P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thats just opinion. It is probably almost entirely cancled out by the superior visability, especially to the rear, that the Spit pilot enjoyed over almost all models of 109.
Click to expand...

The 109 had much better vis over the nose than the Spit thanks to its inverted engine. Only the bubble canopy Spits had better vis to the rear than the 109.

The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's.
Click to expand...

It did? Some stats on the 21/22 were worse than the XIV.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The 109 had horrible vis to the rear of the aircraft and was even worse when the aircraft was landing to the front.
Click to expand...

Just as did all razorback a/c did. The Galland armour replacing the steel plate armour helped.

Who cares about landing when the objective of a fighter was to shoot down EA. The EA would disappear under the nose sooner on the Spit than the EA would on the 109.
 

I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better.
Click to expand...

Until the final flair to 3 point the 109 still had a better view over the nose. The 109 pilot could see ground closer to him than the Spit pilot. All se a/c had a terrible time vis wise once on the ground. The 109 could brake harder than the Spit which would fall over on its nose if it tried. Shorter landing run and less chance to run into something.

Take some 3 views and drawn the hiden areas in for each.
 

Why would you 3 point an aircraft that if landed on one wheel would "wheel barrel?" "Wheels Landing," let the tail come down as airspeed diminishes and use peripheral vision in maintaining directional control. I would do this for both the Spit and -109.

109 braking harder?!? I've never seen data supporting this. Perhaps some one could come up with -109 and Spit landing distances for comparisons?!?
 

Braking harder because the fulcrum point (main wheels) are further forward on the 109 and with less mass forward. If one wants to do ground loops then the 109 should be landing on the main gear first. JFYI, the proper method of landing the 190 was a 3 point at touchdown.
 

Perhaps - but I could tell you that 3 pointers are more difficult and can play havoc in x-winds. Are we leading into the high -109 accident rate on landing?
 
The rear visibility was greatly improved with the "Erla" canopy fitted to the late Bf 109 versions, G and K.

Many German pilots praised the modification, although rear visibility in the Bf 109 was never as great as in the Fw190s, Ta152s, P-51s or the late Spitfires.
 
Where's your proof of this? Before you avoided even touching on the Spitfire 21 - the Spitfire XIV was more than a match for the Bf-109K-4 - the Spitfire 21 was even better than the Spitfire XIV in almost every aspect - increased advantage for the Spitfire 21 over the Bf-109K-4.

Let me demonstrate something;

The Bf-109K-4 was not very fast, actually. It's ability to climb was hampered by it's small wing - the cockpit was cramped and the pilot was always in a fix to control his aircraft. A well handled P-51D could run rings around the K-4 on a good day...

See, I can state anything I want - anything at all - and it would be disputed but I could just carry on arguing. I think it's time - if you're so sure of yourself - to provide facts and sources.

And another thing for everybody (I know some people already understand this), just because all the numbers state it should be a marvel of an aircraft - it doesn't mean it will be. If that were true - there'd be no such thing as a bad design.
 
Part of Skip Holm's pilot report on flying a Spanish -109 (HA-1112). I've met him and he's probably one of the best all-round pilots flying today. Here is his comments on landing the -109.

"Once back in the pattern, an overhead pitch-out approach is my preference. The aircraft is clean, so needs to be slowed down considerably prior to getting the flaps cranked down and the gear lowered. The pattern cockpit work is high, due to the trim/flap wheel requirements. Pulling both the trim and flap wheels at the same time works well in lowering flaps and re-trimming at the same time. Longitudinally, the airplane is markedly stable, even though the elevator is heavier and more responsive than most single-seat fighters. At all times, it is important to remember that the rudder is sluggish for small movements. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph and on final, the power is back almost to idle, and the glide path looks steep. The view looks good until getting close to the runway, then the entire runway is blanked out, with the runway edges being the guides for landing. The most obvious point to remember on the rotation-to-landing is to look out both sides of the canopy, for this will keep the aircraft straight for the touchdown. If the touchdown is not perfectly aligned to the runway, some immediate directional correction is needed, for any delay will only exacerbate the condition and give the pilot more excitement."
 
CharlesBronson said:
Well, not exactly the topics tittle, but here I left a comparative between the P-47D and FW-190A-4.
Click to expand...

That is a test of a very early P-47D that is for all intents and purposes a P-47C, as noted at the very top of the document you presented. Note the date of the document, which is June 1943.

Here is a subsiquent document concerning a real P-47D vs. an FW190A conducted in April 1944. Note that the D model is only a -RE4, so its performance was far off that of a RE25.





For the most part, the story is completely reversed, with the P-47 dominating at speeds above 250 mph.

=S=

Lunatic
 
The P-51 was great at what it was designed for. It had very long range, could maintain 400 mph class speed for extended periods, had the best pilot vision of any single engine fighter of WWII, had a great computing gunsight, and had excellent guns for the purpose of shooting down enemy fighter aircraft.

Sure you can argue all day about the "in a fair dogfight" situation, but that situation was not realistic. The German's did not intentionally engage in such "dogfights" and neither did the US pilots. Something over 90% of the pilots who survived being shot down on both sides reported they never saw the plane that shot them down or only saw it after they started taking hits. For this kind of combat, the P-51 was excellent. It was made to fight unfairly, and it did so very well. It's ability to see the enemy first and have a 50+ mph speed advantage at the point of engagement gave it a significant edge.

=S=

Lunatic
 

The Spit 21 was faster than the K-4, climbed about equally well (especially for actual combat), was much more durable, had better range, had better pilot vision, a better gunsight, and much better armament.

How was the K-4 "more than a match for the Spit 21"?

=S=

Lunatic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
HELP A NEWBIE - FW 190's on Drive to Leningrad
Replies
8
Views
1K
sopwith21
S
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
8K
GregP
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
651
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register