P51D/K vs Me109K-14

[FLYBOYJ]

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 ??

No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.

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

Your original post was "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."

The PIREP from Jeffery Quill clearly states otherwise....

 

[Soren]

Oh and since we're at it, another comment by Dave Southwood:
The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang

Again, the mustang suffers from heavy elevators at high speeds as-well.

 

[Soren]

No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.

It is neither vague or indirect FLYBOYJ.

As to where the statement is from, you can read it on Mike Williams site: Tempest V Performance Data Or I can provide you the original ?

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

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

Your original post was "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."

The PIREP from Jeffery Quill clearly states otherwise....

Since we were talking about the Bf-109G what I meant obviously was: the British test pilots didn't push the Bf-109G past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall.

Now how about stop refusing to consider the facts I provide and start thinking how come the AFDU trials turned out the way they did ?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It is neither vague or indirect FLYBOYJ.

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

All it says there was some embarrassment about the slots - perhaps it scared the bejeezers out of some test pilot or the writer was trying to make fun of the -109. In either case that statement no where comes close to proving that captured Bf 109Gs were never stalled during evaluation, that they were never flown at high angles of attack and that there was any reluctance or prohibitions in allowing the slats to deploy or dealing with a high AoA or high speed stall after they were deployed.

As to where the statement is from, you can read it on Mike Williams site: Tempest V Performance Data Or I can provide you the original ?

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

I read it fully...

What would make you think that RAF test pilots wouldn't fully test the slat mechanism on the "G" when they did so on the "E" several years earlier - you're not making sense...

This is not a plug for the Spitfire in the old turning battle, but more of an invalidation of your original statement about RAF test pilots not fully stalling the Bf 109, be it an Emil or Gustaf. Unless there was something dreadfully wrong with the slats or airframe, the test pilots evaluating the aircraft would of had the slats and *bang" figured out within a few flights....

Since we were talking about the Bf-109G what I meant obviously was: the British test pilots didn't push the Bf-109G past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall.

Now how about stop refusing to consider the facts I provide and start thinking how come the AFDU trials turned out the way they did ?

No Soren again, read above - no pilot would be afraid of letting an aircraft stall unless he was 100 AGL...

 

[Soren]

Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused.

Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.

As to the condition of the captured a/c well here's a little thing I noticed:
"the 109G's maximum roll is embarrassing (slots keep opening) "

Now that is something which isn't going to happen to a fully functioning 109!

From: Mustang Tacical Trials

The only thing that would explain the test results besides the pilot not pushing past the slats deployment would be if the gun-pods were left on - which they most likely were.

The 109G in question:

 

[drgondog]

Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused.

Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.

As to the condition of the captured a/c well here's a little thing I noticed:
"the 109G's maximum roll is embarrassing (slots keep opening) "

Now that is something which isn't going to happen to a fully functioning 109!

From: Mustang Tacical Trials

The only thing that would explain the test results besides the pilot not pushing past the slats deployment would be if the gun-pods were left on - which they most likely were.

The 109G in question:

Soren - you are perhaps the greatest waste of intellectual capital - and time - that I have ever run across in my entire 61 years.. absolutely incredible specimen.

 

[Soren]

Here we go with Bill's insults again..

Bill your completely OT comments above don't strike me as very mature for a 61 year old I must say.

You should note that the mods have been warning against using insults for some time now.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused.

Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.

As to the condition of the captured a/c well here's a little thing I noticed:
"the 109G's maximum roll is embarrassing (slots keep opening) "

Now that is something which isn't going to happen to a fully functioning 109!

From: Mustang Tacical Trials

The only thing that would explain the test results besides the pilot not pushing past the slats deployment would be if the gun-pods were left on - which they most likely were.

The 109G in question:

Soren, as stated, I'm not here to argue the 109s turning ability, comparing it to other aircraft, or trying to justify the noted test results. You made the statement that when the noted 109s slats deployed, pilots were afraid of it stalling - there was no evidence to support that, in fact everything shown here proves that the aircraft WAS stalled in more than one configuration as this would be one of the first things done when evaluating the aircraft.

I'm sure you're familiar with the USAAF evaluation of the 109G at Wright Patterson.

"f. Stalls and Stall Warning.
Automatic Handly-Page type slots are provided on
the outboard leading edges of the wing. They extend at about 240 kph
indicated. The airplane's stall characteristics are good with little
tendency to fall off on either wing. No specific stall checks were made
but it is believed the stall with wheels down and full flaps is about 150
kph indicated."

and BTW, here are the comments made about its turning ability....

"g. Maneuverability and Aerobatics.
The radius of turn is very poor in this airplane
and it is probably due to the poor elevator control. It is very hard to
maneuver at high speeds. At cruising speeds the controls are very light
and all normal aerobatics may be performed easily."

