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

[Udet]

It's been quite enough of specifications.

You are correct enough when affirming most pilots are likely to affirm the planes each flew were the best, though.

Just like I have met both with German and USA veterans, I have also read articles written by some USAAF aces: Kit Carson and the ultra-arrogant Chuck Yeager, who in a bizarre exercise, ridicules the German pilots when the man himself got surpassed and shot down by a German pilot. The man is completely lucky to be alive today and to be capable of seeing his contradictions increasing as he grows older and older.
That is what I call having both your feet several meters above the ground.

Now, we are all aware the allies captured numbers of fully operational German aircraft when the war ended in Europe -a few planes captured during the war-.

The war prizes included Bf109 of the latest versions, Fw190Ds, Ta152s, Do335s, Me262s, etc.

What came of all them after the war?

Yup, we know they were shipped to the allied victorious nations, tested, most were scrapped and some sent over to museums. Was that about it?

The British "captured" a JG 300 Bf 109 G-6/R6 -fitted with underwing 2cm cannons- during the war and conducted a shameful (also embarrasing)test comparing the German craft fitted for bomb hunting missions with a contemporary Sptifire. The tests proved that even a 109 fitted in such fashion -extra weight and extra drag- could hardly be surpassed by the leaner Spitfire. In some departments the Wilde Sau Bf 109 performed better than the Spitfire.

With this I mean that by carrying out such test, the British themselves involuntarily -and foolishly- made a contribution to debunk the myth on the "inability of the underwing gondola Bf 109s to succesfully engage or evade from enemy fighters."

Has any of you ever wondered why was it not mock combat-dogfight involving the captured German planes and the allied wonders was ever carried out, filmed and duly documented?

Perhaps they did it but prefered to either omit or classify the outcome of such testing.

No one bad mouths the P-51 or the P-47.
I am confident when saying the great P-47 has been unfairly kicked out of the throne by the Mustang. By the side of the Thunderbolt, the P-51 is chicken.

Mr. wmaxt also is correct when affirming that on a one vs one a P-51 could win the fight. Correct.

I am 100 percent confident when affirming the late Bf109s were much better dogfighters than the Mustang.

One final point, the burden of proof lies with the allies making the claim of their allegedly superior planes, weapons, tactics, pilots, training and a long list of blah, blah, blahs...

Besides the self made laurels and the self crowning product of their relevant share in achieveing final victory, they have failed to prove their weaponry was superior.

The disturbing issue lies when one can affirm there is sound evidence that will suggest the Bf109s and Fw190s were cookies tough beyond the capabilties of both RAF and USAAF in numerically equal engagements.

They ought to know the winner is not always the one who is the best.

A.R.R.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Udet

It's been quite enough of specifications.

You are correct enough when affirming most pilots are likely to affirm the planes each flew were the best, though.

Just like I have met both with German and USA veterans, I have also read articles written by some USAAF aces: Kit Carson and the ultra-arrogant Chuck Yeager, who in a bizarre exercise, ridicules the German pilots when the man himself got surpassed and shot down by a German pilot. The man is completely lucky to be alive today and to be capable of seeing his contradictions increasing as he grows older and older.
That is what I call having both your feet several meters above the ground.

Now, we are all aware the allies captured numbers of fully operational German aircraft when the war ended in Europe -a few planes captured during the war-.

The war prizes included Bf109 of the latest versions, Fw190Ds, Ta152s, Do335s, Me262s, etc.

What came of all them after the war?

Yup, we know they were shipped to the allied victorious nations, tested, most were scrapped and some sent over to museums. Was that about it?

The British "captured" a JG 300 Bf 109 G-6/R6 -fitted with underwing 2cm cannons- during the war and conducted a shameful (also embarrasing)test comparing the German craft fitted for bomb hunting missions with a contemporary Sptifire. The tests proved that even a 109 fitted in such fashion -extra weight and extra drag- could hardly be surpassed by the leaner Spitfire. In some departments the Wilde Sau Bf 109 performed better than the Spitfire.

With this I mean that by carrying out such test, the British themselves involuntarily -and foolishly- made a contribution to debunk the myth on the "inability of the underwing gondola Bf 109s to succesfully engage or evade from enemy fighters."

Has any of you ever wondered why was it not mock combat-dogfight involving the captured German planes and the allied wonders was ever carried out, filmed and duly documented?

Perhaps they did it but prefered to either omit or classify the outcome of such testing.

No one bad mouths the P-51 or the P-47.
I am confident when saying the great P-47 has been unfairly kicked out of the throne by the Mustang. By the side of the Thunderbolt, the P-51 is chicken.

Mr. wmaxt also is correct when affirming that on a one vs one a P-51 could win the fight. Correct.

I am 100 percent confident when affirming the late Bf109s were much better dogfighters than the Mustang.

One final point, the burden of proof lies with the allies making the claim of their allegedly superior planes, weapons, tactics, pilots, training and a long list of blah, blah, blahs...

Besides the self made laurels and the self crowning product of their relevant share in achieveing final victory, they have failed to prove their weaponry was superior.

The disturbing issue lies when one can affirm there is sound evidence that will suggest the Bf109s and Fw190s were cookies tough beyond the capabilties of both RAF and USAAF in numerically equal engagements.

They ought to know the winner is not always the one who is the best.

A.R.R.

