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

GrapeJam said:

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.

Click to expand...

But a civil P-51 nowadays with limited power and ordinary fuel would be considerably outclassed by a 109 Buchon in rate of climb, isn't?

From Wik, about the 109 K-4:

The Initial Rate of climb was 850 m (2,790 ft)/min, without MW 50, and 1,080 m (3,540 ft)/min, using MW 50.

Click to expand...

Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the P-51D, also according to Wik:

What was the boost for the P-51D?

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Then say it in a respectful adult manner. Not hard to do...

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

My disrespect was for the bozos in the video. Jenisch and pbehn pretty much hit the nail on the head for what I was going to say, well done guys.

People that make blanket and somewhat moronic statements (like in the video) I tend to lose any faith in their credibility and also lose interest in pretty much anything they have to say. I'm far from perfect but I don't suffer fools easily.

I'll stop now.

When discussing a theoretical combat between two planes powered by a Merlin Engine I would have thought it logical to assume that they both have the same engine, boost and fuel. If you are being correct historically then the Buchon was post war and so the P51K is the model to compare it to. If engine output is identical I cannot see any airframe outclassing a P51 or a Bf109 to such an extent that it could be outnumbered 6 to 1 and win, unless you define winning as getting out alive.

Peter Gunn said:

Perhaps.

My disrespect was for the bozos in the video. Jenisch and pbehn pretty much hit the nail on the head for what I was going to say, well done guys.

People that make blanket and somewhat moronic statements (like in the video) I tend to lose any faith in their credibility and also lose interest in pretty much anything they have to say. I'm far from perfect but I don't suffer fools easily.

I'll stop now.

Click to expand...

Well the world is a wonderful place and there are going to be lots of differing opinions. You will have to live with that, and learn to look at then objectively.

pbehn said:

When discussing a theoretical combat between two planes powered by a Merlin Engine I would have thought it logical to assume that they both have the same engine, boost and fuel. If you are being correct historically then the Buchon was post war and so the P51K is the model to compare it to. If engine output is identical I cannot see any airframe outclassing a P51 or a Bf109 to such an extent that it could be outnumbered 6 to 1 and win, unless you define winning as getting out alive.

Click to expand...

I think that statement applies to all the top fighters of WW2. The performance advantages and disadvantages of all of them where a very thin envelope. Throw in a good pilot who knows how to use his aircrafts advantage over the aircraft he is up against and it becomes even thinner.

I think a lot of people just want to crunch numbers and do so based off of their preconcieved bias, regardless of it is for the P-51, 109, 47, 190, Spit, etc.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I that statement applies to all the top fighters of WW2. The performance advantages and disadvantages of all of them where a very thin envelope. Throw in a good pilot who knows how to use his aircrafts advantage over the aircraft he is up against and it becomes even thinner.

I think a lot of people just want to crunch numbers and do so based off of their preconcieved bias, regardless of it is for the P-51, 109, 47, 190, Spit, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree, when arguing about two aircraft a poster may have a point however I cannot see any case being made for two aircraft with the same engine, the airframe does not make that much difference unless you get silly and compare fairey battles to P51s.

The airframe makes plenty of difference.
Compare P-39 and P-40 - P-39 was faster in dash speed. Spitfire was faster than Hurricane or P-40 with similar horsepower. P-51 was still the fastest on same power when we compare it with 109, Spit or P-40. Or we can toss in the P-63, that was never as fast as Merlin Mustang despite being of later date.
Then we have the rate of roll, some aircraft being better (Fw 190, P-40, P-63), some not so stellar (P-51, 109, Spitfire with normal wings, on high speed the Zero).
One airframe makes possible to install considerable fuel tankage without much of worry for centre of gravity, even the nominally similar P-51D and P-51H are very different beasts in this category. Tempest II with extra fuel (= both leading edges used for tanks) was a far less problematic thing to fly than Spitfire with rear tanks containing the fuel. This will make one aircraft better for long range work than another, despite the similar nominal ranges/radii.
The dive capability, that really has nothing to do with engine, but it is a very useful thing to have. Champions being Spitfire, P-51, the German duo was not shabby in this department, P-47 was okay, P-38 was a lousy diver.

Folks - this has been entertaining. Not one to hold anything back, I've met Skip Holm on several occasions. A very talented, knowledgeable but yet arrogant individual. Although I would consider him an excellent pilot with a long and distinguished career that many would envy, his statement about taking on 6 P-51s just shows his arrogance and IMO stupidity. He's done some dangerous and out right stupid things over the years that totally tarnishes his accomplishments. He doesn't seem to care about what others think of him so I'll give my two cents for what it's worth.

