P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's

[DAVIDICUS]

Soren said, "No you miss-undertsood me, as you thought I was implying that an 170hp increase in engine power was hard to accomplish."

Whether or not you intended to, you did imply that Soren. You said, "It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare."

You said that in response to my saying, "I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result."

When you said, "that much" you were clearly referring to the additional 170hp represented by an increase from 2,530 to 2,700. What other reasonable meaning could you possibly have implied?

Then you, in the same response, continued with "but it would be very rare." By this, you clearly implied that while it was possible to go "that much" from 2,530 to 2,700hp, "it would be very rare." Hence, it would be possible but very rare to see "that much" of an increase in horsepower.

When I said, "It was my understanding as well that such "tweaking" was commonplace. " I was referring to the "tweaking" I had earlier referenced (which is why I set it out in in quotes) which was a tweaking resulting in a 170hp increase in the later "D" model Thunderbolt.

It was only later that you finally pointed out that "The 170hp increase in engine-power was easely possible for a good mech, no problem there."

[lesofprimus]

OMFG..... Someones snorting too much Ritalin.... Take a freakin qualude for christs sake...

[DAVIDICUS]

Hey Les, Primus Sucks. That much cannot be denied but don't sell yourself short.

You suck too.

[lesofprimus]

Every stinking day of my miserable life.......

Atleast u kept the reply short this time..... You really are one anal-retentive dude......

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

Soren said, "No you miss-undertsood me, as you thought I was implying that an 170hp increase in engine power was hard to accomplish."

Whether or not you intended to, you did imply that Soren. You said, "It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare."

You said that in response to my saying, "I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result."

When you said, "that much" you were clearly referring to the additional 170hp represented by an increase from 2,530 to 2,700. What other reasonable meaning could you possibly have implied?

Then you, in the same response, continued with "but it would be very rare." By this, you clearly implied that while it was possible to go "that much" from 2,530 to 2,700hp, "it would be very rare." Hence, it would be possible but very rare to see "that much" of an increase in horsepower.

When I said, "It was my understanding as well that such "tweaking" was commonplace. " I was referring to the "tweaking" I had earlier referenced (which is why I set it out in in quotes) which was a tweaking resulting in a 170hp increase in the later "D" model Thunderbolt.

It was only later that you finally pointed out that "The 170hp increase in engine-power was easely possible for a good mech, no problem there."

DAVID,

What I said was "It wasnt at all impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare"

Which implies it wasn't impossible, but it was rarely done... Now that it can be interpreted in two ways isn't mine or your fault.

Now shall we call it a quits, as this is rather uninteresting ?

[lesofprimus]

Now shall we call it a quits, as this is rather uninteresting ?

Yup...

[Udet]

Plan_D:

You bet the F and G versions of the Bf 109 did represent very significant improvements over every contemporary Spitfire.

Both versions could achieve things the E-3 that saw action over England during the Battle of Britain couldn´t.

The alleged story of the "critical deterioration" of the manouverability of the Bf 109, especially on the G version, does not hold water when one sees the performance of the G-6s, G-10s and G-14s that shot down both USAAF and RAF fighters in juicy quantities.

The Spitfire, in fact, was becoming a true pig by 1943, becoming heavier and heavier and less manouverable.

It appears to me there are people clinging desperately to one of the very few -if not the only one- departments where the Spitfire could "outperform" the Bf 109: turning better.

Like if turning better was the sole choice that would assure success for a fighter pilot.

Soren has made useful and illustrative arguments on how the edge slats worked on the Bf 109 apparently to no avail.

Even if you were correct when affirming the Spitfire could turn better than the Bf 109, there are still many choices left for the German pilot to find its "out" and to cleanly outfly any version of the Spitfire. It is there, in all those choices where the Bf 109 is certainly ahead of the Spitfire.

What about just one, the fuel injected DB engines on the Bf 109 against the carbureted Merlins of the Spitfire. Who could handle negative G forces better? Easy and short response: Bf 109.

By the way, the Bf 109 E-3 fared much much better during the Battle of Britain -over enemy territory- against both the MkIs -Hurricane and Spitfire- than any version of the Spitfire did over the Channel and France from 1941 to early 1943 against the Bf 109.

The Bf 109s and the Butcher Birds of JG 2 and JG 26 shot down Spitfires like flies during such period.

The Spitfire did not show any improvement in its performance against the Luftwaffe until the 8th´s Jugs began assemblying in England in 1943.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Udet

Like if turning better was the sole choice that would assure success for a fighter pilot.

No, but I could tell you that's the second thing a pilot would look at when flying a high performance aircraft. The first is speed.

Originally Posted by Udet

Soren has made useful and illustrative arguments on how the edge slats worked on the Bf 109 apparently to no avail.

His arguments were well taken, its a matter of how Luftwaffe pilots exploited this advantage and how RAF pilots exploited the Spits stall warning ability. I think because of this is where we got the "Spitfire could out turn a -109 acceptance," when in actuality we know that there Luftwaffe pilots who turned and out-turned Spitfires numerous times. Pilot Skill!

Originally Posted by Udet

What about just one, the fuel injected DB engines on the Bf 109 against the carbureted Merlins of the Spitfire. Who could handle negative G forces better? Easy and short response: Bf 109.

The biggest flaw of the Spit and agree with you 100% I could not believe the Air Ministry would allow any fighter aircraft to possess this crippling characteristic.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Erich

two cents on the topic.

I./JG 27 lost 42 K-4's during the war.
II./JG 27 lost 2 K-4's
IV./JG 27 lost 22 K-4's

Erich do you know how many of these were due to combat loss or do to other reasons?

[Erich]

Eagle, yes I can break all of that down, and I think Les also wanted this info. give me a bit today as I am now off work......

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No problem take your time my friend.

[Erich]

for II./JG 27

November 21, 1944

6./JG 27, Gerhard Borutzke KIA in Luftkampf, a/c 100 %, yellow 14

January 22, 1945

8./JG 27 Friedrich Metz belly landed his K-4 with 99 % loss near Münster, due to combat with Allied fighters. Pilot ok

[Erich]

III./JG 27 lost 102 K-4's

34 of these a/c there is no materials on

5 pilots MIA
13 pilots wounded
40 pilots KIA

[Erich]

IV./JG 27 lost 23 K-4's

8 pilots KIA
9 pilots wounded

again some of the a/c there are no details of pilots or what happened

sorry guys my arithmetic was a bit off ...........

[DAVIDICUS]

Erich, is that a woman in that photo on the left?

(With these "progressive" Europeans, one never knows.)