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

[MaddDog]

i dunno, but if i was gonna be in combat in that era and i could choose between and 51D or K-4, think id pick the K-4 for sure, and im sure there were some G-6s left at the end, didnt Erich Heartmann fly a G-6 until the end? or did he switch?

[GScholz]

Hartmann's last ride in WWII was the K4.

[dtango]

Hiya F4UDOA:

1. With equal duration (meaning the same weight from fuel and ammo) the P-51D is much lighter than 9,500LBS meaning it climbs much better than listed stats would indicate for a 10,000lbs airplane.

P-51D fuel weight is 1600 lbs at 100% internal tanks.  I agree that reduced weight would improve the Mustang's rate of climb.  While I'm not running the calculations, I'm not sure that it would make up for over a 1000+ fpm rate of climb differential.  All things being equal you would have to assume the 109K-4's weight would be reduced as well as it consumes fuel so it's performance would be improved as well.  On top of that there's also a 200-300 hp differential in engine output that exists as well.  The probability is that the K-4 in most situations would still have the T/W and rate of climb advantage.

2. The P-51 had manuever flaps which would have assisted it throught the entire speed range as well as lower wing loading for when it got slow.

The maneuver flaps would give the P-51D some enhanced performance when it comes to instantaneous turn performance.  I don't have data on the K-4's stall speed etc. so can't really comment as to what this might translate into.  There could be a seam that the Mustang could exploit here.  However from a sustained turn performance standpoint I'm guessing the K-4 would have the advantage due to a better T/W ratio to counter energy bleed though I'm willing to concede that I don't know (and don't have the time to run the calcs!) what the difference in wing loading could result in here.

3. I have never seen anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. It may be fast but if you can't maneuver at those speeds you are dead anyway.

Interesting point.  I'm afraid I'm not a collector of WW2 a/c data so others would need to weigh in on this.

4. Most importantly. The K4 has the advantage of Nitrious and other fuel additives at altitude but you are excluding the use of 150 Octane fuel in the Mustang which was common. With 150 octane fuel the P-51D was much faster than the K-4 and would climb as well even with heavier loads.

This is a pretty provocative point that I haven't considered.  Do you have references regarding this?  I'd be especially curious if there are charts for the Merlin-66 or P-51D data on 150 octane fuel.  I've found only one reference on this but the numbers look a little strange to me:
Merlin Data

Anyway to sum it up for me I would give the edge to the 109K-4 for essentially having a better T/W ratio meaning that it would translate into letting the 109K-4 driver a larger room for error and more available options.  If the 150 octane fuel data shows a significant improvement in the P-51D's performance I might have a different perspective.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Widewing]

Originally posted by dtango


 If the 150 octane fuel data shows a significant improvement in the P-51D's performance I might have a different perspective.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

By mid 1944 150 octane fuel could be obtained by any USAAF fighter group simply by requesting it. Unlike what many seem to believe, avgas was blended at most airfields. Because the TEL would precipitate out of the fuel over a period of just weeks, the fuel was blended within a few days of being used. In February of 1944, Doolittle ordered that 150 octane fuel be custom blended specifically for use by the P-38 groups in an effort to eliminate detonation in the Allisons (a common cause of engine failure among the P-38s). I have a copy of his order in my files. Some may know that Doolittle helped develop high octane aviation fuel when he worked for Shell Oil in the 1930s. He specified the P-38 formulation himself. It was effective at reducing engine failures, and it wasn't long before crew chiefs were rigging wastegates to allow for over-boosting for additional power. When the P-38 groups switched to the P-51, they continued to use the same fuel formulation. Pilots from the 55th FG have told me that this fuel allowed them to over-boost the Merlins to 72 in/Hg without ill effect. It was not unheard of for pilots to return claiming to have pulled as much as 80 in/Hg in combat. That's roughly the same MAP limits for the V1650-9 fitted to the P-51H (which had water injection). I'd wager money that few fighter groups were flying with the standard AN-F-28 100/130 avgas by 1945, not when they could have up to 150 octane. Still, the blending was done by simple chart, and quality control was no better than the man mixing the TEL compound into the fuel. The 8th AF instituted fuel testing in the spring of '44 in an effort to improve the consistancy of octane rating. Samples of every lot mixed were submitted and tested. Indeed, by late 1944, improved TEL compounds tripled the shelf life of the avgas. Stan Richardson of the 55th says that the 150 octane fuel really made a difference when the throttle was pushed up to "full goose bonzo".