Very well put Udet - one comment kind of off topic. I've met Yeager on several occasions myself - I think your discription of him is an understatement!

[lesofprimus]

I as well have met Yeager several times, and can honestly say that he was the one individula I didnt want to meet again... I actually saw Joe Foss cuss him out once back in 1982...

My Dad thought that was priceless...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was actually trying to find some info on comparisons between P-51D and Bf-109G and K and you know what I found was interesting most compare it to the Bf-109F and E. I actaully find this quite disturbing since when the D showed up over Germany its primary 109 enemy was the G and the K.

[Soren]

the 109 had slats at extream AoA the 51 had flaps at any speed/AoA.

In a hard turn the wings max AoA is reached almost immediately, so the auto-slats are VERY beneficial to turn performance at ALL speeds. And btw, the Bf 109 has combat flaps aswell. So I don't know what your point is here.

Also the Bf-109's wing (No slats) has a higher CL-max than the P-51's wing, meaning the 109's wing produces more lift pr area.
While a Laminar airfoil produces much less drag, it also produces less lift than a conventional airfoil, and a laminar airfoil also stalls much earlier and much more violently than a conventional airfoil.

Roll rates are similar and control forces in favor of the 51 at very high speeds.

Not elevator controls, which would literally 'lock up' in the P-51 at high speed. The late war Bf-109's had excellent elevator control, and even in a VERY high speed dive the 109 could still easely recover. (MUCH easier than a P-51 !)
This is also confirmed by many P-51 pilots which saw the 109 escape this way.

And a quote:

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories:
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.

Right now we have people each saying their plane is better, is there some info out there that can add to this discussion to show a relative advantage one way or the other?

This thread inspired me to make a Interceptor vs Escort thread only about the P-51 and the Bf-109. And 'yes', all the info you'll need to point out which is the better fighter will be present. So take a look...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Bf-109G and K performed better at high alltitudes anyhow.

[poprune]

Is it worth considering that, at the time that the 'sweep' tactics were adopted by the Mustangs, Germany was really feeling the bite of shotages and disruption of almost everything?
There was nothing wrong with the later variants of the 109; they were excellent fighting machines, refined over years of war. The same cannot be said of the great majority of pilots who flew them, for whom a 109 must have seemed a horrifying animal, what with thr torque on take-off, wing-loading, high-speed stalls and g forces.
There simply weren't enough men, nor the time or resouces to train them properly. Experten were thin on the ground and getting thinner by the day.

By the way, I wholly endorse the view that every pilot thinks that the plane HE flew was the best thing ever; it comes through every book I ever read. I will, however, take issue with the point that the British deliberately distorted the comparison in tests made between a captured 109 and a Spitfire: to do such a thing would be criminally stupid and that is one thing that the British most certainly weren't (most of them, anyway).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You are correct in your assumption that the Luftwaffe was running on a shortage of materials and fuel. They were also not able to replace there losses like the allies were able to.

As for the Spitfire vs 109 test. They were not very accurate. They compared it to a 109 that was weighted down with drop tanks and such not. I am sure the results would have varied more if they had removed it.

[poprune]

Then I'm quite sure it wasn't an official evaluation. Such tests were carried out under rigorously controlled conditions to ensure that the results were fair and accurate. After all, the people who were going to be given the information were squadron pilots who would more than likely meet those same aircraft for real; giving them false gen would result in some very pungent comments at the least! I can see that some figures might be 'bent' for propaganda purposes for civilian consumption, though.

[wmaxt]

There is always a bias when testing aircraft. If the pilot likes it he tries harder, if he's Navy flying an Air Force plane - of course it's not as good etc. Many times the bias unintentional but it is there anyway. Sometimes it's just expertise with the various aircraft - the pilot is going to get more out of the plane he has 200hrs in over the one he has 20hrs in. Lastly the captured plane may be running worse than normal or as noted above in a unfavorable configuration.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very good point there. The British pilots who flew the 109 did not have the experience in the 109 that the German pilots did. The Luftwaffe pilots knew how to get the most out of her while the British were trying to figure her out.

[plan_D]

The British test pilots often got worried about the wing slats when they deployed. Which was true for the majority of Luftwaffe pilots, I suppose you could say the tests of the British were like how a rookie Luftwaffe pilot would fly them.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is probably a very good generalization there.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The British test pilots often got worried about the wing slats when they deployed. Which was true for the majority of Luftwaffe pilots, I suppose you could say the tests of the British were like how a rookie Luftwaffe pilot would fly them.

Exactly.

The British test-pilots stopped any maneuver as soon as the slats came out, as the loud bang and slight notch in the controls almost made them **** their pants.
However that the 'Majority' of LW pilots did the same is slightly untrue, the majority of 'fresh' LW pilots did. Properly trained LW pilots didnt make this mistake. -With the exception of the early war pilots flying the 109E which slats jammed, scaring many of the pilots for life. (A good example is Günther Rall who experienced this very early in his career, and never attempted such wild maneuvers again)

[plan_D]

The Bf-109 was only the master-piece of engineering it was in the hands of an expert. The Bf-109 still to this day does not get recognition as a great turning fighter and there is a reason for that. The reason is most Bf-109s didn't turn well because their pilots weren't fully capable with the Bf-109 because the 109 was, quite frankly, a twat to fly.