109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)

[Charon]

It's obvious that North American and Messerschmitt followed the same design intention. Do you concede that?

It's equally obvious that North American and Messerschmitt used the same subcomponents in their design. The solutions for the boundary layer problem differed. Do you concede that?

Sure. [edit]

A cursory study of the geometry shows us that there is no marked difference in the proportions of the cooling systems of the Mustang and the Messerschmitt. Do you concede that?

Sure, in raw numbers. However, those numbers come from different system designs and different execution. Would it also make sense that if they achieved the same level of sophistication that they would achieve similar efficiency? Show me contradictory data to that presented by Widewing and there's no problem at all.

Well, if you'd posted that before the "smaller noodle" bit, or before the "keepers of the faith" bit, or before the "mental masturbation" bit , I might actually have been impressed :-)

Wow, a tough and very literal crowd here outside the O’ Club. I’ll have to keep that in mind The "smaller noodle" thing was explained before. Frankly, it's too amusing a "finding" to just let pass into obscurity, assuming people actually get the fact that it’s tongue in cheek and that Germans really do not have smaller noodlees.

I have nothing invested in the 51/109 debate either way, except a nagging frustration with people who seem to feel the need to constantly marginalize allied technology and equipment and credit all allied success strictly to numbers. In particular, the Junkers bit by Niklas struck me as the start of another: “Kurt Tank invented the Bearcat” thing. With the proper data I can easily acknowledge the 109 radiator system was as sophisticated as that on the 51. Are you open to the opposite?

By keepers of the faith, I wasn't implying "keepers of the nazi faith" if that's what you though. It is a reference to people who have a religious level attachment to any issue -- PC vs MAC, Linux vs XP; 109 vs 51, Picard vs. Kirk, evangelical Christian vs. atheist. To be frank, it seemed that you were being somewhat selective in the radiator comparison by overlooking the internal dimensions component (perhaps the key component) of what was described as a full system approach. At the time you hadn’t presented your rebuttal.

As for the mental masturbation thing, that was a reference to all of us who spend a great deal of time debating things that will in most cases have no direct impact on our personal well being or improve humanity. It was primarily referencing my wasting an afternoon in something that presented some enjoyment (researching new stuff), but nothing particularly constructive in the greater scheme of things (or in regard to things my wife wanted me to do around the house). To a great extent I think that applies to 80 percent of the posts in all forums on this BBS, which doesn't stop me from doing it

Charon

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Charon
I have nothing invested in the 51/109 debate either way, except a nagging frustration with people who seem to feel the need to constantly marginalize allied technology and equipment and credit all allied success strictly to numbers.

Don't forget skilled pilot. Something the Allies had in spades at the end of the war while the Germans had a handful.

I find this discussion pretty unnecessary. The superior aerodynamics of the P-51 has been proven over and over again by its performance. With similar power (1940HP vs. 1970HP) the much larger P-51 was able to achieve similar top speed at SL. The P-51 with its large size was able to carry more fuel and had a very impressive range. However it's size comes at the cost of weight and even if the 109K4 was less aerodynamically efficient it was smaller and lighter giving it important advantages in air combat.

The performance of each aircraft shows that the 109G10/K4 was a formidable opponent in late 44 and 45, clearly superior in air combat than the P-51D at +18 lbs or +20.5 lbs boost, and this whole dick measuring debate was sparked off by comments like:

Nomak: "I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters."

"Are you serious? How about severe compression problems?

How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?

How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?"

dBeav: "You fellas aren't seriously stating that the 109 was a better fighter than the 51 are you?

Please!"

The P-51 was a war-winning fighter, but not from the reasons most people think. The P-51 was a war-winner simply from being able to show up to fight anywhere in Europe providing cover for the bombers. This does not mean that the P-51 was not competent in air combat, however it was not the best in this regard and most Allied and German planes outperformed it in tactical air combat, but the P-51 proved vastly superior as a strategic fighter.

War-winner and dogfight-winner are two very different things.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Charon
The 109 was a great plane but like plenty in the LW stated, it was a bit long in the tooth by 1944.

