davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Hi,
The weight of the P51B, without droptanks and rear fuel tank, so the weight after dropping the tanks was 9300lb, thats often the weight when combat started.
Also the 109´s had in most cases close to full fuel, cause they also most had drop tanks.
Which is what I said
"In reality the P-51, when escorting, would be closer to it design fighter weight with 196 gallons of fuel since it still had to go four hundred miles home and it certainly would have racks, which would have reduced speeds by 8-12 mph. "
Equally loaded is the weight after dropping the tanks.
Which is what I was comparing. My assumption was that the Bf-109 data I was using was not carrying drop tanks or racks, which is the configuration most speed test are performed at.
The clean 109G-1, adjusted for fighter combat would have had GM-1.
I don't have any performance data on the GM-1 so I cannot compare capabilities
But if we compare datas, we should use the same for all.
Yes, that is why my comments were on the 60" Hg P-51B-3 and 62" Hg P-51B-7
"Generally speaking, when equally loaded the P-51B is faster from SL to ceiling, at most altitudes significantly so, greater than 20 mph, and at 25k and up, greater than 30 mph.
The Bf-109G1 had significant climb advantage to the mil powered P-51 up to about 20k ft where the advantage starts to shift to the P-51."
If we had detail WEP performance data for the Bf-109G, we could compare the WEP performance of the P-51B/D to the WEP performance of the Bf-109G, I don't, so I am stuck with Mil power comparison.