Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

"several Mustangs and Thunderbolts had engine failures early on."

I am not aware of R-2800 engine failures.

I know the new fuel proved very problematic for the P-51's and to a lesser extent, P-38's and Thunderbolts. There were parallel tests of the new fuel with all three aircraft and the Thunderbolt (now rated at 2,600hp) suffered the fewest issues. (overheating at 70Hg in sustained climbs was one).The Mustangs had their plugs constantly fouling and their maintenance schedules had to be significantly shortened.

Fleet Air Arm Corsairs did meet them on a couple of occasions and came out on top. Of course you can't use the results of a few sorties as definitive proof of which was better, but either way there doesn't seem to be much in it

Problems associated with the use of 150 grade fuel:
150 Grade Fuel

P-38
Spark plug leading was increased. The extent of this leading was such that plug change was required after approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than leading.

P-51
The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.

The excessive fouling of spark plugs usually exhibited itself in roughing up of engines after a couple of hours of low power cruising. Periodic bursts of high power in most cases smoothed the engine out. However, if the engine was allowed to go too long a period without being cleaned out, the accumulation of lead bromide globules successfully withstood any attempts to blow them out. In some instances, long periods of idling while waiting for take-off and a failure to use high power on take off resulted in loss of power during take-off run and in some cases caused complete cutting out with subsequent belly landing. The cases of cutting-out on take-off definitely attributed to excessive fouling were comparatively few, although numerous enough to list it as an effect of the extra lead.

As a result of several months operational use with the fuel, an SOP – designed to reduce power failures on take-off, leading troubles in flight, and other things which were causing early returns and abortive aircraft – was published. This is inclosure no. 1. Almost immediately after this section published this SOP practically all of the troubles then existing ceased, although it was necessary to change plugs after each two missions or thereabouts.

P-47
Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.

Soren said:

Drgondog,

No US fighter in the ETO could turn with the Bf-109 at low to medium altitude, the P-51 wasn't even close, and I'm sure you agree with that but I'm just stating it clearly.

I do not agree at medium to high altitudes at medium to high speed. You and I have debated it, the only air to air comparison is the post war RAF tests that none of us really have the raw data on as posted in Mike's site and it shows the 109 as inferior in turn.

I have talked to and read innumerable pilot encounters in which lowering flaps to 10 degrees enabled the 51 to out turn the 109 in 15,000 range as well as some other examples in which no advantage (or disadvantage) was experienced. Until you present a document comparing them I disagree.

Ofcourse the green Bf-109 pilots unwilling to exploit the full potential of their a/c were not very difficult targets, and unfortunately there were many of these within the LW by 1944. Bf-109 armed with gun-pods were also vulnerable and these were equipped on the majority of 109's fighting the bomber streams in 1944-45.

Sources Soren? Tony Woods OOB has as many G-6 as G-6/Rs in his lists for all the LuftReich TO&E for January -through August timeframe - where are you getting your facts?

As to the FW-190 Dora-9, well it was clearly superior in every aspect of flight compared to the P-51 Mustang at low to medium altitudes, but this superiority diminished as altitude increased, and at typical bomber altitude the P-51 was definitly fit for fight. Go further up passed 32,000 ft and the P-47 Thunderbolt was pretty much unrivalled, even being able to out-turn 109's at this alt. The Ta-152H is the only piston engined fighter of WW2 which would been able to give the P-47 a licking at very high altitudes.

Back to the old 'fact/source' problem. "Clearly superior" should have a factual reference in which roll rates at 300 and 400 at different altitudes, acceleration in equivalent combat load conformation, climb rates, dive, etc are shown in flight test tabular form - can you point these out for me?

How about below, equal or superior at different altitudes and flight profiles to be truly objective. A lot of Fw190D-9s were shot down by Mustangs

Anyway getting on topic:

The FW-190 Dora-9 would've proven a match for the F4U-4 at most altititudes, maneuverability I believe would've been roughly the same, the Dora-9 holding a slight advantage in turn rate at high speeds and a more noticable advantage in roll rate at all speeds.

