Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That was not the point of the post. The point was that most of the time the 109's had somewhat of an advantage because they could be prepositoned to Interecept the bombers. Now when you have 300 P-51D defending against 125 Bf-109G's I think we know who is going to win as was most of the cases.

[lesofprimus]

Now when you have 300 P-51D defending against 125 Bf-109G's I think we know who is going to win as was most of the cases.

It certainly aint gonna be the 28 bomber crews that fall to earth in a flaming wreckage of a plane...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is true but I was trying to stick with the 2 fighters.

[syscom3]

Well, if it was a 1 on 1 dogfight, with both pilots being equal, then Id say the Mustang. Its superior speed means the pilot could run away and reposition for a better attack (if required).

[lesofprimus]

If 2 equal pilots came head to head, at 300 mph, and at 30,000 feet, I give the -109 pilot 3 to 1 odds...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Me too. But as was stated by most people the guy who got shot down most of the time did not know what happened.

[CurzonDax]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I would agree with the Corsair. Again though I am not a expert in that asspect either.

I would take the Corsair too for horsepower and firepower and supposedly the bubble version of the Corsair (canceled because it was not needed) was supposed to be a "war winner' aircraft like the P-51 and the F6F. Also the Corsair, for its size was rather nimble and it had, in the Pacific, the highest kill ratio of any Allied fighter. Now this last statement is important because as far as I know a Corsair and a Luftwaffe fighter never met in combat. The Royal Navy flew them in the ETO.

:{)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I too have never heard of a Corsiar and a Luftaffe aircraft ever meeting in combat. I think it would have been one hell of a fight though had a Corsiar and a Fw-190D met up. Man that would have been tough.

[lesofprimus]

Not finding anything on the Bf-109 combat, but I found these blurbs...

From May 1997 Aviation Historyparaphrased)
"The US Navy's landing problems did not prevent the hard pressed
British from seeking early delivery of the high powered fighter for their
carriers. The export Corsairs became Marks I, II, IIA, III, IV. Vought
produced 2,020 Corsairs - enough to round out 19 squadrons. The Fleet
Air Arm encountered the same problems as the US Navy....The British
devised a new landing system, shortened the wings by 16" and taking a
cue from USN raised the pilot's seat & changed the canopy. They equipped the carrier HMS Victorious with the improved Corsairs for combat duty.

On April 3, 1944 the Royal Navy had the distinction of being the first
service to successfully fly Corsairs off carriers in combat - When the
Victorious launched them in a raid against the Tirpitz near Norway.

Fleet Air Arm units where created and equipped in the US, at Quonset Point or Brunswick, and then shipped to war theatres on board of escort carriers. The first Corsair unit of the FAA was No 1830 Sqdn, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Ilustrious. At the end of the war, 19 FAA squadrons operated with the F4U. British Corsairs operated both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important European operations were the series of attacks in April, July and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs provided top cover.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Did they get any kills. I have never heard of any corsiar kills in the ETO. I may be wrong. Would be interesting to find out though.

[CurzonDax]

Still one thing that is always forgotten in these discussions is that the P-51 was an air supremacy fighter. It was meant to project power across continents. On the other hand the Me-109 was a metropolitan defense fighter that was drafted into service as a continental air supremacy fighter. Taken in these terms the 'Stang was a better fighter.

:{)

[volto71]

Bf109G....Gustav 4ever!!!!
ciao

[Erich]

remember that the Luftwaffe 109's in the defensive mode were flying at US bombers height or possibly 500 ft higher to get in behind and attack from the rear. Seldom were they flying at 30,000 and if they did the P-51's still had the height advantage, provided by their well conceived tactics this from many German pilots interviewed whom all found it incredibly frustrating. the .50 had a much longer range and faster firing making it possibly more lethal than the 2cm operated by the 109G's with only the shorter range 3cm firing through the spinner hub coming late as standard in the war. Plan has made it pretty much clear that 9 out of 10 times the P-51 groups had the upper hand in the air

[CurzonDax]

Also another major drawback for the 109's (and the Zero for that matter)armament was the fact that the guns were drum fed which in some manuevers would hopelessly jam the guns. The .50 of the 'Stang were belt fed which decreased the jamming. Also like someone said before the .50s were faster firing and were much better standoff weapons. Also, exept for the cannons on the 109 and the Zero, they packed a bigger punch.

:{)

[Parmigiano]

Curzon, that was valid for the MG-FF used on the early E types but, as per my knowledge, not for the MG151 or the MG131.