Can you recommend some books Erich?
P51D/K vs Me109K-14
- Thread starter schwarzpanzer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Erich
the old Sage
somehow I knew this ws coming .........
Ta 152 by Monogram publications, soft-bound OOP but one of the best
and in fact Monogram is re-introducing the Ta 152 in a huge format filled with much unpublished info within a years time or so I was told.
Schiffer pubs TA 152 by Dietmar Harmann, an almost copy of the operations listed in the Monogram booklet. Funny he has asked researchers to help him find more of the JG 301 diary.
Will Reschke's JG 301/302. Self explanatory, he covers but not in real detailed form the escapades of III. gruppe and Geschwader stab of JG 301 in my opinion.
JG 301 soft bound booklet by Kagero publications out of Poland. the profiles are crap and the translation work from German to English from Reschke's book is not entirely correct, the info on my cousins date of death / that mission is incorrect.
there is I am hoping a book on JG 301 in the future from EE but still waiting since 1992, the Geschwaderstab painting of the 4 major Tanks, green 1, 2, 3 and 4 are quite lovely in the painting and Jerry adds his touch on the pilots and the small portion of history that was allowed on the small placard that comes with the painting, singed by Loos and Reschke in pencil..........beautiful
EE is producing a 2 volume book set on the Dora 9 and the first volume will have the role of II./JG 301 and their Doras but I am thinking that seriously the Ta 152H and pilots will be covered in the JG 301 info as it would be a natural. guess I better find out first hand before I say more.
A japanese publication ? also produced some text on the Ta 152 as well but not sure of title or publisher
Ta 152 by Monogram publications, soft-bound OOP but one of the best
and in fact Monogram is re-introducing the Ta 152 in a huge format filled with much unpublished info within a years time or so I was told.
Schiffer pubs TA 152 by Dietmar Harmann, an almost copy of the operations listed in the Monogram booklet. Funny he has asked researchers to help him find more of the JG 301 diary.
Will Reschke's JG 301/302. Self explanatory, he covers but not in real detailed form the escapades of III. gruppe and Geschwader stab of JG 301 in my opinion.
JG 301 soft bound booklet by Kagero publications out of Poland. the profiles are crap and the translation work from German to English from Reschke's book is not entirely correct, the info on my cousins date of death / that mission is incorrect.
there is I am hoping a book on JG 301 in the future from EE but still waiting since 1992, the Geschwaderstab painting of the 4 major Tanks, green 1, 2, 3 and 4 are quite lovely in the painting and Jerry adds his touch on the pilots and the small portion of history that was allowed on the small placard that comes with the painting, singed by Loos and Reschke in pencil..........beautiful
EE is producing a 2 volume book set on the Dora 9 and the first volume will have the role of II./JG 301 and their Doras but I am thinking that seriously the Ta 152H and pilots will be covered in the JG 301 info as it would be a natural. guess I better find out first hand before I say more.
A japanese publication ? also produced some text on the Ta 152 as well but not sure of title or publisher
Cool thanks, I will check these out.
pathchampion
Recruit
- 6
- Jul 6, 2006
Isnt it the BF Messersmitt 109 K-4 Kurfurst vs. the P-51 Mustang we're talking about? 
If you would read all the posts you would see how it led to the Ta-152. Please read everything before you say such things here.
Erich
the old Sage
yes the K-14 was bogus it should be the K-4 against the P-51, and Adler is correct, it is my humble assumption that the 109G and K would of been eliminated in the Luftw. category had their been more months in the Germans favour and thus the Ta 152H may have been seen in more numbers than shown
- Thread starter
- #87
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Thanks to all those who have added comments.
My thoughts on these type of threads are positive, opinions are shared, new facts and viewppoints learned, which I feel enriched from.
The results are surprising close, the common myth is that the Mustang was far superior and that the Me109 was past it, even in the Battle of Britain, nevermind at the Battle of Berlin.
At 1st glance, even with a little knowledge, you still might think the P51D would win with ease.
The results have surprised me, particularly the low alt superiority of the Me109.
I disagree with the 'they're just prototypes' arguement, as when Germany was getting desperate, prototypes were thrown untried in combat on a number of occasions.
I disagree with the 'these comparisons are pointless' arguement, as in WW2 there was a likelyhood that pilots of equal skill would meet up in opposing planes - if so, what would be the end result? that's all.
Also an edge, however small, can be the difference between life and death.
Also if you had a choice, pesonal preference counts for a lot.
Even the Mustang mythos should be considered, if you feel confident in a P51, but unconfidant in a Me109, the phsycological factor would affect your state of mind and thus could determine whether you win or lose a dogfight.
The same could be said for the Spitfire. I suspect if the war had dragged on, that there may have been Griffon powered Mustangs? - though kudos to the designers of the P51H for not resorting to that. A lot of the niggles of the Me109 may have been ironed out? - I've heard the combat slats opened more symetrically?
