Most overated fighter

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-06-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

A fool? It was foolish of the Germans to trust an untried technology when more traditional aircraft could have done more.

No it was foolish of Hitler not to start full scale production and use them as fighters from the beginning...

kool kitty89 · 08-06-2008, 06:14 PM

Those seem to match pretty well with Kurfurst's figures, except the fast cruising figures are longer (and at a slightly higher speed) and the long range figures are a bit lower. (and at a lower speed)

Oreo · 08-07-2008, 12:05 AM

Interesting. Wish I had access to all this stuff! Where do you get it? Who would have thought a K could go 1,250 miles?

marshall · 08-07-2008, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oreo

Interesting. Wish I had access to all this stuff! Where do you get it? Who would have thought a K could go 1,250 miles?

I belive it's from this site

WWII Aircraft Performance

Oreo · 08-07-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall

I belive it's from this site

WWII Aircraft Performance

Thanks! I bookmarked it!

kool kitty89 · 08-07-2008, 01:09 AM

And the top table is from Kurfurst's site:

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

Kurfürst · 08-07-2008, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oreo

Interesting. Wish I had access to all this stuff! Where do you get it? Who would have thought a K could go 1,250 miles?

The one I posted is from a Brit. report on a G-2/trop (Black Six) which you can find on my site. A month later they revised the economic cruise figures to something like 1000 miles, similiar to the later doc, but there is no reasoning given, and its difficult to understand wheter the first ones were measured in error, or the testbed(?) G-2's condition, which wasnt very shiny to start with, detoriated in the meanwhile.

And, as there is no German range tables (yet) for the G or K to compare the Brit intel figures to, so they is all we have to do.

In any case, the F-4's range with droptank at eco-cruise was noted as 1600 km by the German, or ca 1000 miles. G-series was foreseen to be somewhat better the F-4.

And for completeness, here's the 109E (w and w/o droptank). Droptank-capable E-7s were introduced end of August, 1940.

renrich · 08-07-2008, 09:13 AM

According to my sources, P38 had 438 kills in ETO and 1431 kills in the Med. Don't know if those figures include ground AC destroyed.

drgondog · 08-07-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

According to my sources, P38 had 438 kills in ETO and 1431 kills in the Med. Don't know if those figures include ground AC destroyed.

Air and ground for ETO for 8th would be 421 - USAF 85 reference for air and USAAF 8th AF VCB for ground awards for the ones I cited. The difference (if all air scores) between my figures and your source could be the 9th AF P-38 scores. They had more 38's longer than 8th AF and an extra "178' would make sense.

I suspect 1431 air for MTO as they didn't credit ground scores officially.

renrich · 08-07-2008, 01:56 PM

Considering the P38's reputation and it's actual results and the number produced, 9538, and their original cost and their cost to maintain and the amount of gasoline they used and the length of time for a pilot to become proficient, maybe the P38 was the most overated fighter of WW2.

Oreo · 08-07-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

Considering the P38's reputation and it's actual results and the number produced, 9538, and their original cost and their cost to maintain and the amount of gasoline they used and the length of time for a pilot to become proficient, maybe the P38 was the most overated fighter of WW2.

Could be. I know a lot of people at the time thought so, esp. in the ETO. It was the plane that got me interested in aircraft, though!

kool kitty89 · 08-08-2008, 04:17 PM

With those range figures on the 109E, there would have to be a reserve of something like 135L (enough for ~20 min of combat), otherwise it would mean fuel efficiency would be significantly better when carrying a drop tank. (which doesn't make sense)

Eurofighter · 12-17-2008, 05:37 PM

[quote=Thorlifter;377940]I believe the P-38 and P-47, not just late models, but most models, were holding their own over Germany.

But my vote would be P-51, just because it doesn't deserve the "legend" it has. I believe on one of these many many posts, someone pointed out that the Corsair was superior to the Mustang in almost every category.[/QUOThat is totally true, both the P-38 and the P-47 could hold their own against the best German fighters but the issue here is that when the bombers desperatly needed a long range capable fighter to escort them neither of the two could fill this necesity and the P-51 while it had the range it also could mix very well with its German counterparts giving it the place it deserves as one of WWII's most succesful fighters.