Souce/facts?

The Bf-109 K-4 is superior to the F4U-4 Corsair in everything but roll rate, the K-4 being much more agile in horizontal vertical maneuvers, easily out-turning out-climbing the Corsair. The Corsair did have the advantage of better control at high speeds though, something which is VERY valuable as demonstrated by the FW-190 fighting the Spitfire over the channel.

Source/facts?

And then ofcourse there's the fact that the F4U Corsair was a multiple purpose a/c in the same way as the FW-190 but with better range, making the F4U a MUCH MUCH more versatile single engined fighter than any other fighter of WW2 really. The best Allied fighter of WW2 IMO.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree the last statement even though we are both being subjective in the evaluation.. the Fw190D series, the Tempest series and the P-47 series are certainly contenders

This is getting beyond ridiculous Bill !

Take a look at the wing loadings, power-loading, span-loading, AR, T/D, CLmax Cd0 figures for crying out loud ! The P-51 doesn't stand a chance in a turn fight against the Bf-109, and thats reality ! Use what'ever knowledge you have about aerodynamics and you should realize this as-well. You can hear it from veteran as-well as modern 109 -51 pilots as-well if you want, I can direct you.

Here's a preview: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

There! Now you've got it from two guys who fly both a/c.


And quit the after action reports at Mike's site, anything can happen in a dogfight and each pilot doesn't know what the other is doing in his own cockpit. Also Mike could've very well handpicked each every single one of those reports - hence why its a dead end with these after-action reports.

In the last debate we had Bill I presented to you my sources and they're still the same, Hermann's books on the FW-190 Ta-152 series, Willi Reschkes book "Wilde Sau" as-well as LW test pilot Hans Werner Lerches book "LuftWaffe Test Pilot". In these books are the official comparative conclusions drawn by the German fighter arm - read them please !

You want other facts ? Ok how about this; The british test pilot evaluating the Bf-109 had ZERO experience with auto LE slats and VERY little hours if any in the plane he was testing, and like we know it took time to learn to fly the 109 to the limit (Explained by countless LW aces as-well) so why should we even consider the final conclusion as even remotely valid ? Also IIRC the 109G captured by the RAF featured gun-pods. And what about using the right fuel ?? Using the wrong fuel leads to less performance, further putting into doubt the validity of the test. And the same goes for the RAF's comparative flights with their captured FW-190 Jabo, it featured an ETC-501 rack and was running on low power throughout the test, even still it managed to turn with the P-51B !

Note that in German tests the FW-190 proved no match what so ever for the Bf-109 in turning fights [kurvenkampf].

Soren said:

This is getting beyond ridiculous Bill !

Click to expand...

ah, yes you are quite right

Soren said:

This is getting beyond ridiculous Bill !

Take a look at the wing loadings, power-loading, span-loading, AR, T/D, CLmax Cd0 figures for crying out loud ! The P-51 doesn't stand a chance in a turn fight against the Bf-109, and thats reality ! Use what'ever knowledge you have about aerodynamics and you should realize this as-well. You can hear it from veteran as-well as modern 109 -51 pilots as-well if you want, I can direct you.

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? I have talked to one hell of a lot of 51 pilots who shot down one hell of a lot of 109s and 190s in turning fights - their OPINIONs were that a 51 would out turn any 109 at medium to high speed from about 15,000 feet up and the higher and faster they went the more the odds were in favor of the 51. Now its a fact that that is their OPINION.

The RAF performance evaluations, however flawed you want them to be, is the only reference to a metric comparison at different altitudes. Maybe you can dig up the Rechlin tests and see what you can find - maybe not.

Here's a preview: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

There! Now you've got it from two guys who fly both a/c.

Soren, how many 109s were shot down by 51s? in contrast with the number of 51s shot down by 109s? you seriously want to take a sample size of 2?