Pilot in Stunt Case May Get Wings Clipped

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=f658e143-be93-4b08-90b0-491d74a3cbf7

USAAF report of testing a captured Bf 109G-6/trop, dated March 1944:

Conclusions.

The ME-109G has a high rate of climb and good level flight performance. Its range is very limited as only 105 gallons can be carried internally and flights of over 300 miles leave little gasoline for reserve.

It is very light on all controls below 400 KPH but the turning radius is poor compared to our fighters. At high speed the controls become very heavy. The airplane is stable and should be a good gun platform but the vision is very poor under all conditions.

The cockpit is cramped but would not be too bad if the visibility were better.

D. Recommendations.

None.

E. General Comparisons

1. Advantages over U.S. AAF Aircraft.

The airplane has a higher rate of climb than most of our fighters. The automatic propeller control is good as it automatically gives the proper RPM for a given throttle setting thus relieving the pilot considerably. The gun sight is small, more compact than ours, and far easier to change a bulb.

2. Disadvantages over U.S. AAF Aircraft.

It is not as maneuverable, does not have the range, and has inferior visibility to practically all our first line fighters.

Click to expand...

Kurfürst - U.S.A.A.F. Material Command - Pilot's Comments on ME 109G[-6/trop], AAF No. EB-102

Curious, they criticized it's turning radius. It must have been in regard to high speed maneuvers. Anyway, I don't want to say this report is anything conclusive (even because it appears the engine of the airplane was not in good condition), but it's still interesting.

A couple of observations regarding the last four pages of threads.
First, and most important - the P-51B-1, -5 and C-1 were Depot modified with the 85 gallon fuselage fuel tank put those Mustangs in a slightly precarious combat situation until the tank had been drained to about 25 gallons. To get past Berlin and Leipzig and down past Munich on target escort, the pilots had to retain as much as possible and depend entirely on the external 75 gallon tanks except for takeoff and formation assembly. This meant that the Mustang always entered combat with a full internal load out - which no other fighter did! This is an important factor as many of the big air battles occurred when the P-51B/C still had 250+ gallons of internal fuel.

Second, the P-51B/C was responsible for 100% of the Mustang scores - air and ground - prior to June, 1944. The P-51D first flew in early March and was arriving in the ETO In late April for Depot mods at BAD2 and dribbling into the 8th and 9th AF in small numbers late May, 1944. It was the Primary target escort fighter but the P-38J with 55 gallon Leading Edge tanks did have enough range to get to Berlin but only 'just' and except for a few long range raids, it was relegated to target support for those bomb wings going to say Brunswick or Ludwigshafen or Mulhausen while the 51's carried the escort to Stettin, Posnan, Munich. Consequently, the few Mustang Groups in 8th/9th AF were getting the lions share of 'opportunities' and doing so with a diluted force because they had to perform target escort for 30+ BG in a 100 mile trail at different targets at the end of the string.

Next, from an evolution/introduction standpoint the FW 190D, Ta 152 and Bf 109K were 'tweeners' between the P-51B/C/D/K and the P-51H. Another factor which should be considered is comparing any of those above to the Mustang III which the RAF modified with the R.M. 14 S.M. to chase V-1s. It out ran, out accelerated, out climbed all the above. Only the P-51H generating 2200 Hp with 90" Boost could out run this P-51B version.

The 109 pre-150 Octane fuel and 72" boost always out turned and out climbed the P-51D from a level start, full combat load at 250mph and throttling up to 1.42ata/67". It had the same, but lesser advantage over the P-51B/C due to the weight differences (600 pounds less than D/K). Where the comparisons are less clear is a.) when the combat load has changed appreciably. The wing/lift loading of the Mustang at 1/2 internal fuel is less than the BF 109G/K at 1/2 internal fuel so that a 109 engaging a P-51 halfway home on the return leg is going to experience a different set of comparisons, and b.) when the power curves between the DB 605 differs from the 1650-3 or -7 and both aircraft are travelling at say 400mph TAS. At that point the drag load on the aircraft favor the Mustang as it had more available thrust remaining comparatively than the 109 until the G-10/K-4. At 30,000 feet the P-51B/C that had the 1650-3 had just reached its critical altitude while the DB 605 passed that point at 22,000 feet and the Mustang had a distinct advantage (as well as P-47D) over the 109G, including turn at medium to high speed.

