Most overated fighter

[kool kitty89]

The D-9 acheived its top speed at a much lower altitude than the P-51.

[KrazyKraut]

Most of the late-war props reached speeds in excess of 700 km/h, but i wonder if it really mattered if you reach 750 or 784 km/h. Sure 30km/h difference was a lot early in the war, but how many pilots could still effectively control their straight wing aircraft at those speeds let alone shoot at something?

That being said I kind of don't want to call the P-51 overrated. It gave the allies as much of an advantage over the Germans as the Fw 190 did 2 years before, but it came at a much more crucial time and was exploited to the fullest. You just got to ignore all the popular media hype about it.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Oreo

The Dora 9 had very similar performance to the P-51 B/C/D/K. It required short-duration emergency boost to reach its 440-445 mph top speed. P-51 did not, I believe.

Both peak performance were achieved at maximum power, in case of the Dora, allowable for 10 minutes (with the booster enough for 30 min), in case of the Merlin P-51 for 5 minutes. Of course after some time at lower power the WEP could be used again, and these limits were not set in stone and IMHO were more than generous allowance for the duration of any combat.

Originally Posted by Oreo

The Bf 109K, in its various subtypes was an extremely good static performer, albeit with very poor range.

It had similiar range if not improved range as the previous 109F-K, ie. around 1000-1100 miles w. droptank, and 6-700 without. This is of course shorter range than the very long ranged USAAF figthers, but I would not call it 'very poor' - its range and endurance were entirely satisfactory for its operational roles.

Its max speed was in the same ball park as the first generation Merlin engine Mustangs, but slower than the H which had max speed of around 480-490 mph.

I believe these figures are rather optimistic factory projections for the H variant made before any of them even flew. The actual speed of the H in operational configuration from flight tests was around 450 mph at altitude, quite similiar to the 109K as a matter of fact.

One can only wonder what might have happened if Willy M had put a 4-bladed paddle prop on the 109K???? And why didn't he?

Willy M put a 3 bladed prop with very wide blades on the late high alt 109s, incl. the K. One can just wonder why he did not opt for a 4 bladed propeller instead, but I guess German designers probably opted for improved 3 bladed designs on the grounds of the aero engine outputs they worked with and because of the greater effiency of a 3 bladed design. Advanced thin bladed and swept propellors were developed by VDM and tested on the 109K, with 460 mph top speed projected.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Both peak performance were achieved at maximum power, in case of the Dora, allowable for 10 minutes (with the booster enough for 30 min), in case of the Merlin P-51 for 5 minutes. Of course after some time at lower power the WEP could be used again, and these limits were not set in stone and IMHO were more than generous allowance for the duration of any combat.

Actually not true Kurfust - the flight tests I have looked cite max continuous boost on all the climb to altitude tests so the 30,000 foot run at 75"/3000rpm for the May 1944 P-51B-15 Tests with 150 octane ran at least 12 minutes. Although a 'thing' isn't true by ommission there are no reports in the recommendations at the bottom of the report citing engine damage or other issues.

At any rate I suspect without proof that a very low percentage of fights used WEP for more than 5 minutes at a time anyway.


I believe these figures are rather optimistic factory projections for the H variant made before any of them even flew. The actual speed of the H in operational configuration from flight tests was around 450 mph at altitude, quite similiar to the 109K as a matter of fact.

NAA's tests in early 1945 had 487mph without racks, 90" boost, taped over gun ports and no guns/ammo but full internal fuel. I have not found a copy of that report but I saw it. Al White, once chief Test Pilot for NAA and B-70 chief pilot was a very close friend of my father and once gave him copies of all the NAA flight test results, summarized - that same series of documents were the foundation of Gruenhagen's Mustang tables.

The USAAF tests on the P-51H were lower in results as they were in combat configuration and loading



Willy M put a 3 bladed prop with very wide blades on the late high alt 109s, incl. the K. One can just wonder why he did not opt for a 4 bladed propeller instead, but I guess German designers probably opted for improved 3 bladed designs on the grounds of the aero engine outputs they worked with and because of the greater effiency of a 3 bladed design. Advanced thin bladed and swept propellors were developed by VDM and tested on the 109K, with 460 mph top speed projected.

