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

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Also, stall characteristics of the 109 were very gentle and forgiving with plenty of warning, as opposed to the P-51.

Read this thread with my usual mix of interest and annoyance. Not because some ancient aircraft is supposedly sold short of its actual performance but because the people here think their opininons are more important than a reasonable amount of social skills.

ANYWAY, I really do not care when or if a Spit or 109 was cleared for X boost, hell I've only BEEN in an airplane twice. I do however play this game and the point above is well taken. The 109 is twitchy and suffers from torque and a poor rate of turn (G-10)... in AH.  Despite this it is ridiculously easy to push to its limits, I never flew a 109 that I couldn't recover. In P-51's however I have plummeted helplessly on several occasions after stalling & spinning it at high altitude.

[Nomak]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Nomak,

>I do of course respect your opinion on the matter.  

>I strongly disagree........

Just note that your statement concerning the general superiority of the Mustang is an opinion, while my statement concerning the superior speed and climb performance of the Me 109K-4 over the P-51D at low to medium altitude is a fact.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Ill take this "opinion" over your "fact" anyday.



“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
 
Oh wait a minute.........I shouldnt possibly believe the men who actually flew these aircraft in combat

[moot]

It's not like every pilot from back then will agree and invariably be perfectly objective.  Pretty sure there were as many BSers back then as are today.

[HoHun]

Hi Nomak,

>Ill take this "opinion" over your "fact" anyday.

You've twice posted this stuff, and it's still incoherent at best. It doesn't even mention any specific Me 109 version, or any specific time frame.

Some of the statements are pure opinion (and in the absence of supporting detail don't provide any useful insights) like "I didn't like the slats". Well, others (like Stigler and Leinkauf) liked them, and actually tell us why.

It's not a good idea to be overly enthusiastic about aces' quotes. If you read more and more of them, you'll discover that they are often contradictory. Incomplete background information limits their usefulness anyway - for example, statements like "X was faster than Y" don't help you much if you don't know at which altitude the comparison took place.

That's why analytical thinking is so important.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[GScholz]

F4UDOA, your incessant need to behave in a demeaning manner is almost as annoying as your ramblings which are fantasies at best ... deliberate falsities at worst.

The P-51D's reported maximum range is 950 miles on internal fuel. At 80 gph doing 400 mph the p-51D would have a range of 1345 miles on internal fuel alone. I have read nothing that says the P-51D did not need its drop tanks to fly to Berlin and back.

From what I can find the P-51D had a cruising speed of 275 mph which at 80 gph gives a much more believable range of 924 miles.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by GScholz
...had a cursing speed of...

Ummmm...Freudian slip there bud??

LOL!!

[GScholz]

Originally posted by dtango
Nah, we don't need a P-51D on 150 octane for a perk ride.  Just put in the P-51H as a perk plane instead!  There would a lot gnashing of teeth if that ever happened!  I can hear the screaming now hehe.  As an avid Mustang fan I would love it but alas stuff like the Ki-84 would and should come before the P-51H in my opinion in AH.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Did the P-51H see service in WWII? If it did then yes we should have it as a perk ride. But you're right, there are a lot of planes we need before a P-51H or a 109K4.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Ummmm...Freudian slip there bud??

LOL!!

ROFL! Fixed now.

[dtango]

Isegrim:

Yes, you are right that the P-51D has lower wingloading than the K-4, however it doesn`t tell it all. Lower wingloading does not automatically equals better turn rate, it is more a factor of actual liftloading. Depending on the wing`s design, it may develop more or less lift. As it stands, the P-51D had laminar flow wings, which lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads.

The 109s had a conventional wing, and were equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under high G loads, and restored to airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulance. That`s why it become so common on modern jets.

Yeah, I agree that wingloading doesn't tell the whole story.  It is a very simplistic comparison and doesn't factor in CL of the wing which is what you are referring to regarding the airfoils and slats.  

