Perhaps my fault, I was just pointing out that as the P51D was introduced the Me262 was also, just to say it couldn't lay any claim to best fighter in absolute performance though its position as best escort fighter was never challenged.
P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's
- Thread starter DAVIDICUS
- Start date
The biggest point working against the Bf 109 was the massive number of planes and pilots lost in take off and landing accidents, I have read that if the LW hadnt lost so many planes and especially young pilots they could possibly have won the BoB and from that the whole war. See below for links
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
Yes Adler (and all) its a joke, although I must admit I have read all sorts of rubbish that say the 109 was prone to accidents,
A confession here, I am 55 years old and was always keen on aviation from the age of about 7 (my big brother made models) I didnt hear about the P51B and C until I was in my twenties. In my teens I got a model as a present of a Mustang Mk1 (Allison engined Raf tactical recon from revell I think) it was so far away from a P51D that was shown in every magazine and TV programme I thought it was a screw up by the model company.
For the model makers here when was the first P51B/C model produced, I simply dont remember one as a child or young adult, it didnt seem to exist outside of people that were actually "there".
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Indeed
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
You didn't. I did. But that was the model that mostly served and inflicted losses on the LW.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
The reason FLAK was Hitler's favorite by the end of the war was the lack of fuel, pilots, and general casualties inflicted by overwhelming numbers of highly trained US pilots swamping German defenses. FLAK was a low loss way to inflict damage by 1944 compared to fighters.
Some think that by the time the P51D was fully operational the LW was already close to collapse with operation Bagration in the east and Normandy already successful it was being overwhelmed on all fronts.
Some might find this of interest,
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
It did inflict heavy losses.
With that said, the influence of P-47D (from mid 1943) and P-51B/C (from Dec 1943) was far greater for the outcome of ETO air warfare. The units flying those models managed to remove LW as a coherent fighting force, thus opening the way for P-51D to rout the Luftwaffe.
Granted, LW lost many planes and pilots even before mid 1943, mostly due to RAF and VVS (that suffered even more in process), plus non-combat losses.
The (heavy) Flak was also a low gain, high wastage way to infict damage
Maybe he was also thinking that the difference between a flak gun and an anti tank gun is really just in the ammunition used, I think Berlins flak towers were among the last places to fall to the Soviet army.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
What is curious for me is that the American evaluation of the Ki-84 tends to back up essentially the same the guy on the video said Skip has said about the 109 (I have cited the Ki-84 because I think it was similar to the Bf 109). Basically the Americans considerated that the Ki-84 was similar in speed to their fighters but had a much higher rate of climb and better agility. I guess that the late war 109s were in a middle term between the Ki-84 vs the P-51 in regard to agility while comparable or better than the Japanese fighter vs the Mustang in terms of rate of climb. On the other hand, I think I have never read any document of the USAAF saying that the P-51 had those weakness against the German fighter.
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I had a response to this all typed up but deleted it as I don't want to get banned after being here only a week.
Ah, please, nobody would ban you if you answer with respect!
Anyway, about the Skip Holm subject, I'm skeptical of course. The Americans employed the Thach Weave tactic against the Zero in the Pacific and as far as I know they managed to deal with them using it. And I guess the Zero outclassed the Wildcat more in terms of rate of climb and specially agility than the 109 outclassed the Mustang in those aspects. And as for Skip Holm, if he really said that, he must have been referring to turninfights specifically, without any tactical refinement.
.
Last edited:
I am minded to quote (or paraphrase) a member here "if it is a fair fight you have done something wrong". However good or bad a Buchon was relative to a P51 it was not superior in the way a B109G was to a Hurricane and no German ace in any Bf109 would take on 5 or 6 Hurricanes, he has 1 pair of eyes in a 3 dimensional combat.
The Tempest was superior to the FW 190 but I remember reading a report by a Tempest pilot, spotting a flight of 4 FW190s he broke the wires on the throttles and got out of the place knowing he couldnt be caught, being in the fastest aircraft means you choose when to fight.
The Tempest was superior to the FW 190 but I remember reading a report by a Tempest pilot, spotting a flight of 4 FW190s he broke the wires on the throttles and got out of the place knowing he couldnt be caught, being in the fastest aircraft means you choose when to fight.
Last edited:
From Skip Holm's website:
Skip Holm
But again, I guess he is talking specifically about the Buchon here. I guess the late war 109s were more closer to the Mustang in terms of speed than the Buchon was, not to say rate of climb. As for the control forces, I don't know if the Germans improved this in the late war variants, a improvement that if occured makes me wonder if the Buchon also has had. Also: I don't know how the power curves of the 109 and P-51 compare because the power output of two aircraft can be different in different altitudes will certainly affect the turning radius and rate of climb of an airplane. And in some cases the difference in power output of two aircraft can be quite significative (e.g. Fw 190 A series vs Bf 109 in high altitude).
Last edited:
These discussions have a habit of of spiraling in many directions. In principle power was the deciding factor, the highest powered Buchon had 1600BHP and was a hybrid. The P51D had 1720 BHP and 6x 0.5in MGs. Anyone volunteering to take on 6 in individual combat is a fool, I recognise that I am not a pilot and especially not a pilot of WW2 AC but that is completely foolish.
When one says "agility", one also must ask "at what speed". Surely at low speed the 109 could easily outperform low boost P51D in sustained maneuvers, but most combat occured at high speed where the 109 had very heavy control force and thus it's maneuverability at high speed was severely limited where as the P51D dances at high speed.
And the P51D running at high boost at 75"hg with 150 octane fuel had barely worse climb rate compared to late BF 109G/Ks.
And the P51D running at high boost at 75"hg with 150 octane fuel had barely worse climb rate compared to late BF 109G/Ks.
Last edited:
Then say it in a respectful adult manner. Not hard to do...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
