P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's (1 Viewer)

[wmaxt]

Soren,

Quit hedging, After the Merlin was found to be fuel efficient The P-51 was examined to see if some extra fuel could be placed in the aircraft, an Experiment, finding that it could, it was then accepted for escort work. At that point it was built as an escort fighter. There never was an intention. Your statement was that it was designed/intended as an escort fighter was and is incorrect. The H model was intended to be an escort fighter, yes, but is not relevent to this conversation.

The P-51s in 1:1 combat were able to beat the Bf-109 and the Fw-190 on a regular basis. Was it a sure thing - no. It certainly wasn't a sure thing the other way either. My statement was and remains the P-51 was a compettitive fighter, period. The P-51D was still compettitive 600mi from home and you have to be there to be the best.

You have not given any information to contradict my statements just restated your responses with different words. Stating your position many different ways doesn't change anything.

wmaxt

 

[FalkeEins]

..as one JG 300 pilot put it, it wasn't so much the P-51 you were fighting that was the problem, it was his wingman...the P-51s were too heavy for the later 109s..couldn't stay with them in a dog-fight or climb..

 

[lesofprimus]

Agreed 100%...

 

[wmaxt]

..as one JG 300 pilot put it, it wasn't so much the P-51 you were fighting that was the problem, it was his wingman...the P-51s were too heavy for the later 109s..couldn't stay with them in a dog-fight or climb..

Maybe so, especialy a 109K with an experianced pilot. It still wasn't a sure thing for the Bf-109K even then. With a Bf-109G the P-51 it was much closer and had several advantages. An average pilot in a Bf-109G was more often encountered. There are numerous accounts of P-51s that fought with Bf-109s and won, Bud Anderson gives an account of an engagement where he fought a Bf-109 in the verticle and eventualy won - the two aircraft were virtuly identicle in performance during that fight.

Tactics are as important as aircraft performance wheather its having a wingman or staying out of the opposing aircrafts performance specialty. The P-40 couldn't touch a Zero in a dogfight but the Flying Tigers rarely had much trouble shooting them down.

Was the Bf-109G/K a better dog fighter, Probably, that seems to be the consensus. Was it so much better to assure a win every time - no. The P-51 was still compettitive as an aircraft and that was rienforced by the tactics with which it was used.

wmaxt

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........

 

[wmaxt]

yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........

Agreed, but on its own the Bf-109 was in trouble to, even with 1 Mustang they lost a number of fights. Most dogfights degenerate to 1 on 1 fights ie. no wingmen. With a competent pilot a P-51 was capable of winning a fight with a 109. That's my point.

I can accept the -109 was a better dogfighter than the -51. I also accept that using a wingman was a significant advantage. Neither one makes the P-51 less than compettitive which is all I've ever claimed.

wmaxt

 

[P38 Pilot]

yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........

I think the P51 was not only great with an expericenced pilot but also in how it's built. The P51 was built for distance,speed, and manerivbility. The me109 probably wouldnt stand a chance, but, it all depends on the pilot. whether they shot down none or 100, if the me109's pilot was a good pilot, then lets see how he would pit against American technoligy.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Fisher.html

In some respects, Germany had led the way in propeller design by introducing wide, broad chord blade propellers. If one looks at the narrow chord blades of the Luftwaffe's Bf 109E fighter and compares these to the later Bf 109G, it is readily apparent that the latter's propeller blades have widened considerable.

The earlier VDM, variable pitch propeller worked reasonably well at converting the Daimler-Benz 601 engine's power into thrust. However, as the weight and drag of subsequent models increased, so did the horsepower requirements. With the increased power came the need to utilize that power in a more efficient manner. Thus, German engineers looked to the propeller design as the solution to getting the power to the road, to use the common metaphor. Ultimately, these engineers decided to remain with three blades, rather than four (or more) as incorporated by British and American designers. It must be assumed that the efficiency of their design did not require more than three blades.

Perhaps the penultimate example of the German three-blade design resides in those used on late war fighters such as the Fw 190D and the Ta 152. Indeed, the chord to span ratio of these propellers is dramatic in comparison to the "toothpick" blades used on virtually every fighter in the American inventory through 1942.