I can get to those numbers for a sample size of approximately 200 with respect to the 355th FG - exact match ups ranging from March 1944 through end of the war but 75% were before end of September. In that portfolio I have about 20 of the losses (of 46 air to air total of both 51 and 47) due to 109s, and of those 4 were shot down (one rammed from behind) at low altitude, 6 were shot down in diving attacks from higher altitude, 5 are 'unknown' ACM b ecause they were KIA with no witnesses, 1 in a head on attack and 4 shot down from behind w/o manuever at medium to high altitude.


And quit the after action reports at Mike's site, anything can happen in a dogfight and each pilot doesn't know what the other is doing in his own cockpit. Also Mike could've very well handpicked each every single one of those reports - hence why its a dead end with these after-action reports.

I'll agree when you can produce test results that support your conclusions?

I have nearly all the 355th Encounter Reports Soren, approximately 400, so I don't need Mike's but his duplicate the ones I have on the 355th and 4th FG. Youy choose to make it a 'dead end' because they don't reflect the reality you live in.

In the last debate we had Bill I presented to you my sources and they're still the same, Hermann's books on the FW-190 Ta-152 series, Willi Reschkes book "Wilde Sau" as-well as LW test pilot Hans Werner Lerches book "LuftWaffe Test Pilot". In these books are the official comparative conclusions drawn by the German fighter arm - read them please !

I have read them - have you read the official conclusions of the RAF and USAAF for similar testing? Did you notice that Reschkes and Lerche's opinions are opinions...that neither presented test results? and that Lerche's opinion of the 51 was that it was a very nice aircraft, very fast and manueverable and comfortable, but the he expressed NO CONCLUSIONS regarding performance versus any German fighter? Why do you toss sources out that have no relevance to the argument?

I have not read Hermann's books. Have you? Do they present metric comparisons? If not, why are you referencing them?

Since you wish to debate this on opinion rather than even empirical results of Mustang versus 109 combat results - please produce the documents that prove the following claims you make.
1. Me 109 stronger than P-51. We agree P-51 limit load is 8g and the ultimate is 12G..
2. Me 109 out turn P-51 at speeds at or above 300mph at or above 15,000 feet
3. Me 109 out dive P-51


You want other facts ? Ok how about this; The british test pilot evaluating the Bf-109 had ZERO experience with auto LE slats and VERY little hours if any in the plane he was testing, and like we know it took time to learn to fly the 109 to the limit (Explained by countless LW aces as-well) so why should we even consider the final conclusion as even remotely valid ?

Simply because the USAAF and RAF tests were run, documented and published - what can you say about your sources? And once you slither past that question let's discuss the LW pilot's experience with flying a P-51 to the limit? What sources do you have that the LW pilots flying the 51's were any better as qualified comparators?

Also IIRC the 109G captured by the RAF featured gun-pods.

Nope, the RAF Me109G that was used in the first series of tests was flown to each USAAF base in fall/winter 1943/1944. I have pics of that ship as well as the Ju 88 - no gun pods..Light.. (i.e for you that means optimal wing loading).

I think, the tests run after the war were with the 109G-10 captured in Summer 1944 - I will have to check this and do not state it as fact!

And what about using the right fuel ?? Using the wrong fuel leads to less performance, further putting into doubt the validity of the test.

Certainly for speed and acceleration but not particularly for turning comparisons - are you now suggesting that Rechlin loaded the 51 with 1550 Octane to perform their tests?


And the same goes for the RAF's comparative flights with their captured FW-190 Jabo, it featured an ETC-501 rack and was running on low power throughout the test, even still it managed to turn with the P-51B!

Note that in German tests the FW-190 proved no match what so ever for the Bf-109 in turning fights [kurvenkampf].

Then you have published reports of comparisons between 109 and Fw190? Where can we look at them?

Click to expand...

