Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang

[evangilder]

The Zero can out-turn about anything, below 275 MPH. After that, it's a brick. The barn-door sized ailerons gave it a great turn radius, at a cost. Once you hit 275 MPH, there isn't enough human strength the move them and the stick feels like it has been set in concrete. The thick wing cord of the Zero also causes it to not be able to dive as fast as other fighters of that vintage.

I would be curious to hear other test pilots opinions. I may ask some of the guys down at the CAF what they feel is the best fighter. We have a Zero in our stable (a real one) as well as a Bearcat and a Hellcat. Most of our pilots have flown a large number of aircraft.

[eddie_brunette]

ME109 for me, but that because of flight sims(il2), but il take a 109G10 over any p51

[Soren]

The Ace-maker Bf-109 hands down!

From 1939 to 1945 it remained a top notch fighter, the final K-4 version out-speeding, out-turning and out-climbing any Allied fighter in the ETO. Sadly for the Germans too few were flown by proper trained pilots and too few were at all available.

Of the three the P-51 is ofcourse the second, by 1943 the Zeke design had reached its limits and was completely outdated compared to the US F6F Hellcat & F4U Corsair.

[renrich]

No way the contemporary models of BF 109s could compete with the P51 Bs, Cs or Ds or the equivalent F4Us or F6Fs. To begin with it could not even get into the fight unless it was over it's own base.

[Soren]

You are seriously misinformed Renrich! Look at the performance differences for crying out loud!!

The P-51B, C & D were pigs compared to the Bf-109's equipped with MW-50 boost. The only thing the P-51 had going for it until the introduction of the Bf-109 K-4 was speed.

Top speed of the K-4 was 719 km/h, climb rate in excess of 5,000 ft/min, turn rate excellent on par with the late Spitfires.

The F6F isn't even in the same league as the Bf-109! Are you even thinking right now ??

The F4U Corsair is the only fighter I'd rate up there with the Bf-109.

There's a reason the Bf-109 gave birth to majority of aces in WW2, including the top three of all time. The top ace even choose it over any other available in the LW. The fighter was a thoroughbred!

You should visit the aviation forum and take a peek at some of the threads there, Crummp posted some good graphs to look at.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

You are seriously misinformed Renrich! Look at the performance differences for crying out loud!!



The P-51B, C & D were pigs compared to the Bf-109's equipped with MW-50 boost. The only thing the P-51 had going for it until the introduction of the Bf-109 K-4 was speed.

But somehow these 8th and 9th and 12 and 15th AF 'pigs' slautered the 109s ?

Top speed of the K-4 was 719 km/h, climb rate in excess of 5,000 ft/min, turn rate excellent on par with the late Spitfires.

But somehow they got shot down in climbs, turns, dives, straight away dashes... how could that be?

The F6F isn't even in the same league as the Bf-109! Are you even thinking right now ??

They never fought - how would you know?

The F4U Corsair is the only fighter I'd rate up there with the Bf-109.

A lot of dead LW Me 109 pilots never got to vote F4U as they were killed by Mustangs

There's a reason the Bf-109 gave birth to majority of aces in WW2, including the top three of all time. The top ace even choose it over any other available in the LW. The fighter was a thoroughbred!

39,000 were built, most every fighter pilot flew at one time or another, but they got hammered against the 51.

You should visit the aviation forum and take a peek at some of the threads there, Crummp posted some good graphs to look at.

Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights. The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by renrich

No way the contemporary models of BF 109s could compete with the P51 Bs, Cs or Ds or the equivalent F4Us or F6Fs. To begin with it could not even get into the fight unless it was over it's own base.

Not true, not even close to being true.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights. The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?

Come on Bill are you suggesting that the 109 & 190 were out classed completely by the 51 technically? Your comment is misleading by suggesting such if that was what you were trying to say. While I agree with you graphs do not win war, but it is the most neutral/unbiased way to compare planes.

The 51 was not the best fighter over Berlin, what made it the best fighter "perhaps overall" was the fact that it could "get" over Berlin in the first place and that it was built in such large numbers. Other then that it was a decent fighter based on performance alone (not including range). But this chat is for the best fighter in WW2 thread.

Numbers won the war, attrition won the war, better planning won the war, better strategic planning won the war, better tactical planning won the war (as you hinted at and I expanded on).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by renrich

No way the contemporary models of BF 109s could compete with the P51 Bs, Cs or Ds or the equivalent F4Us or F6Fs. To begin with it could not even get into the fight unless it was over it's own base.

