P51D/K vs Me109K-14

Soren nice siggie.great touch with Wills pic in it.

the Ta 152C was actually used by the GeschwaderStab and possibly II. gruppe together when they were on the same base but I am going to have to check more sources as this is just off the top of my head. primarily the C's were stripped from factory to be used for the existing H's but several were complete and in flying order

Thank you Erich, I had Wurger make it for me, and as can be seen he's obviously very good at it I'm glad he remembered my request to put Willi in there as-well

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

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.

Click to expand...

The data was taken from an apparent North American Aviation engineering drawing I found on the internet. It looks very authentic describing the configuration (clean, no wing racks) and War Emergency Power (90" MP, water injection, 3000 rpm). It actually shows max climb at a GW of 8000lbs at 5K feet of almost 6500 f/m. The same drawing show the time to climb numbers and maximum speed. What I don't know is if the data is test data or from caluculations.

I would not be surprised if the data points are incorrect for the Ta152 as there has only been glimpse of its perfomance data. It does seem consistent accross the spectrum, which could just mean there was one source.

I agree. Its hard to tell about the Ta-152. Do you still have the drawings of the P-51 that you are talking about. I would love to see them, would be very interesting.

A detailed comparison is on the way....

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I agree. Its hard to tell about the Ta-152. Do you still have the drawings of the P-51 that you are talking about. I would love to see them, would be very interesting.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I found a site that looks like it has quite a bit of technical data. I guess the guy is a spitfire fan. Look down to you find the P-51H and at the bottom of that section, is site for various data. I wish we had this on all the aircraft. Let me know if you can't get it, I have the charts on my computer. I haven't really looked around the site, there could be more interesting data.

P-51 Mustang Performance

davparlr said:

Yeah, I found a site that looks like it has quite a bit of technical data. I guess the guy is a spitfire fan. Look down to you find the P-51H and at the bottom of that section, is site for various data. I wish we had this on all the aircraft. Let me know if you can't get it, I have the charts on my computer. I haven't really looked around the site, there could be more interesting data.

P-51 Mustang Performance

Click to expand...

I looked around the spitfireperformance.com site and he has some impressive data including some on the FW-190D with charts in German. Also some data on the P-38 and others. Don't know where this guy got all his data. Research and hard work I guess.

Thanks for the links.

And just for fun.

that way the 109 is painted is so wrong

yeah, thts the colors that some of the BF 109 E was wearing during the Battle of Britain.... as far as i know

The yellow colors are recognition markings and were used to different degrees all the way to the end of the war.

For instance Bf-109G-14 "White 21" from 7./JG 52 based out of Vespren, Hungary in March 1945 was painted similar to that with yellow.

Bf-109K-4 "Black 1" from Stab II./JG 52 flwon by Maj. Wilhelm Batz based out of Neubieberg, Germany in May 1945 was painted similar to that with yellow.

Aircraft on the Russian front used yellow as well a lot.

The Bf 109's of the "Abbeville Boys" all had the Yellow Cowlings.... During the May 10 thru June 26 1940 "Battle of France", to enable easy recognition of the unit in the air, JG26 painted the undernose of their a/c yellow.... Other units also painted their under cowling yellow too (both in 1940 and occasionally throughout the war)....

Exactly it was not limited to the BoB.

alright, i know this might be a long post, and there might be some spelling errors and what not, but i think i make some very good points and i hope you will all read

while the 109k4 could always out climb the P51D, and at times out run it, the P51D could out dive, and with a 10-15 degree turn of her flaps, the P51D could out turn the 109k4. the 109 performed poorly in high speed dogfights because its controls got real stiff above 400mph, and the 109 couldnt use flaps at speeds around 375mph where as the P51D performed exelently at speed up to 480mph and peformed exelently up to 520mph in compairison to all other propellor planes.

The only time the 109k4 could out perform the P51D was when the 109 used its emergancy power. This gave the 109 the boost it needed to out run the P51D, however, the 109k4 exausted its emergancy power after only a few minutes, where as the P51D could fly one E power consideribly longer. When both the 109 and the 51 where out of E power, the P51 was faster then the k4, and could out turn it without the use of flaps at high altitudes.

also, the 109's speed increased, and manuverablity decressed steadily as it gained altitude, where as the P51D's performance spiked at certain altitudes such as 13,000ft 22,000ft and 31,000ft. A good P51 pilot could force a 109 into a dogfight at one of these altitudes, and beat it at everything except climb rate.

in my mind the .50cal x6 armorment is better for a dogfight then the x2 13mm MG, and the x1 30mm cannon. this is because the .50 cal is more accurate then the 13mm MG for some reason, and can out fire them since the pony has 6 of them. this high quantity of large MG bullets gives the P51 a 3 times better chance of score a hit on the 109's pilot (.50 cal is usually fatal) and also gives the p51 a good chance of hitting the 109's engine, engine oil, fuel lines or radiator. the 109's HE 30mm is good for taking out bombers or blowing off a fighters wing, but it is inaccuarate, and more or less lobs the shells at its target, it is only effective if the 109 pilot can get the p51 the right distance away from him (the 30mm is fired up alittle and is set to converge at a point at the pilots preflight discrestion). It might take 3 or 4 hits from the 30mm to rip off the p51's strong wings, since the 30mm fires at a low rate of fire, this is hard to do. the p51's main weakness is it unprotected radiator. but the 109's mere 2 MGs fails to take advatage of this

despite all this, i can understand how somebody could favor a 109k4 in a 1v1 fight vs a P51D, however in a 2v2, 4v4 or 8v8 the P51 would have the edge. this is mainly because the 109's main advantage (its climb rate) would become a dangerous manouver in that when a 109 climbs to evaid 1 of the p51s, it loses energy and when faceing up it becomes a big slow target with an exposed pilot for the next P51.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

While I agree with you on the Bf-109K one on one vs a P-51D you also have to remember though that the Bf-109K lost some of its great flying characteristics as it got faster but heavier (not as much as some people like to make it be, but it did). Now having said that, I voted for the Bf-109K as well.

