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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I suspect that ypu have the wrong end of the stick re lend lease. Everything was paid for in the form of cheap loans payable over decades.
 
Glider said:
I suspect that ypu have the wrong end of the stick re lend lease. Everything was paid for in the form of cheap loans payable over decades.
Click to expand...

Glider, I know that the debt for lend lease was actually only finished off fairly recently, but I also know Corsairs were pushed into the sea at the end of the Pacific war so they didnt need to be paid for.

from wiki
Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when the United States terminated Lend-Lease when the war ended on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[8] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.
 
Hello TEC
I think that US Gov didn't want those Corsairs back, USN surely would not like to have at least those Brewster built F3A-1s (Corsair IIIs) with RN mods to be stored somewhere in USA for its possible later use. All remembered the problems with surplus military equipments after WWI, USN didn't want huge storage of used non-standard planes, its wanted new a/c even if only in moderate quantities. For to keep itself at the leading edge of new technologies and also to keep its suppliers in business.

Look what happened 9th AF B-26 Marauders, they were not flown back to USA but were broken up in Europe.
 
Hello NZ
yes I know and I'm sure Parsifal also knows. As recon plane RN didn't have other good options, slow draggy bi-planes were not so good as recon planes, so as a recon/scout plane Fulmar was OK, USN used SBD Dauntless and IJN floatplanes and B5N2 Kates as their recon/scout planes. Fulmar had shorter range than those others but so had RN strike planes.

Juha
 
My father was in the RAF at the end of the war and he was in a party that had to get rid of crated Packard Merlin engines because of the lend lease terms. The engines were dumped in there crates into the Great Bitter Lake on the Suez Canal. The crates as well as an engine contained a complete set of tools which were highly prized by the RAF fitters because they were such high quality. My father and his freinds carefully opened some of the crates without breaking the seals and removed the tool kits. When they were posted back to Britain they sold most of them to local egyptian mechanics. I wonder if some back street Cairo Mechanic is still using 65 year old american tools. I still have a lend lease Crescent wrench and a set of AF taps and dies that my father passed onto me I wonder if the US government still wants the money for them.
 

And this webpage records a French fighter pilot killed on that date:

18/05/1942 S/Lt SALAUN, Jean 1 GCIII/6

Notable French pilots killed in WW2
 
The Fw 190D is described as equal to the Spitfire XIV which has distinct advantages in climb (5000+ fpm?). So it has the initiative. Shouldn't that alone make it the superior plane?
Both types are classified as interceptors.
 
By whom it was described as equal, and at what kind of altitudes? Is that D-9, or later, rare models?
 
tomo pauk said:
By whom it was described as equal, and at what kind of altitudes? Is that D-9, or later, rare models?
Click to expand...

By Eric Brown for example, Chuck Yeager who described it as the best piston engined fighter, It is noted in "First in Combat with Dora-9" among others.
Afaik the later Doras were not better climbers than the D-9 in the low and mid alt realm.
 
Spicmart - Where did Yeager describe the 190D as the "best piston engine fighter"? He never flew it in Europe. His last mission was January 14, 1945 and he and Bud Anderson rotated back to US shortly thereafter... to my knowledge he never encountered one in combat so that leaves the possibility of Wright Pat. No mention in his autobiography, so..?
 
spicmart said:
By Eric Brown for example, Chuck Yeager who described it as the best piston engined fighter, It is noted in "First in Combat with Dora-9" among others.
Afaik the later Doras were not better climbers than the D-9 in the low and mid alt realm.
Click to expand...

It is rather questionable whether Yaeger ever flew Tempest and/or Spit XIV or any US fighter with C series R-2800 on board (F4U-4, P-47M/N). Every such a fighter should eat the D-9 for breakfast, provided both pilots are aware of each other and play to their plane's strengths.
Opinions of Eric Brown are his opinions only, as arrogant as it sounds. He has a certain way to rank aircraft, the way that is not very much connected with factual data.

The rare Doras outfitted with two stage Jumo 213s were something else, however.
 
Last edited:
As for Yeager I just read it a couple of times on the net, I know it's not the most reliable of sources. Don't know too much about his vita.

And as for the D-9 could be being eaten as breakfast, this is the first time that I hear that. All other sources that I know of so far state that it was at least the equal
to any late war allied fighter in service, mainly at low and mid alt.
Actually it and the Tempest were considered to be the premier low alt fighters in the west.
The later Doras (D-12) of course were competitive at all heights, but according to an original document that listed the various versions' performance data these later Doras performed
no better than the D-9 down low.
So is it new to consider the D-9 inferior to those allied fighters mentioned?
 
Hello Folks! I'm a bit of a lurker here but thought I would chime in with a little different view / my personal observations. First, my background is as a professional pilot with almost 2700 hours in the F-15A-D. Second, the amount of technical knowledge displayed discussed here is impressive! Charts, power, speeds, variants, etc., all thoroughly "battled" and vetted.

