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

[AL Schlageter]

So Allied testing of German planes is useless because the pilots didn't have enough flight time in the 109, yet German testing of Allied types is gospel? It is even questionable that it was a La-5FN.

The comparison of a Fw190A-2 vs the 109F or G. Sure Soren. Slow speed dogfights went the way of the dodo. At high speeds, the 109 was at a disadvantage with the high control forces required by the pilot.

How many RAF bombers did the 109 shoot down? The prime objective of RAF FC was the LW bombers. The prime objective of LW fighters was to protect the LW bombers. Makes sense that the 109 would shoot down more RAF fighters but the RAF fighters shot down more LW planes.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

So Allied testing of German planes is useless because the pilots didn't have enough flight time in the 109, yet German testing of Allied types is gospel? It is even questionable that it was a La-5FN.

LoL ! No it is not questionable, it was a La-5FN. Read the book!

The comparison of a Fw190A-2 vs the 109F or G. Sure Soren. Slow speed dogfights went the way of the dodo.

Nope thats not it, what you're talking about one can get a hold of here:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Startseite

At high speeds, the 109 was at a disadvantage with the high control forces required by the pilot.

In the roll yeah, but not in pitch. Its about what the pilot is used to, again something which has been explained countless times by LW aces. You can't just go fly a completely new aircraft and then take it to its full capabilities, you need hours in the type to be able to do that.

How many RAF bombers did the 109 shoot down? The prime objective of RAF FC was the LW bombers. The prime objective of LW fighters was to protect the LW bombers. Makes sense that the 109 would shoot down more RAF fighters but the RAF fighters shot down more LW planes.

You really think so ?! Could that perhaps be why so many LW fighters got shot down by the escorting Mustangs as-well then? Yes!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by 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 !

My father flew both also and he flew the 'fresh' twin seat Me109 for several flights including mock fights - maybe the same amount of time init as Rall had in 51. His comments were the same as Rall except he amplified two area - steep climbing turn the 51 could not match skill being equal. turn at low altitudes (5,000 ft in this case) and the 109G would out turn the 51.. that was ALL of the performance advantage he could find.

For the record I am not denying the comments made by your UTube expert witnesses - I reject their judgment for the reason I have stated but they are entitled to their opinions, same as Rall, Marshall, Soren, etc

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.

Surely it has the same discussion regarding the 51 since that was of so much interest by LW?

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.

Ditto for 109 and 190 vs Spit? Why is it that the RAF was thoughtful enough and interested enough to fly and document the comparisons in a test pilot like series of profiles and the smarter, more methodical German engineers did not?

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.

LOL. You made the bold claim that Lerches book had definitive statements about P-51 vs Me 109 flight performance characteristics - which it did not - and I pointed out that once again you pull sources from a dark place that are not what you say they are. I believe the topic of interest between us is the 51 vs the 109 NOT the La5 vs the 109? or did I miss something once again

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

I have read all of his books Soren. Yes I know it was a joke but it had an unjoking element to it. He greatly respected the Spit, knew his 109E was better in dive and could accelerate faster and could fly inverted against the Spit 1 but he was under no illusions on climb and turn.

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

I respect Crump's opinion but I would ask of him the same references I ask of you as I would expect him to do if I make some claim of my own. I would also ask what his opinion is of the best example of Me109 turn performance (suspecting 109F) and ask how the turn performance degraded as the 109G and K series came into play with weight increases.

As it stands today - only two series of flight tests that document performance comparisons between the 51 and the 109 are on the table - both done by RAF during and shortly after WWII. Both accomplished by professional pilots, albeit with whatever political agenda...

You have yet to produce another such test or series of tests by GAF as any form of counter, or tests performed by any other organization. I suspect the USSR did a thorough and professional job but I personally have not seen the results.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I respect Crump's opinion but I would ask of him the same references I ask of you as I would expect him to do if I make some claim of my own. I would also ask what his opinion is of the best example of Me109 turn performance (suspecting 109F) and ask how the turn performance degraded as the 109G and K series came into play with weight increases.

How the turn performance degraded as the P-51D replaced the B series (the 109G tests were vs. a Mustang III, ie. B version) came into play with weight increases, and practically no increase in power? What was the weight increase between the two aircraft?

Even between the 109F4 and K-4, we talk about 16% increase in weight, but some 50% increase in power to compensate it.

