P51D/K vs Me109K-14

Which would win?

  • Kurfurst

    Votes: 50 35.7%

  • Mustang

    Votes: 54 38.6%

  • Draw

    Votes: 9 6.4%

  • Impossible to say

    Votes: 27 19.3%
  • Total voters
    140

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

So yet there is another reason why some people should not get "too" hung up on designer stats on planes. The ground crews very often modified their pilot's planes, in one way or another that affected it's flight characteristics.
 
Hunter368 said:
So yet there is another reason why some people should not get "too" hung up on designer stats on planes. The ground crews very often modified their pilot's planes, in one way or another that affected it's flight characteristics.
Click to expand...

Hunter - I'm not at all sure of that - at least in the context of USAAF. Cass Hough and Pappy Gunn are two legends - who actually went through channels to a degree to make the Mods in a Service Group or in concert with say RAF for field modifications...

The 'heavy' nose for B-25's, the cheek guns for the B-25/26 in the pacific, the forward firing .50 cal guns in nose of B-17E and F' before the G incorporated the chin turret are examples of that. The exotic grafting of the B-24 Nose (with turret) on a B-17 is another example..plus Malcom Hood inst'l were performed (80+hour) at Service Group level

I have never seen or heard of examples of external (structural) changes made at the 'Line Chief' level.. On the other hand field installations of K-14 gunsights to retrofit to 51's to replace N-3/7's as well changes made to feed belts to reduce stoppages in both .50 cal (51D/K) and 20mm occurred at that level, found to be good and ECO's were propagated across Combat Groups while the changes/recommendations were passed back to Wright Pat and the MFR.

You might have some examples that contradict this during WWII?

Regards,

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

Does power-loading lift-loading ring a bell Bill ???


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

LoL, can you ?? Show me please!

Looking forward to this !

would you say that your powers of exageration are unsurpassed?
Click to expand...

No but I'd say yours certainly are !

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..
Click to expand...

LoL, ofcourse you want us to believe the graph done by the RAE AFDU ! You want to ignore the fact that the British test-pilots got scared shitless everytime the slats deployed and aborted the maneuver entirely. And if you don't believe me then go read the docs, there's plenty of mentioning of this.

AFDU
"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

Oblivious to the British pilots the slats opened WAY before the critical AoA was reached = the a/c wasn't even approaching a stall !

The confusion regarding the function of the slats could've been avoided had the RAF contacted Handley Page.

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...

LoL, what a load of pro-allied bias again !

No wonder Mike Williams presents your posts on his site
 

You used two examples I had thought of regarding US machines, but I have more knowledge of German planes and their history.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying every Tom Dick and Harry mod his plane.....I am just saying it was not rare to seen it done.

Guns added, removed (more then one P-47 pilot did that), guns upgraded, guns down graded, armor added, armor removed, different paint schemes (which affect speed greatly), waxing (added speed), cigar holders added (not that changed flight char. but it was funny), radios removed, ammo loads changed, etc etc. Many were done and done through unofficial levels. Every example I listed I have read about and I am sure I have missed some.

I am sure others (and you) could add more. How many planes out of say 100 were modified......I am not sure. But there was some that is forsure.
 

i'm sure you are correct about all the examples you cited and more.. I'm also aware of co-axial cable and mast change, etc - but the structural stuff I'm pretty sure of also
 

I expect Mr Williams has some respect for my scholarship, and will soon be posting one Erich and I and two other gentlemen from 357FG and 384BG will be posting about 24 April, 1944.

BTW - you have not been able to find sources or published documents to refute this example of 24 April - nor will you Soren.. You just cannot bear the thought of those mongrels from America outfighting your ancestors over your own territory - particularly if you held the advantage.. simply unthinkable!

Until you actually post sources and facts Soren you are an uniformed waste of time -
 
drgondog said:
i'm sure you are correct about all the examples you cited and more.. I'm also aware of co-axial cable and mast change, etc - but the structural stuff I'm pretty sure of also
Click to expand...

I think we both agree, lots of changes but very few if any "structural" changes done.

But one does not need to make structural changes to change a plane's performance.
 
That is the second time a Mod has told you to tone it down (I was the first one) or the thread will be locked.

What is so difficult about being civil?

This can be debated without insults to anyone or there ancenstors or nationality!

3 strikes and this thread is out. If it spills over to another thread then infractions will happen.
 