My regards,

Widewing

[GScholz]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gents,

I can't believe this is even an arguement.

Why are the numbers so heavily in favor of the 109K when this was not the case.

This was the case.

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Here are a couple of facts to kick around.

1. With equal duration (meaning the same weight from fuel and ammo) the P-51D is much lighter than 9,500LBS meaning it climbs much better than listed stats would indicate for a 10,000lbs airplane.

While this is true, even with dry tanks and no ammo the P-51 would still be considerably heavier than a fully loaded 109K, and with less power.

Originally posted by F4UDOA
2. The P-51 had manuever flaps which would have assisted it throught the entire speed range as well as lower wing loading for when it got slow.

Yes the maneuver flaps would give the P-51 additional turning capability, but at the cost of added energy bleed.

Originally posted by F4UDOA
3. I have never seen anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. It may be fast but if you can't maneuver at those speeds you are dead anyway.

This is of course utter BS, even in this thread I quoted a 109 pilot saying he dived to 450+ mph and had no trouble pulling out. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series which increased high-speed handling, especially in roll.

Originally posted by F4UDOA
4. Most importantly. The K4 has the advantage of Nitrious and other fuel additives at altitude but you are excluding the use of 150Octane fuel in the Mustang which was common. With 150 octane fuel the P-51D was much faster than the K-4 and would climb as well even with heavier loads. [/IMG]

109K4 used MW50, not GM1 (NOS). From what I have read even with 150 octane fuel the P-51 is slower and climbs poorer than the 109K4, even the 109G10 is better in climb. With 150 octane fuel the P-51 barely made it past the 4000 fpm mark while the 109K4 climbed over 5000 fpm. Deck speed was similar for both the P-51 and 109K4 at about 380 mph, however at altitude the 109K4 was faster (P-51 gaining slight speed advantage over 25K).


Mark Hanna flying the 109J (export early G6):

Just Imagine...
Track around the canopy though Nine, Eleven and now Twelve O'clock. Rolling out gently and now the specks are becoming objects and I can see wings and start to discern fuselages and engines. We're at five miles and closing at 420 knots and greater than seven miles a minute. Less than 50 seconds to go. There's the '51 escort high and behind the bombers... Good.... they're not a factor for the initial attack, but we will need to worry about them on the egress. 20 seconds and two miles. I've picked my target - the lead ship... I've misjudged the attack slightly, just missed the dead 180 so I've got a slight crosser which is going to foul up my sighting solution. 10 seconds to run... The B-17's light up ! Flashes from all over the airframes and smoke trails streak behind as the gunners let rip and fill the skies with lead. They're out of range buts its still frightening. The lead ship is filling my windscreen and closing rapidly. Now.... Fire ! Two second burst.... flash... flash... flash... HITS ! all in his cockpit and fuselage area... pull slightly on the control column to just clear the port wing, the fin slicing past just by me and roll hard left. World. B-17s gyrating round, stop inverted... pull 5 G's, nose down, down, down. Streamers pouring from the wingtips. I've lost the P-51's, I can't see them but I know they'll be after us. I'm out of here vertically down with a windscreen full of ground, rolling as I go to miss any pursuing Mustangs' sighting solutions - straight towards the Fatherland... only it isn't - it's Suffolk and Ron's calling... "Jimmy says can we do that one again Mark.. ". This is David Puttnam's Memphis Belle and we are airborne with five B-17's, seven P-51s, three '109's and a B-25. I'm leading the '109 formation. We're short on gas, it's cold at 12,000 feet and this is fantastic, tremendous fun. The Bf 109 is, without doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft that I have ever flown.

Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company relates his experiences flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109J (export version to Spain).
To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the '109 and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! As you walk up to the '109 one is at first struck by the small size of the aricraft, particularly if parked next to a comtemporary American fighter. Closer examination reveals a crazy looking knocked-knee undercarriage, a very heavily framed sideways opening canopy with almost no forward view in the three point attitude, a long rear fuselage and tiny tail surfaces. A walk-round reveals ingenious split radiator flaps which double as an extension to the landing flaps, ailerons with a lot of movement and rather odd looking external mass balances. Also independently operating leading edge slats. These devices should glide open and shut on the ground with the pressure of a single finger. Other unusual features include the horizontal stabilizer doubling as the elevator trimmer and the complete absence of a rudder trim system. Overall the finish is a strange mix of innovative and archaic.

Climbing on board you have to be careful not to stand on the radiator flap, then lower yourself gently downwards and forwards, taking your wight by holding onto the windscreen. Once in you are aware that you are almost lying down in the aeroplane, the position reminicent of a racing car. The cockpit is very narrow and if you have broad shoulders (don't all fighter pilots ?), it is a tight squeeze. Once streapped in, itself a knuckle wrapping affair, you can take stock. First impressions are of simplicity and straight forwardness.

From left to right, the co-located elevator trim and flap trim wheels fall easily to hand. You need several turns to get the flaps fully down to 40º and the idea is that you can crank both together. In practice this is a little difficult and I tend to operate the services separately. Coming forward we see the tailwheel locking lever. This either allows the tailwheel to castor or locks it dead ahead. Next is the throttle quadrant, consisting of the propeller lever, and a huge throttle handle. Forward and down, on the floor is an enormous and very effective ki-gass primer and a T shaped handle. DIrectly above this and in line with the canopy seal is the yellow and black hood jettison lever. Pulling this releases two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy, causing the rear section to come loose and therefore the whole main part of the hood becomes unhinged and can be pushed clear away into the aiflow. Looking directly forwards we have clustered together the standard instument panel with vertical select magnetos on the left, starter and booster coil slightly right of center and engine instruments all grouped together on the right hand side. Our aeroplane has a mixture of British, Spanish and German instruments in this area.

The center console under the main instrument panel consists of a 720 channel radio. E2B compass and a large placard courtesy of the Civil Aviation Authority warning of the dire consequences if you land in a crosswind equal to or greater than 10 knots, or trim the aircraft at speeds in excess of 250 knots. Just to the left of the center console, close to your left knee is the undercarriage up/down selector and the mechanical and electrical undercarriage position indicator. On G-BOML this is a rotary selector with a neutral position. Select the undercarriage up or down then activate a hydraulic button on the front of the control column. This gives 750 psi to the system instantly. Immediately beneath the undercarriage selector is the control for the Radiator flaps. These are also hydraulically controlled with an open/close and neutral position, and activated by the trigger on the stick at 375 psi. If you leave the radiator flap control in anything other than neutral and then try to activate the undercarriage you will not have enough pressure to enable the gear to travel.

[GScholz]

Right hand side of the cockpit sees the electrical switches, battery master boost, pumps, pitot heat and a self contained pre-oil system and that's it ! There is no rudder trim, or rudder pedal adjust; also the seat can only be adjusted pre-flight and has the choice of only three settings. If you are any bigger than 6 feet tall, it's all starting to get a bit confined. Once you are strapped in and comfortable close the canopy to check the seating position. Normally, if you haven't flown the 109 before you get a clout on the head as you swing the heavy lid over and down. Nobody sits that low in a fighter ! The OFMC aeroplane has the original flat top ot it - however the Charles Church aircraft has a slight bulge to the top of the canopy - about an inch or so. This is practically indescernable externally, but gives a very helpful lift to the eyeline over the nose.