Last - a major part of the disparity of combat results fighter versus fighter included the following factors. First, the LW was forced to engage the Mustang where the power curve disparity was greatest - namely above 22000 feet. Even worse for the FW 190A series. Second, the pilot experience and skill set pool for the LW was decreasing as the US/RAF pool was increasing. A caveat, however, is that much of the LW core that was thrown into the breach as replacements from Fall 1943 through May 1944 came from other experienced Staffels transferred intact from Sud and Ost to LF Mitte/Reich as the LW attempted to defeat US Strategic capability to destroy critical German industry. Last, but perhaps most important was that LW Command emasculated LW combat leaders by ordering them not to engage US fighters. On the surface that should limit most losses to bombers and accidents, but a.) the aggressive nature of US fighter pilots was never blunted during the early actions, b.) escaping from fighter aircraft that are faster is not as easy as anticipated and those that attempted to leave to live another day just died tired from the effort.

As to Skip Holm. he was trying to sell a barn full of 109s when most of his uTube promotion hit the air. Additionally, the Warbirds don't engage in WWII Battle conditions with $2-5M dollar airplanes and the cost of rebuilding a Merlin can exceed $400K.. Take off power at 61" in 51 is about as good as it gets. Another factor to consider is that there are VERY few P-51s in the air today that weren't 90% totaled and rebuilt multiple times. What are the odds of a rebuilt bird being 100% factory spec as far as the airframe/wing is concerned?

One point I forgot to address is about the P-51K. It could have been easily presented as a P-51D-5-NT, -10-NT, -15-NT as the only difference was the AeroProducts prop/spinner controls from the Hamilton Standard prop in all the other B/C/D airframes. From a serial number standpoint, the P-51K-1-NT is number #201 in the P-51D-5-NT... so we are talking about summer 1944.

tomo pauk said:

The airframe makes plenty of difference.
Compare P-39 and P-40 - P-39 was faster in dash speed. Spitfire was faster than Hurricane or P-40 with similar horsepower. P-51 was still the fastest on same power when we compare it with 109, Spit or P-40. Or we can toss in the P-63, that was never as fast as Merlin Mustang despite being of later date.

Click to expand...

Tomo. I agree completely. The spit was faster than the Hurricane on the same engine and the P51 was faster than the spit on the same engine. However I said does not make THAT much difference. With reference to the discussion about a buchon taking on 6 P51s, show me a P51 pilot taking on 6 Hurricane MkIIs and I will show you a fool. They have 24 cannon between them and one hit can ruin your afternoon.

FLYBOYJ said:

Folks - this has been entertaining. Not one to hold anything back, I've met Skip Holm on several occasions. A very talented, knowledgeable but yet arrogant individual. Although I would consider him an excellent pilot with a long and distinguished career that many would envy, his statement about taking on 6 P-51s just shows his arrogance and IMO stupidity.

Click to expand...

I took the whole statement as one on his prowess as a pilot rather than the merits of the aircraft. Since it is a hypothetical situation I hypothetically allow the P51 pilots to be chosen from the 6 top aces on the marque.

The claim on his wiki page is interesting.

First, and most important - the P-51B-1, -5 and C-1 were Depot modified with the 85 gallon fuselage fuel tank put those Mustangs in a slightly precarious combat situation until the tank had been drained to about 85 gallons

Click to expand...

Is that a mistype for the bolded 85 gallons? I recall it was 35 gallons.

drgondog doesn't do mistypes or misprints.

Your recall is wrong.

I find it interesting that when climb performance is mentioned, it's almost always presented as a time to climb figure from the ground to a certain altitude. While static climb performance is important, it isn't the climb performance that's important in a combat situation. Zoom climb is far more important in combat, and in this category the 51 could outclimb anything in the sky (short of jets, of course). In fact, this was part of the reason American pilots were taught to keep their speed up in the Mustang...as long as it was fast, it had almost every advantage over the 109s and 190s...

pbehn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Situations were different and pilots were different, some played more hazard than others. Both ways could produce extreme successful pilots but odds for survival were better for those more calculating types. But sometimes those charging types were successful

e.g. see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/414_hall_2may45.jpg

Not sure on the results but the place and date matched with the loss of two Ta 152Hs and one badly damaged and crashlanding Ta 152H from the JG 11 (3/4 of the Ta 152 strenght of theJG 11)

CORSNING said:

drgondog doesn't do mistypes or misprints.

Your recall is wrong.

Click to expand...

How can a tank filled with 85gal be drained to 85gal?

pg 67

View: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34811808/North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual#scribd