Efficiencies of props are a complicated discussion. Do you have any data on the 109 props?

My point to Soren is that a discussion of performance with equivalent aircraft have to have very precise boundary conditions surrounding the debate.

Discussing a 109K-4 against a P-51B-15, as an example, need altitudes, weights, assumptions of engine performance at optimal, fuel and boost, etc.

I know that there are envelopes of altitude and equivalent combat loading where the 109K exceeded that particular Mustang - and vice versa - Ditto 190D-9 and D-12 and D-13. Given these contrasts and similarities it is difficult to make a case that there were 'many' conventional fighters with 'better to much' performance not only in mid 1944 but at the end of the war... especially with supercharged engines which were designed and geared for selcted altitude for best performance - and different from each other.

There was never a point in the ETO battles where 109 or 190 pilots said to themselves - 'Oh great, there are only Mustangs to fight - happy days are here again".

[Oreo]

Let's not forget that as the P-51D series evolved, they kept increasing the power of the engines slightly. Seems like the last D's were at least 200 hp more at altitude than the first D's. No doubt this just kept up with added weight and/or drag of subsequent equipment. . . .

Let us not forget that any given individual aircraft will have different performance on different days, based on maintenance, weather, atmospheric conditions, the quality of fuel, pilot attention to detail, engine life (just broken in, or old and worn out?), and so on. Also the difference between two individual planes coming off the assembly line one behind the other can be significantly different, as well. Consider the fact that engine or propeller tolerances might not be identical, the airframe might not fit together quite the same way, different paint jobs might affect performance, small equipment changes and so on can add up to differences of a mile an hour or so. Pilots used to talk about waxing the fighter's wings to (they hoped) wring a few extra mph out of it. items like superchargers, etc, were sometimes so finnicky that they would affect performance between individuals of the same type. Within those boundaries, it is easy to see how sticking to certain arbitrary performance figures is problematic, and the question comes to be-- Was the Me 109K, quoted at 452 mph, having a good day, or a bad day, when compared to the P-51D, which was quoted at 437 mph, and was that highly vaunted aircraft having a good day or a bad day when it ran its flight test? And then, does 15 mph make much difference in combat anyway, and at how many altitudes was the 109K faster than 51D?

Also, I think the range quoted for the 109K-4 in my book is 356 miles on internal fuel, and, no, that is not radius, that is range. Then again, one of the moderators told me to use my book as a doorstop-- even though it contains some 50 pages of dense info on the Bf109 series. . . . .

[Soren]

With the std. prop the performance of the Bf-109 K-4 at 1.98ata was 609 km/h (378 mph) at SL and 719 km/h (446 mph) at altitude, while climb rate was 5,000 + ft/min at SL.

The speed of 727 km/h (452 mph) was reached with the thinner Dünnblatt schraube which increased speed for the sacrefice of climb rate.

Bill,

I think we are in good agreement.

However I'd like to point out that the average German pilot in late 44 to 45 never thought his job was a piece of cake, and since training was scarse many new pilots were obviously scared knowing they were up against well trained enemy pilots flying in competitive a/c.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

With the std. prop the performance of the Bf-109 K-4 at 1.98ata was 609 km/h (378 mph) at SL and 719 km/h (446 mph) at altitude, while climb rate was 5,000 + ft/min at SL.

The speed of 727 km/h (452 mph) was reached with the thinner Dünnblatt schraube which increased speed for the sacrefice of climb rate.

Bill,

I think we are in good agreement.

However I'd like to point out that the average German pilot in late 44 to 45 never thought his job was a piece of cake, and since training was scarse many new pilots were obviously scared knowing they were up against well trained enemy pilots flying in competitive a/c.

I do agree also.

What I meant when reacting to several to many fighters in 'Mid 1944 being superior" was to use the example of the p51B which had the same airframe throughout, still comprised 20% of the 8th AF at VE day and was still competitive even to fighters like the K-4 and D-9 introduced a year later.

What made the Mustang perhaps Most Important, as contrast to Best is that it was most competitive to even better over the Other guys capital - from late 1943 forward in the biggest air battles against the toughest adversaries, who in turn were fighting for survival over their own homeland.