It's getting dangersously close to going flying now ! OK, open the hood again (in case we catch fire and have to get out in a hurry!). To start, power ON, bost pumps ON. Three good shots on the very stiff primer. Set the throttle about 1/2 inch open. "CLEAR PROP". Push the start button, a few blades and boost coil and mags together. It's a good starter and with a brief snort of flame the '109 fires up immediately. Checking oil pressure is rising right away... Idle initially at 700 RPM, then gently up to 1000 to warm up. Less than 1000 RPM and the whole aeroplane starts to rock from side to side on the gear with some sort of harmonic. This is a most unusual sensation and is quite good fun ! One is immediately aware after start that the aeroplane is "Rattley"; engine, canopy, reduction gear all provide little vibrations and shakes transmitted directly to the pilot.

Close the rad flaps with the selector, and activate the hydraulic trigger. Check the 375 psi and that they close together. Reopen them now to delay the coolant temperature rise. The '109 needs a lot of power to get moving so you need to allow the engine to warm a little before you pile the power onto it. Power up to 1800 RPM and suddenly we're rolling... power back... to turn, stick forward against the instrument panel to lighten the tail. A blast of throttle and a jab of brakes. Do this in a Spitfire and you are on your nose ! The '109 however is very tail heavy and is reluctant to turn - you can very easily lock up a wheel. If you do not use the above technique you will charge off across the airfield in a straight line ! Forward view can only be described as apalling, and due to the tail/brake arrangement this makes weaving more difficult than on other similar types. I prefer to taxy with the hood open to help this a little. By the time we are at the end of the strip the aircraft is already starting to get hot. So quickly on with the run-up. Hood closed again with a satisfying thud. I'm sitting as high as I can and my head is touching the canopy. I am not wearing goggles as they scratch and catch the hood if they are up on your head. A large bonedome is out of the question and in my opinion is a flight safety hazard in this aircraft. Hood positively locked... and push up on to it to check, Oil temperature is 30º, coolant temperature is greater than or at 60º. Brakes hard on (there is no parking brake), stick back and power gently up to 0 boost (30") and 2300 RPM. Exercise the prop at least twice, RPM falling back to 1800 each time, keep an eye on the oil pressure. The noise and vibration levels have now increased dramatically. Power back down to 1800 RPM and check the mags. Insignificant drop on each side. We must hurry as the coolant temperature is at 98ºC and going UP - we have to get rolling to get some cooling air through the radiators. Pretake off checks... Elevator trim set to +1º, no rudder trim, throttle friction light. This is vital as I'm going to need to use my left hand for various services immediately after take-off. Mixture is automatic, pitch fully fine... fuel - I know we're full (85 gallons); the gauge is unserviceable again, so I'm limited to a maximum of 1 hour 15 minutes cruise or 1 hour if any high power work is involved. Fuel/Oil **** is ON, both boost pumps are ON, pressure is good, primer is done up. Flaps - crank down to 20º for take off. Rad flaps checked at full open; if we take off with them closed we will certainly boil the engine and guaranteeed to crack the head. Gyro's set to Duxford's runway. Instruments; temps and pressures all in the green for take off. Radiator is now 102º. Oxygen we don't have, hood rechecked down and locked, harness tight and secure, hydraulics select down in the gear and pressurise the system check 750 psi. Controls full and free, tail wheel locked. Got to go - 105º. There's no time to hang around and worry about the take off. Here we go... Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to +8 (46")... it's VERY noisy ! Keep the tail down initially, keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique... tail coming up now... once the rudders effective. Unconcious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredcibly entertaining to watch the '109 take off or land. The rudder literally flashes around ! The alternative technique (rather tongue in cheek) is Walter Eichorn's, of using full right rudder throughout the take-off roll and varying the swing with the throttle !

The little fighter is now bucketing along, accelerating rapidly. As the tail lifts there is a positive tendancy to swing left - this can be checked easily however, although if you are really agressive lifting the tail it is difficult to stop and happens very quickly. Now the tail's up and you can see vagualy where you are going. It's a rough, wild, buckety ride on grass and with noise, smoke from the stakcs and the aeroplane bouncing around it's exciting !

