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

Soren · Jun 30, 2005

wmaxt said:
No, those stats say it could/should. We still need the actuall numbers produced in the manouvers in question ie how fast does it accelerate, roll, turn, enter an accelerated stall and retain energy. There is often a dissparity between theory and reality.

I must disagree, the stats are more than enough to 'roughly' determine the a/c's performance.

Remember the 109K-4 would do 4,880ft/min and reach 20,000ft in 4.7min, and had a max speed of 452mph. This coupled with the much lower lift-loading and better wing-aspect ratio, power-loading, wing CL-max, max wing AoA, is more than enough if you ask me...

I've read pilot accounts on both sides that say their plane was better and at least for those pilots that was true or they would not have lived to say it. Or is it only because the Bf-109 is harder to fly at it's max and the average German pilot was to inexperianced to make full use of it?

According to pilot accounts and aerodynamic data, this is by far the most likely theory. Although I would alter it to the "average German pilot in 44-45".

Right now I see two aircraft that are very close, one has some stats that infer it could/should be better. We have nothing difinitive yet that can tell us it was better or by how much.

We won't get any 'real' definitive answer before someone actually goes out and tests these two a/c's against each other, and display the results officially...

But I can tell you that modern mock fights between the Bf-109 and P-51, are highly in favor of the 109.

plan_D · Jun 30, 2005

According to pilot accounts and aerodynamic data, this is by far the most likely theory. Although I would alter it to the "average German pilot in 44-45".

Why would you change it to 1944-45? If you look at the war as a whole the Bf-109 never really gained a massive advantage over other aircraft. In 1940, the Bf-109E was not a cut above the Spitfire or Hurricane. It was equals to both, with many German pilots stating they would not turn with a Hurricane or Spitfire.
Most give accounts of the Bf-109E being comparable to the Spitfire in a dogfight, while only a few say they were in a superior plane. This says to me, if what you're saying about the plane is true that the majority of pilots certainly were not able to fly the plane to it's full. After all, they weren't all Adolf Galland.

In 1941-'43 the Bf-109F and G never really gained any upper-hand over the Spitfire. The Bf-109F is stacked up on equal terms against the Spitfire V. It was the Fw-190A that made the Air Ministry quickly jump on to the Spitfire IX. I've seen many Spitfire IX pilots talking about how the Spitfire would out do the Bf-109 in every aspect.

Certainly, in my eyes, it seems the Bf-109 was only pushed to it's full ability by a select few of naturally talented and combat experienced pilots. This plane was not a rookies plane, for sure. It only came into it's own when an expert could mask it's faults, and make full use of it's perks. Unlike a Spitfire, Hurricane or Mustang in which a green pilot could make the plane do wonderful things.

KraziKanuK · Jun 30, 2005

Soren said:
Remember the 109K-4 would do 4,880ft/min and reach 20,000ft in 4.7min, and had a max speed of 452mph. This coupled with the much lower lift-loading and better wing-aspect ratio, power-loading, wing CL-max, max wing AoA, is more than enough if you ask me...

Only problem with those number is that they are for 1.98 ata and required C3 fuel. Consider the low fuel stocks in Germany at the time and the 190 had to use C3 it is questionable, how many of the K-4s in the 4 Gruppen that were suppose to convert to 1.98 really did so. The 4 Gruppen (I. / JG 27, III. / JG 2, III. / JG 53, IV. / JG 53) had only 91 operational K-4s as of April 9 1945. Testing of 1.98 started in Dec 1944 but was questionably cleared in early/mid March 1945. There was also much reliabilty problems with the DB605 which also puts into question the use of 1.98.

1.80 ata gave the K-4 a speed of 444mph

lesofprimus · Jul 1, 2005

Man I was just starting to enjoy the fact that KK had left us for good..... Been almost a month with no KK and boy what a great time its been........

Oh well.......

plan_D · Jul 1, 2005

Can I borrow that picture of a can of Whoop ass you have, les? Just for that?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 1, 2005

I dont think this debate is ever going to come to a conlusion as to which aircraft was better. It has been going on since 1936 damn it.

Erich · Jul 1, 2005

two cents on the topic.

I./JG 27 lost 42 K-4's during the war.
II./JG 27 lost 2 K-4's
IV./JG 27 lost 22 K-4's

lesofprimus · Jul 1, 2005

Yes u can pD... Here ya go...

lesofprimus · Jul 1, 2005

two cents on the topic.

I./JG 27 lost 42 K-4's during the war.
II./JG 27 lost 2 K-4's
IV./JG 27 lost 22 K-4's

erich, whats up with all the 2's (twos) ???