To start I would like to speak to charts from a pilots perspective. As both a student in fighter training and later as a operational pilot in a fighter unit a pilot studies the charts of his plane as well as that of his expected adversaries. As it evolved in my case I ended up more memorizing not what another jets numbers were as much as what the differences were between the "other" jet as compared to mine (a fighter pilots aircraft baseline becames part of his / her DNA) . We studied rate radius diagrams, turn performance at a given altitude, fuel burns, etc of our aircraft as well as adversary equipment.

Also realize that charts are a snapshot in time. If the chart shows that an aircraft (at 5k, 75% fuel load, X weapons, Y motor) has an instantanious turn rate of Z, then understand that is a max performance turn and aircraft can not sustain that. Also of note is that a pilot will pass through / over a lot of charts in one fight as they (fights) are usually very dynamic and cover a large speed range.

To note as well is that the charts are usually based on a new plane, with new engines, flown by a test pilot in controlled conditions (not in the middle of a fight). Guys fighting with planes change tactics just like MMA fighters with the end goal being to "win" the engagment.

Now for some axioms of fighter flying:

Speed is life. Fights always go down hill. Lose sight, lose the fight. A kill is a kill.

1. Speed is life: Not in all situations but more often than not having more than your opponet is better than having less. Examples: When two aircraft merge 180 out (head on pass) and commence to fighting the aircraft with more speed has more options, and over time if the fight evolves into what was called a rate fight, the higher energy fighter is favored. In a fight where a bandit shows up at your 6 (at co-speed), and you commence defensive manuervering your aircraft will slow down first, allowing the offender (even if he perfectly mirrors your moves) to gain on you for the simple reason he slowed down later than you and therefor closed or decreased the distance between.

2. The fight always goes down hill: You would think with the power of modern day fighters that this wouldn't be the case (majority of the time) however it's true. Gravity and altitude can be your friend and help you maximize your performance. Fights don't level out until the floor is reached.

3. Lose sight, lose the fight: You can't manuever against or kill what you can't see. If you haven't sat in a WW2 fighter you should, their outward visibility varied greatly (P-38 for instance had two huge motors, two booms, and a large wing to look around along with all the metal "girders" in the canopy itself). The non-bubble canopy fighters were at a definite disadvantage in visually sanitizing the space around their aircraft.

4. A kill is a kill: Whether you bounce (tap is the current terminology) a guy and he ejects, crashes, whatever without you firing a shot it still counts. He was fighting you and his plane crashed, credit is yours. I think a B-25 pilot got credit for a Zero kill when the pilot flew through the "splash" of his bomb that missed the runway and landed in the water.

It is my opinion that an experienced pilot in a lesser performing plane will have better success than a lesser experienced pilot in a better performing plane. When two pilots of equal experience fight (and for the this discussion fights will mean dog fighting or as it's now called BFM - Basic Fighter Manuevers with the gun as the only weapon) the one who makes the least amount or severe mistakes will usually win.

When in any fight, whether fighting for your life when getting mugged, or in air to air combat, methodology is to bring your strengths to bear while exploiting his weakness. You are short, strong and know how to wrestle, he is tall and lanky (has reach on you), then get inside to negate his punches, and get him on the ground so you can get him into a submission hold. You turn and accelerate better, he can fly higher and faster, get him into a slow speed turning fight and stay away from him when it's otherwise.
 
Last edited:
With the above in mind here is my short synopsis on the core of the thread.

During the war there was a slow but constant improvement in the performance of fighters. Sometimes it resulted in a leap frog event, other times it didn't. Also realize that early war fighters were more point defense fighters (short ranged, very manuervable), and evolved into longer ranged, faster aircraft that in some instances didn't turn as well (that trend has continued almost to this day). The early Spits and 109's as compared to B-D Mustangs and late model 190's and it's variants (smaller lighter gave way to bigger heavier).

Also the ground rules at the start of this discussion might have alleviated some of the "groveling at the floor" that occured. And example might have been to compare the four types during different time frames, or at one certain time (which aircraft do you THINK was best and why). Or it could have been "which one would you have wanted to fly and why".

Using the comparing the types at a certain time mentality, I will nail it down to the last six months of WW2 and only the four types mentioned. I will also take the Hubble Telescope, turn it to face earth and WW2, zoom into these four aircraft types, and then zoom further in to 1 versus 1 (1 v 1) combat. If time allows I will back that out a little bit but will include my qualifiers.

1 v 1 only: Ta-152H (Remember I'm removing all other qualifiers and am assuming that it's me and him only, and that I'm a mercenary or have no allegiance to the combatants).

Pro's: Faster, higher ceiling, good armament (though not optimum for fighter on fighter), better or equal turn performance to Mustang (bit of an assumption here do to lack of actual combat reports and I didn't examine in detail all of Soren's charts), motor management much easier than contemporaries (less distraction to the pilot), flying over safe territory so jumping out left little fear of capture AND I could run myself low on gas and could land anywhere there was room.