The rack was never on during the March 8, 1944 RAF Tests, the 190 had the BMW801D engine and was inferior to the P-51B in speed, dive, turn and climb(51 slightly better), but inferior in roll. The report states the DB603 would probably bring climb and speed closer to parity.

Quote from Gunther Rall when He was Kommandeur of the Luftwaffe Fighter Leader School while recovering from his May 12 wound.

" During this time I had the opportunity to fly the P-51 in two or three mock dogfights with Me109 and Fw190 fighters. This was not extensive experience and certainly I cannot claim any profound knowledge of the P-51 but what impressed me was the comfort in the cockpit, the ease of the electrical starting system, the long endurance of the aircraft and its manueverabilty in a dogfight. However the Me 109 was superior in all steep climbing turns,in which the P-51 had a tendency, when low on speed, to sanp on the outside wing." Page 120 Mustang A Documentary History - Jeffrey Ethell.

I Have Personally had this same conversation with Rall, Krupinski and Galland in 1984 (?) Fighter Aces Reunion at Tuscon that included Olds, Whisner and Goodson.

All agreed the following points -

1.) 109 a formidable opponent to the 51 in the hands of a real expert..
2.) 109 always playing catch up to try to offset performance deficiencies of the 109 versus the 51
3.) 109 'evade' manuever is a steep climbing turn
4.) 109 will out turn a 51 low and at low speeds, that 51 jocks must be very cognizant of maintaining energy against 109 at low to medium altitudes.

Soren, so far two of your references are 'subjective' opinions of notable LW pilots - one of which didn't even make the comparison you stated.

I have presented
1. Two RAF test programs with documented comparisons and opinions expressed as a result of the fighter versus fighter fly offs
2. An Opinion by a noted LW top ace (Rall) - documented and referencable- that makes no claim of 109 superiority (by a MASTER 109 Experten) except for steep climbing turns.
3. Many, many Encounter reports of diving and turning combat in which the P-51 handily out maunuevered the 109 in dive and turn.


and,

4. I can produce verifyable operations statistics of P-51s versus Me 109s in which the 51 operated at nearly 9:1 against the 109 for the 355th FG during all of its ops in WWII.

What are you going to produce in the way of facts?

Soren said:

Here's a preview: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

There! Now you've got it from two guys who fly both a/c.

Click to expand...

Ah, I get it. Two guys who never fired a shot in combat making judgements about the 109G based on flying 65 year old warbirds. Both claiming that the 109G and F out turn a Spit and grossly out turning a Mustang -

I now get why Galland requested a squadron of Spits from Goering - so he could become more equal with RAF? - he just didn't want the horrid experience of flying an airplane (the 109) with so much advantage over the Spit and do the honorable thing of fighting with equal dueling instruments?

BTW one of these 'expert witnesses' (the owner - not skip) made the claim that it was all about the leading edge slat but that he only had one hour in the 109. Guess that puts a hole in your theory about taking long hours of training to master the slats? He was obviously a guy well acquainted with the aiplane.

I guess you win Soren. How could anybody doubt the credibility of your sources?

The bgfv-109 would win cos of its nahdling and vfersatility.

LoL ! I knew you'd do everything in your power to try and deny the comments from pilots who actually fly both a/c !

As to comparisons between the 190 109, Heinrich Beauvais [Chief LW test-pilot] made it very clear that the 190 was no match what so ever for the 109 in a turn fight. There's a rechlin comparison out there which I don't have access to at the moment [not at home] which describes in detail the differences between both a/c.

Heinrich Beauvais also knew that the Spitfire was no better a turnfighter than the 109, he tested both, and he tried to contact Brown after war, Brown refused.

As to Hans Werner Lerches book, well read the comparative test between the La-5FN, 109 and 190 for crying out loud ! Again the 109 turns allot better than both.

As to Galland's famous comment that he wanted Spits, it was nothing but a simple joke - read his book !