As it stands today - only two series of flight tests that document performance comparisons between the 51 and the 109 are on the table - both done by RAF during and shortly after WWII. Both accomplished by professional pilots, albeit with whatever political agenda...

Hmm, none of these tests actually tell what power rating the German aircraft is using, what speed or altitude they refer to when they make their statements. At what altitude was the turnining comparison performed, with what power? How many hours the pilot had in the 109? Without these data, the results are just as useless to us as they were to combat pilots in WW2.

As for the 109Gs the 'light one' you refer to was captured in the Desert in late 1942, it`s propeller had a splinter mark on it, the thermostat constantly malfunctioned - to cut it short, it was in poor state. The Germans left it behind because it wasn`t airworthty after combat with a P-40. (It`s Black Six btw). How many hours do you think it had in the engine by the comparison trials.. ? How many before it was captured?

The other example being a gondie G-6 from a Nachtjagd unit. So unless you want to tell me a battle-damaged tropical Gustav flown by pilots with little experience with it, and a gondola armed nightfighter is representative to the LW opposition they had over the Reich...

You have yet to produce another such test or series of tests by GAF as any form of counter, or tests performed by any other organization. I suspect the USSR did a thorough and professional job but I personally have not seen the results.

The Russians have performed turn tests with captured 109G-2 (in excellent condition, appearantly), measuring the turn time as 20 secs for 360 degree. They also tested Allison P-51s, which had 23 secs for the same.
Figures for 1000 meter altitude.

Basically, nothing in the physics world would support why the Mustang would be able to outturn the 109 - You have a lightweight fighter with as much or even more power available to it, with on of the most benign stall characteristics of the war vs. a heavier one with no aces up the sleeve to speak of - unless we speak of an earlier model 109G against the new P-51s. The P-51s contemporary was however, the G-6/AS and later models. I am sure a 109K would look extremely mean if compared to an Allison Mustang, too. That doesn`t rule out they didn`t met and had one-sided fights.

[Soren]

Exactly Kurfürst.


Bill,

I am only going to respond to the below in your post, the rest of your post is just you going in circles.

You made the bold claim that Lerches book had definitive statements about P-51 vs Me 109 flight performance characteristics

Wrong ! I made no such claim what so ever ! I mentioned some of the sources I used as reference for my comparison between the P-47, P-51, FW-190, F4U-4 & Bf-109.

[Glider]

I suspect the major factor in the general debate over which was the better fighter in a one to one duel, P51 or 109 had more to do with the speed, not the height. Most things that I have read say the 109 was better at slower speeds.

Please note I said better in a one to one, not which would outurn the other.

So how does the aeroplane (109) compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

How the turn performance degraded as the P-51D replaced the B series (the 109G tests were vs. a Mustang III, ie. B version) came into play with weight increases, and practically no increase in power? What was the weight increase between the two aircraft?

Thoughtful questions - here is what I know and what I believe to be true

The Mustang III in the Test was the 8 March 1944 Test and a.) did not have the aileron seals that were first incorporated in the P51B-10, and b.) did have the 1650-3 Engine that not only had slightly less horsepower than the -7 at War Emergency settings (1600@67" vs 1720@67" but also less power at war emergency high blower at 23,000 (1330@67" vs 1505@19,300ft). Having said this the -3 had MORE hp at 25,800 feet [

The aileron seals significantly reduced control forces in turns and were incorporated in all D and H models. The power settings for the -7 were better than the -3 from SL to approximately 23,000 feet - thereafter the -3 was superior to the -7

Net the P-51D had a 7 1/2 percent increase in power with 110 fuel (the 150 added significan power and boost to this equation) with less than 3% increase in Gross and approx 8% weight over empty weight from B to D version.

I am still researching the wing of the D but believe there was a slight increase in thickness of the NACA airfoil to accomodate the upright guns. This is not yet established fact on my part. I KNOW the first laminar flow dimensions for P-51A were 15% thickness at CL Root Chord/11.4% at the tip I KNOW the D was 16.5%/11.5% respectively - but I don't know whether the B wing was A or B/C/D same except leading edge at fuselage.

The third wild card in this discussion is the combination low drag in the overall airframe combined with incremental thrust obtained by the unique radiator design expelling hot air via the duct.