Quick glance at the ASI - 100 mph, slight check back on the stick and we're flying. Hand off the throttle, rotate the gear selector and activate the hydraulic button. The mechanical indicators motor up very quickly and you feel a clonk, clonk as the gear comes home. Relect Neutral on the undercarriage selector. Quick look out at the wings and you see the slats fully out, starting to creep in as the airspeed increases and the angle of attack reduces. 130 mph and an immediate climbing turn up and right onto the downwind leg just in case I need to put the aeroplane down in a hurry. Our company S.O.P. is to always fly an overhead orbit of the field to allow everything to stabilize before setting off - this has saved at least one of our aeroplanes.

Start to frantically crank the flap up - now up the speeds, increasing through 150, power back to +6 (42") and 2650 for the climb. Plenty of airflow through the narrow radiators now, so close them and remember to keep a careful eye on the coolant gauge for the next few minutes until the temperature has settled down. With the rad flaps closed the aircraft accelerates postively. I'm aware as we climb that I'm holding in a little right rudder to keep the tail in the middle, but the foot loads are light, and it's no problems. Level off and power back to +4(38") and 2000 RPM. The speed's picked up to the '109 cruise of about 235-240 mph and now the tail is right in the middle and no rudder input is necessary.

Once settled down with adrenalin level back down to just high, we can take stock of our situation. The initial reaction is of delight to be flying a classic aeroplane, and next the realization that this is a real fighter ! You feel agressive flying it. The urge is to go looking for something to bounce and shoot down !

[GScholz]

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.

The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.

In addition to the above the small cockpit makes you feel more a part of the aeroplane and the overall smaller dimensions make you more difficult to spot. There's no doubt that when you are flying the '109 and you look out and see the crosses on the wings you feel aggressive; if you are in an allied fighter it is very intimidating to see this dangerous little aeroplane turning in on you !

Returning to the circuit it is almost essential to join for a run and break. Over the field break from 50 feet, up and over 4G's onto the downwind leg. Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10º to 15º. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that !

The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! THe only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !

Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow !

When we first started flying the '109 both my father and I did a lot of practice circuits on the grass before trying a paved strip. Operating off grass is preferred. Although it is a much smoother ride on the hard, directionally the aircraft is definitely more sensative. WIthout doubt you cannot afford to relax until you are positively stationary. I would never make a rolling exit from a runway in the '109. It is just as likely to wrap itself up at 25 as it is at 80 mph. Another promlem is that you have to go easy on the brakes. Hammer them too early in the landing roll and they will have faded to nothing just when you need them ! The final word of advice is always three point the aircraft and if the wind is such that it makes a three pointer inadvisable it's simple: the aeroplane stays in the hanger !

Having said all this, I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Our intention is to eventually re-engine our aeroplane with a Daimler-Benz 605 and convert it to a late '109G or perhaps even a 'K'.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Nomak
>---posted by  gscholz--->

 Now the advantage of the P-51 is really
apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway freight train.


Hmmmm...perhaps a contridiction there?

Your own story shows that the "109 can dive with a 51" is total garbage.
 

Missed this one.

First of all I have never claimed that the 109 was a better diver than the P-51. The P-51 was heavier than the 109 and naturally was a better diver. The P-51 is a great plane to run in, but running is not fighting. I'll always take superior climb over superior dive in a fighter. As I have found out I will always catch a P-51D in my 109G10 if he dives (if no other enemies interfere). He will of course gain a considerable initial separation, but once his speed has bled off to maximum deck speed I catch up to him because I didn't follow his dive and the 109G10 is faster at 10K than the P-51D on the deck. Now he is in grave trouble I'm faster and 10K above him.