And take a look at BoB stats Bill, the 109's shot down more Spit's Hurricanes than vice versa. So why have Spits ? Thats right, there'd be no logic in that.

And about RAF testing with their captured 190G, I think you shoul talk to Crumpp about - I'll contact him.

So Allied testing of German planes is useless because the pilots didn't have enough flight time in the 109, yet German testing of Allied types is gospel? It is even questionable that it was a La-5FN.

The comparison of a Fw190A-2 vs the 109F or G. Sure Soren. Slow speed dogfights went the way of the dodo. At high speeds, the 109 was at a disadvantage with the high control forces required by the pilot.

How many RAF bombers did the 109 shoot down? The prime objective of RAF FC was the LW bombers. The prime objective of LW fighters was to protect the LW bombers. Makes sense that the 109 would shoot down more RAF fighters but the RAF fighters shot down more LW planes.

AL Schlageter said:

So Allied testing of German planes is useless because the pilots didn't have enough flight time in the 109, yet German testing of Allied types is gospel? It is even questionable that it was a La-5FN.

Click to expand...

LoL ! No it is not questionable, it was a La-5FN. Read the book!

The comparison of a Fw190A-2 vs the 109F or G. Sure Soren. Slow speed dogfights went the way of the dodo.

Click to expand...

Nope thats not it, what you're talking about one can get a hold of here:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Startseite

At high speeds, the 109 was at a disadvantage with the high control forces required by the pilot.

Click to expand...

In the roll yeah, but not in pitch. Its about what the pilot is used to, again something which has been explained countless times by LW aces. You can't just go fly a completely new aircraft and then take it to its full capabilities, you need hours in the type to be able to do that.

How many RAF bombers did the 109 shoot down? The prime objective of RAF FC was the LW bombers. The prime objective of LW fighters was to protect the LW bombers. Makes sense that the 109 would shoot down more RAF fighters but the RAF fighters shot down more LW planes.

Click to expand...

You really think so ?! Could that perhaps be why so many LW fighters got shot down by the escorting Mustangs as-well then? Yes!

Soren said:

LoL ! I knew you'd do everything in your power to try and deny the comments from pilots who actually fly both a/c !

My father flew both also and he flew the 'fresh' twin seat Me109 for several flights including mock fights - maybe the same amount of time init as Rall had in 51. His comments were the same as Rall except he amplified two area - steep climbing turn the 51 could not match skill being equal. turn at low altitudes (5,000 ft in this case) and the 109G would out turn the 51.. that was ALL of the performance advantage he could find.

For the record I am not denying the comments made by your UTube expert witnesses - I reject their judgment for the reason I have stated but they are entitled to their opinions, same as Rall, Marshall, Soren, etc

As to comparisons between the 190 109, Heinrich Beauvais [Chief LW test-pilot] made it very clear that the 190 was no match what so ever for the 109 in a turn fight. There's a rechlin comparison out there which I don't have access to at the moment [not at home] which describes in detail the differences between both a/c.

Surely it has the same discussion regarding the 51 since that was of so much interest by LW?

Heinrich Beauvais also knew that the Spitfire was no better a turnfighter than the 109, he tested both, and he tried to contact Brown after war, Brown refused.

Ditto for 109 and 190 vs Spit? Why is it that the RAF was thoughtful enough and interested enough to fly and document the comparisons in a test pilot like series of profiles and the smarter, more methodical German engineers did not?

As to Hans Werner Lerches book, well read the comparative test between the La-5FN, 109 and 190 for crying out loud ! Again the 109 turns allot better than both.

LOL. You made the bold claim that Lerches book had definitive statements about P-51 vs Me 109 flight performance characteristics - which it did not - and I pointed out that once again you pull sources from a dark place that are not what you say they are. I believe the topic of interest between us is the 51 vs the 109 NOT the La5 vs the 109? or did I miss something once again

As to Galland's famous comment that he wanted Spits, it was nothing but a simple joke - read his book !

