Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"around the hundreds of km long bomber stream", surely not for US daylight bombing in close combat formation, maybe for BC night bombing.
cimmex
Tante Ju - given that the wing loadings, the gross weight for common load out and the power loadings for the P-40 and P-51A were nearly identical - a result like that can only be that one airframe/engine (the P-51A) was not at some mfr standard...or one pilot was far superior to the other. particularly when the P-51A drag was approximatly 70% of the P-40.I kinda doubt that given the Soviets measured about 18 secs for their P-40s and about 23 secs for their Allison Mustangs (from memory)...
Hi Drgondog,
Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.
If you 'do the math', the LW can easily place 200 fighters on one or two boxes and expect to run into zero or at most two Fighter Groups IF the LW makes first contract and MAINTAINS contact. In that example, specifically Munich on April 24, the LW put 225 fighters between Ulm, Augsburg, Erding, Munich, Oberphaffenhofen and Landsberg - covered by the 355th and 357th only. 98 Mustangs against 225 is not a very bad ration for the LW. This example is NOT unique.
Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.
You've alluded to a problem with the maths in your own post. The Luftwaffe may well have put up 200+ fighters in a fairly limited area to oppose this raid but what is important is how many actually engaged the americans. This number was often rather low. This is what gave the Luftwaffe pilots who did press home attacks against escorted formations the impression that they were out numbered. Many Luftwaffe units were distinctly wary of,or downright unwilling,to attack bomber formations when the presence of escort fighters had been established. Those that did may well comprise the "experten" whom you suggest were engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cheers
Steve
Hi Drgondog,
Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.
Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.
How many flew both airplanes Greg - at a time when the USAAF didn't restrict the flying.
My father, Billy Hovde, John (Moon) Elder, Bud Fortier and Jim Duffy - all air aces - flew the Fw 190D-9, the two seat Me 109G-10(?) and two seater Fw 190 and the 109K in rat races against the 51B and D, when my father was Group CO of the 355th at Gablingen during the occupation - and had access to LW mechanics to keep the a/c in good shape. I have not only expressed the opinions based on historical narratives from both sides but also from those that flew both top line US fighters against top line LW fighters and vice versa.
Having said that my father had only approximately 50 hours flight time combined in the 190D and the 109(s).
Kit carson also had the same opportunity and wrote about it. Al White, also of 355th FG and future NAA Test pilot was there and participated.
What I passed on was what was passed on to me. Take what you want and leave the rest.
So, go back to your 20 and see how many flew both and to what degree? Come back and report what you hear from those that flew both.
Interestingly, Bill's father was a P-51 pilot in WW2, and owned a P-51 after the war. Bill also has time flying the P-51 as well. He also has spoken to the aces and other pilots from his fathers squandron, and still maintains contact with the surviving ones today. I would not be so quick to dismiss him.
Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above
jim said:And since , the last years , continiously the claims and the memoirs of the german pilots are questioned as unreliable, why the researchres with acces toi them dont ask them directly to give explanations? They deserve at least a chance to "apologise"
Reschke is heavily attacked even at this forum. Why dont you ask him directly to give his opinion. Schack, i believe is still alive. He also is heavily attacked. I dont know if rudorffer is still alive,and anyway he was never accesible, but would be most interesting to ask him
The air battles of 1944 were very complicated . Many factors affected the final result. The arguments above ,in my opinion, are selective and result of simplifications.
Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above
And since , the last years , continiously the claims and the memoirs of the german pilots are questioned as unreliable, why the researchres with acces toi them dont ask them directly to give explanations? They deserve at least a chance to "apologise"
Reschke is heavily attacked even at this forum. Why dont you ask him directly to give his opinion. Schack, i believe is still alive. He also is heavily attacked. I dont know if rudorffer is still alive,and anyway he was never accesible, but would be most interesting to ask him
The air battles of 1944 were very complicated . Many factors affected the final result. The arguments above ,in my opinion, are selective and result of simplifications.
Bill Hovde's P-51D "Ole VIII" - Littlefriends.co.uk
"Ole VI" - Littlefriends.co.uk
Gotta be an interesting story about the Cyrillic inscription...
Maj Norman J "Bud" Fortier - Littlefriends.co.uk
Fortier P-51D - Littlefriends.co.uk
Capt. James E. Duffy Jnr. - Littlefriends.co.uk
Duffy, Dragon Wagon and Yank - Littlefriends.co.uk
Dragon Wagon - Littlefriends.co.uk
The two seat 109 was the G-12
1943 to 1945 production.
2,970 x P-38J
3,923 x P-38L
4,632 x P-40N.
lol...this is one of those instances where drag from the components is not only acceptable, but actually enhances the frame design...a nessecary condition, really!Thanks Dave - I wish you would change your Avatar - it always makes me think of drag components liket turrets, etc..what the aeros call protubance drag..Oh wait! I didn't realize they were drinking beer..
Wonderful "Thangs".
Bill
His opinions of the early models were high but his dislike of the late Gustav onwards were very evident.
A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?
N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in "ideal" aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.
A.S. Yes, but we also determine the tactical and technical characteristics of our aircraft in ideal conditions. So let's attempt to approach this phenomenon from another perspective. What kind of actual speed (by instrument) did German fighters attain in aerial combat?
N.G. The Bf-109E—from 450 to 500 kmh [270—300 mph]. The Bf-109F: 500—550 kmh [300—330 mph]. The Bf-109G was equal to the F in speed or perhaps just a bit faster. The superiority of the G over the F was in armament, not speed.
The FW-190 reached speeds of 470—550 kmh [280—330 mph]. All of these aircraft approached speeds 30 kph greater in a dive.
You know, we didn't pay particular attention to our instruments during an aerial engagement. It was obvious without looking that your own aircraft was lagging behind in speed or it wasn't. Therefore I can affirm that the Airacobra, Yak, and La [Lavochkin] were not surpassed by the German fighters in speed.
A.S. What can I say? Can we agree that the speeds you have indicated to me are somewhat lower than those listed in reference works?
N.G. What have we been talking about? You must understand that you have been making the same mistake as do all people who have no connection with combat aviation. You are confusing two concepts: maximum speed and combat speed. Maximum speed is attained under ideal conditions: horizontal flight, strict maintenance of altitude, calculated engine revolutions, and so on.
Combat speed is a range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop for the conduct of active maneuver aerial battle, and at which all forms of maneuver attendant to that battle can be executed.
When I speak to you about speed, I have in mind namely the combat speed at which I conducted battle. To me maximum speed is neither here nor there.