Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
sorry, but I can't see "three fighters", how can it be that every thread in this forum after at least three pages is totally OT. Moderators here
are very quick in banning but don't see permanent OT postings.
regards
cimmex
in this aspect im offering the situation p-51 VS bf.109. in war, the advantages i see are in versatility. the bf.109 was able to be extensively modified for destroyer, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, and carrier configurations. the p-51 was an able dogfighter, and just as equally a fighter-bomber, but it had unrealized potential. i think the p-51 could have done more than it was allotted for. but the point still stands that the bf.109 and p-51 are very different airplanes in respect to design and design goal. this is really just my opinion though. personally i believe the p-51 to be equal to the bf.109 in dogfighting, but less able than the bf.109 in terms of versatility(and dependability in terms of that versatility). the bf.109 was the core of the luftwaffe, and it was a very fantastic aircraft. as for its standing against other fighters throughout the war, the only thing i see that made the 109 fail was poor pilot training.
The problem is that the rank and file USAAF fighter pilot was better trained, better led and in general more aggressive - leading to the lopsided air to air results of the 109 vs the P-51B/C/D/K and we don't even get to the P-51H.
If im not mistaken, i believe the bf.109 was quite agile for its type. plus, even though the mustang has 6 heavy caliber machine guns, the bf.109s cannon makes one hit far more destructive than a single bullet. if we are talking the 30mm, one hit would be enough to destroy a mustang, and if the bf.109 is as or more agile than the mustang, a pilot of reasonable quality could get in behind the mustang long enough to hit it with the cannon. the bf.109 model i-m referencing is the K-4 or if not then the best of the G-series.
in this aspect im offering the situation p-51 VS bf.109. in war, the advantages i see are in versatility. the bf.109 was able to be extensively modified for destroyer, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, and carrier configurations. the p-51 was an able dogfighter, and just as equally a fighter-bomber, but it had unrealized potential. i think the p-51 could have done more than it was allotted for. but the point still stands that the bf.109 and p-51 are very different airplanes in respect to design and design goal. this is really just my opinion though. personally i believe the p-51 to be equal to the bf.109 in dogfighting, but less able than the bf.109 in terms of versatility(and dependability in terms of that versatility). the bf.109 was the core of the luftwaffe, and it was a very fantastic aircraft. as for its standing against other fighters throughout the war, the only thing i see that made the 109 fail was poor pilot training.
in this aspect im offering the situation p-51 VS bf.109. in war, the advantages i see are in versatility. the bf.109 was able to be extensively modified for destroyer, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, and carrier configurations. the p-51 was an able dogfighter, and just as equally a fighter-bomber, but it had unrealized potential. i think the p-51 could have done more than it was allotted for. but the point still stands that the bf.109 and p-51 are very different airplanes in respect to design and design goal. this is really just my opinion though. personally i believe the p-51 to be equal to the bf.109 in dogfighting, but less able than the bf.109 in terms of versatility(and dependability in terms of that versatility). the bf.109 was the core of the luftwaffe, and it was a very fantastic aircraft. as for its standing against other fighters throughout the war, the only thing i see that made the 109 fail was poor pilot training.