Realistic max speeds WW2 fighters / Speeds of the late 109s

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


Went away and had a bit of a think about how i might show just how much of the USAACs strength was retained in the rear areas during the war.


Thought this link may be of assistance. Its the US Army Air forces Statistical Digest....basic stuff, but is shows the numbers of combat groups deployed overseas, and the numbers retained at home, as well as numbers retained at home as reserves, and in the training commands

Army Air Forces in World War II


If we take January 1944 as the sample month....a month that is neither at the beginning of the war or at the end, but right in the middle of the critical periods when the US was hammering the LW for air supremacy, we find the following

Gps deployed (total/fighter)

1.= Overseas
2.= Europe
3.=Home Deployment (Home Active + Training + Strategic Reserves + manning Cmd or ferry cmd) ,
4.= Total Includes everything including dployment to Japan.

(fractions of gps are rounded)

Jan 44;Feb 44; Mar 44; Apr '44

1.= 148/49;161/50;175/53;193/63
2.= 104/34;116/34;130/38;145/45
3.= 141/34;117/33;88/26;60/26
4.=218/66, 218/66, 218/66, 223/67,

To determine the percentage of groups deployed to Europe, we need to divide the gps sent to Europe (line 2) by the totals (line 4). Again the figures are expressed as Total/fighters

Percentage Of Groups sent to Europe

48/51, 53/51, 60/58, 65/67

Looking at January at that time the total number of aircraft attached to the overseas groups (218) amounted to 12719 combat A/C. Of that total a little over half were assigned to the USAAC forces serving in the ETO. Approximately 17 of the 34 Fighter Groups were assigned to the US 8th AF, and I believe of that 17 groups, only four were equipped with P-51s. This remained the situation until after April I believe. There were a few P-38 equipped units, and some P-47s. but neither the p-47 or the P-38 were really suitable for long range deep penetration escorts. this could at that time only be undertaken by the p-51 units.

If the P-51s were the only fighters capable of providing long range escort, and there were just four groups of them, then approximately 300 were available as at january 1944 for long range escort operations. These are approximate figures.

So what was the approximate strength of the LW at this time. in December 1943 there were 1561 SE engined fighters, By the beginning of March this figure had climbed to 1696 a/c. Approximately 1175 fighters were allocated to the Reich defences in December increasing by about 100 in January, to around 1275 fighters. Contrary to earlier claims, the LW was not dissipating its efforts on other theatres....just about everything they had was being used to defend the Reich . So, here we have approximately 300 LR allied fighters engaging appropximately 1200 LW fighters. Sure there were 17000 other fighters based in England and able to totally dominate france, but over Germany, the numbers still favoured the germans. The Americans, incidentally had about 4000 strategic bombers in Europe, nearly all of them B-17s and B-24s.

German figures do not include Night fighters, which were often thrown into the daylight battles. There were about 260 German Night Fighters at this time.

So, tell me again how it is the allies achieved local superiority in fighters over Germany in january 1944?????
 
Since this thread has veered off of its intended course, lets summarize...

1. Bf 109 = Interceptor
2. P-51D = Escort Fighter
3. Both had weaknesses and advantages over the other. Once engaged in combat against one another it typically came down to tactical situation and pilot skill (as did combat between all the great warbirds).
4. The P-51D could do one really main thing that the Bf 109 could not, and that was take the fight to anywhere it was needed. It had the range the 109 did not.
5. Overall numerical superiority does not mean that you have local numerical superiority. Sorry Ratsel, that is fact.

All of these, especially the part about the numerical superiority has been hashed out and covered so many times. I can see why parsifal has grown tired of it...

Maybe we can get over it and move on?
 
' 5. Overall numerical superiority does not mean that you have local numerical superiority. Sorry Ratsel, that is fact. '

You are 100% correct. But four major fronts, limited aircraft, and JG 11/27/53 the main players in Germany's defence in the west. Localized superiorty yes, until the Allies learn of strong resisitance unacceptable losses, then they send in 10x more. Localized superiorty is now lost, and the JG base had to move futher east. That played out time and time again. Speed or no speed from the 109. Parsifal has grown tired perhaps becouse of diaries being discovered all the time that says otherwise.

Now again you are 100% correct that the P51 had the range to go anywhere and hang around, at high altitudes. BIG advantage there. the 109's had to fight the bombers and fight the escorts, and defend sometimes the Fw 190's to get to the bombers. It couldn't linger, unless they had fore-warning.

