Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K) (Read 28718 times)

crabofix · « **Reply #75 on:** November 03, 2003, 07:38:32 PM »

of course I am sarcastic, Nomak,

It is a matter of taste, 109 or P.51. The p-51 being the better one in its overall performance.

I prefere the 109

Nomak · « **Reply #76 on:** November 03, 2003, 08:04:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crabofix

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

Lets hear about your mk108 30mm cannon firing experence.

crabofix · « **Reply #77 on:** November 03, 2003, 08:17:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nomak
Lets hear about your mk108 30mm cannon firing experence.

I missed that caliber, sorry, fired 20 mm oerlikon and 40 bofors mm, never got between thoose.

My point is, the density of bullets is not very high for a single Browning, due to the "low" firerate. But the result is satisfying on a nonmoving target.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #78 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:10:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hooligan,

>It seems to me the spitfire airframe underwent a lot more development as time passed compared to what happened with the 109.

Actually, the opposite is true. New Spitfire versions were created by mounting a new engine on the original aircframe, with few changes (usually just an increase of the radiator size).

The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section.

So in 1945, the Me 109 had a much more modern airframe than the Spitfire, yet noone considered the Spitfire outdated (at least, not more than any other propeller fighter).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Late to the party but I have to disagree with the comments on the Spit development. As with the 109, the Spit went through continuous development whether it be engine, airframe, or what have you.

While, for example the MkVIII looked similar to the IX, it was in fact much more developed. The IX having been a transitional aircraft that introduced the 60 series Merlin to the Spitfire line. It was essentially a Mk V strengthened to take the larger engine. The VIII however had redesigned ailerons, provisions for more internal fuel tankage, tropical air intakes, retractable tail wheel, Different elevators, better rudder design and on and on. The wing too was strengthened.

Obviously the Spit XIV took this even further with the redesigned tail section to compliment the greater power of the Griffon engine. This lead to the completely redesigned wings of the Spitfire 21,22,24.

Park a Spit 21 next to a Spit I and a Me109E next to a 109K. The resemblence in the end is probably the area around the cockpit section with not much else being the same and even then the canopies would be different.

Both were continuous developments. Neither were just lashups of their early designs. That's how it works with fighter development.

Dan/Slack

Kweassa · « **Reply #79 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:28:49 PM »

I seriously think this discussion should discontinue - ain't worth the trouble digging up sources and numbers and plunging into a serious discussion, when the competition relies heavily on popular hype material and uses that as an 'evidence'.

Seriously, it's a waste of time, Hohun.

dBeav · « **Reply #80 on:** November 03, 2003, 11:38:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
......when the competition relies heavily on popular hype material and uses that as an 'evidence'.

Seriously, it's a waste of time, Hohun.

What are you calling "popular hype material"???

Virage · « **Reply #81 on:** November 03, 2003, 11:40:49 PM »

Worth a chuckle...

Nomak was flyn 109s tonight.

Arlo · « **Reply #82 on:** November 03, 2003, 11:42:13 PM »

Whatever flies in the face of the other "popular hype material."

Nomak · « **Reply #83 on:** November 04, 2003, 08:59:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Virage
Worth a chuckle...

Nomak was flyn 109s tonight.

Hehe.........I guess it probably has come off that I dont like 109s. Its just not true. I fly em in the MA all the time. I had my wife order me a "wings of the LW" series just for the 109 stuff.

I just think its insane to actually try to argue that the 109 series could compare to a p51.

Fishu · « **Reply #84 on:** November 04, 2003, 09:12:46 AM »

How about Nomak starts listing the bad sides of P51, instead of the unheard good things.

moot · « **Reply #85 on:** November 04, 2003, 09:19:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
(Image removed from quote.)
[...] These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling....this was also useful when you were drunk!

dtango · « **Reply #86 on:** November 04, 2003, 12:02:29 PM »

Nomak:

You wrote...

Quote

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

In comparying anything you need to define the scope and the criteria by which you will compare. What set of benchmarks are you using for comparing the P-51 and the 109's "true combat performance"? There is some value to pilot accounts in comparing relative performance differences between aircraft when appropriately taken as just a part of the whole of the analysis. However common sense tells me that relying heavily or solely on pilot stories to compare relative performance differences is fraught with problems that prevent accurate peformance benchmarking.

Based on just the basic technical data comparing the P-51D to a Bf-109K-4/G-10, I'd have to say that the 109K-4 matched head-to-head against the P-51D would have been a tough opponent. That's not even running through any calculations.

P-51D
Powerplant: 1490HP, 1650HP WEP
Normal Loaded Weight: 9500 lbs
Max Level Speed: 437mph @ 25,000 ft
Wing Area: 233 sq ft

Bf109K-4
Powerplant: 1800HP, 2000HP WEP
Normal Loaded Weight: 7438 lbs
Max Level Speed: 452mph @ 19,700 ft
Wing Area: 174 sq ft

The K-4 has a lower weight, better thrust-to-weight ratio, and higher top speed below 20,000 ft. Not sure what the difference in wing area would have played in terms of energy retention and bleed without doing the calculations but my guess is that the K-4's T/W ratio balance out the induced drag in maneuver due to smaller wings vs. the P-51D.

The P-51D would probably have been outclassed against a K-4 below 20,000 ft in terms of both speed and sustained maneuvering. Above 20,000 things equalize more as you go up in altitude but the K-4 would have still been an extremely dangerous opponent.

And this comes from a lover of the P-51

.

Of course I've limited the scope of the analysis to basic technical data as a benchmark. Things change as you broaden or change the scope of what you're comparing. For instance the virtues of the P-51 show up at a more strategic level of comparison- e.g. it's range and endurance, it's flexibility in roles, etc.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

HoHun · « **Reply #87 on:** November 04, 2003, 12:56:32 PM »

Hi Nomak,

>I just think its insane to actually try to argue that the 109 series could compare to a p51.

The Me 109 doesn't merely compare - it compares favourably :-)

If you'd look at the P-51D and Me 109G-10 data, you'd see that the Mustang is completely outclassed performance-wise below 24000 ft.

Above that, the Me 109G-10 concedes the top speed advantage, but still retains a considerable climb rate advantage.

It easily has the more effective gun at any altitude.

You're welcome to offer your opinion on which of the two was the better fighter - but don't forget it's an opinion only. I'd rather discuss facts, though, and the superior low/medium altitude performance of the Me 109G-10 is a fact.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #88 on:** November 04, 2003, 01:09:34 PM »

Hi Dbeav,

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

You could easily find out by reading my posts.

Here's one projection: If the Messerschmitt factories had suddenly turned out P-51s in WW2 instead of Me 109s, the Luftwaffe would have lost more fighters, and the USAAF would have had more of its bombers returning safely instead of getting shot down.

Why? Because the slow-climbing P-51 would have needed to spend more time in airspace patrolled by superior numbers of enemy fighters, making it an easier victim for the enemy hunters. Its poorer armament would have made it less lethal against the enemy bombers, which would have been a pleasant surprise for the 8th Air Force.

And the complementary projection: What if the North American factories would suddenly have turned out Me 109s instead of Mustangs? Pretty obvious: The 8th Air Force bombers would have been without a fighter escort over Berlin.

So which one was the better fighter? It's up to you to build your opinion. But don't forget - it's just an opinion.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

moot · « **Reply #89 on:** November 04, 2003, 03:18:14 PM »

I was about to say, our G10 vs our 51D 1:1 has the 51D as either winning right away or post-post-merge dead meat.