Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

[Kurfürst]

Tell me if I got it right : basically, 1943 P-47D do not have a paddle blade, and are having a top speed of ca 660 km/h / 410 mph at altitude.

Beginning January 1944, they start to receive paddle blades, and the conversion becomes widespread in use by April/May 1944. This boosts speed to about 690 km/h / 429mph at critical altitude.

Correct ? Or did I get something wrong ? I have to admit, P-47/F4U developments are a bit of a Terra Incognita to me, as far as boost increases/improvements concerned and the date of their implementation.

[Jank]

dragondog,

I did say "late Thunderbolt" for a reason. It wasn't until about mid 1944. The paddle blade increased the performance and climb at all altitudes and not just low and medium. Finally, yes, Bolts struggled with 109's and Fw-190's.

There are a lot of encounter reports of out manuevering Fw190 and Me 109 at high altitude where the performance of the D really kicked in - but not so many on the deck - primarily because that's where a lot of 47s were shot down.

Actually, I did not say anything about out manuevering the Krauts at higher atitudes. I just said that was where a lot of the combat was taking place which was not the case in the Pacific. Most all shoot downs do not involve out manuevering your opponent. Just getting into place at a moment when he is not aware of you and hitting him with a volley of rounds that cause enough damage or injury to partially disable. (Shock and awe) Then you pour on the lead. Remember that the Bolt was spitting out almost 100 rounds a second.

Keep in mind that the Bolt had a 4.6:1 air to air record and lots of Bolts were shot down in high altitude furballs "primarily because" that is where lots of combat was taking place.

On an aside, once the 150 grade fuel was in use (44-1), the late war "D" model with paddle blade and water injection was performing at a much higher level than people give it credit.

P 47D Performance Test

70Hg - 444mph at 23,200ft
65Hg - 439mph at 25,200ft

65Hg - 3,260 fpm at 10,000ft (yes, that's 65Hg and 10,000ft and not 70Hg and S/L)

(the above are all at full combat load)

Here's an interesting chart showing relative performance of F4U-1 and P-47 both with water injection:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...comp-chart.jpg

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by JimM

Umm...any of you guys ever read "I Fought You from The Skies" by Willi Heilmann? He flew 190's in the war.

In the context of experienced pilots...

He said the only thing they were afraid of were the Jugs diving on them from high above. They didn't fear the Mustangs...the Corsairs were more or less the equal of the Mustang...

Just because he didn't "fear" Mustangs doesn't mean he was their master - particularly at bomber heighth.. 8th AF doctrine in the fighter versus fighter comparisons was 1.) don't try to out roll an Fw 190 anywhere, 2.) a 190 will turn well and the Mustang does not have a great speed advantage below 15,000-18,000 feet.

Until the Fw190D came along the Fw190 was at a decided disadvantage above 20,000 feet against the P-47D, P-51B/C/D, P-38L and Spitfire/Tempest

Back to his 'lack of fear' of Mustang. Any fighter pilot that entered combat in an unfavorable tactical situation against another comparable (slightly better, slightly worse) fighter should have a nagging concern somewhere in his head - and given that some 5,000 of his compadres were should down by Mustangs he should perhaps been better attuned to the risk?

What does that tell you about a good German pilot facing a Corsair?
Food for thought.

Quite a few Experten fell to Mustangs, P-51s shot down 60% more German fighters than P-47s with a 8 months less of ops in ETO and were carrying the escort load over central and eastern Germany until long after D-Day. In the same period that the Mustang started combat ops the F4U-1D had the same speed at 22,000 that the 51D had and only slightly slower than the 51B.

They (both P-51 and F4U) would out manuever a P-47 except in Roll until you got above 30,000 feet... but if that had been an issue an engine change with different gear and Turbo settings for the Corsair would have sufficed. - both using R-2800's

So, If I feared a P-47 above me, I better fear a Corsair or Mustang also?

Bud Anderson also said that the 190 was the equal of the Mustang.

Bud also said he was talking about medium and low altitudes. My father who only had 7 in the air was more concerned about the 109G so I suspect what all this really means is that the 51s and 47s and F4Us had advantages of speed and range, equal in most manuever envelopes, deficient in roll (less deficient for 47) to Fw190 at all altitudes and less in turn at low/medium altitudes and speed.