Me 109 G Flight Tests

Bottom line Soren, not stalling an aircraft during flight evaluation in several flight configurations is like test flying the aircraft without retracting the landing gear. But to answer your question about the turning radius of the 109. Did you ever think that those who evaluated the 109 did not fully master the aircraft after only flying the aircraft 3 or 4 hours? Some of the quotes you posted earlier came from pilots who had hundreds if not thousands of hours in the aircraft and were probably the most proficient 109 drivers during WW2 and it is that reason why I believe you see that difference in opinion with regards to the evaluation of the Bf 109 turning radius....

 

[drgondog]

Here we go with Bill's insults again..

Bill your completely OT comments above don't strike me as very mature for a 61 year old I must say.

You should note that the mods have been warning against using insults for some time now.

Actually you are right. I apologise for the comments about wasting intellectual capital

 

[wwii:)aircraft]

I think the k14 is probably the better fighter.
First of all the K14 kills in a climb and firepower making it ideal for interceptor missions But being built as an interceptor it lacks some important qualities such as maneuverability and rate of role (because of the wing mounted guns). So really the only advantage the mustang has over the k14 is its maneuverability, and of course its range.

A fighter that would have had a more similar performance with the p51 would have been the fw190Dora (most likely the d-13).

 

[tomo pauk]

P-51D/K could have done whatever any German piston-engined fighter did.
Neither 109 (Ks included) nor 190 could do what Pony did, project the power thousands KM away.
The conclusion is that P-51D/K were better.

(Sorry if the difference in range was already adressed)

 

[Soren]

Its not really that simple tomo.

The Bf-109K was undoubtedly the better interceptor, while the P-51D/K was undoubtedly the best escort. They were aircraft designed for different duties which they both did very well.

Both were great aircraft and I don't really think either one was better than the other.

 

[tomo pauk]

While I might agree that 109K would be better (point-area) interceptor, the margin against 51D would be minimal.
The main strength of P-51D (power projection away from base) overshadowed the same category of Bf-109s by huge margin. And that difference over weights the advantage 109 might held as an interceptor.

The one of main qualities of a weapon system (availability in decent numbers early enough, compared against a nominally similar system) was firmly in hands of P-51D/K when compared vs. 109Ks (let alone K-14). Circa 10 months IIRC.

 

[Soren]

While I might agree that 109K would be better (point-area) interceptor, the margin against 51D would be minimal.

I really don't see the margin as minimal considering that the 109K would be able to climb to intercept much quicker and once there also be more capable of outmaneuvering the opposition. Not saying that the P-51 would be useless in the role, I can think of plenty other a/c less suitable in the role, but it just wasn't as good as the Bf109 in that role.

The P-51D/K was however a far better escort, the Bf109 not even coming close there, infact very few a/c did.

 

[drgondog]

I would be inclined to give the edge to the 109K for interceptor role due to climb and firepower advantage - particularly against bombers.. against the better Allied fighters in 1945 the interceptor role against a fighter sweep is more problematical - leaning toward who sees whom first.

 

[Milosh]

Soren, the slats on the 109 were either in or out. There was no partial or gradual deployment.

One thing I have not seen in this thread is the mention of the build quality, or should I say the LACK of build quality, of late war 109s.

When 1.98ata boost was being tested for the K-4, a comment was made about the poor quality of the 109 airframes.

 

[Soren]

Soren, the slats on the 109 were either in or out. There was no partial or gradual deployment.

Incorrect. The speed at which automatic leading edge slats deploy depend upon how quick the AoA changes.

 

[Altea]

Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.

Since 109 had always a better rate of climb than 190, and some lower WL, that seems logical.


But AFAIK, TsAGI made virtually no comparative trials between planes. Never... -It was either NII- VVS, or LII-NKAP jobs.- Only real conditions flights to validate T-103 and T-101 giant wind tunnels results.
Of course both 109 and P-51 complete airframes went in TsAGI windtunnels, but full test results were never published AFAIK, even if they were partially used by soviet designers (from Arlazarov, Surgenko memors...).

NII had only ex british Mustang mk I, with some wear in rather bad condition. Turning tests were made at 1000m hight. With new Packard engined P-51 B/C/D at 7000-9000m and full-laminar wings (new condition), results should have been different.

Moreover, the soviet P-51 (23-25s) was turning ALLOT better than the soviet Bf 109E-3 (26.5-29.3s).

Regards

 

[Vincenzo]

if i remember right there are US test that tell thar mustang with merlin has around same turning rate of 190, so saw that 109 has best turning rate of 190 the 109 gas best turning rate of mustang

 

[Altea]

if i remember right there are US test that tell thar mustang with merlin has around same turning rate of 190, so saw that 109 has best turning rate of 190 the 109 gas best turning rate of mustang

If US Merlin Mustang, has the same turning rate than US FW 190, and better turning rate than US 190, may only show that US FW-190 has better turning rate than US Bf-109.

I won't praise the lack of accuracy of some US, british, german tests....