That is not a true statement at all. Especially the part about only being able to fight unless it was over its own base. Come on now...

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is not a true statement at all. Especially the part about only being able to fight unless it was over its own base. Come on now...

Agreed, thats what I said also.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Come on Bill are you suggesting that the 109 & 190 were out classed completely by the 51 technically? Your comment is misleading by suggesting such if that was what you were trying to say. While I agree with you graphs do not win war, but it is the most neutral/unbiased way to compare planes.

No Hunter - and if you read my reply in context, it was about the 51 described as a 'pig' in combat with a 109.

Secondly the 'graphs' will tell you the two airplanes (Latest model 109s) are basically equal... but that wasn't enough is what I was emphasizing

Third in a fight, it's about training and tactical advantage when a/c are equal or nearly equal and frequently the aggressive nature of the combatants

The 51 was not the best fighter over Berlin, what made it the best fighter "perhaps overall" was the fact that it could "get" over Berlin in the first place and that it was built in such large numbers. Other then that it was a decent fighter based on performance alone (not including range). But this chat is for the best fighter in WW2 thread.

See above and see my entire reply for context - I don't disagree with the 'overall' statement either. As I recall it was 'which one do you want to fly in a dogfight' not even best fighter.

Rall and several other notable LW pilots considered the 51 to be the best Allied fighter and Range IS the key - but in context of range, the P-38 was superior but achieved far less against the 109 at altitude.. and as you said whatever you put up over Berlin had to be able to fight and fight extremely well to decimate the German airforce over German skies..

So, is it a 'pig'??

what a silly statement - even for Soren

As to whether it was the best over Berlin? Well if you look at the data and the trade off's in scores to losses in the first half of 1944 - it Was the 'best over Berlin'.

That was the period in which a.) the LW skills had not gone down completely, b.) they Did have tactical and numerical superiority and they mostly chose where they wanted to engage.

and came out 8:1 dogs - maybe worse if just discussing the 109.

Numbers won the war, attrition won the war, better planning won the war, better strategic planning won the war, better tactical planning won the war (as you hinted at and I expanded on).

Increased numbers of adequately trained fighter pilots, not just the aces, and increased training over the LW training capabilities opened the floodgates also.. this is the flip side of attrition. I would say even more important was the aggressiveness of the 8th AF fighter pilot in finding and attacking German fighters wherever they could find them and ignore the odds when under manned in the attack.

In the second half of 1944, what was left of LW Fighter Leader staff to fight against the escorts was further complicated by trying to achieve the mission with less talent behind them and trying to save the rookie during his first series of missions - but if the 8th AF fighter pilot had not been extremely aggressive, even that would have been less of an issue rather than critical

The ad nauseum beliefs that Mustangs had "8:1" or "12:1" numbers advantage in an attack is silly also. in most cases it was 1:4 or 1:2 (Mustangs to LW fighter) because the tactics were to bounce with as few as possible while protecting bombers.

Hunter, there were very FEW Mustangs to protect very large number of bombers in the first half of 1944 - and the 40-50 plane Group that were in the same area as the LW were mostly spread out over 3-6 miles covering the bombers in 8 plane sections.

So, at any given point that the LW chose to fight - there were only 8 to 48 available if the Germans chose to stay.

Someday, more people will look at the individual battles, the orders of battle, and the detailed tactical situations that actually existed when the Mustang came into play and how quickly they decimated the LW over Germany when the very good Jug could not go there and the very fine P-38 had a little too many extreme cold issues were solved and dive brakes were installed..

And at the end of the day, when the P-38L arrived it probably was a better 'dogfighter' than the Mustang until the 51H was in production.

At any rate the sharp remarks were about the 'pig' comment and the implication that the 109 failed to 'sweep the skies' of Mustangs because of other factors than performance.

At the dominant altitudes of 22,000 - 30,000 feet, in which most of the big fights were engaged:

1. Except for the sharp climbing turn perfectly executed and timed it (109G6) could not escape with raw speed or 2.) acceleration in a dive if chased, and 3.) except for the exceptional pilot, it could not out turn the 51 ( it may turn 'with' the 51).

The Me 109K series was the P-51H in concept and it, in my opinion was slightly better than the 51D as a pure dogfighter... but not better than the P51H for example.

So, the choice is a matter of preference rather than crystal clear based on graphical or flight test results. The results that counted were over Berlin when the Mustang was greatly outnumbered and the LW was transferring into Luftflotte Reich large numbers of experienced fighter pilots from other fronts

Regards

[Hunter368]

Wow I could comment there on many of your points but I am at work so......with limited time at the moment I will say this.