Nobody that fought enough 109s at medium altitudes was under any illusions that a 51 would 'easily' out turn it nor could the 51 stay with it in a hard turning climb to the right..back again to the pilot skill factor

The Fw190D-9 created total parity with the latest combat ops P-51s and P-47s and the Fw190D-13 would have been better than all but the P-51H at altitude.. ditto Ta152H and the 51H would have been slightly at a disadvantage at normal combat envelopes.

With all these fighters at medium altitude pilot skill and tactical advantage would prevail.

Since the F4U never made the ETO it is all speculation but fun to think about. Personally I love the Mustang and believe it was most important contributor to daylight Strategic Bombing - but I believe the introduction of the F4U-1 in late 1942 would have made the P-51, P-47 and P-38 un necessary for long range escort in ETO.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Tell me if I got it right : basically, 1943 P-47D do not have a paddle blade, and are having a top speed of ca 660 km/h / 410 mph at altitude.

Beginning January 1944, they start to receive paddle blades, and the conversion becomes widespread in use by April/May 1944. This boosts speed to about 690 km/h / 429mph at critical altitude.

Correct ? Or did I get something wrong ? I have to admit, P-47/F4U developments are a bit of a Terra Incognita to me, as far as boost increases/improvements concerned and the date of their implementation.

Kurfurst - Jank's performance figures are correct for the really late P-47s that came into ETO (late as in post D-Day)..I haven't looked but I suspect the model he is referencing is the P-47D-28RA. The 47s that were in the inventory in January 1944 were largely P-47D-5RA and RE's plus some -10s dribbling in.

As he noted the Paddle Blade was a major performance enhancement for both climb and initial acceleration at all altitudes... and the 150 octane fuel did add to top speeds but was not an instant success when introduced in September timeframe - several Mustangs and Thunderbolts had engine failures early on.

Jank - the reason I only noted low to medium altitude performance change for Paddle blade is that was the envelope that a Jug better have an altitude advantage so he could trade energy for speed then get the energy back with a zoom climb.. but do not stick around and turn with the 190 or 109. A 51 was more forgiving because it accelerated and turned better than the Jug at those altitudes - as did the F4U.

I haven't cross checked my data yet but you might be interested to know that so far for 8th AF, the 56th FG with all P-47 ops was around 12:1 air to air ratio while all the other groupsMustang groups were in the 5:1 to 15:1 ratios. The lower ratios were for groups like the 356th and 78th (and 20th/55th/364th) that flew something other than 51s for most of their ops... the higher ratios were for dominant Mustang ops (except for 56th) like the 479th, 357th and 361st..

Where groups flew different a/c I will try to break out ratios later for the different a/c. Only the 56th, 357th and 339th flew only one type in 8th AF.

This is strictly air to air, does not take into account losses to flak, weather, mechanical or accidents. What I did do is assign an "air loss" where a loss to unknown causes on the MACR was in an area where enemy fighters existed to make sure the air to air ratios were unfairly skewed... where no fighter activity was known the loss remained "unknown-other"

I will publish the data on Mike Williams site in near term and here in draft form on another new thread.

9th AF Jugs were far lower because of the nature of tac air combat on the deck.

[Soren]

Drgondog,

No US fighter in the ETO could turn with the Bf-109 at low to medium altitude, the P-51 wasn't even close, and I'm sure you agree with that but I'm just stating it clearly.

Ofcourse the green Bf-109 pilots unwilling to exploit the full potential of their a/c were not very difficult targets, and unfortunately there were many of these within the LW by 1944. Bf-109 armed with gun-pods were also vulnerable and these were equipped on the majority of 109's fighting the bomber streams in 1944-45.

As to the FW-190 Dora-9, well it was clearly superior in every aspect of flight compared to the P-51 Mustang at low to medium altitudes, but this superiority diminished as altitude increased, and at typical bomber altitude the P-51 was definitly fit for fight. Go further up passed 32,000 ft and the P-47 Thunderbolt was pretty much unrivalled, even being able to out-turn 109's at this alt. The Ta-152H is the only piston engined fighter of WW2 which would been able to give the P-47 a licking at very high altitudes.

Anyway getting on topic:

The FW-190 Dora-9 would've proven a match for the F4U-4 at most altititudes, maneuverability I believe would've been roughly the same, the Dora-9 holding a slight advantage in turn rate at high speeds and a more noticable advantage in roll rate at all speeds.

The Bf-109 K-4 is superior to the F4U-4 Corsair in everything but roll rate, the K-4 being much more agile in horizontal & vertical maneuvers, easily out-turning & out-climbing the Corsair. The Corsair did have the advantage of better control at high speeds though, something which is VERY valuable as demonstrated by the FW-190 fighting the Spitfire over the channel.

And then ofcourse there's the fact that the F4U Corsair was a multiple purpose a/c in the same way as the FW-190 but with better range, making the F4U a MUCH MUCH more versatile single engined fighter than any other fighter of WW2 really. The best Allied fighter of WW2 IMO.

[Jank]

"several Mustangs and Thunderbolts had engine failures early on."

I am not aware of R-2800 engine failures.

I know the new fuel proved very problematic for the P-51's and to a lesser extent, P-38's and Thunderbolts. There were parallel tests of the new fuel with all three aircraft and the Thunderbolt (now rated at 2,600hp) suffered the fewest issues. (overheating at 70Hg in sustained climbs was one).The Mustangs had their plugs constantly fouling and their maintenance schedules had to be significantly shortened.

[Negative Creep]

Fleet Air Arm Corsairs did meet them on a couple of occasions and came out on top. Of course you can't use the results of a few sorties as definitive proof of which was better, but either way there doesn't seem to be much in it

[Jank]

Problems associated with the use of 150 grade fuel:
150 Grade Fuel

P-38
Spark plug leading was increased. The extent of this leading was such that plug change was required after approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than leading.

P-51
The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.

The excessive fouling of spark plugs usually exhibited itself in roughing up of engines after a couple of hours of low power cruising. Periodic bursts of high power in most cases smoothed the engine out. However, if the engine was allowed to go too long a period without being cleaned out, the accumulation of lead bromide globules successfully withstood any attempts to blow them out. In some instances, long periods of idling while waiting for take-off and a failure to use high power on take off resulted in loss of power during take-off run and in some cases caused complete cutting out with subsequent belly landing. The cases of cutting-out on take-off definitely attributed to excessive fouling were comparatively few, although numerous enough to list it as an effect of the extra lead.

As a result of several months operational use with the fuel, an SOP – designed to reduce power failures on take-off, leading troubles in flight, and other things which were causing early returns and abortive aircraft – was published. This is inclosure no. 1. Almost immediately after this section published this SOP practically all of the troubles then existing ceased, although it was necessary to change plugs after each two missions or thereabouts.

P-47
Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Drgondog,

No US fighter in the ETO could turn with the Bf-109 at low to medium altitude, the P-51 wasn't even close, and I'm sure you agree with that but I'm just stating it clearly.

I do not agree at medium to high altitudes at medium to high speed. You and I have debated it, the only air to air comparison is the post war RAF tests that none of us really have the raw data on as posted in Mike's site and it shows the 109 as inferior in turn.

I have talked to and read innumerable pilot encounters in which lowering flaps to 10 degrees enabled the 51 to out turn the 109 in 15,000 range as well as some other examples in which no advantage (or disadvantage) was experienced. Until you present a document comparing them I disagree.

Ofcourse the green Bf-109 pilots unwilling to exploit the full potential of their a/c were not very difficult targets, and unfortunately there were many of these within the LW by 1944. Bf-109 armed with gun-pods were also vulnerable and these were equipped on the majority of 109's fighting the bomber streams in 1944-45.

Sources Soren? Tony Woods OOB has as many G-6 as G-6/Rs in his lists for all the LuftReich TO&E for January -through August timeframe - where are you getting your facts?

As to the FW-190 Dora-9, well it was clearly superior in every aspect of flight compared to the P-51 Mustang at low to medium altitudes, but this superiority diminished as altitude increased, and at typical bomber altitude the P-51 was definitly fit for fight. Go further up passed 32,000 ft and the P-47 Thunderbolt was pretty much unrivalled, even being able to out-turn 109's at this alt. The Ta-152H is the only piston engined fighter of WW2 which would been able to give the P-47 a licking at very high altitudes.