[Angus]

10 K above or not, you'll have to get down there to kill him
My bet is that in a G10 vs 51 meeting co alt, approx same speed, the G10 will have to gain initial altitude advantage, - hammerhead the guy. The 51 will outperform the G10 in most other important dogfight categories, - high speed rolls, instant turns, sustained turns.
Running from a G10 is just silly, - even from a G2 it is too
BTW, at terminal diving speed, the 109 was pretty much cemented, and would need trim to pull up. P51 and P47 would catch it, - common fact. And imagine being in a dive in a very unmovable plane with something on yer tail, closing, and even rolling while at it  

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Angus
10 K above or not, you'll have to get down there to kill him
My bet is that in a G10 vs 51 meeting co alt, approx same speed, the G10 will have to gain initial altitude advantage, - hammerhead the guy. The 51 will outperform the G10 in most other important dogfight categories, - high speed rolls, instant turns, sustained turns.
Running from a G10 is just silly, - even from a G2 it is too
BTW, at terminal diving speed, the 109 was pretty much cemented, and would need trim to pull up. P51 and P47 would catch it, - common fact. And imagine being in a dive in a very unmovable plane with something on yer tail, closing, and even rolling while at it  

Which is why I never dive away from superior diving planes, I climb above them. P-51 vs. 109G10 co alt, same speed? For the love of God why? The 109 allow me to engage any enemy with an alt advantage and usually speed advantage too, that's the strength of the 109! After I had run down the P-51 and was 10K on top of him I could B&Z him to death at will! My fighter kills so far this tour (three days) are 6 x P-51, 4 x P-47, 2 x N1K2, 1 x P-38, and 1 x Typhoon (+ 3 x B-17 and 3 x Lanc). In one fight I was alone against 3 P-51's and a Jug, yet I never felt that I was in danger and killed them all by climbing above them, forcing them to fight against my 109's strengths and their weaknesses. I have yet to be shot down by an enemy aircraft this tour, although I got waxed by fleet ack on my first hop (hate that), and today I managed to ram an Il2 (doh!). If you fly it right the 109G10 is untouchable.

[Fishu]

Lets not forget that 109 accerlates faster alot faster than P51, without putting nose into a dive.

[GScholz]

I made a chart overlay of the HTC data on the 109G10 and P-51D a while back because the range of the charts are different (which makes comparison more difficult).

First lets study the speed chart:



As you can see the 109 is faster at all altitudes except on the deck where the P-51 has a very minor advantage. The 109's speed advantage is actually very astonishing. Here we can also see the advantage of the 109's stageless automatic supercharger (basically a large clutch connected to a huge hairdryer ). When the P-51 lose performance at 13K the 109G10 has a smooth power curve.


The climb chart is even more telling:



From this chart we can see that not only is the 109 vastly superior in climb at all altitudes, but the 109 also has a higher service ceiling. The 109G10's ceiling is at about 39K. In fact the 109G10 even out climbs the P-51D without WEP!

I've done a time to altitude test between a 109G10 with 100% fuel + DT and a P-51D with 50% fuel. I started the timer when the aircraft reached 150 mph and autopilot climb was engaged. WEP on at take-off.

109G10

Time to 10K: 2 min 15 sec.
Time to 20K: 4 min 53 sec.
Time to 30K: 9 min 44 sec.

Fuel remaining after WEP climb to 30K: 76% internal + 100% DT (1x fuel consumption)


P-51D

Time to 10K: 2 min 57 sec.
Time to 20K: 6 min 47 sec.
Time to 30K: 12 min 23 sec.

WEP auto shut-off at 15K due to engine overheat. The engine had not yet cooled down at 30K
Fuel remaining after WEP climb to 30K: 45% (1x fuel consumption)

A heavy 109G10 is still vastly superior in climb to a light P51D.

So in less than 10 minutes I'm at 30K in my 109G10 with 50% internal fuel and 100% in the DT. At 30K the 109G10 can cruise at 420 mph (mil power) for approx. half an hour on the DT in the MA (2x fuel consumption).

I've also done a maneuverability test on the 109G10, and filmed it. You can download the film here.