One on One 109 vs P-51 is a hard call, up high p-51, below 15,000ft Me 109. range P-51. arnament about equal. dive slight advantge to Me 109. climb Me 109. turn about the same. armor about the same. level speed about the same. comes down to pilots. lots of good veteren pilots lost do to fatigue and the above reasons.

Kindest Regards
 
Last edited:
there are plenty of diaries recording combats between flights of escorts bouncing 50+ Luftwaffe interceptors, this is also fact, just because the US could field more aircraft overall does not mean they are all in one place fighting all the germans, the very fact that so many US pilots reported no contact with the Luftwaffe should be all the example you need that the germans concentrated thier forces locally just as any other airforce would do, and in those circumstances the defenders often outnumbered the escorts!

bear in mind the attacking formations were flying from the UK and southern europe, how many sorties could a KG fly in the time it takes the attackers to fly just one!

[[[One on One 109 vs P-51 is a hard call, up high p-51, below 15,000ft Me 109. range P-51. arnament about equal. dive slight advantge to Me 109. climb Me 109. turn about the same. armor about the same. level speed about the same.]]]
it's not a tough call at all, both aircraft stood as much chance dependant on the pilots and situation, swap places and the outcome would be the same, war is not a game where quoting climb rates and ultimate speeds dictate outcomes, the P51 could do any job the 109 could, however the 109 could not do all the P51 could!
 
I'm sorry, did I say it was a game? I don't think I did. Certainly my Great Uncle didn't think it was a game when the last thing he seen was the muzzle flash of a P-47. Regardless, in order for one to completely understand, one has to research all aspects of the situation. I have, and I stand by my statements. Not everyone will agree, but thats ok.
 
I'd say there's a lot of "what ifs" in there; I don't see the point in this comparison, but to answer most of those scenarios, yes. P-51s did take on P-47s and Spitfires in post war situations (Latin America and Israel), did operate on crude airfields (Korea, Latin America, Israel) and did serve as an interceptor in the post war years (Israel, Korea, Latin America). Don't know about the quality of the fuel during these skirmishes, but that's anyone's guess. P-51s didn't shoot down IL-2s to my knowledge but DID shoot down Yak-9s and IL-10s over Korea, (On 7 Nov 1950 a P-51 claimed a MiG-15) so again I don't quite understand your point Jim.
 
Last edited:
apologies for any offence Ratsel but statements like -[[[One on One 109 vs P-51 is a hard call, up high p-51, below 15,000ft Me 109. range P-51. arnament about equal. dive slight advantge to Me 109. climb Me 109. turn about the same. armor about the same. level speed about the same.]]]come over very fanboy and just the sort of arguments I see online in games !

ultimate performance limits make very little difference to real combat, plenty of 109's and P51's were shot down from ground level to the highest reaches, diving or turning or any other maneuver, the planes and engines were never identically built in factories working flat out, the pilots were never the same and the situation was rarely the same, the only realistic benchmark is could they do each others job, and in this respect the P51 was the best single engined fighter of ww2, because it could do the job of all its conteporaries but they could not do the P51's job, and I say this as an avid fan of the Typhoon/Tempest family, not as a fan of the P51!
 


In january 1944 there were not four major fronts for the Luftwaffes fighters. There was just one, over the reich. In December 1943, just before the pivatal month, 1200 of the Luftwaffes 1600 SE fighters were concentrated in Germany.

The germans were not wasting their time on secondary fronts. Just about everything thyey had was defending Germany.

In regard to your comment about the allies sending 10x more fighters, in January 1944 there werent 10x more fighters available. There were about 300 American fighters with the range to contest the skies over all of germany. As the months went by, this gradually changed, such that by th enhd of the year there were I think about 16 groups with P-51s, and other groups mostly based in Europe that could lend support. by then, the LW was inn a world of hurt, but thats not the critical time to consider. the critical time was January to June 1944. that was the time the LW fought its battle for Germany, and lost it. And that makes the p-51 a very unique fighter, because its one of the few fighters in the war to have a decisive effect on a campaign. thats why its a far more significant aircraft than the 109. Not a better aircraft, both were formidable in the air, just more significant, because it achieved the mission assigned to it, at a time when it didnt outnumber its opponents.
I agree with Adler, we have done this issue to death. I am the "B" division as far as knowledge of this subject is concerned. i listen to the "A' division, and i know what they think. This whole debate is a freakin waste of time
 
Ratsel said:
You are 100% correct. But four major fronts, limited aircraft, and JG 11/27/53 the main players in Germany's defence in the west.
Click to expand...

I see more than just the 3 JGs you mention Ratsel.

Luftwaffe Orders of Battle

In fact, JG53 played a minor role with only II/JG 53 with 31 a/c in Luftflotte Reich on May 31 1944.