Back to the old 'fact/source' problem. "Clearly superior" should have a factual reference in which roll rates at 300 and 400 at different altitudes, acceleration in equivalent combat load conformation, climb rates, dive, etc are shown in flight test tabular form - can you point these out for me?

How about below, equal or superior at different altitudes and flight profiles to be truly objective. A lot of Fw190D-9s were shot down by Mustangs

Anyway getting on topic:

The FW-190 Dora-9 would've proven a match for the F4U-4 at most altititudes, maneuverability I believe would've been roughly the same, the Dora-9 holding a slight advantage in turn rate at high speeds and a more noticable advantage in roll rate at all speeds.

Souce/facts?

The Bf-109 K-4 is superior to the F4U-4 Corsair in everything but roll rate, the K-4 being much more agile in horizontal & vertical maneuvers, easily out-turning & out-climbing the Corsair. The Corsair did have the advantage of better control at high speeds though, something which is VERY valuable as demonstrated by the FW-190 fighting the Spitfire over the channel.

Source/facts?

And then ofcourse there's the fact that the F4U Corsair was a multiple purpose a/c in the same way as the FW-190 but with better range, making the F4U a MUCH MUCH more versatile single engined fighter than any other fighter of WW2 really. The best Allied fighter of WW2 IMO.

I tend to agree the last statement even though we are both being subjective in the evaluation.. the Fw190D series, the Tempest series and the P-47 series are certainly contenders

[Soren]

This is getting beyond ridiculous Bill !

Take a look at the wing loadings, power-loading, span-loading, AR, T/D, CLmax & Cd0 figures for crying out loud ! The P-51 doesn't stand a chance in a turn fight against the Bf-109, and thats reality ! Use what'ever knowledge you have about aerodynamics and you should realize this as-well. You can hear it from veteran as-well as modern 109 & -51 pilots as-well if you want, I can direct you.

Here's a preview: YouTube - Skip Holm interview about Bf-109

There! Now you've got it from two guys who fly both a/c.


And quit the after action reports at Mike's site, anything can happen in a dogfight and each pilot doesn't know what the other is doing in his own cockpit. Also Mike could've very well handpicked each & every single one of those reports - hence why its a dead end with these after-action reports.

In the last debate we had Bill I presented to you my sources and they're still the same, Hermann's books on the FW-190 & Ta-152 series, Willi Reschkes book "Wilde Sau" as-well as LW test pilot Hans Werner Lerches book "LuftWaffe Test Pilot". In these books are the official comparative conclusions drawn by the German fighter arm - read them please !

You want other facts ? Ok how about this; The british test pilot evaluating the Bf-109 had ZERO experience with auto LE slats and VERY little hours if any in the plane he was testing, and like we know it took time to learn to fly the 109 to the limit (Explained by countless LW aces as-well) so why should we even consider the final conclusion as even remotely valid ? Also IIRC the 109G captured by the RAF featured gun-pods. And what about using the right fuel ?? Using the wrong fuel leads to less performance, further putting into doubt the validity of the test. And the same goes for the RAF's comparative flights with their captured FW-190 Jabo, it featured an ETC-501 rack and was running on low power throughout the test, even still it managed to turn with the P-51B !

Note that in German tests the FW-190 proved no match what so ever for the Bf-109 in turning fights [kurvenkampf].

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

This is getting beyond ridiculous Bill !

ah, yes you are quite right

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

This is getting beyond ridiculous Bill !

Take a look at the wing loadings, power-loading, span-loading, AR, T/D, CLmax & Cd0 figures for crying out loud ! The P-51 doesn't stand a chance in a turn fight against the Bf-109, and thats reality ! Use what'ever knowledge you have about aerodynamics and you should realize this as-well. You can hear it from veteran as-well as modern 109 & -51 pilots as-well if you want, I can direct you.

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? I have talked to one hell of a lot of 51 pilots who shot down one hell of a lot of 109s and 190s in turning fights - their OPINIONs were that a 51 would out turn any 109 at medium to high speed from about 15,000 feet up and the higher and faster they went the more the odds were in favor of the 51. Now its a fact that that is their OPINION.

The RAF performance evaluations, however flawed you want them to be, is the only reference to a metric comparison at different altitudes. Maybe you can dig up the Rechlin tests and see what you can find - maybe not.

Here's a preview: YouTube - Skip Holm interview about Bf-109

There! Now you've got it from two guys who fly both a/c.

Soren, how many 109s were shot down by 51s? in contrast with the number of 51s shot down by 109s? you seriously want to take a sample size of 2?

I can get to those numbers for a sample size of approximately 200 with respect to the 355th FG - exact match ups ranging from March 1944 through end of the war but 75% were before end of September. In that portfolio I have about 20 of the losses (of 46 air to air total of both 51 and 47) due to 109s, and of those 4 were shot down (one rammed from behind) at low altitude, 6 were shot down in diving attacks from higher altitude, 5 are 'unknown' ACM b ecause they were KIA with no witnesses, 1 in a head on attack and 4 shot down from behind w/o manuever at medium to high altitude.


And quit the after action reports at Mike's site, anything can happen in a dogfight and each pilot doesn't know what the other is doing in his own cockpit. Also Mike could've very well handpicked each & every single one of those reports - hence why its a dead end with these after-action reports.

I'll agree when you can produce test results that support your conclusions?

I have nearly all the 355th Encounter Reports Soren, approximately 400, so I don't need Mike's but his duplicate the ones I have on the 355th and 4th FG. Youy choose to make it a 'dead end' because they don't reflect the reality you live in.

In the last debate we had Bill I presented to you my sources and they're still the same, Hermann's books on the FW-190 & Ta-152 series, Willi Reschkes book "Wilde Sau" as-well as LW test pilot Hans Werner Lerches book "LuftWaffe Test Pilot". In these books are the official comparative conclusions drawn by the German fighter arm - read them please !

I have read them - have you read the official conclusions of the RAF and USAAF for similar testing? Did you notice that Reschkes and Lerche's opinions are opinions...that neither presented test results? and that Lerche's opinion of the 51 was that it was a very nice aircraft, very fast and manueverable and comfortable, but the he expressed NO CONCLUSIONS regarding performance versus any German fighter? Why do you toss sources out that have no relevance to the argument?

I have not read Hermann's books. Have you? Do they present metric comparisons? If not, why are you referencing them?

Since you wish to debate this on opinion rather than even empirical results of Mustang versus 109 combat results - please produce the documents that prove the following claims you make.
1. Me 109 stronger than P-51. We agree P-51 limit load is 8g and the ultimate is 12G..
2. Me 109 out turn P-51 at speeds at or above 300mph at or above 15,000 feet
3. Me 109 out dive P-51


You want other facts ? Ok how about this; The british test pilot evaluating the Bf-109 had ZERO experience with auto LE slats and VERY little hours if any in the plane he was testing, and like we know it took time to learn to fly the 109 to the limit (Explained by countless LW aces as-well) so why should we even consider the final conclusion as even remotely valid ?

Simply because the USAAF and RAF tests were run, documented and published - what can you say about your sources? And once you slither past that question let's discuss the LW pilot's experience with flying a P-51 to the limit? What sources do you have that the LW pilots flying the 51's were any better as qualified comparators?

Also IIRC the 109G captured by the RAF featured gun-pods.

Nope, the RAF Me109G that was used in the first series of tests was flown to each USAAF base in fall/winter 1943/1944. I have pics of that ship as well as the Ju 88 - no gun pods..Light.. (i.e for you that means optimal wing loading).

I think, the tests run after the war were with the 109G-10 captured in Summer 1944 - I will have to check this and do not state it as fact!

And what about using the right fuel ?? Using the wrong fuel leads to less performance, further putting into doubt the validity of the test.

Certainly for speed and acceleration but not particularly for turning comparisons - are you now suggesting that Rechlin loaded the 51 with 1550 Octane to perform their tests?


And the same goes for the RAF's comparative flights with their captured FW-190 Jabo, it featured an ETC-501 rack and was running on low power throughout the test, even still it managed to turn with the P-51B!

Note that in German tests the FW-190 proved no match what so ever for the Bf-109 in turning fights [kurvenkampf].

Then you have published reports of comparisons between 109 and Fw190? Where can we look at them?

