huge formations of bombers that was the reason for its success. I read one account of 44 Me262 being sent to intercept 1200 heavy bombers escorted by 600 P51s. Germany in 1944/45 was fighting on at least 4 fronts and running out of pilots fuel and equipment. Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance.
Until the end of the war the LW skillfully manuevered its intercepting forces to attack the bomber stream that either had no escort or relatively lightly defended at the point of attack. One may not put all of 8th FC cleverly on the one box of bombers that the LW chooses to attack that day. The reason for the Mustangs defeat of the LW fighter arm is simple - it had excellent performance and firepower over the German capital and beyond - as well as superbly trained and led pilots throughout its combat operations in ETO.

I explained the practical logistics above.

As to Mustangs stalling w/o warning? not so - you can feel it in the stick and control surfaces. What does happen in a turning stall is that the bottom will drop out and generally pull you into a spin - you don't want this on the deck or any turning fight with an adversary but you are aware that you are at the limit.

 

[parsifal]

Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance. How many Sopwith camels could a eurofighter cope with before being overwhelmed?

The Russians in the last year of the war were quite successful at shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft. And I would hardly call YAK-3s, LA-9s and LA-11s Sopwith Camels.

Im not denying that the Luftwaffe shot down a lot of VVS aircraft, or even that the Lufwaffe shot down more VVS aircraft after 1942 than they lost themselves. The exchange rate was always in the Germans favour. But there are a number of statements that can be made in response to that: the losses were tolerable to the VVS, the losses and engaging the luftwaffe in air combat were secondary to supporting the ground assault. Soviet fighters were there simply to assist the sturmoviks to get in, and as a bonus, get out.

Even though engaging the luftwaffe was by 1943 a secondary role, at least to the VVS, they still managed to achieve quite decent exchange rates. I suggest you do some reading. Even though you express an aversion to intellectual analysis, this is far better than simply falling back onto emotive arguments, based on .....what????? An excellent general reference is "Stopped At Stalingrad" by Hayworth. You might also have a look at "Red Phoenix", and look at the fighting over the Kuban, to see just how much grief the VVS was giving the LW by that time. The losses over Kursk are often contested, but generally range from a VVS exchange rate of 1:1 through to about 4:1 in the LW favour. My own research suggests an exchange rate of about 2:1 in favour of the LW....which is only fractionally worse than the RAF exchange rates over France in 1941.

In the last year of the war, the Luftewaffe was largely grounded, not outnumbered. due to a lack of fuel. This lack of fuel also meant that the majority of pilots were just targets, for any of the allied flyers....Russian or Allied, because as fillers they had not received anything like proper training. As an expedient, after the fuel crisis hit in mid 1944, the Germnans, simply put only the most experienced pilots that they could. Until then, whilst the Luftwaffe was trying to maintain control over Germany (Jan-April 1944) its losses were about 6-8 times worse in fighter losses than their allied counterparts. Once they abandoned their primary mission, things did improve, but by then they were irrelevant to the outcome of the battle

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

rolls eyes and leaves the forum

Why because they countered you effectively?

 

[john brewer]

errrrrrr......who mentioned the russians? I didnt
Who compared any soviet aircraft with a sopwith camel?
what was that about intellectual argument
since the luftwaffe had no fuel how come the mustang gets the credit.

 

[john brewer]

Why because they countered you effectively?

no because they replied with nonesense I would have thought it was obvious that the luftwaffe was fighting on at least 4 fronts but some smart ass expert only knows of two

 

[john brewer]

As to Mustangs stalling w/o warning? not so - you can feel it in the stick and control surfaces. What does happen in a turning stall is that the bottom will drop out and generally pull you into a spin - you don't want this on the deck or any turning fight with an adversary but you are aware that you are at the limit.

terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

no because they replied with nonesense I would have thought it was obvious that the luftwaffe was fighting on at least 4 fronts but some smart ass expert only knows of two

Hey you need to chill out. There is only one smart ass here at the moment...

terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things

If you can't debate in an adult like manner without being a smart ass or insulting, then don't debate at all. Pretty simple if you ask me.

 

[drgondog]

terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things

John - I have 56 hours of solo and a lot of back seat/dual control time in the 51D.

I learned to fly from an ace pilot who had, at the time he was teaching me, approximately 6,000 hours of single engine time. He was widely regarded as a superb pilot by his peers.

I use this only to acquaint you with the difference between 'reading about a thing' to 'experiencing the thing in real life'.