Con's: Quality control (some were put together by slaves who had no problem sabatoging equipment), not completely tested or vetted, degraded maintenance (closing days of the war), limited fuel and of lower octane, pilots had less training and lower total time, not trained well for combat

If I were to zoom out one with the telescope and stipulate what would I have wanted to be flying in the last 6 months of the war, and it's not a pristine fight (not a pure 1 v 1) I would change to the P-51D.

Pro's: Better pilot training and in theater indoctrination, more experience before entering combat, better trained pilots, better quality control with equipment (aircraft in particular), armament (would take more "smaller" rounds over less "larger" rounds - this is a discussion all unto itself), better gun sight, tremendous visability and last but not least, way MORE of us than there are of them (when two almost equally talented / equipped groups fight, would definately want to be in the one with a serious numerical advanted)

Con's: Small speed disadvantage (as compared to the Ta-152 / Fw-190D), fighting over someone elses country, longer more tiring sorties (more opportunity to become complacent and therefor killed)

Okay, let the darts be thrown!

Biff
 
Last edited:

Hey! No fair injecting reality into our (often biased) discussions!!!
 

Well, from what I have available to me I believe that the Ta-152 also had a noticeable climb rate advantage.

The H-1 had wing tanks that could hold up to another 454L vs. the 595L that the fuselage of both held. I think this is comparable to the Mustang on internal fuel. However, the 152 could only carry one drop tank. (I can't imagine flying to Berlin, dogfighting, then going on sweeps on the return flight: I need a break after diving for just a couple hours!)

The H-1 could also use GM-1 injection in addition to MW/50.

I like the three cannon armament as well: I like the idea of having a powerful punch if you can only get off a snapshot burst. (But for FvF would prefer 3x20mm) But this is just preference.

I can see the glare off an unpainted P-51 causing problems to a LW pilot, kinda like an oncoming car at night with its brights on (just a thought).

Any idea about an acceleration comparison? The 152 has more raw power, but the P-51 has that incredible snake skin.

In a furball, the 152s can use their climb rate and ceiling advantage to get the hell out! Or at least try to.

The most important consideration, though, is who has the better beer back at base? (If upon return all I can get my hands on is Coors, I might want to get shot down!)
 
Silence,

All good points! I think the Germans were stepping up their game with the late model Fw / Ta aircraft. I also liked the fact that Kurt Tank flew what he designed. He and Leroy Grumman both did that, and I think it gave them a bit of an edge in designing aircraft that were "pilot friendly".

On the weapons caliber discussion here is the way I look at it. It's basically comes down to accuracy, or, how good of a shot one is. I couldn't fathom how many gun shots I took in the Eagle, however I do know it takes a bit of time until one gets good at gun shots without a radar lock (no lock shots) and or what we call snap shots (fleeting shots). Then once the light comes on, or the picture has been seen enough, an individuals accuracy goes way up. It also helps to learn from guys who are very good at both shooting and instructing. With the 6 x .50 cals of the Mustang a guy has many more trigger pulls and a higher rate of fire.

Here is another thing to think about. Of all the gun footage from WW2 I have seen the offender / shooter has his guns on for what I consider a long time (as compared to trigger pulls now) both in turning fights as well as against non-manuevering targets. It seems quite a few of those guys started shooting then "flew" the tracers onto the target. Takes a lot of ammo to do it that way. However, I will say that my assumption is it will be a turning fight, when once again thinking of the gun footage I've seen it's my recollection that most of those kills were against a non-turning adversary (lends credence for cannon over caliber).

Also to consider is tactics. If you think about the success enjoyed by the AVG in early model P-40's against Zero's (which outclassed them), it's about bringing your strengths to bear against your adversary without letting him do it to you. Hartmann didn't like turning fights, and only engaged if he had the advantage (that is an excellent mentality to give one the best odds to survive). He also did well when he encountered Mustangs all the while flying the Me-109.

The one thing I can't speak to is how "successful" guys were at "leaving" a fight. A successful separation is defined as one in which after accomplishing your departing maneuver you are outside the maximum range of your adversaries weapons and will stay that way (have enough of an advantage in speed and or fuel).

Cheers,

Biff
 
One think that might be considered, too, is cockpit size. German fighters weren't know for their roominess, while US fighters were. The only personal experience I've had like that is with cars. Most of mine have been economy, though I drive a Taurus now, which is quite comfortable and roomy. But, I used to have a 280Z (which I still miss) and that was a small car you almost strap on with your legs way out in front. I liked that feeling: I felt like I was part of the car and could just feel if something was off. With the Taurus, I don't get that feeling. Maybe its a kind of zen thing, but that feeling of being one with a car allowed me to try and do things with it I never would have in my other cars. I had less comfort but more confidence, if that makes sense.

Only been up in a small plane once, so I don't have a reference for flying, sadly. I don't count flight sims, and haven't really gotten into one since I had a 486 PC!

Best wishes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
783
Jerrybandit67
J
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
536
SaparotRob
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register