Charon

Frankly, I am surprised to see these statements over and over again, like in this thread, where we had such great comparisions in flight performances releative to the 109. Of course, you can name me "Keeper of the Faith", and you`d be even somewhat right as I am a big 109 fan, and this could make me biased... but that doesn`t make it any different that it`s the objective facts and not my words that show the 109 was far from being obsolate in any form by 1942, 43, 44 etc., which myth originates to Eric Brown. So far I haven`t seen any proof or reason of those statements, especially not from "plenty in the LW". The 109 was among the best in the area it was designed for in 1944 just as it was in 1940.

And mind you, I was a 190 fan before I learned more about the 109s..

[Charon]

far from being obsolate in any form by 1942, 43, 44 etc., which myth originates to Eric Brown. So far I haven`t seen any proof or reason of those statements, especially not from "plenty in the LW". The 109 was among the best in the area it was designed for in 1944 just as it was in 1940.

In pure A2A performance threre's no argument, but that performance came with some trade offs relative to the design.

The obsolescence statements seem to focus mainly on the fact that (as Gscholz noted) by the middle of the war multirole capabilities, competitive fighter A2A  performance but with greater internal armament (to kill bombers as needed) increased ruggedness for Jabo and general survival and greater endurance were all desirable on the Western front (with multirole likely on the eastern front as well). Designs like the FW had the capability to fufill these missions out of the box, and further room to grow as altitude performance became more important. More of a case of production efficiency -- why build the FW and the 109 when you can concentrate resources on the FW and get more bang for the buck?
 
Frankly, the same applies to the Spitfire. It took a complete redesign with the XXI/II series to significantly move ahead, and even then it wasn't a Jabo. The Tempest/Fury series IMO rendered the Spitfire obsolescent.

[edit: could it also be said that the 109 required greater experience and skill to maxamize its performance advantages and minimize it's faults relative to 1944/45 overall pilot quality? Even the Finns said it was a plane that could be trickey, particularly on take offs and landings. I'm not saying the "50 percent lost" or "30 percent lost" (because I have yet to see any data to back up the claims and you can't see production being allowed to continue if they were accurate) but that by the end of the war, with inexperienced pilots, landing accidents etc became far more likely to happen.]

Charon

[niklas]

Originally posted by Charon
Then you should be able to find data showing similar efficiency. The only data provided so far (by Widewing) seems to to indicate that the 109 radiator was far less efficient.

provided, yes provided. I also could claim x was better than y. Show me the forumulas, the tests where this conclusions are based on!
It´s typcial that me, a german, is the only one that can provide ORIGINAL AMERICAN documents to this discussion, the very same docs where all those articles are based on (often wrong interpreting the results).
For americans it´s obviously good enough to read our fighter was the best. No furhter details needed lol. Why are so few original test data around? Look how much original german stuff is around in the net.
 

If you and Henning take your casual studies and assumptions and get them published by at least a minimally credible source

The doc i scanned isn´t credible? Hey man it´s from the NACA. What have YOU to offer?? You just believe what suits your opinion.

Can you show source material from the Messerschmitt factory or company engineers establishing equal efficiency?

Well, if the american engineers think their duct had zero drag, even thrust, then i´d say it´s not up to Messerschmitt to proove that his duct was as good but ít´t up to the Schmud to PROOVE that his duct produced thrust!!!!

Are you an aeronautical engineer formally trained in this area?

I´m mechanical engineer, having courses like flight mechanics, fluid dynamics I+II. Worked also during my studies in a company that deals with fluid dynamic questions of nuclear power plants. Enough? And what are you???

niklas

[Charon]

The doc i scanned isn´t credible? Hey man it´s from the NACA. What have YOU to offer?? You just believe what suits your opinion.

I was talking about your assumptions, and your bias, and your willingness to search for any scrap of information that might suit your preconceived notions. It's obvious in this and the other recent thread and a few others to boot as I recall.

For americans it´s obviously good enough to read our fighter was the best. No furhter details needed lol. Why are so few original test data around? Look how much original german stuff is around in the net.

The great conspiracy in action once again.

Well, if the american engineers think their duct had zero drag, even thrust, then i´d say it´s not up to Messerschmitt to proove that his duct was as good but ít´t up to the Schmud to PROOVE that his duct produced thrust!!!!

I doub you would be saying this of any data proving your agenda. You're the one looking to do the major revision. Evidence has been offered supporting North American. It's up to you to provide contradictory information.

I´m mechanical engineer, having courses like flight mechanics, fluid dynamics I+II. Worked also during my studies in a company that deals with fluid dynamic questions of nuclear power plants. Enough? And what are you???

Somebody who is used to working with PEs and PhD.s and a whole bunch of people more qualified in their areas of expertise than I am. Quite often, I speak with two eminently qualified people (even nationally or internationally known) who have different opinions on the same subject. Occasionally, one or both will be trying to spin their position and overlook mentioning uncomfortable data, findings, theories that weaken their positions.

Now, just how impressed would an aeronautical engineer be of your qualifications? Just how qualified would an aeronautical engineer be to do your job? Are all engineers interchangeable out of the box? What work have you conducted in the field? If you really, really are as qualified as you think you are, do the research and get the research published. When you offer something here to back up your agenda that is up to the quality demanded of your profession, people like me might pay more attention to it.

I am the senior writer/editor covering complicated and technical subjects (technology, international and national oil policy, changing market dynamics, etc.) for a 100-year-old trade magazine. My readership broadly knows far more about the industry I cover than I do (and some of them never even went to college!). Invariably some knowing far more about the specific subjects I cover. I can't afford to deal with sloppy primary sources. I see no reason to have a lower standard here.

Charon

[edit: and if you prove the P-51 was as slow as you hope it was, WTG! I will be your biggest fan in AH. But I don't think Pyro is going to make any changes unless you manage to do a  better job with your proof.]

[HoHun]

Hi Charon,

>Wow, a tough and very literal crowd here outside the O’ Club.   I’ll have to keep that in mind

Just try to act like the professional you describe yourself as. Petty insults don't bother me - in fact, I think might be interesting for the audience as they provide a lot of information about the poster.

What do you think your mention of "high standards" right after comparing me to a wonder magnet salesman tells an unbiased reader - when just one post later, you have to agree to all three points I raised about the radiator design?

What's left from your arguments about uniqueness and glaring differences in the design is that they were differently executed but similar versions of the same design idea.

I do concede it's not proven that the Me 109's radiator was as efficient as the Mustang's.

However, if you keep it at the professional level, you will probably admit that if I'd try to prove a point with data of the same quality you use to defend the Mustang, you'd reject it. (At least, I'd reject it :-)

I'm quite ready to give the Mustang the benefit of doubt, and require better quality data for a pro-Messerschmitt proof. However, in my opinion it would not really indicate "high standards" to forget the generous treatment we give the Mustang while the case is still unresolved.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[niklas]

I doub you would be saying this of any data proving your agenda. You're the one looking to do the major revision. Evidence has been offered supporting North American.

Where? Show me the evidence. Show me the test report. Just CLAIMING is not an evidence.

Now, just how impressed would an aeronautical engineer be of your qualifications?

I have the very same qualification with fluid mechanics like a common aeronautical engineer to talk about this matters. Actually it was a bit crazy to take this courses, i did not have to do it, but it´s my interest. Not so easy, not easy.

I am the senior writer/editor covering complicated and technical subjects (technology, international and national oil policy, changing market dynamics, etc.) for a 100-year-old trade magazine.

ok, hehe, that explains a lot. Trade, writer, market dynamics. You PowerPoint freaks should sometimes learn that not everything is true that is presented in a nice way.
It´s interesting that you did made no comment about the Naca doc. Probably you don´t understand it? It wouldn´t surprise me. What´s with the temperature of the air in the duct right in front of the radiator? Equal, or was the later one cooler or hotter?


niklas

[Charon]

Just try to act like the professional you describe yourself as. Petty insults don't bother me - in fact, I think might be interesting for the audience as they provide a lot of information about the poster.

Honestly, I wasn’t aware of any personal insults (admitting the EU noodle thing was a pretty direct, but flippant response to Niklas) and certainly none were directed at you at any point. It really must be a language issue, linked to my taking the topic not quite as seriously as some. I mean, at the end of the day, how important is this really? Particularly if nothing that is derived from this discussion has any real world impact beyond the AH BBS archive? While in the process of responding to this earlier, my puppy bit through a power cord and had to be taken to the emergency vet. Fortunately, he is fine (unlike when he ate the Advil a month ago), but that clarified just how important in the greater scheme of things this radiator issue really is, at least for me.

What do you think your mention of "high standards" right after comparing me to a wonder magnet salesman tells an unbiased reader - when just one post later, you have to agree to all three points I raised about the radiator design?

As I noted, it had to be a language issue. I was explaining (in a general way not linked to the specifics of this thread) why I like published data reviewed and accepted by peers in the specific field, or even neutral third-party sources for that matter. Even though I do clearly think there are “magnet salesmen” in this and similar debates, I have never put you in that category. This goes all the way back to the first posts of yours I came across in the late Air Warrior days. I was a bit surprised (and I mean that, it did surprise me and I did wonder for a second) that you did not immediately address the differences along with the similarities in the respective designs. Particularly, when you closed with the statement: “In any case, the sophistication of the Messerschmitt's radiator was equal to that of the Mustang's.” Your rebuttal that followed clarified that.

Also, while I agreed with your basic points I did have a significant reservation on the third, which still exists: “Sure, in raw numbers. However, those numbers come from different system designs and different execution. Would it also make sense that if they achieved the same level of sophistication that they would achieve similar efficiency? Show me contradictory data to that presented by Widewing and there's no problem at all.”

Now, Widewings data may or may not be first rate, but at least it is a starting point from a source close to the issue.

What's left from your arguments about uniqueness and glaring differences in the design is that they were differently executed but similar versions of the same design idea.

I do concede it's not proven that the Me 109's radiator was as efficient as the Mustang's.

However, if you keep it at the professional level, you will probably admit that if I'd try to prove a point with data of the same quality you use to defend the Mustang, you'd reject it. (At least, I'd reject it :-)

I'm quite ready to give the Mustang the benefit of doubt, and require better quality data for a pro-Messerschmitt proof. However, in my opinion it would not really indicate "high standards" to forget the generous treatment we give the Mustang while the case is still unresolved.

Sure, and for all I know they are of equal sophistication. My only cravat would be that while there’s a generous treatment of the Mustang claims, there has been a long time to question them and not a lot of rebuttal that I’m aware of. You would have thought somebody would have come forward from Messerschmitt or Supermarine or any number of companies to say, "Hey, we did the same thing, and did it just as well."  Or perhaps a graduate student working on a thesis. To change this conventional wisdom, some pretty solid work needs to be done or discovered.

Regards

Niklas…

Where? Show me the evidence. Show me the test report. Just CLAIMING is not an evidence.

Of course, you don’t even have that to go on.

ok, hehe, that explains a lot. Trade, writer, market dynamics. You PowerPoint freaks should sometimes learn that not everything is true that is presented in a nice way.

A little bit more than market dynamics.  So you’re not an aeronautical engineer? You’ve not established a base of work in aeronautics or fluid mechanics? Nothing published in the area, no work history? Just making sure.

It´s interesting that you did made no comment about the Naca doc. Probably you don´t understand it? It wouldn´t surprise me. What´s with the temperature of the air in the duct right in front of the radiator? Equal, or was the later one cooler or hotter?

Why should I? I’m just a  lay person where this is concerened, and I’m certainly not the one making the bold claims. But from what I can tell, a lot of people more competent than myself have failed to step forward over the years and point out how overrated the P-51s cooling system really was, and how the Messerschmitt had covered even earlier, or was it Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he developed the exact same conclusions as Meredith? Just do a detailed and exacting analysis of both systems, show similar efficiencies and get it published. Why not prove once and for all?

[edit: I mean, it's not like you would need a wind tunnel or computer modeling -- just a few formulas, right?]

I have the very same qualification with fluid mechanics like a common aeronautical engineer to talk about this matters. Actually it was a bit crazy to take this courses, i did not have to do it, but it´s my interest. Not so easy, not easy.

Hey, here’s a though. Let me see if I can shoot some e-mails out to some aeronautical engineers outlining your stated competence in their field, list the materials you have presented so far and see what they have to say? If you’re correct you might even get a career change out of it. Maybe Ripsnort over at Boeing knows someone? Eurocopter Deutschland would probably be a good place to start. Plenty at the university level.