Another noteworthy observation of the German designs shows us that the propeller blades were not "clipped", or squared off. The blades have a semi-elliptical trailing edge that tapers to a tight radius at the tip. There can be little doubt that this shape was found to be acceptable. Yet, one must speculate if, somehow, the German designers had missed the boat.Consider the enormous amount of power produced by the late war DB 605A and the Jumo 213A engines, producing up to 1,800 and 2,240 horsepower respectively. Now, compare that with the performance of the fighters in which they were installed. The fastest sub-model of the Bf 109G could do no better than 428 mph. Likewise the much-touted Fw 190D could manage but just 426 mph. When we look at the North American P-51D, we see a fighter that was at least 10 mph faster on 300 to 600 fewer horsepower. Granted, the superlative P-51 was a remarkably low drag design. Nonetheless, had the Germans found themselves on the backside of the power vs efficiency curve again? I believe that we can say that the answer is yes.

 

[wmaxt]

yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........

I think the P51 was not only great with an expericenced pilot but also in how it's built. The P51 was built for distance,speed, and manerivbility. The me109 probably wouldnt stand a chance, but, it all depends on the pilot. whether they shot down none or 100, if the me109's pilot was a good pilot, then lets see how he would pit against American technoligy.

The Bf-109 was built for speed and manouverability, long range adds weight, a dissadvantage.

The P-51 was a good solid fighter that could hold it's own, more importantly it could do it 600mi from home base. The P-51 was a little more robust than the Bf-109 but not a whole lot. It was also compettitive but it wasn't necessarily a better dogfighter in all regeims. A lot of times the best was up to the pilots.

From everything I've read the Bf-109G has a small advantage in turning, the K model extends that to add climb and top speed but still not overwelming. Does anyone have roll rates for the -109s, turn radii, etc.?

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

Soren,

Quit hedging, After the Merlin was found to be fuel efficient The P-51 was examined to see if some extra fuel could be placed in the aircraft, an Experiment, finding that it could, it was then accepted for escort work. At that point it was built as an escort fighter. There never was an intention. Your statement was that it was designed/intended as an escort fighter was and is incorrect. The H model was intended to be an escort fighter, yes, but is not relevent to this conversation.

I'm not hedging wmaxt, what you've just said I have no problem with. Anyway as I said, I was talking the P-51's flying over Europe (B, C D), which were intended and designed, 'amongst other things', as escort fighters. Now where I think we misunderstood each other is about the "Original" design of the P-51. It is true the P-51 was intended to replace the P-40, and that its original design revolved around the fighter-interceptor role, but this changed shortly after the introduction of the Merlin engine.

I was however incorrect in saying that the P-51 from the beginning was Designed/Intended as an escort fighter, and I should have specified it earlier than I did which P-51 I was talking about......sorry.

The P-51s in 1:1 combat were able to beat the Bf-109 and the Fw-190 on a regular basis.

The few times a P-51 won a 1:1 fight with a 109, were incidents where the P-51 pilot's most certainly were flying against young poorly trained LW pilots. As with an experienced pilot, the 109 had the advantage in everything from climb, turn, roll, acceleration etc etc....
So in a 1:1, the 109 pilot would have to make a serius blunder to fall prey to a P-51. (Quite a few fresh LW pilots did)

Was it a sure thing - no. It certainly wasn't a sure thing the other way either. My statement was and remains the P-51 was a compettitive fighter, period. The P-51D was still compettitive 600mi from home and you have to be there to be the best.

The P-51 was for sure competitive, no'one is denying that at all ! But against a 109G-10 - K-4, the P-51 just wasn't as competitive as sometimes believed, but infact inferior.

(Remember we're strictly talking the a/c here)

You have not given any information to contradict my statements just restated your responses with different words. Stating your position many different ways doesn't change anything.

Hmm.. funny, haven't seen any sources from you either.

 

[Soren]

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Fisher.html

In some respects, Germany had led the way in propeller design by introducing wide, broad chord blade propellers. If one looks at the narrow chord blades of the Luftwaffe's Bf 109E fighter and compares these to the later Bf 109G, it is readily apparent that the latter's propeller blades have widened considerable.