As you can see I start out at 10K going into a shallow dive to 510 mph TAS at which point I pull the 109G10 into a 10G+ barrel roll (probably more than 12G's since I broke the right wing off!). Instantaneous turn was at 5.5G's increasing rapidly as I manually trimmed up. Notice that I manually trimmed the 109 throughout the dive (it's second nature to me now).

The 109G10 is clearly the supreme unperked interceptor and air superiority fighter in Aces High.

[Angus]

If you wanna wax me in a 51, I'll have to leave the rooks

[GScholz]

Naw, there's plenty of prey out there.

[Batz]

Snipped from this thread at SimHQ

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=005153

Myths and Misunderstandings

1) “The Mustang was the fastest aircraft in the air”

At its rated altitude, the Mustang B had a maximum speed of 441mph. For December of 1943, that makes the B model the fastest aircraft in operation in Europe when compared to the 405mph 109G6, 418mph 190A5 and 396mph La-5FN.

The P-51D model would also be the fastest operational prop plane at altitude when it is introduced in the Spring of ’44 with a top speed of 437mph. At higher altitudes it is better than the 431 mph of the G6AS, the 426 mph of the 190D9 without MW-50, and the 410 mph of the La-7. It was much better than the Spitfire IX LF with its top speed of 407 mph., and the 190A8 with its top speed of 408 mph.

At sea level the P-51’s advantages were less.

At sea level the B model was rated at 355 mph. That compares to 336 mph for the G6, 356 mph for the 190A5, and 357 mph of the La-5FN.

At sea level, the P-51D at +18 boost was rated at 367mph. (362mph for the early D) That compares to 363 mph for the 109G6AS, 380mph for the La-7. It was superior to the 362 mph of the FW190D9 without MW-50. The Spitfire IX LF was slower at approximately 336 mph as well as the 190A8 at approx. 355 mph.

Against 1945 aircraft, the P-51D began to fall behind at higher altitudes when compared to the 452 mph of the 109K4 and the 440 mph of the FW190D9 with MW-50 with both aircraft. At low altitudes the 190D9 had significant advantages in speed at 378mph, with the K4 being almost identical to the P-51.

Conclusion:

It is clear that the Mustang had advantages of speed at higher altitudes in late 1943 and early 1944 when the crucial periods of combat in the ETO occurred. But the advantages were not there as much at lower altitudes, and by 1945 it was falling behind to some German aircraft. Of course, by 1945, the Luftwaffe was hopelessly outnumbered.

So it seems that the Mustang’s reputation for having superior speed is only partly true, but it is true for the periods when combat was the most intense.


2) “The Mustang had a great climb”

Level Climb

An examination of tests of climbrates for the P-51B show a maximum initial climbrate of 3200 ft per minute at Sea Level. (all tests at full fuel) This is not very good. It compares for example, to 4200 ft/min for the 190A5

The P-51D shows a maximum initial climbrate of approx. 3450 ft per minute. For a mid 1944 aircraft that is poor to mediocre. For example a mid 1944 Spitfire Mk IX LF had a climbrate in the area of 4700 ft per minute. A 109G10 had a climbrate of approx. 4600 ft per minute, a FW190D9 a rate of approximately 4200 ft per minute, a La-7 a rate of around 4400 ft per minute. Only against the 190A8 with its climbrate of 3400 ft per minute does it seem competitive. When the Mustang D is compared to 1945 aircraft, it comes off even worse.

There is no doubt that the Mustang’s reputation for having a great climb is a myth. However, when the subject is ZOOM climb, the answer is different. More on this later.

3) The Mustang had great acceleration.

