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

[FLYBOYJ]

Part of Skip Holm's pilot report on flying a Spanish -109 (HA-1112). I've met him and he's probably one of the best all-round pilots flying today. Here is his comments on landing the -109.

"Once back in the pattern, an overhead pitch-out approach is my preference. The aircraft is clean, so needs to be slowed down considerably prior to getting the flaps cranked down and the gear lowered. The pattern cockpit work is high, due to the trim/flap wheel requirements. Pulling both the trim and flap wheels at the same time works well in lowering flaps and re-trimming at the same time. Longitudinally, the airplane is markedly stable, even though the elevator is heavier and more responsive than most single-seat fighters. At all times, it is important to remember that the rudder is sluggish for small movements. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph and on final, the power is back almost to idle, and the glide path looks steep. The view looks good until getting close to the runway, then the entire runway is blanked out, with the runway edges being the guides for landing. The most obvious point to remember on the rotation-to-landing is to look out both sides of the canopy, for this will keep the aircraft straight for the touchdown. If the touchdown is not perfectly aligned to the runway, some immediate directional correction is needed, for any delay will only exacerbate the condition and give the pilot more excitement."

[CharlesBronson]

Well, not exactly the topics tittle, but here I left a comparative between the P-47D and FW-190A-4.

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by CharlesBronson

Well, not exactly the topics tittle, but here I left a comparative between the P-47D and FW-190A-4.

That is a test of a very early P-47D that is for all intents and purposes a P-47C, as noted at the very top of the document you presented. Note the date of the document, which is June 1943.

Here is a subsiquent document concerning a real P-47D vs. an FW190A conducted in April 1944. Note that the D model is only a -RE4, so its performance was far off that of a RE25.





For the most part, the story is completely reversed, with the P-47 dominating at speeds above 250 mph.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lunatic]

The P-51 was great at what it was designed for. It had very long range, could maintain 400 mph class speed for extended periods, had the best pilot vision of any single engine fighter of WWII, had a great computing gunsight, and had excellent guns for the purpose of shooting down enemy fighter aircraft.

Sure you can argue all day about the "in a fair dogfight" situation, but that situation was not realistic. The German's did not intentionally engage in such "dogfights" and neither did the US pilots. Something over 90% of the pilots who survived being shot down on both sides reported they never saw the plane that shot them down or only saw it after they started taking hits. For this kind of combat, the P-51 was excellent. It was made to fight unfairly, and it did so very well. It's ability to see the enemy first and have a 50+ mph speed advantage at the point of engagement gave it a significant edge.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by Soren

Very incorrect ! The 109K-4 was more than a match for the Spit 21...

The Spit 21 was faster than the K-4, climbed about equally well (especially for actual combat), was much more durable, had better range, had better pilot vision, a better gunsight, and much better armament.

How was the K-4 "more than a match for the Spit 21"?

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is because the type of combat that was pretty much engaged by pilots towards the end of the war was bouncing rather than dogfighting. As you said most never saw the enemy that shot them down.

Now as for the P-51 I will agree it did well with what it was made to do. Its great range allowed it to take the fight to the Germans however I would not go as to say the 51 was the best fighter the Allies had.

[Erich]

9 out of 10 times the P-51's had the height advantage thus the overall 50 mph + weight advantage in speed. also enmasse as the Luftwaffe tried in vain to catch their foe which outnumbered them significantly...........this has all be coverd before and we are repeating ourselves. Speed, turning and other specs is getting to be old news and is totally dependendt on pilot skills not a bunch of charts and test run by non operational test pilots.

the P-51 was the best Allied escort in Europe in the late war and the Pilots thank God they had it at their disposal

[alejandro_]

Lunatic

The Spit 21 was faster than the K-4, climbed about equally well (especially for actual combat), was much more durable, had better range, had better pilot vision, a better gunsight, and much better armament.

Although I agree with you, the main reasons to claim the Bf-109 was superior were:

- Use of MW-50 during extended periods.
- The pilot had less work load due to the use.
- Better zoom & dive characteristics (altough I am not too sure on this fact).
- Better rolling rate at high speeds.
- komandgerart.

Do you got any evidence it was more durable?

Regards.

[Erich]

Ale:

what do you mean by saying the 109 pilot had less work load ?

thank you E ♪

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Where's your proof of this? Before you avoided even touching on the Spitfire 21 - the Spitfire XIV was more than a match for the Bf-109K-4 - the Spitfire 21 was even better than the Spitfire XIV in almost every aspect - increased advantage for the Spitfire 21 over the Bf-109K-4.

Let me demonstrate something;

The Bf-109K-4 was not very fast, actually. It's ability to climb was hampered by it's small wing - the cockpit was cramped and the pilot was always in a fix to control his aircraft. A well handled P-51D could run rings around the K-4 on a good day...

See, I can state anything I want - anything at all - and it would be disputed but I could just carry on arguing. I think it's time - if you're so sure of yourself - to provide facts and sources.

And another thing for everybody (I know some people already understand this), just because all the numbers state it should be a marvel of an aircraft - it doesn't mean it will be. If that were true - there'd be no such thing as a bad design.

Don't worry, I'll demonstrate exactly why the 109K-4 was more than a match for the Spit XIV and 21 VERY soon, and in detail ! But I'll let you ponder about these two things first; The 109 has a higher Wing Thickness ratio= higher CL-max, and it has a higher Wing Aspect ratio= higher Cl-max.

(Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by soren

(Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)

er, yes it does, if it was a match it would be equal, if it is more than a mach, it would be more than equal, meaning it would be better........

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

The Spit 21 was faster than the K-4, climbed about equally well (especially for actual combat), was much more durable, had better range, had better pilot vision, a better gunsight, and much better armament.

How was the K-4 "more than a match for the Spit 21"?

=S=

Lunatic

The 109K-4 climbed both faster than the Spit 21 initially 'and' in the long run, and the 109K-4 would accelerate faster as-well !

Also the 109K-4 had a 10min boost limit, while the Spit 21 had a 5min boost limit, a clear and big advantage !

The 109K-4 would climb to 32,800 ft in just 6.7min ! The Spit 21 needed 7.85min just to reach 30,000ft !.

So does that sufficiently answer your question ?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

you've based your entire argument on climb figures and boost time?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

er, yes it does, if it was a match it would be equal, if it is more than a mach, it would be more than equal, meaning it would be better........

A match means your up against a tough opposition, more than a match means your up against something either better or "atleast" as good as you.

Ofcourse if we take the word "Match" litterally, it 'does' mean equal, however by the same token NO Allied fighter was a match with any Axis fighter

[Soren]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

you've based your entire argument on climb figures and boost time?

No, why ?