I agree with "most" of your post, but not all. Here is the main points i don't totally agree with:

-The way you say the 51 was out numbered by the LW is suggesting that the LW was there to fight the 51 (or any escorts). They were trying to avoid the escort most times and not engage them in fights. They were after the bombers, not the fighters. The bombers out numbered the LW defenders in most fights, not even including the defending escorts. Attacking bomber boxes has been described by many LW experts as being the worst thing they has ever done or fought vs. So to discount the kills (indirect kills) or not mention them or factor them into this chat is wrong. The defending LW was outnumbered many many times by the combined attacking force of bombers and escorts. BoB where Hurrs and Spits attacked LW med bombers was very different then LW attacking US bomber boxes.

-While there were many Experts left in the LW it is a fact that the general level of training had started to decline in the LW in 43. Allied planners did a better job planning for the future then the LW (or Japan) when talking about pilot training programs. Wars are not won by a few experts, then are won by the average pilot. Allied pilots were receiving better training then the new LW pilots were in 43......then add to the fact that the Allies stepped up the air war on all fronts........you can see how it had the LW training program burning at both ends of the candle. LW ended up sending poor souls up who barely had any real flight training in a real plane.......= easy kills. LW lost many pilots (new and vets) to bomber guns, lost pilots to escorts and had a poor plan in place to replace them with good pilots (hell they even sent bomber pilots to be fly fighter planes) = easy kills. So as the war went on as Allied pilots got better the average LW pilots got worse again = easy kills.

-You like to compare what "actually happened" in WW2 instead of looking at performance tests of the actual planes. Well that is just your choice (and some others) and thats fine......but there is weaknesses in that view (just like there is in believing performance tests blindly). I like to factor in both views, using a balanced unbiased point of view to form a opinion (not saying anything neg about your view point). I just think that believing blindly in what actually happened during WW2 you can not possiblely factor into the debate everything that effected those results during WW2 to make a accurate decision on which is a better plane. You need to look also at performance results from all planes for a unbiased (unclouded) point of view on which was a better plane. If you use real life results from WW2 you are not getting which is the better plane (many other factors effected the results in WW2 besides which was the better fighter and that is not what we are talking about here).

-PS the P-51 was no pig in my eyes, it was a good plane with great range, cheap to produce and available in numbers. It would not be my number one choice in any of the following areas: grd attack, defending fighter, or best long range fighter regardless of price. But overall if I was a country during WW2 who had to fight on many fronts, escorted bombers, it would of been my choice as a overall best fighter. Was it the best dog fighter? Not even close. Was it the best overall fighter used in many roles.....yes IMO. I think the USA made the best choice in making the 51 its main fighter when factoring everything in the big picture.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Wow I could comment there on many of your points but I am at work so......with limited time at the moment I will say this.

I agree with "most" of your post, but not all. Here is the main points i don't totally agree with:

-The way you say the 51 was out numbered by the LW is suggesting that the LW was there to fight the 51 (or any escorts). They were trying to avoid the escort most times and not engage them in fights. They were after the bombers, not the fighters. The bombers out numbered the LW defenders in most fights, not even including the defending escorts.

You are right about this, but what I would say is this. The attacking LW were ordered to attack the bombers. They were not stupid and in the time period we are talking about they frequently put a concentration of fighters and 'destroyers' in a focused area where they out numbered both the bombers and the escorts. The tactic was to overwhelm the escorts to get to the bombers or find a hole in the coverage and avoid the escorts.

Hunter, what I would also say is that it was the fighter leaders choice initially to engage or try for a pass and flee - but they still had the numbers in that particular voulme of space to do either


Attacking bomber boxes has been described by many LW experts as being the worst thing they has ever done or fought vs. So to discount the kills (indirect kills) or not mention them or factor them into this chat is wrong.

Agreed and not my intent or statement

The defending LW was outnumbered many many times by the combined attacking force of bombers and escorts. BoB where Hurrs and Spits attacked LW med bombers was very different then LW attacking US bomber boxes.