Level Flight Acceleration

Level acceleration can generally be approximated by looking at the powerloading of an aircraft, which is the normal loaded weight of an aircraft, compared to its engine’s maximum horsepower. Acceleration is also significantly affected by the overall drag of an aircraft’s airframe. (more later on that issue) A look at the powerloading of the Mustang when when fully loaded as compared to other aircraft of the same era indicates that it lags significantly behind. Fully loaded, with maximum fuel, combat weight of a P-51D is 10,208 lbs. Maximum hp is 1720. That translates into a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per horsepower. A 109G10 with 1800 hp and a weight of approximately 7400 lbs, has a powerloading of approximately 4.1 lbs per horsepower. A Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a horsepower output of 1720 lbs has powerloading of 4.3 lbs per hp. A La-7 with a weight of approx. 7300 lbs and a horsepower output of 1700 has a powerloading of approx. 4.3 lbs per hp. The FW190A8 and D9 did not have as much of an advantage in raw powerloading, but were slightly superior.

It seems clear that in LEVEL flight, the Mustang’s reputation for great acceleration is a myth.

4) The Mustang was a great Dogfighter.

A conventional view of a dogfight has fighter aircraft in tighter and tighter turns, chasing each others tails. How would the Mustang do in that type of combat?

First of all, an aircraft’s ability to turn tightly is related to three main things: Wingloading, Wing Design and Powerloading. Low wingloading, and wing designs which generate more lift at high angles of attack give aircraft better ability to turn tightly. An aircraft’s ability to sustain it maximum tight turn is related to its acceleration and powerloading. A sustained turn will inevitably lead to a stall, unless an aircraft’s engine can generate enough acceleration to overcome the induced drag of placing the wings at an angle to the airstream. Higher powerloading will allow for sustained high Angle of Attack turns.

We seem to have determined that the Mustang has relatively poor Acceleration, which suggests its ability to sustain its maximum turnrate would be questionable.

How is its wingloading?

At fully loaded weight of 10,208 lbs on a wing area of 233 Sq/ft, a Mustang has a wingloading of 43.8 lbs per Sq/ft. That compares very poorly to a Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a wing area of 242 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 30.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It’s similar to a 109G10 with a wing area of 172 Sq/ft and a weight of 7400 lbs for a wing loading of 43 lbs per Sq/ft. It is inferior to the La-7 with a wing area of 189 Sq/ft and a weight of 7300 lbs for a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190A8 with a weight of 9750 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 49.5 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190D9 which has a weight of 9480 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 48.1 lbs per Sq/ft.

How about Wing Design?

The P-51D is unique in the listed aircraft in having a Laminar flow aerofoil as its chosen wing shape. The laminar flow design allows for low drag when air is travelling across the wings at high transonic speeds, but additionally, this wing design shape also produces reduced lift at high angles of attack. Ie. when a Mustang pilot pulls very tight turns at low speeds and high angles of attack, his wings generate lower lift than a conventional aerofoil.

On the basis of the above, one would have to conclude that a fully loaded Mustang would be a mediocre classic dogfighter. Against an aircraft like the Spitfire or La-7, or even a 109G10, (due to the G10’s much better acceleration) it would not have much of a chance in a classic low speed turnfight. Against a 190A8 or 190D9 it should be superior.

Overall Conclusions?

On the basis of an objective examination of the technical stats of the Mustang, and its competitors, one would begin to wonder why the Mustang did so well. It seems like a very mediocre aircraft.

However, a little deeper examination and the misunderstandings about the quality of this aircraft come into focus.

And its advantages and superiorities come to the fore.

To understand the Mustang, you have to first understand its design goals and designated role. Ie. a long range escort Fighter.

Range and Fuel Load

If we look at the Mustang’s range, we get our first clue as to the misunderstandings. The P-51D had a maximum range of approximately 1250 miles on internal fuel. That gave it a combat radius of 450 miles without drop tanks. (including climb to altitude, flight to and back from target, 10 minutes at combat power) When compared to other aircraft of the era, we see an incredible advantage. The 109G10 had a combat radius of approximately 130 miles. The Spitfire IX LF had a radius of 125 miles, the 190A8 had a radius of approximately 165 miles and the 190D9 had a radius of 175 miles. (all without drop tanks) The La-7 had a similar radius to the 109’s.

cont....