This compares to:

JG1 - 135
JG3 - 90
JG5 - 87
JG2, 26 - 168

JG11 and JG27 had 97 and 70 a/c.
 
Luftflotte Reich (Germany) in the timeframe specified to aircraft IN Germany:

Totals 330(flyable) Me 109/Fw 190 (All JG units Day Fighters)

Totals 101 (flyable) Me 109/Fw 190 Wilde Sau (Day and Night Fighters, no breakdown) ~ Erich will have a more accurate account for this unit.

Totals of 431 flyable Me 109/Fw 190's Day fighters

JG 53 played a bigger roll, as only 1 ( or mabey 2.. can't remember) staffels were deployed in the East.

Also, as said, many units went back to Germany for re-fit re-deployment.

Cheers..
 
jim said:
Mr davparir i am afraid this statement is not accurate. Any Bf 109 with Mw50 was a tough opponent for P51 if numbers and combat cituation were equal . That means variants with Db605AM and ASM ,available from late spring 44.
Click to expand...
According to Kurfurst site the Bf-109G with AM and ASM engines, with MW-50 compared to the post May '44 P-51D is as:

SL (airspeed, mph/climb ft/min
P-51D 383 mph 4000 ft/min
Bf-109G-14 (ASM) 342 mph 4015 ft/min
Bf-109G-14 (AM) 344 4114

5k
P-51 390 4000
Bf-109G-14 (ASM) 369 3937
Bf-109G-14 (AM) 369 4133

10k
P-51 426 3700
Bf-109G-14 (ASM) 375 3622
Bf-109G-14 (AM) 378 3839

15k
P-51 420 3600
Bf-109G-14 (ASM) 388 3307
Bf-109G-14 (AM) 400 3484

20k
P-51 431 3080
Bf-109G-14 (ASM) 403 2952
Bf-109G-14 (AM) 403 2559

25k
P-51 442 2350
Bf-109G-14(ASM) 416 2323
Bf-109G-14 (AM) 415 1594

30k
P-51D 440 1720
Bf-109G-14(ASM) 403 1476
Bf-109G-14(AM) 374 1122

There are a few things that we can get from this chart. One is that the P-51D was significantly faster than either the AM or ASM engined Bf-109 from SL to ceiling. Two, the AM had pretty good climb performance at low altitude, although only a max of 140 ft/min better than the P-51D, but was less capable above 10k ft. Three, the ASM performed better at in climb at higher altitude with performance similar too but less than the P-51D, four, it took two different types of Bf-109 engines to provide the climb performance in the same altitude range as the P-51D, and neither could provide the airspeed.

Another significant item we can get is the airspeed at sea level. The P-51D, with roughly the same power available at SL, 1800 hp, was 40 mph faster than the AM and ASM engined Bf-109G-14, an over 10% increase in speed at the same power. This indicates the P-51D had significantly better aerodynamic integration than the Bf-109G-14. Even the more powerful K with 2000 hp was slower at sea level than the P-51D.

This performance data was with a P-51D weight 1900 lbs heavier than was the Bf-109G-14.

While I agree with you that the Bf-109 aircraft with these engines would be tough opponents, the Mustang could engage and disengage a will at any altitude and would always be capable of obtain higher energy levels, a critical capability. Now take into the account that the Mustang just flew 600 miles, fought this fight, a few others or strafe a train and then would fly 600 miles home, really, an amazing aircraft.

Also, the P-51B was a better performer than the P-51D.

Also G-10,and K were not lightened versions , were standard versions
Click to expand...
Well, they were not lightened versions of the G-6, but they were considerably lighter by some 900 lbs
The answer to your requirements is Fw 190 C (Db603A no turbosupercharger) Could be in action summer 43 , both airframe and engine were already in production by late 42, ~700km/h 7000m. Political decisions prevented it .
Click to expand...
Another what-if that did not appear?
Also the late appereance of D9 was a matter of political decisions and not technical.
Click to expand...
The D9 was a capable fighter at lower altitude with similar performance as the P-51B. At bomber altitudes it was outclassed.
Mr Flyboy J
There were some finals improvements for the 109 family that would result in a performance near that supposedly P51H offered
Click to expand...
The P-51H(500 were produced by the end of the war) was tested at 413 mph at SL, the Bf-109K was capable of 376 mph at SL. No technologically available, or probably theoretically performing propeller, was going to make up that difference. Remember the P-51 is a cleaner aircraft.
Also about p51H . The German 'what ifs' failed to appear in number in combat due production dificulties , political misjudgements, lack of fuel etc... P 51H had not such limiting factors but still did not appear in any combat, no WW2
Click to expand...
Not required. The P-51Ds had things in control

