That is Bill's dad. Bill is known as Drgondog here, Bert is on his profile pic.
Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war?
- Thread starter Jank
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Thanks.
Admiral Beez
Major
Which begs the question, which was the worst? For example, the Bf 109 didn't have the range to protect the Dorniers, Junkers and Heinkels during the Battle of Britain. The RAF would have had a rough time had the Bf 109 had the Mustang's endurance.
drgondog
Major
That said, the Bf 109 matched up within the tactical footprint with all the Allied fighters. I suspect we have to look beyond range as that is a necessary attribute in the escort question.
In US service, I am inclined to point to the F2A Buffalo, then the P-39. The lack of high altitude performance for the P-39 was about a wash with the P-40 and F4F but range was simply adequate for only reasonable tactical or short range low/medium level attack/medium bomber escort. The P-39 served better with the VVS but even in this limited role as an escort fighter - it was utilized more for top cover in escort role for low level attack aircraft.
That said, the question of timeline comes into play. The F2A as an escort is a pointless discussion as it was used only for a very short time until USN could backfill with F4F-3. The discussion about other nations' deployment (i.e. RAF Defiant) is similarly pointless. The Bf 110 similarly fades away as it simply was outclassed by the RAF and VVS and AAF single engine fighters of the same periods. The Hurricane and Spit were also lacking in range, but the Spitfire and Bf 109 were effective for tactical ops above the P-39 and P-40 and Hurricane.
I would nominate the Bf 110 - with the F4F-3 and P-39 and Hurricane in a clump behind the Bf 110.
The YB-40 was not an answer to a mother's prayer but it did have the range and altitude capability for close escort on inbound leg.
drgondog
Major
The 34K Service Ceiling per RAF flight tests with F20R Allison agrees with NAA data for the same engine.
Mustang II Performance Trial
Maybe the worst escort was decided by the commander who sent them on the mission. If you allow a 1940 Bf109 to have a Mustangs range I will allow them to be met by fighters with a Me262s/Meteors performance.
fubar57
General
Some people just can't lose the what if junk
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Admiral Beez
Major
True, and it cost the Spitfire during the Channel Dash, where the situation of the Battle of Britain turned, with the Bf 109s operating closer to base, and thoroughly trouncing the RAF.
Admiral Beez
Major
1940's Bf 109E doesn't need the Mustang's range to be more effective in the Battle of Britain. It just needs 1941's Bf 109F's 1,700 km (1,060 mi) range on internal fuel compared to the Bf 109 E's 660 km (410 miles). But we're entering What'if territory again. My university history always reminded us, don't focus on what could have been, but what was.
fubar57
General
?
Are we now discussing the capabilities of the Spitfire and Hurricane to intercept a fleet of battle cruisers? I presume this is at sea level? An air frame is designed around the technology that is known at the time and the projected weight and output of the engines available when it can be made as a prototype. This worked for the P-51 and didn't work for the Typhoon. If the P-51 ( if a time machine donated its aerodynamics) was entered into a fly off with the Spitfire and Hurricane in 1936 it would probably lose, it was a ton heavier than a Spitfire, with an early Merlin engine and a wooden two blade prop it wouldn't have been very impressive at all.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The 109 with a drop tank might have had much better endurance, however, you also have to look at what was really needed.
Most advocates of either long range 109s or long range Spits simply say that anything longer would have been beneficial, and to a point they are right.
However an extra 15 minutes over London is not what was really needed, It is 178 miles from London to Liverpool, 163 miles from London to Manchester, 106 miles from London to Bristol and a mere 86 miles from London to Coventry.
to really cover most of Southern England requires over double the endurance of the 109. Which is way more than a 300 liter drop tank can provide.
Nobody really explains what happens when the 109s run out of cannon ammo over Manchester or Bristol and are trying to escort bomber home with just the two cowl machine guns for armament.
If the Germans try for deep penetration with He 111 and Ju 88 bombers in 1940, like to Manchester/Liverpool the British have around 1 1/2 hours to land the fighters near the east/south coasts. refuel/rearm and get back in the air before the Germans come by on the return trip.
This goes from a "what if" the Germans used drop tanks to "what if" the Germans added more internal fuel, added drop tanks, change guns/armament, change the drag of the 109E and a few other things. Some of which need a magic wand. One reason the Mustang had the endurance it did was that it used a wing around 1/3 larger and it weighed, even in Allison form over 1/3 more (clean). Stick a DB601A engine in a Mustang I of 8000lbs and see what kind of performance at altitude you get.
And what if the RAF had 1000 trained pilots with Spitfire Vs and cannon armed Hurricanes and lets just forget Russia. It is a different battle in a different war always constructed so Germany wins.
Shortround6
Major General
We have gone right though "what if land" and gone to Pixie Dustville and Anti-Gravity Paint Town.
Both 109s had the same internal fuel capacity. Late 109Es and early 109Fs used the same engine. Everybody agrees teh 109F had less drag but enough to get 2 1/2 times the range?
Almost double the miles per gallon of the P-51?
If you are going to quote Wiki, quote the whole thing.
" Thanks to the improved aerodynamics, more fuel-efficient engines and the introduction of light-alloy versions of the standard Luftwaffe 300 litre drop tank, the Bf 109 F offered a much increased maximum range of 1,700 km (1,060 mi)[37] compared to the Bf 109 E's maximum range figure of only 660 km (410 miles) on internal fuel,[38] and with the E-7's provision for the 300 litre drop tank, a Bf 109E so equipped possessed double the range, to 1,325 km (820 mi)."
Of course I am still trying to figure out how 400 liters of fuel gives you 410 miles of range but 700 liters (75% increase) gives you 820 miles of range (100% increase) despite the extra drag of the tank?
British have calculated, after examining the drop tank volume and wrecks of Bf 109s with drop-tank facility, that the drop tank adds about a hour to the endurance. During a hour of flight, without the drop tank and at 5 or 6 km, the Bf 109 could cover 430 or 600 km respectively on max continuous, or for example about 350 km on the most economical power.
Going conservative in estimates, even an increase of range of 320 km (200 miles) is a major boon for health of LW bomber force.
Bf 109 + drop tank makes a lot of sense for Luftwaffe attacking UK from France, or even from Belgium. Spitfire, as-is, + drop tank is useless to escort bombers that need to attack Germany proper from the UK, since the German targets needing destruction are at far greater distances.
A lot of things can be added there.
Major problem is that Bf 109s were outnumbered, and that problem grew worse as BoB was progressing. Direct consequence was that LW was unable to 'stage' fighters against the targets deeper in England, unlike what WAllies did from 1943 on, so the LR fighters can take over escorting (or freijagd) mid-way to the target. The only economically-viable way to much improve numbers of Bf 109s (talk 50-100 %, not some meager increase) is to much decrease Bf 110 production early before the war.
Non-existance of the 'relay' system meant that any escort needs to fight their way ally the way - 1st against, mostly, the 11 Group, then against 12 Group, then again against 11 Group. Advantage of the relay system is that 'target escort' can be left mostly untouched, meaning among other things that their ammo bins/drums/belts are not depleted.
The defending fighters don't have the ammo counter for enemy fighters. The defending pilots can't just assume that the escorting fighter getting into shooting position will 'just' shower them with LMG fire, they must make evading actions thus their job of killing the bombers is not done, while escort's job of saving bombers is done.
Then again, the Bf 109E1, with 4 LMGs, that by 30th June 1940, amounted to 40% of all Bf 109Es produced.
Very true.
(my bold)
Kinda very fast Ki-61, but a bit slower climb?
drgondog
Major
Not entirely true - recall that even with the Allison F3R the Mustang I was quite bit faster than the Spit V, and with the Merlin 61 dropped in it was quite a bit faster than the Spit IX - same engine. No Mustang could turn with either the Spit or Hurricane - or A6M. But speed, acceleration, zoom climb and dive advantage usually presents favorable conditions in a fight. P-51 fight Spit - don't get into turn or climb fight -
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
A lot to digest in this thread as always, lots of good stuff. I see a lot of talk of extending the range of the Bf-109 for the BoB, perhaps I missed it or it isn't that important but if you pack more fuel into this bird, won't that effect its dog-fighting capability? I have read and heard that Mustangs didn't like to engage e/a with too much fuel in the fuselage tank for starters. I love the P-51 but I also realize it may have been about as nimble as a hog on ice when loaded down with ~270 gallons of fuel.
Would not the same hold true for the Bf-109 and the Spitfire, or are they something special?
Would not the same hold true for the Bf-109 and the Spitfire, or are they something special?
Shortround6
Major General
The P-51s may have been a hand full with the rear fuselage tank totally full. However most reports and manuals say it was OK with part of the fuel burned off and in fact post war manuals say to keep 25-35 gallons in the rear tank as a reserve for emergencies/landing? So we go from 85 gallons being too much to 25-35 gallons being useful ballast to keep a proper CG.
In the late 30s it was thought that single engine fighter carrying a lot of fuel would not be able to dog fight (and in the late 30s that was the criteria for a fighter, not boom and zoom) an plane using a similar engine and designed for a lower fuel load. In the design stage the plane with the lower fuel load would have gotten a smaller wing and bit lighter structure. It just wasn't the weight of the fuel.
In the late 30s it was thought that single engine fighter carrying a lot of fuel would not be able to dog fight (and in the late 30s that was the criteria for a fighter, not boom and zoom) an plane using a similar engine and designed for a lower fuel load. In the design stage the plane with the lower fuel load would have gotten a smaller wing and bit lighter structure. It just wasn't the weight of the fuel.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