However a 3rd component to consider besides wingloading and CL is the wing area which also factors into the lift equation.  Just like the CD0 comparisons care needs to be taken.  The K-4 may have had a higher CLmax because of difference in airfoils but it has a lower wing area compared to the P-51D.  

The use of slats certainly would enhance the K-4's turn performance but on the other side of the equation the P-51D also had combat flaps that would provide similar advantages.

All things considered saying that the K-4 had a turn performance advantage over the P-51D is debatable in my opinion.

With all that I felt the ballpark wingloading metric said enough for me regarding instantaneous turn performance.  Of course I could be totally wrong about my aerodynamic intuition there and I readily acknowledge that with the absence of flight data as well as some math.  I just don't have the time for all these mental exercises !

In that interest it might be good to compare P-51D and 109K-4 turn performance numbers.  I'll start by throwing out the only figure that I have readily available to me at the moment!

From AHT
P-51D at 9500 lbs
3g stall speed: 159 MPH IAS clean

I don't have access to data readily regarding 1g stall speeds with or without flaps.  I'll see what I can dig up when I get a chance.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

I have answered this question in every possible way but you have insisted that the P-51D would not be able to make it back accross the channel.

Now it appears you understand that it would not need drop tanks. Obviously it would not. Point being a P-51D could have 100 gallons or less and be in a 9,000lbs aircraft and easily make it back accross the channel. This could be done hands down with the use of drop tanks although just as well without.

My 80GPH number at 30K gives a 400MPH speed at less than max continious power. As I said before to simply illustrate a point "It is only an example".

Here is the chart from the pilots manual. The success of the P-51 was due to the fact that will very low power settings you could fly very far very fast due to laminar air flow at cruise settings.

Here is the PROOF.

[dtango]

Gscholz:

Data on the P-51H...

The P-51H was intended to be the leading USAAF fighter used during the upcoming invasion of Japan. 2000 P-51Hs were ordered, made up of 555 NA-126s and 1445 NA-129s with minor differences. All of these planes were to be built at the Inglewood factory. 1629 more examples were ordered from NAAs Dallas plant, these being designated P-51M. The P-51M differed primarily in having the V-1650-9A engine, which had a lower war emergency rating by virtue of having the water injection deleted.

The P-51H was too late to see action in the war in Europe. By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. None had the opportunity to see any combat. At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines. The last P-51H rolled off the production line in 1946.

P-51H stuff

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Neil Stirling1]

P51H performance figures from

P-51H (NA-126) Airplane Altitude Performance Clean Airplane Without Wing Bomb Racks, War Emergency Power
(90"hg MP + H2O Injection 3000rpm
Report NA-8284
9-14-44
Curve P-81
Weight 9000lbs
These are calculated figures and approximate as they come directly from the chart.

424 mph at SL
464 mph at 10,200ft
463 mph at 18,100ft
487mph at 25,400ft
486mph at 30,000ft
484 mph at 32,000ft
480mph at 34,000ft
475mph at 36,000ft

5,150ft/min at SL
5,300ft/min at 5,100ft
4,000ft/min at 14,000ft
3,900ft/min at 20,600ft
0ft/min at 44,150ft.

[Neil Stirling1]

P51B performance figures using 150 grade fuel and 75"hg.


Airplane P51B 43-24777, V-1650-7, 9680lbs Wing racks fitted.
Date 4,30,44.
Test results and again appprox as the figures come directly from the curve in front of me.

379mph at 0ft
410mph at 7,400ft
405mph at 13,100ft
431mph at 20,500ft
420mph at 28,000ft
416mph at 30,000ft

4340ft/min at 0ft
4380ft/min at 2,200ft
3,860ft/min at 6000ft
3,700ft min at 15,800ft
0ft/min at 41,050ft.

Neil.

[GScholz]

F4UDOA could you please post a readable chart?

[dtango]

Just to add to the fuel load and range discussion...

AHT data...
P-51D Range 10,000 ft, cruise at most economical power...
269 Gal (100% internal tanks) = 1250 miles

If we extrapolate from that using the 100 gal figure F4U is using we get
100 gal = 465 miles

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs