Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P-47 D: Empty: 10,605 lbs; Loaded: 17,411 lbs; Engine: 2,500 HP; Wing Area: 300.3 sq. ft.; Power Loading: 7.0 lbs per HP, Wing Loading: 58.0 lbs per sq ft
P-51D: Empty: 7,639 lbs; Loaded: 11,095 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 233.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 6.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 47.6 lbs per sq ft
Bf 109 G-6: Empty: 5,895 lbs; Loaded: 6,942 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 174.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.7 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 39.9 lbs per sq ft
Spitfire Mk IX: Empty: 4,972 lbs; Loaded: 7,357 lbs; Engine: 1,585 HP; Wing Area: 242.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.6 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 30.4 lbs per sq ft
P-38J: Empty: 14,107 lbs; Loaded: 21,612 lbs; Engines: 2,850 HP; Wing Area: 328.3 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 53.3 lbs per sq ft
Fw 190 A3: Empty: 7,053 lbs; Loaded: 8,580 lbs; Engine: 1,700 HP; Wing Area: 197.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.0 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 43.6 lbs per sq ft
The "loadings" above are calculated at Normal Loaded Weight. Most planes never fought at normal loaded weight, particularly the Allies since they had to burn fuel just to GET to the fight. Also, Allied fighters would routinely drop ordnance and/or drop tank before a dogfight.
From the above, the most maneuverable based on wing loading at Normal Loaded Weight would be the Spitfire Mk IX. Of course, things OTHER than wing loading, particularly the choice and cleanliness of the airfoil, affect maneuverability. A dirty airplane was not as good a turner as a clean one, everything else being equal.
The best climber, based purely on power loading, would be the Bf 109 G-6. Again, things other than power loading, particularly the propeller choice and the altitude curve of the supercharger / turbocharger, affect rate of climb.
The Mustang in particular was a very good zoom climber, using momentum to trade speed for height. At faster speeds it could easily out-zoom the Bf 109, but the Bf 109 was better in a sustained climb. Dogfights NEVER involve a sustained climb. Conversely, the Mustang had a relatively high "stick force per g," being in the 25 – 30 pounds per g range at normal center of gravity. So, it was mostly a 3 – 4 g airplane except for emergencies. If the Mustang happened to be fighting at 8,500 lbs, it was very equal to the Bf 109 in all categories, and the Bf 109 had a MUCH smaller fuel fraction, so it was probably much closer to the normal loaded weight than a Mustang that had just flown 500 miles and had dropped tanks and burned fuel from the fuselage tanks.
A few other points: The Bf 109 had no rudder trim and was very tiring to the pilot when out of trim. The other planes did not have this difficulty. The Bf 109's control became VERY heavy at high speeds, making it very much of a "straight line" fighter at 400+ mph, while it was VERY maneuverable at 250 – 300 mph. Hence, the Bf 109 pilot wanted to get the fight slow while the Mustang pilot wanted speed. Similar things can be said for the Spitfire, though not nearly to the degree of the Bf 109.
So … we a re back at the question of exactly HOW to compare the aircraft?
All were good, and we are unlikely to arrive at a "best" since it is 65+ years since WWII and we are still debating it.
...thats got to be the worst description I ever read about the P-51 !!
..I would have thought that was obvious...
most enthusiasts would probably assert - if pushed - that the P-51 was the fighter that 'won the war', wouldn't they ....lets face it, it did what it did 700 miles from home...'jack of all trades, master of none' has a slightly disparaging undertone in English...I doubt many would agree with the comment that it was only a 'fair' performer either .....all in all, a rather obtuse assessment ...