Back from holiday.

Bill,

Why do present the AFDU tactical trials of the Mustang Bf-109G ?? Like I said the British test-pilots hardly even dared fly the 109! As soon as the slats came out they would aborted what'ever maneuver they were trying to perform emmidiately, convinced the a/c was about to stall - fact is the 109 wasn't even approaching a stall !

It was the same for many new 109 pilots in the LW, they were convinced the aircraft was close to stalling when the slats began to deploy, and that the Emil suffered jams with its slats didn't help convince them otherwise. In the beginning of his career Günther Rall was nearly killed in an Emil as one of the slats jammed in a turn, sending the 109 into a spin, Rall managed to recover from it though, but from that day on he never pushed the 109 to limit again, relying purely on energy tactics - eventhough this jamming problem was completely solved with the introduction of the Friederich series, an a/c which was praised for its excellent maneuverability turn performance.

In short the AFDU trials with the Bf-109 are worth nothing at all.

Pilots who know the limits of the 109 have this to say:

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories:
Did your flying and tactics change with the new plane?
"No, it was basically the same. Except now we had better climb rates than the Russians and we could split better. And of course gain surprise. With speed, you could hit and run. And not spend much time in their sights.
The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up.
The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again.
You should never lose your speed. Always get back up. The one who is higher has the advantage. You could shake the other with a climbing turn, he had to turn harder. Tighten the turn when the other tries to get into shooting position. The Messerschmitt climbed better, so it got away. Handy.
The one who is in the inside of the circle loses his speed and doesn't get into position. You could use it against Yak-9's and La-5's, they were no more nimble."


Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:
"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off.
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight?
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection.
- And you was flying a three cannon plane?
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things.
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place?
It must have been about 2000m."

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

Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot:
"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."

Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories:
"I got in a dogfight against a Yak-9. I was the underdog, quite close to the water. The Yak-9 had bounced me from behind somewhere and the turning started. I pulled the stick, clenching my teeth, and he followed me. We completed four circles about, but then he disengaged and headed for East, for home. We had been on wavetops, altitude no more than 50m. I arrived at the base. I looked for holes but found only one, in the right wing (of the Me 109 G-6)."


Helmut Lipfert, German fighter ace. 203 victories:"I cast a quik glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. Damn, he could turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately, the 109 turned extremely well.
The whole air battle took place at a very low altitude. I sat behind the Russian like a shadow, and now and then I succeeded in hitting him."

Major Kozhemyako, VSS fighter ace:
"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful in fights with Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight."

Mark Hannah, Mordern 109 pilot:
"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."

And there's plenty more, even from Spitfire pilots.

Now I shouldn't have to post all this really, cause if your understanding of aerodynamics is as good as you claim you would know all this already as even the basics are indicative enough of the clear superiority of the Bf-109.

Compared to the P-51 Mustang the Bf-109 has a MUCH smaller wetted area, a MUCH lower lift-loading, a MUCH lower power-loading and more available power to begin with - these basic facts are all you need really, but we can go through all the rest as-well if you wish ??

So like I said, the P-51 Mustang is NO match in a turn fight at any practical speed for any Bf-109.

Other facts:

1.)The top 3 aces of all time all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces, of all time, 12 flew 109's exclusively.
2.)The Bf-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.
 

What is this claim based on? The British knew exactly what slats were, and how they behaved on the 109.

As early as 1940 and their test of a captured 109E, they gave the speed the slats opened as 111 mph, and noted the stalling speed was 75 mph.

From the report:

and:


Eric Brown commented on the slats:


So the British certainly knew that the slats opened at much higher than stall speed (and any test pilot would have known this anyway, as slats were hardly unknown devices). They also knew that the 109 had a fairly gentle stall, so the idea they would be frightened of stalling the aircraft is daft.
 
I know you responded to Bill, but I had to comment on this...

Soren, even back in 1940 what kind of competent test pilot (even one flying a captured enemy aircraft) would be afraid or even hesitant of stalling an aircraft????? Cripes, one could slow the thing down in either Vs or Vs1 and ease into a stall with little or no problems. Power off stalls would could be done with no need to input rudder so the aircraft would stall straight ahead, and I would expect this to be done on the first or second flight. I've test flown homebuilts and once the aircraft seems to be sound, the first thing I start doing is stalling it and acquiring a feel on how the aircraft would perform during landing, and I'm sure this was done to captured aircraft on both sides...