I have read all of his books Soren. Yes I know it was a joke but it had an unjoking element to it. He greatly respected the Spit, knew his 109E was better in dive and could accelerate faster and could fly inverted against the Spit 1 but he was under no illusions on climb and turn.

And about RAF testing with their captured 190G, I think you shoul talk to Crumpp about - I'll contact him.

Click to expand...

I respect Crump's opinion but I would ask of him the same references I ask of you as I would expect him to do if I make some claim of my own. I would also ask what his opinion is of the best example of Me109 turn performance (suspecting 109F) and ask how the turn performance degraded as the 109G and K series came into play with weight increases.

As it stands today - only two series of flight tests that document performance comparisons between the 51 and the 109 are on the table - both done by RAF during and shortly after WWII. Both accomplished by professional pilots, albeit with whatever political agenda...

You have yet to produce another such test or series of tests by GAF as any form of counter, or tests performed by any other organization. I suspect the USSR did a thorough and professional job but I personally have not seen the results.

drgondog said:

I respect Crump's opinion but I would ask of him the same references I ask of you as I would expect him to do if I make some claim of my own. I would also ask what his opinion is of the best example of Me109 turn performance (suspecting 109F) and ask how the turn performance degraded as the 109G and K series came into play with weight increases.

Click to expand...

How the turn performance degraded as the P-51D replaced the B series (the 109G tests were vs. a Mustang III, ie. B version) came into play with weight increases, and practically no increase in power? What was the weight increase between the two aircraft?

Even between the 109F4 and K-4, we talk about 16% increase in weight, but some 50% increase in power to compensate it.

As it stands today - only two series of flight tests that document performance comparisons between the 51 and the 109 are on the table - both done by RAF during and shortly after WWII. Both accomplished by professional pilots, albeit with whatever political agenda...

Click to expand...

Hmm, none of these tests actually tell what power rating the German aircraft is using, what speed or altitude they refer to when they make their statements. At what altitude was the turnining comparison performed, with what power? How many hours the pilot had in the 109? Without these data, the results are just as useless to us as they were to combat pilots in WW2.

As for the 109Gs the 'light one' you refer to was captured in the Desert in late 1942, it`s propeller had a splinter mark on it, the thermostat constantly malfunctioned - to cut it short, it was in poor state. The Germans left it behind because it wasn`t airworthty after combat with a P-40. (It`s Black Six btw). How many hours do you think it had in the engine by the comparison trials.. ? How many before it was captured?

The other example being a gondie G-6 from a Nachtjagd unit. So unless you want to tell me a battle-damaged tropical Gustav flown by pilots with little experience with it, and a gondola armed nightfighter is representative to the LW opposition they had over the Reich...

You have yet to produce another such test or series of tests by GAF as any form of counter, or tests performed by any other organization. I suspect the USSR did a thorough and professional job but I personally have not seen the results.

Click to expand...

The Russians have performed turn tests with captured 109G-2 (in excellent condition, appearantly), measuring the turn time as 20 secs for 360 degree. They also tested Allison P-51s, which had 23 secs for the same.
Figures for 1000 meter altitude.

Basically, nothing in the physics world would support why the Mustang would be able to outturn the 109 - You have a lightweight fighter with as much or even more power available to it, with on of the most benign stall characteristics of the war vs. a heavier one with no aces up the sleeve to speak of - unless we speak of an earlier model 109G against the new P-51s. The P-51s contemporary was however, the G-6/AS and later models. I am sure a 109K would look extremely mean if compared to an Allison Mustang, too. That doesn`t rule out they didn`t met and had one-sided fights.

Exactly Kurfürst.


Bill,

I am only going to respond to the below in your post, the rest of your post is just you going in circles.

You made the bold claim that Lerches book had definitive statements about P-51 vs Me 109 flight performance characteristics

Click to expand...