Hmm, none of these tests actually tell what power rating the German aircraft is using, what speed or altitude they refer to when they make their statements. At what altitude was the turnining comparison performed, with what power? How many hours the pilot had in the 109? Without these data, the results are just as useless to us as they were to combat pilots in WW2.

I definitely agree.... but the alternative to the conclusions is yet another un-produced set of compariative date to refute the conclusions?

As for the 109Gs the 'light one' you refer to was captured in the Desert in late 1942, it`s propeller had a splinter mark on it, the thermostat constantly malfunctioned - to cut it short, it was in poor state. The Germans left it behind because it wasn`t airworthty after combat with a P-40. (It`s Black Six btw). How many hours do you think it had in the engine by the comparison trials.. ? How many before it was captured?

I suspect without proof that many parts, including engines may have been obtained from different sources - no proof by the way but there were quite a few 109s down in USSR, Africa, Italy, UK and being flown by Swiss. I Speculate that spares could be obtained and doubt there was any fuel issue or spark plugs etc deficiency to perform tests with a relaiable engine?

The other example being a gondie G-6 from a Nachtjagd unit. So unless you want to tell me a battle-damaged tropical Gustav flown by pilots with little experience with it, and a gondola armed nightfighter is representative to the LW opposition they had over the Reich...

What was the G-10 flown to UK in June/July timeframe? And, R6 with Gondola are kits aren't they? Should be easy enough to take off.

The Russians have performed turn tests with captured 109G-2 (in excellent condition, appearantly), measuring the turn time as 20 secs for 360 degree. They also tested Allison P-51s, which had 23 secs for the same.
Figures for 1000 meter altitude.


K- you will note that I have NEVER disputed better one on one performance in favor of 109 over P-51 at SL up to approximately 15,000 feet. Having said that, the P-51A should turn better, most aerodynamics being better than D and 800 pounds lighter

Basically, nothing in the physics world would support why the Mustang would be able to outturn the 109 - You have a lightweight fighter with as much or even more power available to it, with on of the most benign stall characteristics of the war vs. a heavier one with no aces up the sleeve to speak of - unless we speak of an earlier model 109G against the new P-51s. The P-51s contemporary was however, the G-6/AS and later models. I am sure a 109K would look extremely mean if compared to an Allison Mustang, too. That doesn`t rule out they didn`t met and had one-sided fights.

Well if my figures are right for the 109G-6 it had a wing area of 16.02 M>2=172.44 feet>2 (?), an empty weight of 5908 pounds and gross of 7054 which would yield Wing loadings of 34.26 (empty) and 45.85 (max) versus the P-51D of 32.38 empty and 49.2 (max). The weight of a 51 over Berlin would be closer to 9600 for a max WL of 40.7 and less on the way back

The WL, while important, aren't by themselves the only factor, and the WL of a -14 and the K-4 were less than the G-6 empty and higher loaded... so some physics may lead you to look at the 51 having drained a lot of fuel and a 109 the same condition - then look at control forces between the two at high and medium speeds and altitudes to see a probable favorable condition for the 51 in that arena? (>15,000-20,000) but less than 32,000 in case of G-14?

At the end of the day one can judge based on personal anecdotes, published tests, ratios in combat, etc. but the questions of tests still lends more weight if they are fair.

I submit that the Brits weren't trying to put a snow job on their bosses if they found serious deficiencies in the Mustang vs Fw190 0r me 109?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Exactly Kurfürst.


Bill,

I am only going to respond to the below in your post, the rest of your post is just you going in circles.

You can't and won't respond to any request for documentation on your statements/claims of fact. Chris and others have nailed your hide to the wall on this idiosyncracy of your debate style...

Try to remeber that quotes from a book, and reference tables and reports from expert sources - that are available to your audience, are at least two acceptable sources for consideration by all

You duck and hide when confronted to prove your 'interesting and unequivocal statements - just like this evasion



Wrong ! I made no such claim what so ever ! I mentioned some of the sources I used as reference for my comparison between the P-47, P-51, FW-190, F4U-4 & Bf-109.

Soren - you said THIS.

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 !


What may I ask are we to infer from this specific comment you wrote yesterday at 3:20pm forum time? There is NO "official comparative conclusions" drawn about the P-51 and the Fw 190 or Me 109 in any of them - nor can I see anything other than anecdotal comments by Lerches. Perhaps you can?