To the LW fighter pilots that caused a Mustang to spin out, I can perhaps find five Mustang pilots that caused a 109 or 190 to spin out in a turning fight - or simply yank too hard on the stick and depart the performance envelope. Control on the ragged edge takes a lot of skill and a delicate balance between the brute force caused by adrenaline and the sensitivity required to exercise complete control.

Imagine having to hold a stick as if it was a bird in your hand rather than a rope which you are climbing.

There is a very fine line between maintaining altitude and airspeed in a constant turning fight - and losing it. Skill is more of a factor than the airframe.

You dabble in aero when you clearly know nothing of the science, you dabble in history when you lack facts and context, you dabble in performance characteristics without either the knowledge or communications skills to put whatever 'snippets' of facts you may possess in context. You have made more than a couple of simple factual errors in more than a couple of bold statements.

It is difficult to place you - are you young, lacking in the lacking in the broad knowledge to debate the persons you are arguing with - or older and more assertive based on some sense of (misplaced) intellectual superiority??

 

[john brewer]

Colin the mustang couldnt match most fighters in combat but it didnt have to it was stopping other fighters attack bombers as soon as the luftwaffe try to shoot a bomber they make themselves a sitting duck for the escort. the escort therefore restricts the luftwaffe to high speed straffing which is not very effective.
Originally Posted by john brewer
While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.


An escort fighter protects a fleet of bombers at approx 25000ft, climbing isnt at all important.
Really? Would you care to elaborate on that? The simple truth of the reality seems to have escaped me.
They have plenty of time to climb to altitude once at altitude they have the energy, once they have engaged the attacking fighters in any way they have done their job


Some people here speak of the P-51 as if it could fight all over the channel, across Belgium and Holland and then on to Berlin.
Weasel statement. Please indicate, anywhere in the forum, where anyone ACTUALLY said that.
Statements such as " the mustang can just wait for the others to run out of fuel" as if it was possible to stooge around with drop tanks and rear tank full of fuel.

A Mustang with its full load of fuel and external tanks was only just airworthy small changes to the throttle at low altitude after take off could result in a crash.
Take-off is a particularly vulnerable time for an aircraft, esp if combat-loaded. Mustangs certainly were lost during take-off, but do you have any statistical data to support a notion that its 'only just airworthiness' made it more of a liability than any other type, on either side, during the war?
It was loaded to the point that the Cof G was dangerously rearward. Later they were loaded with the auxilliary tank only part full to assist handing along with changes to the rudder.


" I don't recall the Mustang being 'rushed into service' , the Brits got roughly half of their original order as a result of Pearl Harbour and the USAAF only really started to warm to it in 1942."
Silly old me I seem to remember it was designed and flown in 100 days or similar....Obviously they were taking it easy


I don't know where to begin with this. I think you'll find there was plenty of use for the Mustang,
Like what? it was ordered as an interceptor fighter and ended as an army support/recon plane. The RAF ordered mustangs with cannon for ground attack



As regards the Spitfire vs Bf109 debate, I don't think there was a period during the war when the Spitfire was decisively better than the German fighter. Late-war tribulations for German manufacture made it difficult but the Bf109K was a clear example that the Bf109 wasn't finished by any means.
When precisely are you referring to when you say that all of these planes were at the peak of their development, because at the time of the P-51's introduction, they most certainly weren't and jets were nowhere near introduction.
The pointblank offensive resumed in early 1944 with daylight escorted raids. The Me262 appeared in April 1944 and the meteor in the July and the DH Vampire had already flown although it didnt see active service.

By 1944 the performance of all the front line single seaters was basically on a par because they were at the limit of a propellor driven fighter. The bearcat corsair tempest/sea fury and later model FW and Me109 were basically on a par with each other...most looked the same as one another.


.......just remember most pilots didnt see the plane that shot them down in WW2. Additionally the Spitfire was never designed for absolute top speed its wings had a washout of (from mebrate)
That's pretty much a string of incoherent thoughts strung together into a paragraph but I'm interested to know why you think German pilots had forgotten how their wing slats worked.
errrr they didnt they died the ones who replaced them had little training and didnt know how to get the best out of them.


