Thanks to all those who have added comments.
My thoughts on these type of threads are positive, opinions are shared, new facts and viewppoints learned, which I feel enriched from.
The results are surprising close, the common myth is that the Mustang was far superior and that the Me109 was past it, even in the Battle of Britain, nevermind at the Battle of Berlin.
At 1st glance, even with a little knowledge, you still might think the P51D would win with ease.
The results have surprised me, particularly the low alt superiority of the Me109.
I disagree with the 'they're just prototypes' arguement, as when Germany was getting desperate, prototypes were thrown untried in combat on a number of occasions.
I disagree with the 'these comparisons are pointless' arguement, as in WW2 there was a likelyhood that pilots of equal skill would meet up in opposing planes - if so, what would be the end result? that's all.
Also an edge, however small, can be the difference between life and death.
Also if you had a choice, pesonal preference counts for a lot.
Even the Mustang mythos should be considered, if you feel confident in a P51, but unconfidant in a Me109, the phsycological factor would affect your state of mind and thus could determine whether you win or lose a dogfight.
Quote:
|
While I agree with you on the Bf-109K one on one vs a P-51D you also have to remember though that the Bf-109K lost some of its great flying characteristics as it got faster but heavier (not as much as some people like to make it be, but it did).
|
The same could be said for the Spitfire. I suspect if the war had dragged on, that there may have been Griffon powered Mustangs? - though kudos to the designers of the P51H for not resorting to that. A lot of the niggles of the Me109 may have been ironed out? - I've heard the combat slats opened more symetrically?
The Gustav6 with underwing extras, like the R-kit cannons etc seemed to be the worst in the handling stakes?
Also, as PlanD mentioned, even though the handling of the Spitfire severely deteriorated between the Spitfire MkI & MkXIV, the agility stayed the same and may have actually improved if you include climb and dive - though I believe roll performance always deteriorated?
I wonder how a Spitfire MkXIV would fare against these 2? (equal pilot skill, of course!)
Also, the FW190D-9 and TA152 can be considered contenders...
If it was me, I'd have concentrated all efforts on the FW as soon as the D-9 appeared, and would have ditched the Me for mid & low level work as soon as the Anton's overheating problems were solved. The Me109 was much cheaper and simpler to build though and experienced vets had grown to become attached to them, so I would only make the Me for elite pilots, if it were me.
In hindsight, this is right as huge numbers of tricky planes are useless without fuel, ammo and good pilots.
Then the cost and production effectiveness of the Me109 means nothing (unless it used less materiel?) and it's flaws exaggerated - the right tool for the wrong job perhaps?
Quote:
|
These aircraft would not be travelling at top speeds in a fight against each other more than likely anyhow. They would not be flying faster than 300mph to 350mph in fight. The only way they would meet each other at speeds higher than that is if one pounces the other from a higher alltitude, so that does not really make an advantage for either one.
|
I thought that would be the case, thankyou DerAdler.
At top seed, the pilot would merely be trying to keep in a straight line, surely that wasn't that difficult in a Me109K? I've heard the 'tang had the same problem, due to it's internal fuel tank upsetting the CG?
I have said this once, but unfortunately will have to say it again, I realise I made a mistake in saying Me109 K-14 vs P51D/K, so I will change it to Me109 K-4 vs P51D/K
and Me109 K-14 vs P51H (though any late war, high-alt prop-plane is welcome).
Thank you.
Linear Mode
