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

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is because the type of combat that was pretty much engaged by pilots towards the end of the war was bouncing rather than dogfighting. As you said most never saw the enemy that shot them down.

Now as for the P-51 I will agree it did well with what it was made to do. Its great range allowed it to take the fight to the Germans however I would not go as to say the 51 was the best fighter the Allies had.

 

[Erich]

9 out of 10 times the P-51's had the height advantage thus the overall 50 mph + weight advantage in speed. also enmasse as the Luftwaffe tried in vain to catch their foe which outnumbered them significantly...........this has all be coverd before and we are repeating ourselves. Speed, turning and other specs is getting to be old news and is totally dependendt on pilot skills not a bunch of charts and test run by non operational test pilots.

the P-51 was the best Allied escort in Europe in the late war and the Pilots thank God they had it at their disposal

 

[alejandro_]

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.

Although I agree with you, the main reasons to claim the Bf-109 was superior were:

- Use of MW-50 during extended periods.
- The pilot had less work load due to the use.
- Better zoom dive characteristics (altough I am not too sure on this fact).
- Better rolling rate at high speeds.
- komandgerart.

Do you got any evidence it was more durable?

Regards.

 

[Erich]

Ale:

what do you mean by saying the 109 pilot had less work load ?

thank you E ♪

 

[Soren]

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.

Don't worry, I'll demonstrate exactly why the 109K-4 was more than a match for the Spit XIV and 21 VERY soon, and in detail ! But I'll let you ponder about these two things first; The 109 has a higher Wing Thickness ratio= higher CL-max, and it has a higher Wing Aspect ratio= higher Cl-max.

(Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

(Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)

er, yes it does, if it was a match it would be equal, if it is more than a mach, it would be more than equal, meaning it would be better........

 

[Soren]

The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's.

Very incorrect ! The 109K-4 was more than a match for the Spit 21...

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

The 109K-4 climbed both faster than the Spit 21 initially 'and' in the long run, and the 109K-4 would accelerate faster as-well !

Also the 109K-4 had a 10min boost limit, while the Spit 21 had a 5min boost limit, a clear and big advantage !

The 109K-4 would climb to 32,800 ft in just 6.7min ! The Spit 21 needed 7.85min just to reach 30,000ft !.

So does that sufficiently answer your question ?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

you've based your entire argument on climb figures and boost time?

 

[Soren]

(Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)

er, yes it does, if it was a match it would be equal, if it is more than a mach, it would be more than equal, meaning it would be better........

A match means your up against a tough opposition, more than a match means your up against something either better or "atleast" as good as you.

Ofcourse if we take the word "Match" litterally, it 'does' mean equal, however by the same token NO Allied fighter was a match with any Axis fighter

 

[Soren]

you've based your entire argument on climb figures and boost time?

No, why ?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well they're the only arguments you've given

 

[Soren]

well they're the only arguments you've given

No, I was just answering Lunatics question in that particular post

I've already brought up the Wing Thickness Aspect Ratio arguements.

 

[wmaxt]

well they're the only arguments you've given

No, I was just answering Lunatics question in that particular post

I've already brought up the Wing Thickness Aspect Ratio arguements.

Static design numbers only indicate a thoeretical advantage - by themselves they are just numbers. What are the Dynamic numbers that are exibited by the aircraft?

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

well they're the only arguments you've given

No, I was just answering Lunatics question in that particular post

I've already brought up the Wing Thickness Aspect Ratio arguements.

Static design numbers only indicate a thoeretical advantage - by themselves they are just numbers. What are the Dynamic numbers that are exibited by the aircraft?

wmaxt

Bf-109 CL-max: 1.48
Spitfire CL-max: 1.12

These figures are from full scale windtunnel tests, no flaps or slats deployed.

 

[wmaxt]

What is the total effect on the aircrafts ability to maneurver outside the wind tunnel in real life. Those numbers still have only a theoretical affect on the aircrafts ability to produce the performance. We still need the pertinent information.
Acceleration.
Turn time, radii, best speed/altitude.
Energy retention.

There have been many aircraft that had great numbers that didn't cut it.

So far we have Design numbers and some basic performance figures nothing specific to our discussion on maneuvering capabilities except climb. Max speed is only important in disengagement (with Acceleration) or engagement, any maneuvering will automaticaly drop the speed to 350 or lower as the fight progresses.

Like it or not a major point is that in the vast majority of fights the victim never/to late sees the victor.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

What is the total effect on the aircrafts ability to maneurver outside the wind tunnel in real life. Those numbers still have only a theoretical affect on the aircrafts ability to produce the performance. We still need the pertinent information.
Acceleration.
Turn time, radii, best speed/altitude.
Energy retention.

Sadly we don't have these at the moment though, so lets partly rely on what we've actually got.

There have been many aircraft that had great numbers that didn't cut it.

Its not just about great numbers, its about advanced physics. Fact is there are no miracles in aerodynamics, it can all be explained with measurable physical factors.

So those windtunnel test-results are perfectly valid.

Like it or not a major point is that in the vast majority of fights the victim never/to late sees the victor.

And I agree.

 

[CharlesBronson]

Lunatic wrote:

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.

So what...? or maybe the war started in 1944.

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.

And comparing this model with a FW-190A-4 is quite unfair because the model in production in 1943 was the A-5 (early) and A-6 ( late 1943).

But aniway lets see what the outdated A-4 could do.

"The pilot had no combat experience"
.....speak by itself...

"...The FW-190 accelerated faster in the Initial...."

Probably when you more needed it.


..." Water injection was used in the P-47"

Jah ¡¡¡¡... Give me a GM-1 in the BMW 801D-2 carried by the old A-4 and
I give you the remake of Vin Diesel on "The fast and the Furios".

It boosted the performance to 2240 hp....I will let your P-47 parked.

 

[Chocks away!]

Soren where do you think ? the veterans of course. It was always made up in the after action combat reports and although in later 1944 till wars end the German radar systems in Frnce were gone they had very powerful sources that could tell when the Allied heavies were taking off as well as how many US prop fighters were taking off, thus you can easily see how the Luftwaffe pilots felt they were on a continual suicide mission late 44 till wars end. In some instances in 1945 it was over 25 to 1

You can tell the pilot morale was always high though.

 

[Chocks away!]

It's obvious the P-51 didn't offer techological advantage, rather it was a solid all round performer with awesome range.

 

[wmaxt]

I think Chocks Away has hit it pretty well.

Soren, I don't doubt the validity of your numbers just that with what, 50%-60% of the data on hand, that we can reach a reasonable conclusion.

wmaxt