Very strange...

Out of those 66 aircraft, how many JG27 pilots were lost from those K-4's???? Very curious if u have that info...

plan_D · Jul 1, 2005

Thank you for the pic, les. It will come in handy in the future, I'm sure. And maybe the K-4 liked to get shot down in twos?

lesofprimus · Jul 1, 2005

Heres another.... For when u need just a couple of dashes of whoopass and not the whole can....

Erich · Jul 1, 2005

the III./JG 27 losses could be higher as towarads April 45 it just mentions 109 without variant listed.

JG 4 lost at least 69 K-4's in I., III., and IV. gruppes with the bulk lost in III. gruppe.

will have to check further on losses in JG 27 further

lesofprimus · Jul 1, 2005

Erich, please read my previous previous post........

Erich · Jul 1, 2005

Les I am working on it. wanted to indicate though that the III./JG 27 may have had more K-4's lost than what I indicated.

IV./JG 27 lost 25 K-4's in 1945 with 9 pilots KIA

lesofprimus · Jul 1, 2005

Oh sorry dude... Didnt know u were talkin to me....

IV./JG 27 lost 25 K-4's in 1945 with 9 pilots KIA

1 outta 3.... Hmmmmmm....

wmaxt · Jul 1, 2005

Soren,

The problem with those numbers is that except for the climb and top speed they are static design numbers. There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it. If the point made above about the fuel is valid then the actual Speed/Climb numbers were also unavailable and we are still looking for Performance figures to compare. Anything else is assumption.

As pointed out above this debate has been going on for more than 60 years. I guess they must have been pretty damn close.

wmaxt

DAVIDICUS · Jul 1, 2005

Wmaxt said, "There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it."

I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result.

Soren · Jul 1, 2005

Only problem with those number is that they are for 1.98 ata and required C3 fuel. Consider the low fuel stocks in Germany at the time and the 190 had to use C3 it is questionable, how many of the K-4s in the 4 Gruppen that were suppose to convert to 1.98 really did so. The 4 Gruppen (I. / JG 27, III. / JG 2, III. / JG 53, IV. / JG 53) had only 91 operational K-4s as of April 9 1945. Testing of 1.98 started in Dec 1944 but was questionably cleared in early/mid March 1945. There was also much reliabilty problems with the DB605 which also puts into question the use of 1.98.

1.80 ata gave the K-4 a speed of 444mph

KK I only have one thing to say "do NOT rely on Mike Williams K-4 figures, they are flat wrong".

And as to the 1.98 boost issue: Back to the question of maximum allowed boosts, the already mentioned manual for the DB 605 DB/DC engines issued 5th December 1944, already the 3rd edition of it`s kind, notes the use of both 1.8 and 1.98ata for the DB/DC, respectively. According to the recordings of a meeting on the 20th January 1944, after unsuccessfull trials at Rechlin Test Centre, the clearance of 1.98ata was delayed until further testing is performed; particular interest is Gen. Ing. Paul`s criticizing Daimler Benz as it forwarded the clearance of 1.98ata boost directly to General Galland, General of the Fighter Arm, and the Technisches Ausendienst for 'diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden' or because it issued these boost (1.98ata) directly to the troops and set the engines to it. Further the document states that individual fighter-recons may be set to 1.98ata. Given the date of the manual and the meetings and their contents, we can be sure 1.98ata was already in use for some time during December until late January, when the boost was recalled for further testing with II./JG 11.

And note that In comparison to the Bf 109 K-4`s 10 minute limitation of running at maximum power, the Griffon 65 engine of the Spitfire XIV was limited to only 5 minutes at maximum power.

wmaxt said:
Soren,

The problem with those numbers is that except for the climb and top speed they are static design numbers. There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it. If the point made above about the fuel is valid then the actual Speed/Climb numbers were also unavailable and we are still looking for Performance figures to compare. Anything else is assumption.

wmaxt

Well the point about C-3 fuel isnt correct, as it 'was' used.

Soren · Jul 1, 2005

DAVIDICUS said:
Wmaxt said, "There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it."

I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result.

It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 1, 2005

Soren said:
DAVIDICUS said:

Wmaxt said, "There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it."

I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result.

Click to expand...

It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare.

If I remember right I think as a field mod water injection and different cylinder heads were installed that might of increased the HP of these engines.

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

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

Banned

Brigadier General

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

the old Sage

Brigadier General

Attachments

Brigadier General

Lieutenant Colonel

Brigadier General

Attachments

the old Sage

Brigadier General

the old Sage

Brigadier General

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads