That is Bill's dad. Bill is known as Drgondog here, Bert is on his profile pic.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is Bill's dad. Bill is known as Drgondog here, Bert is on his profile pic.Hi Bill.
Thanks.That is Bill's dad. Bill is known as Drgondog here, Bert is on his profile pic.
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.so I agree... The Mustang was a great escort plane...
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.
The 34K Service Ceiling per RAF flight tests with F20R Allison agrees with NAA data for the same engine.
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.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.
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.The Hurricane and Spit were also lacking in range
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.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
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 -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.