, no Korea (where p51d was prefered .....) ,no peripheral conflicts. the conclusions yours....
Click to expand...
By this time, both planes were obsolete for air-to-air combat and both contracts cancelled. The P-51H was built to lighter British stress levels to improve air-to-air performance, which was not the task in Korea. The stronger built F-51s were plentiful and better adapted to air-to-ground combat (although not as good as the F-47 or F4U, but that's another discussion
Also the other hot rod ,F8F , also was not prefered by anyone (save the French) for actual combat. Coincidence ? Maybe .
Click to expand...
Again, the F8F was primarily designed for air-to-air combat. The Navy had the great and updated F4U, acclaimed for its air-to-ground capability, ready. It was the natural selection post war. The aero performance capability of the F8F, a highly maneuverable aircraft, is not challenged.
 
Mr Davparir
truly P51 was a very very good aircraft. not doubt about that . And it appeared at the best time.But:

Lets say i accept your data. How is possible an aircraft with
a) similar power with another aircraft (and with an engine of smaller displacement) 1800hp
b) 1900 lb higher weight
c ) laminar flow wing (=lower lift)
have a similar or superior rate of climb?
How could obtain higher energy level in a dogfight with higher power loading?
10 % higher speed on same power means something like 50% less drug? And it is even more amazing considering Bf109 was a smaller aircaft.

To be honest i dont believe the figures you posted( i am not saying that you lie) as i dont believe p51H figures and the reason P51H did not see combat was that actually was quitly recognised that it sacrificed too much for performance. Unfortunately we saw what happens even to highly modified and lightened p51s when approach 500mph .F8F wings were breaking even in non combat situations
Fw190C flew and tested.
There are more improvements for Bf 109 except the propellers. 2 stage supercharcher, and higher boost. C3 fuel could ,in theory ,support up to 2.3 ata boost. And better building quality could add to the declared perfprmance up to 10mph.
Dont get me wrong . I agree p51 was an overall more advanced aircraft than Bf 109 .
 
' Another significant item we can get is the airspeed at sea level. The P-51D, with roughly the same power available at SL, 1800 hp, was 40 mph faster than the AM and ASM engined Bf-109G-14, an over 10% increase in speed at the same power. This indicates the P-51D had significantly better aerodynamic integration than the Bf-109G-14. Even the more powerful K with 2000 hp was slower at sea level than the P-51D '


Lets compare apples to apples here. Bf 109G-10 rate of climb was over 4,600 ft/min at 1.98atu. 373 mph at sea level. The K was better climbing and faster at sea level the the G-10 @ 1.98atu.
 
And only a handful of 1.98ata 109s were around in the last couple of months of the war in Europe. They had as much impact as the Ta152H had.

I can't help it if build quality was so bad that serviceability was around 50%.

What time frame?

JG 53 played a bigger roll, as only 1 ( or mabey 2.. can't remember) staffels were deployed in the East.
Click to expand...

JG53 Stab
9.43 - 22.1.44 Rome-Ciampino > Italy
22.1.44 - 13.2.44 Viterbo > Italy

I./JG53
28.11.43 - 21.1.44 Centocelle > Italy
21.1.44 - 23.4.44 Maniago > Italy

II./JG53
16.10.43 - 3.3.44 Wien-Seyring > Germany

III./JG53
19.12.43 - 24.1.44 Villa Orba > Italy
24.1.44 - 22.2.44 Orvieto > Italy

Italy would be south, would it not?

Where Lw units were based can be found on this site, The Luftwaffe, 1933-45

Jim, the first P-51H-1-NA was flown by Bob Chilton on February 3, 1945. A bit late for it to have enough built and squadrons formed and trained for the war in Europe. As davparlr said, "The P-51Ds had things in control. By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender.

The F8F-1's wing were designed to loose their wing tips so not to over stress the wing.
 
Ta 152 H-1 w/ Jumo213E had 1.92 ata + GM1 / 2050ps. DB 605DC had 1.98 ata + Mw-50 / 2000ps. The DB 605DC was used well before the last couple months of the war. Also, the DB 605ASCM was rated at 2000ps. Also what time frame you ask? JG 53 during the time you quoted May/June 44. The figures in post #135 is Jan/April 44.
 

I have no problem being challenged nor proven wrong with my data.

