Gold-Clash

[Soren]

Bf-109G-10 vs P-51D

Bf-109G-10 Statistics:

Engine: DB-605G.
Power: 1800 HP.
Max. Speed: 698 km/h (434mph).
Empty Weight: 2300 kg.
Loaded Weight: 2776 kg.
Max. Weight: 3275 kg.
Wing-area: 16.4 sq.m.
Armament: 2x 13mm (MG 131) 1x 30mm (MK 108).

Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 169.2 kg/sq.m.
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.0.
Airfoil: NACA 2R1 14.2 - 2R1 11.35.

Additional features:

Automatic-Slats Flettner-Tabs.

P-51D Statistics:

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.
Power: 1650+ HP.
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Empty Weight: 3175 kg.
Loaded Weight: 4263 kg.
Max. Weight: 5487 kg.
Wing Area: 21.83 sq.m.
Armament: 6x M2 Browning .50 cal.

Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 195.2 kg/sq.m.
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.8.
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 (14.8% or 15%) - NAA/NACA 45-100 ( 12%).

Additional features:

Tear-shaped cockpit Laminar wing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If both pilots are equal, then wich one would you bet your money on in a dogfight between the two ?

Or wich one do you think is better at what ?

 

[mosquitoman]

Turning dogfight and I'll take the 109, any other situation and I'll take the Mustang

 

[Glider]

OK to start this off I would have to plump for the P51 in a fighter to fighter combat. Its handling characteristics were better which would mean that the average pilot would get the best out of the plane.
Its a cleaner aircraft which would accelerate faster and the armament whilst light is sufficient to deal with a fighter. The 109 was past the peak of its development and visibility isn't nearly as good. At high speed the controls were I believe very heavy but this eased with height.
Let battle commence

Note - If it was a question which would you prefer to attack a B17 or B24 in, then it would be the 109.

 

[Soren]

OK to start this off I would have to plump for the P51 in a fighter to fighter combat. Its handling characteristics were better which would mean that the average pilot would get the best out of the plane.
Its a cleaner aircraft which would accelerate faster and the armament whilst light is sufficient to deal with a fighter. The 109 was past the peak of its development and visibility isn't nearly as good. At high speed the controls were I believe very heavy but this eased with height.
Let battle commence

Note - If it was a question which would you prefer to attack a B17 or B24 in, then it would be the 109.

The Bf-109G-10 didnt have heavy controls at high speeds, only at VERY high speeds of over 750 km/h, at wich speed the P-51 had equally heavy controls.

The 109 G-10 would outturn the P-51 with ease, and the rolling caracteristics of the two is about the same. Also the 109 will accelerate and climb MUCH faster than the P-51, making the 109 a better Dogfighter.

However the 109 had triggy handling, and the Slats would make young unexperienced pilots nervous when deploying, making them back off their maneuver. However the 109 had very gentle stall caracteristics and a better turn performance because of the slats, and the pilots who knew the plane would draw benefit from this. The P-51 had some very nasty spin caracteristics btw !

In the dive however the P-51 is undoubtedly the better of the two, and its allround visibility is better aswell.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

I think the P-51 had a better armament too. It would be difficult to connect with that single, slow firing, low velocity 30mm gun in a dogfight. It's really a gun meant for short range against large, slow targets that don't manuever too much. The G-10 only had two other useful guns.

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html

 

[Soren]

I think the P-51 had a better armament too. It would be difficult to connect with that single, slow firing, low velocity 30mm gun in a dogfight. It's really a gun meant for short range against large, slow targets that don't manuever too much. The G-10 only had two other useful guns.

I will agree that the P-51 had better Fighter vs Fighter armament, but I will not agree that it was difficult to hit with the 30mm Mk108. It would take nomore than ½ sec for the Mk108's rounds to reach 300m, at wich time an enemy fighter wouldnt be able to evade at all, also I will add that it was actually a very accurate cannon.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

One 30mm gun firing only 600 rounds per minute with very slow velocity against a twisting, turning foe? And the machine guns have a radically different trajectory making the two guns unsuited for use together in this match.

Assuming a muzzle velocity of 540mps (1,770 fps) it would take longer than 1/2 second to reach 300m. The velocity begins to drop off sharply immediately after the projectile ceases to be acted upon by the expanding gasses as it leaves the barrel.

Just as a reference point, we have all seen gun camera footage of .50BMG rounds streaking towards a target. Those rounds leave the barrel at 2,850fps. and have excellent velocity retention compared with any other round. Deflection shooting is difficult enough with the .50BMG.

I disagree with you. The G-10 is a wonderful aircraft but it is outfitted for a very different role than the P-51 whose armament, six .50's firing at a combined 4,500rpm, is perfectly suited to tearing up little, lightly constructed Me-109's.

 

[Jank]

I'll grant you that. I've seen plenty of film and even with 6 fifty calber machine guns it can be hard to get hits if your enemy has seen you befor you get nto position.

 

[delcyros]

Factoring engine power and weight, the Bf-109 G-10 clearly beats the Mustang in acceleration (with ease), climb rate and powerload (+it has a lower wingload), indicating some important advantages in one-on one engagements. The Mustang on the other side has an advantage in initial energy thanks to it´s higher cruise speed. So it depends on the situation, I think. A usual climbing Bf-109 intercepted by a Mustang at cruise mode lacks much energy to deal with it (this would have been a probable situation in 1944). However, I think the Mustang can do better than this with higher grade fuel plus it has the advantage of a better armement for such dogfights (but be aware, Mustang pilot, make sure you don´t get hit by one of those 30 mm!). It should be also mentioned that the Bf-109 G-10 fielded in late 1944 was commonly not in this clean fighter configuration but fitted with different field conversion kits, which would decrease it´s performance considerably.
The laminar flow profile wing of the Mustang is a two shaped knive, at high speeds, it reduces drag and therefore allows a higher top speed as well as generally less fuel consumption, but at low speeds it will prone to stall the plane at comparably high speeds and low angle´s of attack. The Wing of the Bf-109 G-10 will stall at much lower speed/angle of attack, thanks to it´s profile as well as the automatic leading edge slats. This is a great advantage at low speeds or prolonged turnings. I would rate the energy keeping qualities of both planes about equal (Mustang has better aerodynamic quality and Bf-109 G-10 a better powerload), but I might be wrong with this.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Close to call. I thnk the Mustang would just edge it.