[Soren]

Again wrong Bill - read Hermann's book on the FW-190 longnose. There's a comparison there.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Again wrong Bill - read Hermann's book on the FW-190 longnose. There's a comparison there.

Soren - can you stay focused on the debate of turn performance (high, medium and low) between a Me109 and P-51?

Getting you to answer definitively a request for documentation on THIS subject - to refute two other RAF sources - has been impossible. Cornering you on a subject you are emotional about is like corralling cats.

Let me spell it out S L O W L Y.

F I N D a Luftwaffe Report (or Soviet) report that displays the metrics you claim regarding 'clear superiority of a Me 109 in turn over a P-51 Mustang'

You keep claiming it, you find all the excuses in the world why the RAF tests aren't valid. You claim the references you posted were the definitve Luftwaffe comparisons - but none of them support your thesis, your claim, your position.

P R E S E N T the document so all of may learn another point of view on this subject other than the RAF reports and the many, many, Encounter Reports of the winners.

It is OK to express your OPINION on the subject, but quit claiming them as FACTS absent facts and sources.

[Kurfürst]

Hi Bill !

Originally Posted by drgondog

Thoughtful questions - here is what I know and what I believe to be true

The Mustang III in the Test was the 8 March 1944 Test and a.) did not have the aileron seals that were first incorporated in the P51B-10, and b.) did have the 1650-3 Engine that not only had slightly less horsepower than the -7 at War Emergency settings (1600@67" vs 1720@67" but also less power at war emergency high blower at 23,000 (1330@67" vs 1505@19,300ft). Having said this the -3 had MORE hp at 25,800 feet [

The aileron seals significantly reduced control forces in turns and were incorporated in all D and H models. The power settings for the -7 were better than the -3 from SL to approximately 23,000 feet - thereafter the -3 was superior to the -7

Net the P-51D had a 7 1/2 percent increase in power with 110 fuel (the 150 added significan power and boost to this equation) with less than 3% increase in Gross and approx 8% weight over empty weight from B to D version.

I am still researching the wing of the D but believe there was a slight increase in thickness of the NACA airfoil to accomodate the upright guns. This is not yet established fact on my part. I KNOW the first laminar flow dimensions for P-51A were 15% thickness at CL Root Chord/11.4% at the tip I KNOW the D was 16.5%/11.5% respectively - but I don't know whether the B wing was A or B/C/D same except leading edge at fuselage.

That`s some pretty cool info in the wing profile.

Any specific figures from US etc. testing on the Merlin powered Mustang`s turn time, radius or something like that? I was looking for such data and while ago about USAAF fighters - it turned up nothing specific, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by drgondog

The third wild card in this discussion is the combination low drag in the overall airframe combined with incremental thrust obtained by the unique radiator design expelling hot air via the duct.

I don`t think we have much of a difference between the two fighters, actually. If we can believe the drag data, both fighters had very similiar, equiv. of ca. 4 sq. feet plate`s drag - the power/speed requirements underline this.. Same for the radiator design, it`s very similiar basically, even though the Mustang`s is a more aerodynamic execution. In the end, both planes reached about the same speed with the same power, so there`s not much in it.

Originally Posted by drgondog

Well if my figures are right for the 109G-6 it had a wing area of 16.02 M>2=172.44 feet>2 (?), an empty weight of 5908 pounds and gross of 7054 which would yield Wing loadings of 34.26 (empty) and 45.85 (max) versus the P-51D of 32.38 empty and 49.2 (max). The weight of a 51 over Berlin would be closer to 9600 for a max WL of 40.7 and less on the way back

The wing area is 16.05 m2 indeed, the weight of the G-6 is somewhat controversial. One GLC datasheet published in a secondary source tells it`s 3196 kg, but I presume it some special variant and a case of 'lost in translation'. It`s rather illogical given the G-2`s weight of 3037kg, from which the G-6 did not differ much (the 13mm MGs+ammo overall added 40 kg) - unless by 1944 considerable extra equipment in the order of 100kg was added, or we speak of a /U4 variant and again a case of LiT. In any case, datasheets give the weigth of the G-6 as 3100kg, a logical figure while another for the G-6/trop (containing some 50 kg of tropical equipment!) as 3148 kg.

