Interceptor vs Escort.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 5, 2005

Cool thanks.

Chocks away! · Aug 14, 2005

vanir said:
WRT the OP and K4 vs Mustang, I've just been watching some war footage of the allied bombing campaign prior to the introduction of P51 escorts (a fatality rate of 8+% for US bomber crews, or less than 13 mission survivability), in which 109's massed to intercept bomber flights and were followed by 110's which really carved them up with rockets.
At this time the Luftwaffe were enjoying an 8:1 kill ratio against RAF fighters that tried to cross the channel, btw.
Even so, during some missions every single Luftwaffe fighter would have as many as 540 machineguns trained on them each pass by the bombers overlapping cover zones. It is considered their effort and that of their industry to rebuild was phenominal.
But it was becoming a war of attrition and the Luftwaffe were quickly running out of experienced pilots.

When Mustangs came with the bombers, they attacked the German fighters while they were still massing, and made mince meat of pursuing 110's. This changed the bombing campaign through 1943 into one in which the allies gained total air superiority.

So by the time magnificent aircraft like the K4 made it to squadron service, you had pilots who were still pimpled and anxious about dating girls.
There were so many allied aircraft flying over Germany at this time,
"fighter bombers often had to wait in line to attack targets."
-Wings of War documentary.

I think while the Mustang's appearance can not be understated, I'd agree that its performance as a contemporary dogfighter may be somewhat a little overrated.

I think it's more a case of the bf-109 being underrated. Some authors blame the 109 for the large losses in combat while it was an ever able plane.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 14, 2005

The 109 in my opinion is very underated. It was certainly not the best fighter of WW2 but I dont think it gets the credit that it deserves.

Chocks away! · Aug 14, 2005

Agreed. It is the axis equivalent to the Spitfire. It was still competent in 1945

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 14, 2005

Yeap certainly agree. Hey since you are from Cypress what can you tell me about the Cypriat Airlines plane that crashed.

wmaxt · Aug 16, 2005

The 109 was under rated to some extent, and was easily as effective as the P-51 was under equal circumstances. The P-51 was Over rated to a large extent to.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 30, 2005

Certainly agree also.

Chocks away! · Sep 4, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yeap certainly agree. Hey since you are from Cypress what can you tell me about the Cypriat Airlines plane that crashed.

It's Cyprus It's tragic, what happened. I know a guy who lost a cousin in the crash. Well it's seems the pressurisation system failed yet for some reason the pilots were unable to do anything about it, even if they were trained to deal with such incidents. Unfortunately I don't know any more details. I'm serving in the Cypriot army and i'm missing all the news. I only found out about the floods today!

syscom3 · Sep 5, 2005

wmaxt said:
The 109 was under rated to some extent, and was easily as effective as the P-51 was under equal circumstances. The P-51 was Over rated to a large extent to.wmaxt

The P51 was faster, flew higher, and had a vastly superior range than the -109. I'd say the -109 was 2nd rate by 1945. Wasn't it Galland that said that all production of the -109's should be stopped and only -190's be built?

FLYBOYJ · Sep 5, 2005

syscom3 said:
wmaxt said:

The 109 was under rated to some extent, and was easily as effective as the P-51 was under equal circumstances. The P-51 was Over rated to a large extent to.wmaxt

Click to expand...

The P51 was faster, flew higher, and had a vastly superior range than the -109. I'd say the -109 was 2nd rate by 1945. Wasn't it Galland that said that all production of the -109's should be stopped and only -190's be built?

What model -109 are you referring to, becuase you're actually very wrong with regards to speed and altitude in the later models.....

SPECIFICATIONS P-51D
Span: 37 ft. 0 in.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 13 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 12,100 lbs. max.
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns and ten 5 in. rockets or 2,000 lbs. of bombs.
Engine: Packard built Rolls-Royce "Merlin" V-1650 of 1,695 hp.

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 437 mph.
Cruising speed: 275 mph.
Range: 1,000 miles
Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft.