The Gustav6 with underwing extras, like the R-kit cannons etc seemed to be the worst in the handling stakes?
Also, as PlanD mentioned, even though the handling of the Spitfire severely deteriorated between the Spitfire MkI MkXIV, the agility stayed the same and may have actually improved if you include climb and dive - though I believe roll performance always deteriorated?
I wonder how a Spitfire MkXIV would fare against these 2? (equal pilot skill, of course!)
Also, the FW190D-9 and TA152 can be considered contenders...
If it was me, I'd have concentrated all efforts on the FW as soon as the D-9 appeared, and would have ditched the Me for mid low level work as soon as the Anton's overheating problems were solved. The Me109 was much cheaper and simpler to build though and experienced vets had grown to become attached to them, so I would only make the Me for elite pilots, if it were me.
In hindsight, this is right as huge numbers of tricky planes are useless without fuel, ammo and good pilots.
Then the cost and production effectiveness of the Me109 means nothing (unless it used less materiel?) and it's flaws exaggerated - the right tool for the wrong job perhaps?
I thought that would be the case, thankyou DerAdler.
At top seed, the pilot would merely be trying to keep in a straight line, surely that wasn't that difficult in a Me109K? I've heard the 'tang had the same problem, due to it's internal fuel tank upsetting the CG?
I have said this once, but unfortunately will have to say it again, I realise I made a mistake in saying Me109 K-14 vs P51D/K, so I will change it to Me109 K-4 vs P51D/K and Me109 K-14 vs P51H (though any late war, high-alt prop-plane is welcome).
Thank you.
My thoughts on these type of threads are positive, opinions are shared, new facts and viewppoints learned, which I feel enriched from.
The results are surprising close, the common myth is that the Mustang was far superior and that the Me109 was past it, even in the Battle of Britain, nevermind at the Battle of Berlin.
At 1st glance, even with a little knowledge, you still might think the P51D would win with ease.
The results have surprised me, particularly the low alt superiority of the Me109.
I disagree with the 'they're just prototypes' arguement, as when Germany was getting desperate, prototypes were thrown untried in combat on a number of occasions.
I disagree with the 'these comparisons are pointless' arguement, as in WW2 there was a likelyhood that pilots of equal skill would meet up in opposing planes - if so, what would be the end result? that's all.
Also an edge, however small, can be the difference between life and death.
Also if you had a choice, pesonal preference counts for a lot.
Even the Mustang mythos should be considered, if you feel confident in a P51, but unconfidant in a Me109, the phsycological factor would affect your state of mind and thus could determine whether you win or lose a dogfight.
The same could be said for the Spitfire. I suspect if the war had dragged on, that there may have been Griffon powered Mustangs? - though kudos to the designers of the P51H for not resorting to that. A lot of the niggles of the Me109 may have been ironed out? - I've heard the combat slats opened more symetrically?
The Gustav6 with underwing extras, like the R-kit cannons etc seemed to be the worst in the handling stakes?
Also, as PlanD mentioned, even though the handling of the Spitfire severely deteriorated between the Spitfire MkI MkXIV, the agility stayed the same and may have actually improved if you include climb and dive - though I believe roll performance always deteriorated?
I wonder how a Spitfire MkXIV would fare against these 2? (equal pilot skill, of course!)
Also, the FW190D-9 and TA152 can be considered contenders...
If it was me, I'd have concentrated all efforts on the FW as soon as the D-9 appeared, and would have ditched the Me for mid low level work as soon as the Anton's overheating problems were solved. The Me109 was much cheaper and simpler to build though and experienced vets had grown to become attached to them, so I would only make the Me for elite pilots, if it were me.
In hindsight, this is right as huge numbers of tricky planes are useless without fuel, ammo and good pilots.
Then the cost and production effectiveness of the Me109 means nothing (unless it used less materiel?) and it's flaws exaggerated - the right tool for the wrong job perhaps?
I thought that would be the case, thankyou DerAdler.
At top seed, the pilot would merely be trying to keep in a straight line, surely that wasn't that difficult in a Me109K? I've heard the 'tang had the same problem, due to it's internal fuel tank upsetting the CG?
I have said this once, but unfortunately will have to say it again, I realise I made a mistake in saying Me109 K-14 vs P51D/K, so I will change it to Me109 K-4 vs P51D/K and Me109 K-14 vs P51H (though any late war, high-alt prop-plane is welcome).
Thank you.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The Ta 152H takes em all in equal combat, 7 outta 10...
Agreed Les.
And it will be very hard to compare a Bf-109K-14 since there were only a handfull of K-14s built. Some sources suggest only 2.
- Thread starter
- #91
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Just in theory then.
You can try, but it still will be nothing more than a "What if situation" of Should Have, Could Have, Didn't happen.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
lesofprimus said:
I am not sure how you can justify this statement. After some research I have come up with the following data.