Originally Posted by drgondog

The WL, while important, aren't by themselves the only factor, and the WL of a -14 and the K-4 were less than the G-6 empty and higher loaded... so some physics may lead you to look at the 51 having drained a lot of fuel and a 109 the same condition - then look at control forces between the two at high and medium speeds and altitudes to see a probable favorable condition for the 51 in that arena? (>15,000-20,000) but less than 32,000 in case of G-14?

I think it all boils down to variant. The G-14 (not the /AS model) is essentially a low-medium altitude variant, the K-4 is high altitude fighter with a lot more power at altitude. though, especially at high altitude, I don`t think control forces would mean anything - correct me if I am wrong, but high altitude flying technically slow-speed flight at low IAS numbers, with the added problem of most engines loosing power above rated altitude? And low-speed dogfight and controllability is something the 109 definietely excelled in.

Originally Posted by drgondog

At the end of the day one can judge based on personal anecdotes, published tests, ratios in combat, etc. but the questions of tests still lends more weight if they are fair.

Absolutely agree, in fact, I absolutely favour controlled tests over any anecdote..

I definitely agree.... but the alternative to the conclusions is yet another un-produced set of compariative date to refute the conclusions?
...
I submit that the Brits weren't trying to put a snow job on their bosses if they found serious deficiencies in the Mustang vs Fw190 0r me 109?

I don`t think it`s intentional, I think they tested what enemy equipment they had in more or less working order. OTOH, if you read the other AFDU 109G test, for example vs the Tempest, it says the pilots of the 109G are 'emberassed by the opening of the slats' in turns - ie. they weren`t pushing the unfamiliar aircraft to it`s true limits in turns. This is reinforced by the fact that if you look at the 190/109/51 result in turns, it says :

the 51 turns better then the 109
the 51 turns about as well as the 190
which means that logically the 190 should outturn the 109... and as per the 3 German tactical evaluations we know, the Soviet etc. testing, and even by simply common sense, this was not the case. All of it points towards the results are caused by British pilots not pressing the aircraft hard enough in turns, this is somewhat of a returning topos with British test, their test pilots backing off from turn ASA the slats are opening, leaving the party when it just gets started.

I suspect without proof that many parts, including engines may have been obtained from different sources - no proof by the way but there were quite a few 109s down in USSR, Africa, Italy, UK and being flown by Swiss. I Speculate that spares could be obtained and doubt there was any fuel issue or spark plugs etc deficiency to perform tests with a relaiable engine?

Maybe - do you have the complete original papers (not just the test themselves, but attached plane operation diaries, requests etc.) of these tactical trials? I am just working transcribing the papers regarding the 109F-2 tested in the UK, those papers shed light on lot of the background maintaince work and mechanical state of the aircraft, and also valuable pilot comments before they`re squeezed into (and perhaps, made a bit more PC..) the summary report.

As for the 109G-2/trop tested, I have some of the papers from the 1990s issued by modern authorities to declare the aircraft airworthy; these include the operational/mechanical history of Black Six, and it notes several of the original damages the aircraft sustained in air combat in late 1942 before it was captured, still present (splinter marks on airscrew, for example). So, I have reason to believe the aircraft was just patched to be airworthy. Similiarly, there`s a fraction of a German tact. trial on a P-51B somewhere, and it notes some supercharger troubles, 2nd stage simply not working IIRC.

What was the G-10 flown to UK in June/July timeframe?

G-10 ..? In June-July? Sorry I don`t get it.

And, R6 with Gondola are kits aren't they? Should be easy enough to take off.

Yup, they`re kits like droptanks, however every single description and photo (inc. the test itself describing as3x20mm cannon, also shown on attached photos) of that particular plane I have seen shows them on (it landed with a droptank too, but I am sure that they took off for trials). The Brits may have not realized the gondolas being kits, given the G-6, they could have though this is some sort of new heavy 109G 'Mark'. Russians seem to have believed the same initially.

K- you will note that I have NEVER disputed better one on one performance in favor of 109 over P-51 at SL up to approximately 15,000 feet. Having said that, the P-51A should turn better, most aerodynamics being better than D and 800 pounds lighter

Perhaps it would be worthy to narrow it down to some typical variants..? Like, G-14 (normal altitude), G-14/AS (high altitude), P-51D all appearing around June-July 1944, perhaps throw in the basic G-6 still being very much around, playing the role of the small fish in this case, but the big wish when it met with say Spitfire Mk Vs, still being very much around..?