The information on the Bf-109G-14 AM and ASM come from Kurfurst site which seems to be the best accepted source of Bf-109 data. Some of it is in German so it is possible for me to not provide all pertinent data. Note that weight is included on charts.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/files/PBG14_LS_SNplusMW50.jpg

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/files/PBG14_ROC_SNplusMW50.jpg

Since I do not have test data on the P-51D using 75" Hg boost, which was approved for use by AAF in May, 1944, the P-51 data comes from two sources. One source is an AAF test of the P-51D using 67" Hg boost and the other is an AAF test of the P-51B using 44-1 fuel and 75" Hg boost. So some interpolation was required. Note that tail number and weight are included on charts.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-speed-wf.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-climb-wf.jpg


Now let me attempt to address your questions which I have had also. The data above seems solid and speaks for itself so there must be an answer. I am not an aero guy so the only thing I can guess is that lower drag, which the P-51 certainly has, means more airspeed for any given power setting. Since Lift is a function of airspeed squared, a small increase in speed gives a lot lift. I think this is shown with modern jets. The T-38 has a small wing but can go from SL to 40k ft in 90 seconds. I think it does this because it can maintain lots of speed. I think the P-51 can generate similar climb numbers to the lighter Bf-109G-14 because it can maintain more speed with less power. This may be hairbrained, but its all I got.

And it is even more amazing considering Bf109 was a smaller aircaft.
Click to expand...

Yes
 
Last edited:
Comparing the P-51B, pulling 67" Hg, to the Bf-109G-6, with the DB605A engine, two typical adversaries in the early part of 1944, a critical time in the air war over Germany, the Bf109 has a definite climb performance advantage over the P-51B up to about 15k. Above that, the P-51 has the advantage. However, the level speed is significantly different with the P-51 having a 30 to 40 mph airspeed edge from SL to ceiling. After May, with new fuel and higher boost, the P-51 had an even greater edge over the 605A powered Bf.
 

1.98ata banned > http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB_Niederschrift6730_DB605DBDC_20-1-45.pdf

1.98ata cleared for use > OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g. Kdos, from 20 March 1945.

As for the dates, you seemed to take exception to the May 31 date.

Anyways, the date doesn't change much from the Jan date.

JG53 Stab
4.44 - 27.6.44 Bologna > Italy

I./JG53
23.3.44 - 9.5.44 Bologna > Italy
9.5.44 - 17.7.44 Targsorul-Nou > Romania

II./JG53
6.6.44 - 7.6.44 Le Mans > France
7.6.44 - 15.6.44 Vannes > France
15.6.44 - 25.6.44 Soucelles > France
25.6.44 - 12.7.44 Champfleury > France

III./JG53
22.2.44 - 2.6.44 Arlena > Italy
2.6.44 - 27.6.44 Maniago > Italy
27.6.44 - 6.8.44 Bad Lippspringe > Germany
 
Just for reference here, Spitfires provided early escort for the USAAC bombers. These were relieved by P-47 (and P-38 when available). Then these were relieved by P-51 for the furthest penetrations... On the return, P-47s (and P-38s) met the bombers when they were part way back. This allows the P-51 to be effective for their turn on watch. I posted this in case someone was thinking P-51s escorted from take-off til return. Certainly not the case early 44. IIRC, in Aug 43, P-47s could nearly reach Frankfurt am Mein and Hamburg and reaching past these in Feb 44, just reference.

The offense can choose the routes and targets. The defender must choose what he wishes to defend, chosing basing and pre-staging, etc. Lots of fighters to defend but the distances were immense especially for the 109. Quite often, not all that were available were sent; weather, other missions, held as reserve, etc. Then that growing fuel shortage problem and modest pilot training problem both in quantity and quality. The attacker must escort all or suffer. Interesting chess game to be played. Difficult challenge to get even several staffel-strength units to one area for a massed attack. Rather something to suppose the Germans can mass 100s of fighters at a certain instant. So at a point in time, easy to have lots of Mustangs vs a lesser number of LW aircraft. In a few more minutes, things can change such as escorts drawn away and the next staffel on station has few escorts to deal with. The 109's relative short endurance must have been a real PITA for German ground controllers.

Here is some P-51D data
P-51 Mustang Performance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Any Sources on Sea Level max speeds for the Ki-43’s?
Replies
4
Views
606
taly01
Fastest WW2 Prop Fighters at Sea Level
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
J.A.W.
Yak Fighters & Top Speed
Replies
0
Views
579
Laurelix
N
Comparative performance of British fighters 1945.
Replies
7
Views
1K
ThomasP
T
Y
Tests on the La-5/7 series
Replies
3
Views
1K
Trilisser
T
Menu
Log in
Register