Weight
P-51H 7040(e) to 9500 (loaded) Ta152H 8640(e) to 10470 (loaded)
Power
P-51H (Take off) 1380 (mil) 2218 (max) Ta152 (take off) 1750 (mil) 2050 (max)
P-51H (33K) 1540 (max) Ta152 (33K) (1320)
Wing Area
P-51H 235sqft Ta152 251sqft
Wing Loading
P-51H (loaded weight,lb/sqft) 40.4, Ta152 (loaded weight) 41.7
Max speeds
Sealevel P-51H 424 mph, Ta152H 350mph
30K ft P-51H 485 mph, Ta152H 465
41K ft P-51H 444 mph (interpolated) Ta152H 472
Overall Max P-51H 487 mph Ta152 472
Service Ceiling (ft)
P-51H 41600, Ta152H 48550
Rate of Climb (S/L, ft/min)
P-51H (loaded weight) 5000, Ta152h 3445
Max Power to Weight (hp/wt)
P-51H (loaded, S/L) .23, Ta152 (loaded, S/L) .2
P-51H (loaded, 33K) .16, Ta152 (loaded, 33K) .12
Time to Climb (min)
No good data on Ta152H
P-51H (0-15K) 3
P-51H (0-25K) 5
P-51H (0-30K) 8
If this data is correct, and it seems to be consistant across the data base, then it appears that the P-51H has a significant advantage below 30K, a/s, power to weight, wing loading and total weight. The lower the altitude, the greater the advantage for the P-51H with a 74 mph speed over the Ta152 at sealevel.
Going on the data, I would say that it was awash from 30K to 35K, with the P-51 still holding a speed advantage. Above 35K, the Ta152 has all the aces.
Going strickly on data is slippery slope, however, these two planes never met and so we don't have much to compare except data.
Had the three planes that were meant to meet over Germany at 30-35K, the B-29, P-51H, and the Ta152H, it would have been quite a battle.
There seems to be good data on the P-51H including North American charts, but not much on the Ta152H.
Unless this data is wrong, I don't see the Ta152H dominating the skies at a 7 out of 10 clip, certainly not below 35,000 ft.
Let me know if my info is incorrect (like nobody would!)
Erich
the old Sage
max speed of the Ta 152H was well beyond 472. Since only one well known JG 301 ace has noted his speed in the Tank it has been taken as the top speed....quite incorrect in the books and data sheets. there IS much data on the Ta 152H and it will be in book form soon, possibly with Monogram and it will be a huge monster of a book at that.
Maybe the comparison should be the the TA 152H to present WW 2 US and RAF fighter types but this originally was the K-14 ? /K-4 against the P-51D/K
these comparitive threads drive me nutz
Maybe the comparison should be the the TA 152H to present WW 2 US and RAF fighter types but this originally was the K-14 ? /K-4 against the P-51D/K
these comparitive threads drive me nutz
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Erich said:
Data comparisons are alway hazardous in that there are other factors that affect the effectiveness of an aircraft. Even reported data cannot necessarily be trusted. Is manufacturing data an analysis or test? Was the test properly calibrated? Is the data reported by a pilot? Was it indicated or true airspeed (not likely). What was the pressure altitude? Was data corrected by temperature or pressure altitude? What was the load? All of these are factors in absolute accuracy? In general, pilot reports, unless in a special instrumented aircraft, is unreliable, due to the above factors. Even manufacters data can be unreliable. Unfortunately, it is often all we have.
Comparisons such as this is frustrating but is quite useful in an educational manner. We all tend to learn something new about great airplanes that flew long ago.
Erich
the old Sage
very true but in the case of the Ta 152H-0 it was tested by more than 15 JG 301 pilots and given a robust going over at many altitudes. I am going to say no more as I do not have the large volume in front of me to gaze over, it though should equip us with a more true ? form although not highlighted for it's combat operations that it flew at.........which was something the visionaries had not seen
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Erich said:
Sounds like it will be a good solid data base. It will be interesting to get the results.
The only problem I see with those figures up there is that I have seen different numbers for both aircraft. Most of the books that I own even give the Ta-152H's rate of climb at around 5000 ft per minute. The numbers you have up there are actually for the Ta-152C I believe and most websites throw them all into one and use those figures.
Tha Ta-152H outperformed the Ta-152C by quite a bit, and as Erich says the Ta-152H could exceed speeds of over 472mph.
Tha Ta-152H outperformed the Ta-152C by quite a bit, and as Erich says the Ta-152H could exceed speeds of over 472mph.
Exactly and it would be climbing up at notleistung to reach the enemy bombers.
My guess as well is that P-51H is actually around 3500 to 4000 ft/m rather than 5000ft but like the Ta-152H could use its emergency power or max power setting to obtain 5000ft/m.
My guess as well is that P-51H is actually around 3500 to 4000 ft/m rather than 5000ft but like the Ta-152H could use its emergency power or max power setting to obtain 5000ft/m.