This adds an interesting layer to the discussion, and shows how much complex real life engagment have been, ie. the first (and intially, few) Mustang groups that arrived on the scene usually met with the older, standard G-6s of the '1943 generation'. Against these, the P-51B obviously enjoyed some significant advantages, most notably greater speed at all but especially high altitudes, given it`s high altitude engine, that would also give it advantage in all other flight conditions, ie. turning, at those high altitude regimes. Simply it had more power to work with, but the same wasn`t true when the new P-51s met the new 109Gs, with methanol boost and improved superchargers, and which had comparable power output at all altitudes.

[lesofprimus]

Excellent post...

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Hi Bill !



That`s some pretty cool info in the wing profile.

Any specific figures from US etc. testing on the Merlin powered Mustang`s turn time, radius or something like that? I was looking for such data and while ago about USAAF fighters - it turned up nothing specific, unfortunately.

Same for me - I have yet to find a report that definitively tests a 360 circle time at different altitudes and speeds - the only one I have heard about is the USSR report and I have not seen it... Ditto the RAF reports in context of details.. ditto the F4U vs P-51B-5 report - just conclusions wityh no data..

The closest I have seen to what we are looking for is the RAF 'study' post war in which the turning circles are displayed as a Graphic contrast w/o specific data

I don`t think we have much of a difference between the two fighters, actually. If we can believe the drag data, both fighters had very similiar, equiv. of ca. 4 sq. feet plate`s drag - the power/speed requirements underline this.. Same for the radiator design, it`s very similiar basically, even though the Mustang`s is a more aerodynamic execution. In the end, both planes reached about the same speed with the same power, so there`s not much in it.

Every P-51 pilot that engaged 109s with skilled pilots flying it would agree. My father destroyed six in individual fights - 5 in hard climbing, diving turning - one a pure 6 O'clock chase. Of the 5, three were shot down with deflection shots resulting in out turning the 109.. all above 20,000 feet..two were chases that started at 25,000 and ended up with the 109 losing control and then crashing after the 109 dove out of the turn to try to evade, presumably after being hit rather than structural failure.

In the one example he did NOT out turn the 109, the one he was chasing was shot down after my father failed to close enogh to pull through after one 360 degree turn - and his wing man, further back pulled inside and shot it down. - this was around 15,000 feet (Peglar/Marshall Aug3). The same wingman found himself in a turning fight near the deck and despite 10 degrees of flaps could not escape -but his wingman did shoot him off his tail (Shultz/Peglar-Sept11)

I think it all boils down to variant. The G-14 (not the /AS model) is essentially a low-medium altitude variant, the K-4 is high altitude fighter with a lot more power at altitude. though, especially at high altitude, I don`t think control forces would mean anything - correct me if I am wrong, but high altitude flying technically slow-speed flight at low IAS numbers, with the added problem of most engines loosing power above rated altitude? And low-speed dogfight and controllability is something the 109 definietely excelled in.

Kurfurst, high speed flight above .6-.7 Mach introduced increasing compressibility and indeed did increase stick forces. IAS is a function of 'stagnant' pressure in pitot tube - not a function of true airspeed and Mach no except as calibrated by Temp/altitude.

This is why at say, 30,000 feet indicating 250 kts IAS in a dive, your true airspeed is closer to 450mph at .7 mach. The limit dive for a 51 at that altitude was 280kts IAS and closer to .76 mach.. and you would not be able to get elevator control until you were in the 15K altitude range - don't hold me to exact on these figures as I am pulling them off my P&W Aeronautical DVest pocket Handbook - which I haven't touched in 35 years

For true low altitude and low to relatively high airspeeds the IAS and TAS are close to the same reading



Absolutely agree, in fact, I absolutely favour controlled tests over any anecdote..

the 51 turns better then the 109
the 51 turns about as well as the 190
which means that logically the 190 should outturn the 109... and as per the 3 German tactical evaluations we know, the Soviet etc. testing, and even by simply common sense, this was not the case. All of it points towards the results are caused by British pilots not pressing the aircraft hard enough in turns, this is somewhat of a returning topos with British test, their test pilots backing off from turn ASA the slats are opening, leaving the party when it just gets started.