Now, normally it might be difficult to get somebody to take the time to respond. But if I know engineers, your statement above could spark some interest Just to be clear in the e-mail, what specifically do you work on in your current profession?

Charon

[HoHun]

Hi Charon,

>As I noted, it had to be a language issue.

Oh, sure.

>Particularly, when you closed with the statement: “In any case, the sophistication of the Messerschmitt's radiator was equal to that of the Mustang's.” Your rebuttal that followed clarified that.

I hope you have higher standards regarding accurate quoting in your professional life.

Here's what I actually wrote:

"After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang."

That's clear enough to make any playful insults unnecessary by any standards, may they be professional ethics or plain common sense.

My "clarifying rebuttal" indeed was a direct repetition of what I wrote earlier:

"The point is that the Messerschmitt design shows just this variable exhaust mechanism that made the process 'effective'."

>You would have thought somebody would have come forward from Messerschmitt or Supermarine or any number of companies to say, "Hey, we did the same thing, and did it just as well."  

The Spitfire's radiator outlet only had two positions, fully open and partly closed. It would have to be continously adjustable like the Messerschmitt's or the Mustang's to be useful at varying speeds and altitudes. Additionally, the Spitfire's radiator was known for boundary layer separation issues.

"Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling system drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling drag to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of other aircraft tested by the RAE." (Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995)

In fact, that Atwood assigns the simple Spitfire radiator a better efficiency than the considerable more sophisticated Messerschmitt radiator is one of the reasons I don't put too much trust in his numbers.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Charon]

Whatever.

Charon

[Angus]

Pulling the head out of little details, like the radiator stuff, wasn't the Mustang a faster aircraft than the 109 at given power? The Mustang being bigger and heavier then has some merit to make that possible. It would eventually come down to just the radiator and the Wing,- wing loading being higher or similar, and frontal area being larger that is the only possibility.

[Charon]

Pulling the head out of little details, like the radiator stuff, wasn't the Mustang a faster aircraft than the 109 at given power? The Mustang being bigger and heavier then has some merit to make that possible. It would eventually come down to just the radiator and the Wing,- wing loading being higher or similar, and frontal area being larger that is the only possibility.

Angus, I believe the agenda, at least where Niklas is concerned, is to establish that it wasn't. The 109 K was faster regardless, but the P-51 shouldn't be as fast as it is, etc. See his "P-51: Maximum Speed / High Speed" thread.

Charon

[Angus]

Well, the P51 is certainly faster than the 109 G6 at a given power output, still being a heavier aircraft. To compare it perfectly, you would also have to strip some weight from it.
The 109K is faster, but lighter again with more power. Again, for a valid airframe comparison, you'd need to strip it to a lower weight, and boost it up to 2000 Hp. I think it would be faster.
Anyway, each HP of the P51 is pulling a lot more Nm through the air, be it climb or cruise.

[Nashwan]

In the British tests, a Mustang III (most likely a P-51C) did 383 mph at sea level at 25lbs boost. This was an operational aircraft, taken from a squadron, and had very poor paintwork (6 coats of badly chipped paintwork on the leading edges)

After some cleaning up, the speed increased to 404mph at sea level.

The cleaning up conisted of stripping the paint from the leading edge and repainting, rubbing down the rest of the aircraft, removing the bomb racks, and removing a small bracket.

The 21mph increase was a test result. All the aerodynamic improvements were carried out at the same time, so there are no test results of which did what, but the A&AEE estimated that the gains were 8mph due to bomb racks, 1 mph from removing the bracket, 12mph from improving the finish.

So with a fairly new finish, and bomb racks, and without removing the bracket, speed at sea level would be 395 mph. That's on approx 1940 hp.

I know there are Messerschmitt figures that give the 109K4 378 mph at sea level, and we'll leave out wether those are calculated or not, but I seriously doubt they take into account poor condition paintwork.

Which basically puts the Mustang, with the same power, marginally faster than the 109 when fitted with wing racks, and extremely poor paintwork, and about 25 mph faster without wing racks and cleaned up paintwork. Or about 17mph faster with wing racks and cleaned up paintwork.

The A&AEE test figures are corrected for instrument errors, compressibility, position error, temperature deviations from standard,  and any minor variations from stated boost (manifold pressure) values.