During WW2 I would expect those intelligence officers responsible for evaluating a captured enemy aircraft and gathering information to insist that during the flight test profile the aircraft being fully evaluated to know EXACTLY when the slats would deploy and EXACTLY when the aircraft would stall in bank angles in increments from 10 to 60 degrees, at least! Shoot - If I was the test pilot I would want to know how the slats worked and how the aircraft stalled with them deployed. After doing this one could easily take the aircraft into simulated combat against other aircraft and know exactly where and when the slats will deploy and where and when then aircraft is going to stall.

I'm sorry Soren, I have a very hard time believing that and if there actually was a test pilot who was afraid, or for a better word "cautious" about pushing a new or even captured aircraft to it's limits to test an "unknown" system (in this case the L/E slats) then that fellow doesn't belong in a capacity to test aircraft....
 
Quit the excuses Hop, testing stall speed hasn't got anything to do with this, and that you even assumed this is ridiculous. Stalls under zero G is another thing than stalls under G.

Straight from the AFDU:
"The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

The slats don't open near the stall, they start to open way before that.

And like Walter Wolfrum said:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

And Erwin Leykeuf:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. "

A pilot who is flying a new plane isn't going to "fool" around as crashing is always a distinct possibility. The bang and slight notch which accompanied the deployment of the slats scared new pilots, making them believe a stall was emanant - the British test pilots suffered the same problems concerns, hence why they didn't push the 109 to the limit in turns.

If you still dont "buy" the facts above then tell me this; How come when the Bf-109G will easily out-turn the FW-190 that it doesn't easily out-turn both the Mustang Mk.III Tempest in the AFDU tactical trials, as a FW-190G (Ground attack version) manages to turn with both in the AFDU tactical trials ??

The answer is easy: The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall, just like the new LW pilots. And the fact that the AFDU says the following only underlines this fact: "the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"
 
Show us proof of that Soren - "Flight testing 101" - one of the first thing you ascertain is stall characteristics, that is needed to understand how the aircraft is going to behave at low speeds and landing. No properly trained pilot "should be afraid" of stalling an aircraft - that's just plain hogwash!!!
 
I didn't say they were afraid of stalling the a/c FLYBOYJ, I said they were afraid the a/c was about to stall when the slats came out in turns. The slats go *bang!* when they deploy in turns as the critical AoA is approached quickly, thus the slats deploy quickly, and this scared new pilots who weren't used to or knew anything about the slats. Stalling the a/c in slow straight flight wasn't a problem as the deployment of the slats was then slow and gradual, so no loud bang or notch was felt.

The proof is right infront of you.
 


No it's not - if the slats deployed loudly with a *bang* as you say, that would be all the reason why to fly the aircraft through the full deployment of the slats, at varying air speeds and at varying angles of attack. You are now talking "new pilots," I'm talking test pilots, RAF pilots who flew captured birds, that's where this whole discussion originated from. I'd like to see a pilot report, flight test card or some other documented evidence that RAF test pilots were afraid or cautious of flying a captured Bf 109 through full slat deployment at varying angles of attack, at varying speeds and on to a full stall.
 
Here Soren...

Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to
the Spitfire I as follows:
My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was
mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the
Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is
was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was
outstandingly better in turning circle. 106
In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I
found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if
not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with
fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at
400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E
performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good
stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept
snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a
heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the
rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in
combat.

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E
 
In every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 easily out-turns the FW-190, yet in the AFDU trials it somehow doesn't achieve out-turning two a/c both of which the FW-190 manages to turn with. Odd isn't it ?

The AFDU comments:
"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

Remember the first 109 the British test-pilots got to fly was the Emil, which slats unfortunately had a frequent habbit of jamming in turns. So the British test pilot's first experience with an a/c equipped with automatic LE slats is one with a violant departure spin in hard turns because of the slats jamming. So who's to blame the test pilots for thinking the same will happen if you push the Bf-109G that far ? - Hence the comment above made in the AFDU report.

Is this proof enough ??
 

Again its a Emil, and the snapping in and out suggests something is awfully wrong!

Dave Southwood, modern Bf-109 pilot:
One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

You can read the rest here:
The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
Gloster Gladiotor vs PZL P24
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Hurricane Mk1 vs 109E-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register