I often wonder if that conclusion is valid for one simple reason - slats weren't a mystery. One intial 'shock' to a skilled pilot doesn't imply fear or lack of confidence in a test pilot's ability particularly if intelligence sources from captured GAF pilots lead him into increasing the turns at altitude until one is comfortable and increasingly skilled in the use of the equipment?

Lerches for example was cautious but increasingly bold by his own account as he became familiar with the equipment.

I Just Don't Know.



Maybe - do you have the complete original papers (not just the test themselves, but attached plane operation diaries, requests etc.) of these tactical trials?

Unfortunately No

As for the 109G-2/trop tested, I have some of the papers from the 1990s issued by modern authorities to declare the aircraft airworthy; these include the operational/mechanical history of Black Six, and it notes several of the original damages the aircraft sustained in air combat in late 1942 before it was captured, still present (splinter marks on airscrew, for example). So, I have reason to believe the aircraft was just patched to be airworthy. Similiarly, there`s a fraction of a German tact. trial on a P-51B somewhere, and it notes some supercharger troubles, 2nd stage simply not working IIRC.




G-10 ..? In June-July? Sorry I don`t get it.

Nah, I checked my poor memory against source..below from Tony Woods- it was two Me 109G6/U2 captured from JG301 when they mistakenly laned in UK

http://www.ww2.dk/misc/21.7.44.pdf

Perhaps it would be worthy to narrow it down to some typical variants..? Like, G-14 (normal altitude), G-14/AS (high altitude), P-51D all appearing around June-July 1944, perhaps throw in the basic G-6 still being very much around, playing the role of the small fish in this case, but the big wish when it met with say Spitfire Mk Vs, still being very much around..?

I just reviewed the OOB for Luftwaffe for Jan-Jun 1944 and it shows quite a few squadrons and TO&E increasingly equipping to 109G-6/AS for at least one Staffel per JG with a lot of plain old G-6 in March-Jun, plus a fewer G-5's and about the same number of 109G-6/R6's as the G-5's


This adds an interesting layer to the discussion, and shows how much complex real life engagment have been, ie. the first (and intially, few) Mustang groups that arrived on the scene usually met with the older, standard G-6s of the '1943 generation'. Against these, the P-51B obviously enjoyed some significant advantages, most notably greater speed at all but especially high altitudes, given it`s high altitude engine, that would also give it advantage in all other flight conditions, ie. turning, at those high altitude regimes. Simply it had more power to work with, but the same wasn`t true when the new P-51s met the new 109Gs, with methanol boost and improved superchargers, and which had comparable power output at all altitudes.

Crump may have developed some interesting energy charts for comparing the P-51 to Me 109 but even well developed theory taking into account energy available at initiation of ACM has soo many factors to apply to develop rate of energy loss in the ACM... it still should have definitive test data to validate conclusions.

These a/c (Me 109G-14 and K-4) were evenly matched to P-51D as standard equipment - the specialized 109K-4s gave a slight advantage in acceleration and maybe even climb at altitudes above 30,000 feet - but I can't find definitive data for climb rate or acceleration.. and while WL isn't the only indicator the 51 was like to have same or lower WL after burning fuel to get central Germany and still be lighter on the controls above 15,000 feet.


Regards,

Bill

[renrich]

Since this thread is supposed to be about a comparison between the Corsair and the FW190 and the BF109 I would like to bring up a few advantages a Corsair would have over both German AC. The various models of the Corsair would always have a range advantage over the two German fighters. Likewise the Corsair would always have an ammunition load greater than the German fighters. The Corsair would always have a ruggedness and reliability advantage over the BF109 because of the radial versus liquid cooled engine. It would always have the same engine advantage over the FW190D9. The Corsair would always have an advantage over the German AC as far as air frame strength is concerned. I believe those advantages are not arguable.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Since this thread is supposed to be about a comparison between the Corsair and the FW190 and the BF109 I would like to bring up a few advantages a Corsair would have over both German AC. The various models of the Corsair would always have a range advantage over the two German fighters. Likewise the Corsair would always have an ammunition load greater than the German fighters. The Corsair would always have a ruggedness and reliability advantage over the BF109 because of the radial versus liquid cooled engine. It would always have the same engine advantage over the FW190D9. The Corsair would always have an advantage over the German AC as far as air frame strength is concerned. I believe those advantages are not arguable.

And last but not least the Corsair basically was slightly better in turn and climb until high altitude over the 51..which is where we got off topic on the 109 and 190.