The earlier VDM, variable pitch propeller worked reasonably well at converting the Daimler-Benz 601 engine's power into thrust. However, as the weight and drag of subsequent models increased, so did the horsepower requirements. With the increased power came the need to utilize that power in a more efficient manner. Thus, German engineers looked to the propeller design as the solution to getting the power to the road, to use the common metaphor. Ultimately, these engineers decided to remain with three blades, rather than four (or more) as incorporated by British and American designers. It must be assumed that the efficiency of their design did not require more than three blades.

Perhaps the penultimate example of the German three-blade design resides in those used on late war fighters such as the Fw 190D and the Ta 152. Indeed, the chord to span ratio of these propellers is dramatic in comparison to the "toothpick" blades used on virtually every fighter in the American inventory through 1942.

Another noteworthy observation of the German designs shows us that the propeller blades were not "clipped", or squared off. The blades have a semi-elliptical trailing edge that tapers to a tight radius at the tip. There can be little doubt that this shape was found to be acceptable. Yet, one must speculate if, somehow, the German designers had missed the boat.Consider the enormous amount of power produced by the late war DB 605A and the Jumo 213A engines, producing up to 1,800 and 2,240 horsepower respectively. Now, compare that with the performance of the fighters in which they were installed. The fastest sub-model of the Bf 109G could do no better than 428 mph. Likewise the much-touted Fw 190D could manage but just 426 mph. When we look at the North American P-51D, we see a fighter that was at least 10 mph faster on 300 to 600 fewer horsepower. Granted, the superlative P-51 was a remarkably low drag design. Nonetheless, had the Germans found themselves on the backside of the power vs efficiency curve again? I believe that we can say that the answer is yes.

The author of that article must be either VERY ignorant, or just not very well educated in aerodynamics. The reason for the P-51's astonishing straight out speed, compared to its weight and power, was almost singlehandedly because of its laminar wing.
And offcourse he also 'forgets' to mention that the British Spit XIV, which was slower than the 109K-4, not only had 50 more horsepower, but also two extra props and a lower drag wing. (A clear sign of bias!)

Btw, DAVID what is it with you and 'that' site ?! (No seriously it is 'very' biased towards the allies)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Erich I am sorry, I forgot my camara when I left my house at 4 in the morning. I did not get any pictures. I am completly dissapointed there were some great castles and ruins on the rought. Also soem great Mannors in Belgium and the Ardennes looked great from above.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

..as one JG 300 pilot put it, it wasn't so much the P-51 you were fighting that was the problem, it was his wingman...the P-51s were too heavy for the later 109s..couldn't stay with them in a dog-fight or climb..

Agreed 100%

I think the P51 was not only great with an expericenced pilot but also in how it's built. The P51 was built for distance,speed, and manerivbility. The me109 probably wouldnt stand a chance, but, it all depends on the pilot. whether they shot down none or 100, if the me109's pilot was a good pilot, then lets see how he would pit against American technoligy.

Disagree with you. The only real things the P-51 had going for it was range and strenght in numbers. The Mustang is very overated and was not as maneuverable as you think it was.

Not to burst your bubble or anything but American Technology was gaining but German technology was still ahead of Americas at the time when it comes to aircraft.

 

[wmaxt]

Publications and interviews are always biased and I have read many of each and depending on point of view, Allied/Axis, they consistently say their aircraft is the best. The performance figures for each are compareable within a reasonable range, I've seen nothing that shows a clear dominance of either. Just stating the P-51s only advantage was better numbers/tactics doesn't cut it. If your tactics aren't working you change them. As for numbers, the number of German aircraft shot down, they remained in the ~400/500 planes/month from March '44 when the Germans had the numerical advantage to Dec. '44 when the P-51s had the advantage. Other than the relative numbers the only difference was the preasence of P-38s until ~August '44, about when the AAF took numerical superiorority in terms of aircraft.

For instince: (source bf-109.com)
Bf-109G6 - Max Speed 387 at 22k Climb 6min to 19k
P-51D - Max speed 437 at 25k Climb 6.7min to 20k
Bf-109K4 - Max Speed 452 at 19.6k Climb 6.7min to 32k

the 109 had slats at extream AoA the 51 had flaps at any speed/AoA. Roll rates are similar and control forces in favor of the 51 at very high speeds.