 

[Soren]

One 30mm gun firing only 600 rounds per minute with very slow velocity against a twisting, turning foe? And the machine guns have a radically different trajectory making the two guns unsuited for use together in this match.

Assuming a muzzle velocity of 540mps (1,770 fps) it would take longer than 1/2 second to reach 300m. The velocity begins to drop off sharply immediately after the projectile ceases to be acted upon by the expanding gasses as it leaves the barrel.

Just as a reference point, we have all seen gun camera footage of .50BMG rounds streaking towards a target. Those rounds leave the barrel at 2,850fps. and have excellent velocity retention compared with any other round. Deflection shooting is difficult enough with the .50BMG.

I disagree with you. The G-10 is a wonderful aircraft but it is outfitted for a very different role than the P-51 whose armament, six .50's firing at a combined 4,500rpm, is perfectly suited to tearing up little, lightly constructed Me-109's.

Again I say; "I agree that the 6x .50's was a better fighter vs fighter armament !" However your making too much out of the Mk108's low V0, and in reality it wasnt that big a problem at all, and the LW pilots found this armament very effective against fighters aswell. (E. Hartmann actually preferred this armament against fighters to any other)

However, I think the Mustang can do better than this with higher grade fuel

And so would the 109, and by a huge margin infact !

The Mustang used much better grade fuel than the 109G-10, the DB-605G used 87 octane fuel and yet it produced 1800 HP ! Try putting some 100 octane(150 Grade) fuel in the DB-605 and see what happens

The Wing of the Bf-109 G-10 will stall at much lower speed/angle of attack, thanks to it´s profile as well as the automatic leading edge slats. This is a great advantage at low speeds or prolonged turnings

Not that your wrong about anything here, I just would like to add;

The slats would pop out at high speed turns aswell, the AoA just had to be sufficient, thus tightening the turn even further.

British test-pilots would almost shit their pants whenever turning the 109 at high or low speed because of the slats suddenly popping out with a loud BANG, making the Brit pilot think (Hell no !!) thus backing off the turn/maneuver intirely. Like a British test quotes: "The 109 was embarrased by its slats popping out near the stall" This explains the poor British test-results with the 109 in turning circles, as the test-pilot simply didnt want to push the plane anymore as soon as the slats popped out, wich in reality was only a booster to turn-performance and aileron-effectiveness at sufficient AoA at all speeds.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

[The Mustang used much better grade fuel than the 109G-10, the DB-605G used 87 octane fuel and yet it produced 1800 HP ! Try putting some 100 octane(150 Grade) fuel in the DB-605 and see what happens

I think you might have gotten about 200 HP more out of the engine provided it didn't start detonating since it was designed for octanes between 87 and 96.

Here are two good sites, if you haven't seen them already.

http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html

http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm#basicaspects

 

[Soren]

I think you might have gotten about 200 HP more out of the engine provided it didn't start detonating since it was designed for octanes between 87 and 96.

You can be very sure it wouldnt detonate !

Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell.

Here are two good sites, if you haven't seen them already.

http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html

http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm#basicaspects

Already read the last one, but yes they are both good sites.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell

I agree, but I would think eventually you would be burning holes in the pistons.

 

[Soren]

Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell

I agree, but I would think eventually you would be burning holes in the pistons.

No no no ! They were perfectly capable of handling 100 octane 150 grade fuel. However I understand your thought, as its a rather steep increase in octane and fuel-grade.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell

I agree, but I would think eventually you would be burning holes in the pistons.

No no no ! They were perfectly capable of handling 100 octane 150 grade fuel. However I understand your thought, as its a rather steep increase in octane and fuel-grade.

Well with that aside, and the data from thise sites, I think we know which engine wins on power!

 

[Soren]

Well with that aside, and the data from thise sites, I think we know which engine wins on power!

Definitely !

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well with that aside, and the data from thise sites, I think we know which engine wins on power!

Definitely !

 

[wmaxt]

Higher Octane reduces the tendency of a fuel to detonate. Higher grade fuel will not hurt an engine and Might produce more power but not always especialy if nothing else changes. Often it will alow the same power with better fuel efficency. Generaly it will allow more boost and that will produce more power.

I have a Super Charged T-bird and better fuel helped both. The same can be expected from a Super Charged aircraft engine.

wmaxt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Higher Octane reduces the tendency of a fuel to detonate.

Not always, I would agree if we were talking about a high comperssion engine, 10/12 to 1 compression ratios or large piston engines (radials). The Merlin and Damlier Benz were talking about aircraft engines were talking about carried about a 7 to 1 compression ratio, if that. Putting a super high octane fuel in in these engines there under certain conditions would be like lighting a cherry bomb on every power stroke. I think about 100 octane is as high you would want to risk without doing damage after a period of time, although I know that up to 130 octane (purple) was run in P-51s.

Also, you can't compare an automotive turobcharged engine in this matter. Automotive engines are designed to be run at varible RPM and operate at a constant atmosperic ambient temperature. Aircraft engines are designed to carry a relitively constant high RPM at higher operating temps.