Wrong ! I made no such claim what so ever ! I mentioned some of the sources I used as reference for my comparison between the P-47, P-51, FW-190, F4U-4 Bf-109.

I suspect the major factor in the general debate over which was the better fighter in a one to one duel, P51 or 109 had more to do with the speed, not the height. Most things that I have read say the 109 was better at slower speeds.

Please note I said better in a one to one, not which would outurn the other.

So how does the aeroplane (109) compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. 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, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Kurfürst said:

How the turn performance degraded as the P-51D replaced the B series (the 109G tests were vs. a Mustang III, ie. B version) came into play with weight increases, and practically no increase in power? What was the weight increase between the two aircraft?

Thoughtful questions - here is what I know and what I believe to be true

The Mustang III in the Test was the 8 March 1944 Test and a.) did not have the aileron seals that were first incorporated in the P51B-10, and b.) did have the 1650-3 Engine that not only had slightly less horsepower than the -7 at War Emergency settings (1600@67" vs 1720@67" but also less power at war emergency high blower at 23,000 (1330@67" vs 1505@19,300ft). Having said this the -3 had MORE hp at 25,800 feet [

The aileron seals significantly reduced control forces in turns and were incorporated in all D and H models. The power settings for the -7 were better than the -3 from SL to approximately 23,000 feet - thereafter the -3 was superior to the -7

Net the P-51D had a 7 1/2 percent increase in power with 110 fuel (the 150 added significan power and boost to this equation) with less than 3% increase in Gross and approx 8% weight over empty weight from B to D version.

I am still researching the wing of the D but believe there was a slight increase in thickness of the NACA airfoil to accomodate the upright guns. This is not yet established fact on my part. I KNOW the first laminar flow dimensions for P-51A were 15% thickness at CL Root Chord/11.4% at the tip I KNOW the D was 16.5%/11.5% respectively - but I don't know whether the B wing was A or B/C/D same except leading edge at fuselage.

The third wild card in this discussion is the combination low drag in the overall airframe combined with incremental thrust obtained by the unique radiator design expelling hot air via the duct.

Hmm, none of these tests actually tell what power rating the German aircraft is using, what speed or altitude they refer to when they make their statements. At what altitude was the turnining comparison performed, with what power? How many hours the pilot had in the 109? Without these data, the results are just as useless to us as they were to combat pilots in WW2.

I definitely agree.... but the alternative to the conclusions is yet another un-produced set of compariative date to refute the conclusions?

As for the 109Gs the 'light one' you refer to was captured in the Desert in late 1942, it`s propeller had a splinter mark on it, the thermostat constantly malfunctioned - to cut it short, it was in poor state. The Germans left it behind because it wasn`t airworthty after combat with a P-40. (It`s Black Six btw). How many hours do you think it had in the engine by the comparison trials.. ? How many before it was captured?

I suspect without proof that many parts, including engines may have been obtained from different sources - no proof by the way but there were quite a few 109s down in USSR, Africa, Italy, UK and being flown by Swiss. I Speculate that spares could be obtained and doubt there was any fuel issue or spark plugs etc deficiency to perform tests with a relaiable engine?

The other example being a gondie G-6 from a Nachtjagd unit. So unless you want to tell me a battle-damaged tropical Gustav flown by pilots with little experience with it, and a gondola armed nightfighter is representative to the LW opposition they had over the Reich...

What was the G-10 flown to UK in June/July timeframe? And, R6 with Gondola are kits aren't they? Should be easy enough to take off.

The Russians have performed turn tests with captured 109G-2 (in excellent condition, appearantly), measuring the turn time as 20 secs for 360 degree. They also tested Allison P-51s, which had 23 secs for the same.
Figures for 1000 meter altitude.