Agreed in the context of the force that could depart from UK on a given day and the LW force available to repel over Germany. What happened tactically is that the force of bombers remained constant (except for losses) all the way to Germany but the fighter force was cut 90% (or more) by the time the attacking force reached Munster. At that point and all the way to the targets and back to German border there was only a small force of US fighters available to blunt any focused attack, anyplace the Germans chose to do so

-While there were many Experts left in the LW it is a fact that the general level of training had started to decline in the LW in 43. Allied planners did a better job planning for the future then the LW (or Japan) when talking about pilot training programs. Wars are not won by a few experts, then are won by the average pilot. Allied pilots were receiving better training then the new LW pilots were in 43......then add to the fact that the Allies stepped up the air war on all fronts........you can see how it had the LW training program burning at both ends of the candle. LW ended up sending poor souls up who barely had any real flight training in a real plane.......= easy kills. LW lost many pilots (new and vets) to bomber guns, lost pilots to escorts and had a poor plan in place to replace them with good pilots (hell they even sent bomber pilots to be fly fighter planes) = easy kills. So as the war went on as Allied pilots got better the average LW pilots got worse again = easy kills.

I agree this and commented on it. But in early 1944 the LW was still robust and LuftFlotte Reich was getting the benefit of both trainees and skilled fighter pilots transferring in from Italy, Austria, Russia and Finland to try to stop the 8th AF.

-You like to compare what "actually happened" in WW2 instead of looking at performance tests of the actual planes. Well that is just your choice (and some others) and thats fine......but there is weaknesses in that view (just like there is in believing performance tests blindly). I like to factor in both views, using a balanced unbiased point of view to form a opinion (not saying anything neg about your view point). I just think that believing blindly in what actually happened during WW2 you can not possiblely factor into the debate everything that effected those results during WW2 to make a accurate decision on which is a better plane. You need to look also at performance results from all planes for a unbiased (unclouded) point of view on which was a better plane. If you use real life results from WW2 you are not getting which is the better plane (many other factors effected the results in WW2 besides which was the better fighter and that is not what we are talking about here).

I have zero problem with your statement. I think I basically agreed vis a vis 'performance chart to performance chart' and also highlighted that one fighter design does not remain static and specificity must be stated when comparing them (i.e 109G, 109G6, 109 g6 A/S, 109G-10, 109K-4 versus 51B, 51D, 51H, etc, @ 15,000 feet/20,000 ft/30,000ft, light load, full load of fuel, etc)

-PS the P-51 was no pig in my eyes, it was a good plane with great range, cheap to produce and available in numbers. It would not be my number one choice in any of the following areas: grd attack, defending fighter, or best long range fighter regardless of price. But overall if I was a country during WW2 who had to fight on many fronts, escorted bombers, it would of been my choice as a overall best fighter. Was it the best dog fighter? Not even close. Was it the best overall fighter used in many roles.....yes IMO. I think the USA made the best choice in making the 51 its main fighter when factoring everything in the big picture.

We can agree depending on how you limit or expand the objective criteria you wish to pose for 'best'. If you want to pose best based on ability to take on the opfor single engine fighters over their capital from 700 miles away, the list diminishes to very few choices..I have no problem not nominating the Mustang as 'best dogfighter' and have been on record that I probably feel the Corsair fits my own choice for 'better' but - opinion based and supported by performance chart - it fails the test of 'what really happened' because the F4U didn't fight the 109.

The candidate for 'best at any price' long range escort might be P-38 (L/K) but until those models it failed (performed lower than expectations) the test of 'what really happened' in the same discussion in context of fighting Me 109.
Doolittle wasn't concerned about 8th AF budget when he chose the 51 and gave the 9th all the P-38s

So, I have no problem bringing 'what really happened' as I have outlined my 'framing' definitions above, nor do I have problems discussing 'chart performance' nor flight tests. They all serve a use in discussing potential versus what 'really happened'

But I don't dwell on it w/o caveating what I mean by it.

Regards,

Bill

[Hunter368]

Bill I agree with your comments, seems we always do agree with each after a few moments of clarity.

Yes without any concerns about budgets I would also pick the P-38L, although I would have pilots trained on them more hours then they had been early on. P-38 can be tricky to fly for a newbie, but in the hands of a well trained pilot it was a great plane.

PS my point that I guess I did not make very clear was while talking about BoB was it was much harder to take down and much more dangerous to take down US heavy bombers (in BoG) then it was for the UK to take down LW med bombers in BoB. A box of US heavies could train thousands of .5 cal on you as you attacked their box. Scary as hell. I personally would much much preferred to take on the escorts then attack a US heavy bomber box. LW med bombers were much less dangerous to attack during BoB then US heavies during BoG.

[Glider]

I understand that the Germans did a review of the difference between the 109K-4 and the Mustang 'Neiderschrift Nr6730' of Daimler Benz 24th January 1945.
Does anyone have a translation as it could be handy in this thread?