ME-109K4
Dimensions Span 9.92m (32' 6.5"); Length 8.94m (29' 4"); Height 2.59m (8' 6"); Wing Area 16.165 sq. meters (174 sq. ft).
Powerplant Daimler-Benz DB 605 ASCM/DCM twelve cylinder inverted-Vee liquid cooled engine of 1156 kW (1550 HP), (1491 kW (2000 HP) with emergency power).
Armament Two 13mm MG 131 machine guns mounted above the engine cowling and one 30mm MK 108 cannon firing through the spinner.
Weights Maximum loaded 3374 kg (7438 lbs).
Performance Maximum speed 607 kph (377 mph) at sea level, 727 kph (452 mph) at 6000m (19685 ft). Initial climb rate 1470 meters/min (4823 ft/min). Climb to 5000m (16400 ft) was 3 minutes, to 10000m (32800 ft). was 6.7 minutes. Service ceiling 12500m (41000 ft). Range 587 km (365 miles), endurance 50 minutes.

the lancaster kicks ass · Sep 5, 2005

but i can see the logic in only producing -190s, the As to take on the bombers, the Ds to take on the fighters, i'd say in 44/45 that'd be their only hope, they'd still lose, but we'd have a much harder time of it..............

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 5, 2005

I agree I also would have only produced the 190A and D's however the P-51 was quite overated also. Yes it made its mark because of its range but it was not the Allied wonder aircraft and was not that much better than a later Bf-109G or K.

Anyhow this argument was discussed in another thread, go look at all the reasons there. And just like other arguments there will never be a desisive answer to confirm either the P-51 or the Bf-109.

the lancaster kicks ass · Sep 5, 2005

yes i've noticed that, we have long arguments then we never bring them to a conclusion, they just kinda fizzle out and no one wins

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 5, 2005

Yeap because there are always such good arguments for either side.

cheddar cheese · Sep 5, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
but i can see the logic in only producing -190s, the As to take on the bombers, the Ds to take on the fighters, i'd say in 44/45 that'd be their only hope, they'd still lose, but we'd have a much harder time of it..............

I agree...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 5, 2005

They should have exploited the Me-262 ealier as a fighter and not as a bomber. Even with its engine problems it could have been more effective outright as a fighter earlier. It was a bad trade off more 109s instead of 190s' The 190 was the better overall because you could produce more than the 262 and it was effective.

KraziKanuK · Sep 5, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
They should have exploited the Me-262 ealier as a fighter and not as a bomber. Even with its engine problems it could have been more effective outright as a fighter earlier. It was a bad trade off more 109s instead of 190s' The 190 was the better overall because you could produce more than the 262 and it was effective.

Adler, what FB could the Germans use that they could have successfully used instead of the 262?

109 production should have been ramped down, the slack being taken up by the Fw190C with the DB engine that was close to production in 1943. This a/c would have given just as good high altitude performance as the 109.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 5, 2005

KraziKanuK said:
Adler, what FB could the Germans use that they could have successfully used instead of the 262?

Fw-190's ofcourse.

Lunatic · Sep 6, 2005

Maximum level speed of the P-51D was actually at least 448 mph (documentable), not the 437 mph typically quoted. The 437 mph figure is MP.

The P-51D could sustain a 425 mph cruise at 30,000 feet for 870 miles! That's 35 mph faster than the maximum sustainable cruise of the 109K and several times the range at that speed.

Remember, 90% of the pilots who survived being shot down in WWII reported they never saw the attacking plane until after they were taking hits. This was the P-51's strength. Its ability to sustain high speeds for long distances, combine with its great high altitude performance, stability as a gun platform, and magnificent (British designed) computing gunsight gave it the better chance to catch the oppoenent by surprise and kill him before he could react. This more than anything else was the key to victory in WWII air combat, especially late in the war, and the P-51 was perfectly suited to this kind of combat.

Most of the numbers quoted are meaningless as at the very high combat speeds of 1944-45 the pilot was not able to withstand the turning capability of his plane anyway. And in this the P-51 pilots in their Berger G-suits had a huge edge over their German opponents who had nothing comparable.

=S=

Lunatic

FLYBOYJ · Sep 6, 2005

Bottom line - the -109K WAS faster than the -51 at a specified altitude, range, yes the -51 has it. It was easy to build and maintain, made a mediocre pilot real good and held it's own - bottom line it did it's job well but was overrated.......

Interceptor vs Escort.

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads