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

[HoHun]

Hi Nomak,

>Hmmmm...perhaps a contridiction there?

The Me 109 was diving at a section of Mustang 2000 ft below. Neither aircraft had even reached its limiting dive speed.

In fact, the Mustang pilot quotes a speed of 390 mph which is well below the level top speed of both aircraft at 15000 ft.

You can't even rule out that the Me 109 pilot pulled his throttle purposefully after killing the lower Mustang to provoke an overshoot of his pursuer.

If you want to know how good the planes really were, don't fetch bits and pieces from combat reports without proper analysis, but have a look at the technical data.

Here is some data. It's just for a game, but as far as I know it's a quality game at least :-)

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/109g10.html

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/p51d.html

That's just a starting point, but it already displays the superior regions of the Me 109's performance envelope quite well.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Nomak,

>Are you claiming the Mustang had a poor rate of climb?

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/109g10.html

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/p51d.html

Compare the figures and reach your own conclusions.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Nomak]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Nomak,

You can't even rule out that the Me 109 pilot pulled his throttle purposefully after killing the lower Mustang to provoke an overshoot of his pursuer.

 (HoHun)

Agreed......although given the circumstances I doubt it.

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Nomak

Can a 30mm cannon put more led on target faster than 6x50 caliber brownings?  I doubt it.  Even if it could the brownings had FAR better ballistics and far greater ammo load that that tater shooter.  So a Mustang could be putting lead on target while the 109 was still trying to get close enough for the shot.

The 109 series sufferd from a lack of firepower its entire service career.  If it didnt why in the world were they mounting gun pods under the wings that dramiticly affected the speed and handling of the aircraft?

This is a thing that is stated over and over again. Ok, how many Rounds of 50´s to bring a fighter down? And then, how many rounds of 30 mm?

Pods was used as an option. The pilot could have them removed or keep them.

I state that 3x151/20+2x131, delivers far more firepower then 6x´50.

then finely, I want to ask you: have you ever fired a M2 Browning 50. cal other then in the virtual skies?

[Nomak]

Originally posted by HoHun


If you want to know how good the planes really were, don't fetch bits and pieces from combat reports without proper analysis, but have a look at the technical data.

 

I will disagree with you there.

Test data means nothing to a pilot in combat.  Isnt true combat performance what we are trying to compare here?  At least I am.

So in some test a 109 can out dive a p51.  In a physics lab you can prove an elephant could hang from a daisy flower to.  That doesnt make it real world accurate.  Use your common sense.

In the instance posted in real world combat the p51 was flat out running down that 109 in a dive.

[HoHun]

Hi Nomak,

>From what I have read about ariel gunnery and aircraft firearms, the most important thing to bringing down another aircraft is the amount of lead that can be put on target.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Compare the figures and reach your own conclusions.

>The 109 series sufferd from a lack of firepower its entire service career.

The P-51 never had to be used against heavy bombers, or you'd have heard the same complaints about lack of firepower about the US type.

>If it didnt why in the world were they mounting gun pods under the wings that dramiticly affected the speed and handling of the aircraft?

The gun pods were mounting 20 mm cannon which were less capable than the 30 mm cannon that were developed later.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Nomak]

Originally posted by HoHun


Here is some data. It's just for a game, but as far as I know it's a quality game at least :-)

 

That same game data has the TA152 to be a slower aircraft than a Dora at most altitudes.  

[HoHun]

Hi Nomak,

>Test data means nothing to a pilot in combat.

Captured aircraft were restored with considerable effort in WW2, and tested as thoroughly as possible, to provide just the kind of data I've pointed out to you for the pilots in combat.

>So in some test a 109 can out dive a p51.  

You didn't follow the links on diving I provided for you, did you?

>In the instance posted in real world combat the p51 was flat out running down that 109 in a dive.

The P-51 was flat out - but was the Me 109? You can't tell for certain - but you want to believe it was :-) That's wishful thinking, not careful analysis.