The rack was never on during the March 8, 1944 RAF Tests, the 190 had the BMW801D engine and was inferior to the P-51B in speed, dive, turn and climb(51 slightly better), but inferior in roll. The report states the DB603 would probably bring climb and speed closer to parity.

Quote from Gunther Rall when He was Kommandeur of the Luftwaffe Fighter Leader School while recovering from his May 12 wound.

" During this time I had the opportunity to fly the P-51 in two or three mock dogfights with Me109 and Fw190 fighters. This was not extensive experience and certainly I cannot claim any profound knowledge of the P-51 but what impressed me was the comfort in the cockpit, the ease of the electrical starting system, the long endurance of the aircraft and its manueverabilty in a dogfight. However the Me 109 was superior in all steep climbing turns,in which the P-51 had a tendency, when low on speed, to sanp on the outside wing." Page 120 Mustang A Documentary History - Jeffrey Ethell.

I Have Personally had this same conversation with Rall, Krupinski and Galland in 1984 (?) Fighter Aces Reunion at Tuscon that included Olds, Whisner and Goodson.

All agreed the following points -

1.) 109 a formidable opponent to the 51 in the hands of a real expert..
2.) 109 always playing catch up to try to offset performance deficiencies of the 109 versus the 51
3.) 109 'evade' manuever is a steep climbing turn
4.) 109 will out turn a 51 low and at low speeds, that 51 jocks must be very cognizant of maintaining energy against 109 at low to medium altitudes.

Soren, so far two of your references are 'subjective' opinions of notable LW pilots - one of which didn't even make the comparison you stated.

I have presented
1. Two RAF test programs with documented comparisons and opinions expressed as a result of the fighter versus fighter fly offs
2. An Opinion by a noted LW top ace (Rall) - documented and referencable- that makes no claim of 109 superiority (by a MASTER 109 Experten) except for steep climbing turns.
3. Many, many Encounter reports of diving and turning combat in which the P-51 handily out maunuevered the 109 in dive and turn.


and,

4. I can produce verifyable operations statistics of P-51s versus Me 109s in which the 51 operated at nearly 9:1 against the 109 for the 355th FG during all of its ops in WWII.

What are you going to produce in the way of facts?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Here's a preview: YouTube - Skip Holm interview about Bf-109

There! Now you've got it from two guys who fly both a/c.

Ah, I get it. Two guys who never fired a shot in combat making judgements about the 109G based on flying 65 year old warbirds. Both claiming that the 109G and F out turn a Spit and grossly out turning a Mustang -

I now get why Galland requested a squadron of Spits from Goering - so he could become more equal with RAF? - he just didn't want the horrid experience of flying an airplane (the 109) with so much advantage over the Spit and do the honorable thing of fighting with equal dueling instruments?

BTW one of these 'expert witnesses' (the owner - not skip) made the claim that it was all about the leading edge slat but that he only had one hour in the 109. Guess that puts a hole in your theory about taking long hours of training to master the slats? He was obviously a guy well acquainted with the aiplane.

I guess you win Soren. How could anybody doubt the credibility of your sources?

[the su-47 is gangsta]

The bgfv-109 would win cos of its nahdling and vfersatility.

[Soren]

LoL ! I knew you'd do everything in your power to try and deny the comments from pilots who actually fly both a/c !

As to comparisons between the 190 & 109, Heinrich Beauvais [Chief LW test-pilot] made it very clear that the 190 was no match what so ever for the 109 in a turn fight. There's a rechlin comparison out there which I don't have access to at the moment [not at home] which describes in detail the differences between both a/c.

Heinrich Beauvais also knew that the Spitfire was no better a turnfighter than the 109, he tested both, and he tried to contact Brown after war, Brown refused.

As to Hans Werner Lerches book, well read the comparative test between the La-5FN, 109 and 190 for crying out loud ! Again the 109 turns allot better than both.

As to Galland's famous comment that he wanted Spits, it was nothing but a simple joke - read his book !

And take a look at BoB stats Bill, the 109's shot down more Spit's & Hurricanes than vice versa. So why have Spits ? Thats right, there'd be no logic in that.

And about RAF testing with their captured 190G, I think you shoul talk to Crumpp about - I'll contact him.