K- you will note that I have NEVER disputed better one on one performance in favor of 109 over P-51 at SL up to approximately 15,000 feet. Having said that, the P-51A should turn better, most aerodynamics being better than D and 800 pounds lighter

Basically, nothing in the physics world would support why the Mustang would be able to outturn the 109 - You have a lightweight fighter with as much or even more power available to it, with on of the most benign stall characteristics of the war vs. a heavier one with no aces up the sleeve to speak of - unless we speak of an earlier model 109G against the new P-51s. The P-51s contemporary was however, the G-6/AS and later models. I am sure a 109K would look extremely mean if compared to an Allison Mustang, too. That doesn`t rule out they didn`t met and had one-sided fights.

Click to expand...

Well if my figures are right for the 109G-6 it had a wing area of 16.02 M>2=172.44 feet>2 (?), an empty weight of 5908 pounds and gross of 7054 which would yield Wing loadings of 34.26 (empty) and 45.85 (max) versus the P-51D of 32.38 empty and 49.2 (max). The weight of a 51 over Berlin would be closer to 9600 for a max WL of 40.7 and less on the way back

The WL, while important, aren't by themselves the only factor, and the WL of a -14 and the K-4 were less than the G-6 empty and higher loaded... so some physics may lead you to look at the 51 having drained a lot of fuel and a 109 the same condition - then look at control forces between the two at high and medium speeds and altitudes to see a probable favorable condition for the 51 in that arena? (>15,000-20,000) but less than 32,000 in case of G-14?

At the end of the day one can judge based on personal anecdotes, published tests, ratios in combat, etc. but the questions of tests still lends more weight if they are fair.

I submit that the Brits weren't trying to put a snow job on their bosses if they found serious deficiencies in the Mustang vs Fw190 0r me 109?

Soren said:

Exactly Kurfürst.


Bill,

I am only going to respond to the below in your post, the rest of your post is just you going in circles.

You can't and won't respond to any request for documentation on your statements/claims of fact. Chris and others have nailed your hide to the wall on this idiosyncracy of your debate style...

Try to remeber that quotes from a book, and reference tables and reports from expert sources - that are available to your audience, are at least two acceptable sources for consideration by all

You duck and hide when confronted to prove your 'interesting and unequivocal statements - just like this evasion



Wrong ! I made no such claim what so ever ! I mentioned some of the sources I used as reference for my comparison between the P-47, P-51, FW-190, F4U-4 Bf-109.

Click to expand...

Soren - you said THIS.

In the last debate we had Bill I presented to you my sources and they're still the same, Hermann's books on the FW-190 Ta-152 series, Willi Reschkes book "Wilde Sau" as-well as LW test pilot Hans Werner Lerches book "LuftWaffe Test Pilot". In these books are the official comparative conclusions drawn by the German fighter arm - read them please !


What may I ask are we to infer from this specific comment you wrote yesterday at 3:20pm forum time? There is NO "official comparative conclusions" drawn about the P-51 and the Fw 190 or Me 109 in any of them - nor can I see anything other than anecdotal comments by Lerches. Perhaps you can?

Again wrong Bill - read Hermann's book on the FW-190 longnose. There's a comparison there.

Soren said:

Again wrong Bill - read Hermann's book on the FW-190 longnose. There's a comparison there.

Click to expand...

Soren - can you stay focused on the debate of turn performance (high, medium and low) between a Me109 and P-51?

Getting you to answer definitively a request for documentation on THIS subject - to refute two other RAF sources - has been impossible. Cornering you on a subject you are emotional about is like corralling cats.

Let me spell it out S L O W L Y.

F I N D a Luftwaffe Report (or Soviet) report that displays the metrics you claim regarding 'clear superiority of a Me 109 in turn over a P-51 Mustang'

You keep claiming it, you find all the excuses in the world why the RAF tests aren't valid. You claim the references you posted were the definitve Luftwaffe comparisons - but none of them support your thesis, your claim, your position.

P R E S E N T the document so all of may learn another point of view on this subject other than the RAF reports and the many, many, Encounter Reports of the winners.

It is OK to express your OPINION on the subject, but quit claiming them as FACTS absent facts and sources.