Something to ponder for you: The aircraft with the higher top speed and the better climb also accelerates better, at least flat-out and below level top speed.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Nomak,

>That same game data has the TA152 to be a slower aircraft than a Dora at most altitudes.  

Hardly suprising - the Jumo 213A of the Fw 190D-9 was optimized for low and medium altitudes, while the Jumo 213E of the Ta 152H was optimized for high altitude.

If you compare original Focke-Wulf charts, you'll see just the same relation :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Nomak]

“Gunther Ral
 a memoir”

by Jill Amadio

"The American fighter-bombers had the advantage of speed, and the P-38 Lightnings, though lacking the quality of the others were equipped with twin engines that vastly outdistanced our single engine Bf 109s. But the P-51 was truly the star fighter in Europe because of it's long range and maneuverability."

Pg 174

"I could really detect the tactical differences between the German, British and American planes. This gave me the greatest respect for the P-51 Mustang and it's extremely comfortable cockpit, good rear visibility, long-range, maneuverability, and an electrical starting system."

Pg 242

"Unlike earlier versions of the Fw 190, which were powered by BMW air-cooled radial engines, the D-9 version was equipped with a Junkers Jumo 213 liquid-cooled inline engine. It was regarded as among the finest German fighter planes in service at the time."

Pg 244

"The elliptical wings on the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb"

Pg 53

"I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visibility"

Pg 54

"I was flying at 35,000 feet and was soon able to pinpoint the bombers coming from England by their contrails. As we reached our position we went into battle formation and dropped our external tanks. The FW 190s were at 26,000 feet. It was very unusual for Bf 109s to fly at such a high altitude because they could stall."

Pg 225

"Rall was well aware that a P-47 was much faster in a dive and had much higher structural strength than a Bf 109."

Pg 226

There you have it Boys......a reliable enough source for you??  or will I hear claims of bias again?  
 


Game......Set.......Match

Now that is reality  

[GODO]

Real P51D vs real G10, who knows. But AH P51D vs AH G10 coalt and similar pilot skill would end in stalemalte (P51 will be able to flee in most situations) or P51 down. Same with AH P51D vs AH Spit IX. In both cases, P51D has a notable lack of climb rate and acceleration against these opponents at most alts.

[crabofix]

Good work Nomak, you really convinced me.
Now I have become a dedicated P-51 fan, singing praises to the speed and outperformance of its opossition.
I am suprised it still took that long to win the war, though, with Aircrafts like that.

[dBeav]

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

Please!

[Nomak]

Originally posted by crabofix
Good work Nomak, you really convinced me.
Now I have become a dedicated P-51 fan, singing praises to the speed and outperformance of its opossition.
I am suprised it still took that long to win the war, though, with Aircrafts like that.

It really didnt......once the Merlin powerd Mustangs arrived on the scene it was all but trival.

The longest part of the war was before thier arrival.

Im not sure if you are being sarcastic with your praise.....but I will thank you anyway.    

[Nomak]

Some more stuff I found......



To Fly and Fight

Memoirs of a Triple Ace

Clarence E. "Bud" Anderson

"Once airborne, however, the P-51 was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low thanks to the two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to persue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime."

Pg 74

"Still, the Mustang could do everything that the Spitfire could do--and better yet, could do it over Berlin."

Pg 75

"Although the Mustang was superior in most ways you measure it, the Me 109 was a worthy opponent. The Messerschmitt was in service from 1935 to the end of the war, and by 1944 they had exhausted most ways of refining it. The later-model 109G, or "Gustav", was a 400-mph performer at combat altitudes, although the faster it went. the less maneuverable it was. The Focke-Wulf 190 was marginally faster than the Messerschmitt, carried more fuel, and handled much better at speed--though, again, it wasn't a nimble airplane compared with the Mustang."

Pg 98

"Hartmann scored 344 of his kills there (Russian front), and only eight in the west against Mustangs"

Pg 124