Right now we have people each saying their plane is better, is there some info out there that can add to this discussion to show a relative advantage one way or the other?

wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

Soren,

The time line for the Merlin Mustang is like this The first Merlin/extra fuel Mustanges went into production in March '43 when AAF policy was no escort required, as the P-51B/Mustang II long range fighter. The first escort (not sanctioned by the AAF) by the 5th Air Force in the PTO was about that same period. The first long range escort was the 12th Air Force in North Africa in ~August '43 again not sanctioned by the AAF top brass. The AAF and in particular the 8th Air Force did not recognize the need for long range escort until AFTER the second Schwienfurt raid in October'43. At THAT point, realizing the P-51 had the range/performance, it was considered as an escort fighter. Thats six months after the Merlin/extra fuel Mustangs began production. For instance there were 290 Mustanges in the ETO in June '43 (9th Air Force - Tactical air) but the first escort by P-51s was the 354th FG (9th Air Force) in December '43. The first escort by P-51s in the 8th Air Force was the 357th FG in Feburary '44.

As for offering new information, I offered a further breakdown of the history of the A-36/P-51. And above a detailed historical timeline w/specifics of the escort/P-51 interface. As the intention did not exist I could not very well offer emperical evidence could I?

I think were finaly getting on the same wavelength though.

wmaxt

 

[Udet]

It's been quite enough of specifications.

You are correct enough when affirming most pilots are likely to affirm the planes each flew were the best, though.

Just like I have met both with German and USA veterans, I have also read articles written by some USAAF aces: Kit Carson and the ultra-arrogant Chuck Yeager, who in a bizarre exercise, ridicules the German pilots when the man himself got surpassed and shot down by a German pilot. The man is completely lucky to be alive today and to be capable of seeing his contradictions increasing as he grows older and older.
That is what I call having both your feet several meters above the ground.

Now, we are all aware the allies captured numbers of fully operational German aircraft when the war ended in Europe -a few planes captured during the war-.

The war prizes included Bf109 of the latest versions, Fw190Ds, Ta152s, Do335s, Me262s, etc.

What came of all them after the war?

Yup, we know they were shipped to the allied victorious nations, tested, most were scrapped and some sent over to museums. Was that about it?

The British "captured" a JG 300 Bf 109 G-6/R6 -fitted with underwing 2cm cannons- during the war and conducted a shameful (also embarrasing)test comparing the German craft fitted for bomb hunting missions with a contemporary Sptifire. The tests proved that even a 109 fitted in such fashion -extra weight and extra drag- could hardly be surpassed by the leaner Spitfire. In some departments the Wilde Sau Bf 109 performed better than the Spitfire.

With this I mean that by carrying out such test, the British themselves involuntarily -and foolishly- made a contribution to debunk the myth on the "inability of the underwing gondola Bf 109s to succesfully engage or evade from enemy fighters."

Has any of you ever wondered why was it not mock combat-dogfight involving the captured German planes and the allied wonders was ever carried out, filmed and duly documented?

Perhaps they did it but prefered to either omit or classify the outcome of such testing.

No one bad mouths the P-51 or the P-47.
I am confident when saying the great P-47 has been unfairly kicked out of the throne by the Mustang. By the side of the Thunderbolt, the P-51 is chicken.

Mr. wmaxt also is correct when affirming that on a one vs one a P-51 could win the fight. Correct.

I am 100 percent confident when affirming the late Bf109s were much better dogfighters than the Mustang.

One final point, the burden of proof lies with the allies making the claim of their allegedly superior planes, weapons, tactics, pilots, training and a long list of blah, blah, blahs...

Besides the self made laurels and the self crowning product of their relevant share in achieveing final victory, they have failed to prove their weaponry was superior.

The disturbing issue lies when one can affirm there is sound evidence that will suggest the Bf109s and Fw190s were cookies tough beyond the capabilties of both RAF and USAAF in numerically equal engagements.

They ought to know the winner is not always the one who is the best.

A.R.R.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's been quite enough of specifications.

You are correct enough when affirming most pilots are likely to affirm the planes each flew were the best, though.