The other factor in performance discussions per se is that the Mustang was usually fighting with as much as twice the amount of fuel as its adversary at take off.

Media typically over hype the Mustang, Bomber crews did not, or if they did it was personal reasons surrounding survival,

Thoughtful pilots that flew all the top fighters realized that each one had significant merits, and if flown by skilled pilots, were all dangerous machines in combat. After that, it was either a matter of preference or what you were assigned and the tactical situation in which you entered combat.

The Mustang assisted the pilot in giving great capability, but the pilot made the Mustang what it is today from an historical perspective

[B-17engineer]

P-51. it was a good plane dont get me wrong. Just very overrated

[drgondog]

I forgot to metion my vote for the Mossie as the most over rated Fighter.

Simply it was one dimensional as a night Fighter and while it is easily one of the best and most important combat aircraft it doesn't deserve the rep it gained in some circles as a fighter..

I'm ok once the assertion or description wanders to night fighter but that is another thread topic altogether.

[Negative Creep]

The Zero. Early success was as much down to the allies being taken by surprise and their inferior equipment and tactics as anything else. It didn't take long for it to be equaled then mastered and proving that maneuverability is not the be all and end all of combat

[kool kitty89]

But is it that over-rated in today's popular oppinion?

[Thorlifter]

Th!rdeye, I'd like to hear your reason for voting for the Corsair as the MOST overrated. How? The Corsair did most everything, at a minimum of well, and somethings it excelled at. How could an overrated plane have a 20+ year operational service? The only other plane on this list that can claim that is the Mustang.

Obviously I'm biased to the Corsair. I just want to hear your argument.

[parsifal]

My vote will be going to the Me 109. My reasons are this. Germany started the war, and in the period 1939-42 needed an offensive fighter with the necessary range to take the war to its enemies. Instead, it got two fighters (the Me 109, and the Me 110), neither of which could fulfil that role properly.

The Me 110 lacked the neccessary performance, particularly turning ability, and the 109 lacked the range. The result was that Germany was forced to fight its air battles as essentially an adjunct to the army, in relatively close range to the front, where an opponent could choose if, in what strength, and with what assets he would contest that airspace. The germans were unable to take the war into distant enemy airspace very effectively.

This surely contributed to higher than necessary losses for the LW, and in my opinion contributed materially to the eventual defeat of the LW. The obvious case in point is the BoB, but there are others.

Despite this, I still see in this thread almost godlike status assigned to an aircraft that whilst undoubtedly a piece of marvellous aeronautical engineering, simply failed to deliver the goods to its owners. It had one strategically fatal fault, that should ahve been addressed prewar but was not, and as a re4sult of that failure contributed materially to the4 eventual german defeat

Guess what type of aiurcraft the the germans needed in 1940, something like the mustang, perhaps a zero with armour, anything that had the legs to take the fight to the enemy at range. Even if this abiliuty had been achieved at some loss in performance, I believe it would have been a better choice than the one actually made.

[Juha]

IMHO in the end much depend were one lives, in USA popular oppinion probably overestimates P-51 and B-17 etc, In GB Spitfire, Hurricane. Lancaster, Mosquito and Wimpy. In Germany maybe Bf 109 and Ju 88 and those very late war prorotypes and paper projects, in Russia Yak-3, La-7 and Il-2.

Juha

[kool kitty89]

All the 109 needed to be useful as an escort for a BoB situation was to have drop tank equipped models introduced. (not to mention utiizing top cover or roaming escort instead of close escort)
The Bf 110 is another story though... and the Fw 187 would probably have done well as an escort for the BoB, but was more expensive than the 109. You could go to the He 100, but while considderably faster and a bit longer ranged, it would have taken time to switch over and probably wouldn't be available till around the time of the Fw 190. (and would still be cutting it close w/out drops)
(I think the Fw 187 -in single seat config- would have been much more useful, with the Ju 88 fulfilling the other roles the Bf 110 was more capable of than the Fw 187 would be -ie nightfighter-)



Anyway this thread if for most overratd by current popular oppinion, so that may change things.