Click to expand...

Chris - I just happened to stumble on to a quote in Caldwell's JG26 Top Gun book. Uffz Georg Genth's comments pg 308 on the K-4 being supplied to III./JG26 in November, 1944. Won't quote the entire paragraph but to summarize.
He much preferred the G-10 as a dogfighter (no underwing tubs, better stability at high altitude)
The K-4s they received had the 30mm Mk108 or Mk103 firing through hub plus two 20mm in the underwing tubs 'greatly reucing maneuverability'
"above 28,000 the K-4 'began to float' causing the pilots to start 'swimming' or 'float' giving similar control feels to a stall"

"Un naturally sensitive" in formation flying at those altitudes.

Interestingly enough on page 313 he notes that II./JG26 pilots reaction to the new Fw90D-9 was also mixed. Loved the speed, climb and acceleration but deplored the reduced roll and turn capability from the Fw190A's as well as less firepower..

In addition, they were concerned about engine reliability and noted that the first mission of I. Gruppe in new D-9s was a disaster, 8 aborted immediately with engine problems and 4 went down with engine failures out of the 18 that took off on 24 December, 1944.

All pointing out early gestation issues in the up-engined/modified 109s and 190's - just like the 51B's in Jan-April, 1944.

Anyway - all anecdotal. My father's own experiences with the later model 109 (I think the two seater at Gablingen was a modified K) was that it was Extremely Stiff in high speed, High G maneuvers above 20,000 feet. I don't recall ever seeing any mod which aleviated this issue in air to air combat with the 51.. but it would outclimb a 51 in a tight spiral right.

At the end of the day it would be a pilot skill issue on a level playing field. Neither ship (51D/K vs 109G-10 or K-4) really had a compelling over all edge... probably true for the 190D-9 vs the 51 also.

The K-4 wasn't equipped like the "to be K-14" Bill, the K-4 COULD carry gun-pods, but its std. armament was 1x Mk108 + 2x 13mm MG131's. Also no K-4 was ever equipped with a Mk103 cannon, and as to gun-pods, well, AFAIK nearly none of these birds had these installed, and finding a picture of one with gun-pods is practically impossible.

As to maneuverability, well the 109 K-4 was magnitudes better up to 300 mph where the controls became stiff and roll rate decreased, however with two hands on the stick the Bf-109 K-4 would still easily out-turn the P-51 Mustang at high speed, no problem what so ever. The K-4's climb rate was also ALLOT faster than the P-51's.

But the 109 was the "Ace's plane", which meant that it took time to master it completely but once you did it was pretty much unbeatable in the air.

Gents never say never as I have it on good authority that some K-4's had the centerline 3cm removed replaced with the 2cm MG 151/20. underwing 2cm waffenpods were installed on K-4's during spring of 45 for ground attack both day and night in I./NJG 11, and for the latter there is written documentation besides the pilots statements.

again the K-14 is a bogus craft, if we are making a switch to the K-4 then so be it

Soren said:

The K-4 wasn't equipped like the "to be K-14" Bill, the K-4 COULD carry gun-pods, but its std. armament was 1x Mk108 + 2x 13mm MG131's. Also no K-4 was ever equipped with a Mk103 cannon, and as to gun-pods, well, AFAIK nearly none of these birds had these installed, and finding a picture of one with gun-pods is practically impossible.

I'm not the expert. I merely quoted a III./JG26 fighter pilot who flew the K-4, in its entirety, from Don Caldwell's book. You can easily verify the quote. You have not found a contrary quote yet from another quotable German pilot which contradicts Uffr Genth's comments and I am easily persuaded otherwise with another expert opinion - but make it real and not just your opinion?

As to maneuverability, well the 109 K-4 was magnitudes better up to 300 mph where the controls became stiff and roll rate decreased, however with two hands on the stick the Bf-109 K-4 would still easily out-turn the P-51 Mustang at high speed, no problem what so ever. The K-4's climb rate was also ALLOT faster than the P-51's.

But the 109 was the "Ace's plane", which meant that it took time to master it completely but once you did it was pretty much unbeatable in the air.

Click to expand...

Facts, Soren - toujours facts - where are your facts on any 109 out turning a 51 at high speed? and 'magnitudes better up to 300mph'?

I can do that math - the plural says at least 100 times better, singular says only 10 times faster.. ??

would you say that your powers of exageration are unsurpassed?

Show us the turn circle or time graphs at low medium and high altitude for low medium and high speeds in any flight test document you care to cite - US or Brit or German and you would have some credibility on this subject..

And last, but not least - It (the 109, the aces plane) was so 'unbeatable that it only lost some 10-20,000 fights? What is your definition of 'beatable'??

drgondog said:

And last, but not least - It (the 109, the aces plane) was so 'unbeatable that it only lost some 10-20,000 fights? What is your definition of 'beatable'??

Click to expand...

I agree facts speak volumes.......but that lines above is hardly a fair statement. The number of planes lost does not directly correlate to the quality of the plane.