P-47 D: Empty: 10,605 lbs; Loaded: 17,411 lbs; Engine: 2,500 HP; Wing Area: 300.3 sq. ft.; Power Loading: 7.0 lbs per HP, Wing Loading: 58.0 lbs per sq ft
P-51D: Empty: 7,639 lbs; Loaded: 11,095 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 233.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 6.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 47.6 lbs per sq ft
Bf 109 G-6: Empty: 5,895 lbs; Loaded: 6,942 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 174.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.7 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 39.9 lbs per sq ft
Spitfire Mk IX: Empty: 4,972 lbs; Loaded: 7,357 lbs; Engine: 1,585 HP; Wing Area: 242.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.6 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 30.4 lbs per sq ft
P-38J: Empty: 14,107 lbs; Loaded: 21,612 lbs; Engines: 2,850 HP; Wing Area: 328.3 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 53.3 lbs per sq ft
Fw 190 A3: Empty: 7,053 lbs; Loaded: 8,580 lbs; Engine: 1,700 HP; Wing Area: 197.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.0 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 43.6 lbs per sq ft
The "loadings" above are calculated at Normal Loaded Weight. Most planes never fought at normal loaded weight, particularly the Allies since they had to burn fuel just to GET to the fight. Also, Allied fighters would routinely drop ordnance and/or drop tank before a dogfight.
From the above, the most maneuverable based on wing loading at Normal Loaded Weight would be the Spitfire Mk IX. Of course, things OTHER than wing loading, particularly the choice and cleanliness of the airfoil, affect maneuverability. A dirty airplane was not as good a turner as a clean one, everything else being equal.
The best climber, based purely on power loading, would be the Bf 109 G-6. Again, things other than power loading, particularly the propeller choice and the altitude curve of the supercharger / turbocharger, affect rate of climb.
The Mustang in particular was a very good zoom climber, using momentum to trade speed for height. At faster speeds it could easily out-zoom the Bf 109, but the Bf 109 was better in a sustained climb. Dogfights NEVER involve a sustained climb. Conversely, the Mustang had a relatively high "stick force per g," being in the 25 – 30 pounds per g range at normal center of gravity. So, it was mostly a 3 – 4 g airplane except for emergencies. If the Mustang happened to be fighting at 8,500 lbs, it was very equal to the Bf 109 in all categories, and the Bf 109 had a MUCH smaller fuel fraction, so it was probably much closer to the normal loaded weight than a Mustang that had just flown 500 miles and had dropped tanks and burned fuel from the fuselage tanks.
A few other points: The Bf 109 had no rudder trim and was very tiring to the pilot when out of trim. The other planes did not have this difficulty. The Bf 109's control became VERY heavy at high speeds, making it very much of a "straight line" fighter at 400+ mph, while it was VERY maneuverable at 250 – 300 mph. Hence, the Bf 109 pilot wanted to get the fight slow while the Mustang pilot wanted speed. Similar things can be said for the Spitfire, though not nearly to the degree of the Bf 109.
So … we a re back at the question of exactly HOW to compare the aircraft?
All were good, and we are unlikely to arrive at a "best" since it is 65+ years since WWII and we are still debating it.
..Also that you apparently belong in a group of thinkers who assert the P-51 "won the war" does not mean there will be many others -me included- who will be more than happy to counter such assertions; such a thing would mean your doubts are incorrect.
The P-51 D had a maximum speed of 703km/hr at altitude on WEP which could be utilized for a couple of minutes only.
Be very careful using the WWIIaircraftperformance site as reference for German fighter performance as it has a habbit of presenting the very lowest of figures obtainable in this area - the author being known for his bias toward Allied a/c.
Nontheless it is a good source for info on allied a/c, but please draw your conclusion(s) from the originial data available and not from what someone says !
The P51's range for a single engine fighter was the best of the ETO.
Its 6 .50's were more than adaquate to shoot up fighters.
Its top speed was the fastest untill the final models of the -190's and -152 took to the sky in the waning months of the war.
I'd say it was master in a few catagories, good in some, and taken together, it was the finest combination of all up to Feb 1945.
Great explanation but torque isn't that useful for "recip" aero engines - it's VERY important with regards to turboprops.
I was just about to say that. Engine output is commonly measured in ft-lbs of torque. We use SHP = .00019 x prop rpm x torque
We're psychic friends dude...
...actually I suppose I might go for the Spitfire as the fighter that won the war..but you know what, it wasn't the D-9 or Ta 152 .....they were on the losing side of course....but all that is another discussion...