Just like I have met both with German and USA veterans, I have also read articles written by some USAAF aces: Kit Carson and the ultra-arrogant Chuck Yeager, who in a bizarre exercise, ridicules the German pilots when the man himself got surpassed and shot down by a German pilot. The man is completely lucky to be alive today and to be capable of seeing his contradictions increasing as he grows older and older.
That is what I call having both your feet several meters above the ground.

Now, we are all aware the allies captured numbers of fully operational German aircraft when the war ended in Europe -a few planes captured during the war-.

The war prizes included Bf109 of the latest versions, Fw190Ds, Ta152s, Do335s, Me262s, etc.

What came of all them after the war?

Yup, we know they were shipped to the allied victorious nations, tested, most were scrapped and some sent over to museums. Was that about it?

The British "captured" a JG 300 Bf 109 G-6/R6 -fitted with underwing 2cm cannons- during the war and conducted a shameful (also embarrasing)test comparing the German craft fitted for bomb hunting missions with a contemporary Sptifire. The tests proved that even a 109 fitted in such fashion -extra weight and extra drag- could hardly be surpassed by the leaner Spitfire. In some departments the Wilde Sau Bf 109 performed better than the Spitfire.

With this I mean that by carrying out such test, the British themselves involuntarily -and foolishly- made a contribution to debunk the myth on the "inability of the underwing gondola Bf 109s to succesfully engage or evade from enemy fighters."

Has any of you ever wondered why was it not mock combat-dogfight involving the captured German planes and the allied wonders was ever carried out, filmed and duly documented?

Perhaps they did it but prefered to either omit or classify the outcome of such testing.

No one bad mouths the P-51 or the P-47.
I am confident when saying the great P-47 has been unfairly kicked out of the throne by the Mustang. By the side of the Thunderbolt, the P-51 is chicken.

Mr. wmaxt also is correct when affirming that on a one vs one a P-51 could win the fight. Correct.

I am 100 percent confident when affirming the late Bf109s were much better dogfighters than the Mustang.

One final point, the burden of proof lies with the allies making the claim of their allegedly superior planes, weapons, tactics, pilots, training and a long list of blah, blah, blahs...

Besides the self made laurels and the self crowning product of their relevant share in achieveing final victory, they have failed to prove their weaponry was superior.

The disturbing issue lies when one can affirm there is sound evidence that will suggest the Bf109s and Fw190s were cookies tough beyond the capabilties of both RAF and USAAF in numerically equal engagements.

They ought to know the winner is not always the one who is the best.

A.R.R.

Very well put Udet - one comment kind of off topic. I've met Yeager on several occasions myself - I think your discription of him is an understatement!

 

[lesofprimus]

I as well have met Yeager several times, and can honestly say that he was the one individula I didnt want to meet again... I actually saw Joe Foss cuss him out once back in 1982...

My Dad thought that was priceless...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was actually trying to find some info on comparisons between P-51D and Bf-109G and K and you know what I found was interesting most compare it to the Bf-109F and E. I actaully find this quite disturbing since when the D showed up over Germany its primary 109 enemy was the G and the K.

 

[Soren]

the 109 had slats at extream AoA the 51 had flaps at any speed/AoA.

In a hard turn the wings max AoA is reached almost immediately, so the auto-slats are VERY beneficial to turn performance at ALL speeds. And btw, the Bf 109 has combat flaps aswell. So I don't know what your point is here.

Also the Bf-109's wing (No slats) has a higher CL-max than the P-51's wing, meaning the 109's wing produces more lift pr area.
While a Laminar airfoil produces much less drag, it also produces less lift than a conventional airfoil, and a laminar airfoil also stalls much earlier and much more violently than a conventional airfoil.

Roll rates are similar and control forces in favor of the 51 at very high speeds.

Not elevator controls, which would literally 'lock up' in the P-51 at high speed. The late war Bf-109's had excellent elevator control, and even in a VERY high speed dive the 109 could still easely recover. (MUCH easier than a P-51 !)
This is also confirmed by many P-51 pilots which saw the 109 escape this way.

And a quote:

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories:
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.

Right now we have people each saying their plane is better, is there some info out there that can add to this discussion to show a relative advantage one way or the other?

This thread inspired me to make a Interceptor vs Escort thread only about the P-51 and the Bf-109. And 'yes', all the info you'll need to point out which is the better fighter will be present. So take a look...