As far as the P-51 is concerned it was its mass deployment with huge formations of bombers that was the reason for its success.
No it wasn't. There were several reasons, technical and tactical, the most fundamental being its range capability - the ability to put it over targets deep into Germany in the first place. Secondly, once there, it had the fighting qualities that enabled it to meet the best of the Luftwaffe on comparable terms. There was the quality of training of USAAF pilots and the soundness of tactics used to cancel any advantages held by the Luftwaffe. The .50cal allowed the P-51 to hit German fighters with a warhead big enough to cause critical damage, yet small enough to be carried in sufficient amounts to see out the mission. The P-51 generally held the initiative, it was on the side that was doing all the choosing of targets and usually met the defensive fighters at the P-51's best altitude.
A fighter attacking a bomber group was faced with 200 machine guns plus the escort....given that the escort outnumbers the attackers the initiative is with the attacking planes as in the BofB. However if the germans had sufficient planes fuel and pilots the results would have been much different. If 37 Me262s bring down 9 bombers and 1 fighter for the loss of 3 then what would happent if 200 or 300 262s were available? The fact is they wernt because by 1944 germany was already beaten and everyone except the high command knew it.

 

[Glider]

Personally I am waiting to hear how you came to the figure of 10% of all loses were blue on blue. The examples given are a fraction of the percentage of aircraft lost in combat.

I have the history of the 2nd TActical Airforce and a number of such incidents are mentioned, more than I expected but nothing like 10%. The nearest that I can come up with is the Luftwaffe sinking two of their own destroyers at the start of the war. As they only had about 22 destroyers at the time, its the best I can find but not I suspect, what you mean.

As for the assertion that some (unnamed and unquoted) german pilots saw some (again number unknown) P51's stall during a turing combat it is only expected. Pilots of all nations fighting for their lives are flying on the edge and some inevitably despite the warnings are going to overcook it and stall. If I look into it I am willing to bet that I would find examples from all nations where this happened.
I have read about an international Glider pilot in a European competition stalling when thermalling and spinning down a stack, scattering gliders in all directions as they got out of the way.

 

[john brewer]

John - I have 56 hours of solo and a lot of back seat/dual control time in the 51D.

I learned to fly from an ace pilot who had, at the time he was teaching me, approximately 6,000 hours of single engine time. He was widely regarded as a superb pilot by his peers.

I use this only to acquaint you with the difference between 'reading about a thing' to 'experiencing the thing in real life'.

To the LW fighter pilots that caused a Mustang to spin out, I can perhaps find five Mustang pilots that caused a 109 or 190 to spin out in a turning fight - or simply yank too hard on the stick and depart the performance envelope. Control on the ragged edge takes a lot of skill and a delicate balance between the brute force caused by adrenaline and the sensitivity required to exercise complete control.

Imagine having to hold a stick as if it was a bird in your hand rather than a rope which you are climbing.

There is a very fine line between maintaining altitude and airspeed in a constant turning fight - and losing it. Skill is more of a factor than the airframe.


since my first post i have been accused of insulting the pilots involved lack of knowledge etc etc etc.....read your own post and you will see that you have shown the P51 was not superior to either a 109 or a 190. Oh and BY the way Mr expert aerodynamacist what is the washout on a mustang a 109 a hurricane or a P 38?

You dabble in aero when you clearly know nothing of the science, you dabble in history when you lack facts and context, you dabble in performance characteristics without either the knowledge or communications skills to put whatever 'snippets' of facts you may possess in context. You have made more than a couple of simple factual errors in more than a couple of bold statements.

It is difficult to place you - are you young, lacking in the lacking in the broad knowledge to debate the persons you are arguing with - or older and more assertive based on some sense of (misplaced) intellectual superiority??

since my first post i have been accused of insulting the pilots involved lack of knowledge etc etc etc.....read your own post and you will see that you have shown the P51 was not superior to either a 109 or a 190. Oh and BY the way Mr expert aerodynamacist what is the washout on a mustang a 109 a hurricane or a P 38?

You are patronising in the extreme, you shift the context, demanding inane stats to prove what you already know. For example all later single seaters with approx 2000BHP were difficult on take off and landing, the mustang with full fuel was dangerously overloaded even compared to contemporaries yet I am required to provide stats.
Every account I have read of the conflicts in europe has referred to friendly fire incedents. There were literally thousands of bullets flying all over, they would drop like rain. Of the many accounts I have read there are many pilots who simply say "I was hit" with no idea of who or what hit them yet I must provide stats

The facts and the reality is that by the time the Mustang P51D was introduced Germany was already beaten it wouldnt matter how good or bad it was so long as it had the range. Similarly the tempest was superior to the luftwaffe planes it was up against but there were hardly any by late 1944/45 and few pilots who knew how to fly.