Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K) (Read 28830 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #210 on:** November 07, 2003, 05:32:49 PM »

Thanks Neil, those are impressive stats indeed, still not superior to the 109K4, but a P-51B/D with 150 octane would be a nice perk plane in AH. Seeing how the P-51H never reached operational status and didn't see combat in WWII I think it is unlikely that HTC will add it to the plane set and with those very impressive performance figures it would have to have a very high perk cost, perhaps as high as the Me262. Still, would be nice to have it.

GScholz · « **Reply #211 on:** November 07, 2003, 05:42:11 PM »

The P-51's excellent cruise range notwithstanding I think it is very unlikely that any P-51 pilot would be comfortable having to cruise home from Berlin with very little reserve fuel. Most of the trip was over hostile territory and the Merlin engine was not fuel economic at higher power settings. Like it was mentioned at 9000 lbs a P-51 with 25lbs boost would use 1/3 of its fuel in 5 minutes (although it seems the P-51 never was cleared for more than 21 or 22 lbs boost?)

Later in the war when forward bases in Europe were used a 9000lbs P-51 is more believable, however still I think they took off with full tanks (minus the fuselage tank) just like any other fighter would, and when at 9000 lbs the P-51 pilots probably would like to go home. However it is likely that in late 44 early 45 combat did take place between "light" P-51s and LW fighters.

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #212 on:** November 08, 2003, 02:37:24 AM »

GScholz, RAF Mustangs fitted with the -7 Merlin were cleared for +25lbs boost (81"hg) and 8th Airforce Mustangs 72"hg.

Pilots Notes for the Mustang IV

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Pilots+notes.jpg

Neil.

GScholz · « **Reply #213 on:** November 08, 2003, 03:27:57 AM »

Ok, so RAF Mustangs were cleared for +25, but not US P-51's. 72" Hg is what in lbs?

Edit: And how much HP did they develop at 81" and 72"?

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #214 on:** November 08, 2003, 04:23:55 PM »

72"hg is about 20.5lbs boost.
The use of +25lbs boost gave 1940 B.H.P at SL M.S and 1810 B.H.P at 12,000ft F.S . Static.

Neil.

Angus · « **Reply #215 on:** November 09, 2003, 01:21:51 PM »

BTW, USAAF P51's did equip as a standard, an elecrically heated suit for the pilot, but the RAF never got around to implement those. To quite some dismay to the poor pilots, cruising up to 6 hours in -40 degrees celcius

GScholz · « **Reply #216 on:** November 09, 2003, 10:37:26 PM »

Ok, lets review this thread and see what we have found out:

First of all we found out that Nomak is delusional, or perhaps has "cannon envy". ;)

The Spit and 109 were both designed as short-range interceptors and evolved throughout the war.

The 109 was liked by its pilots, including the slats and the cockpit. The cannon gondolas on the other hand was not. The slats were especially helpful if the pilot was drunk. ;)

Batz would like to think he could win the war for Germany if he was in charge. ;)

Arlo thinks he has superior second and third hand sources. ;)

The 109 had a 6.5:1 k/d From April 1941 to November 1942.

Nomak and myself love to play "Quote the Aces". ;)

Nomak thinks .50 cals are better weapons against bombers than 30mm cannons. Hmmm ;)

dBeav joins Nomak in being delusional. ;)

Dtango comes forward as a Mustang lover yet believes the 109K4 was superior. Takes guts. :)

I brag about my recent success in the 109G10. *whistles innocently*

F4UDOA bursts into the thread with claims of the "Über Pony". It was soon clear that this was just the first of a series of boisterous post that also would grow in vile with each installment.

Questions raised about how many serviceable aircraft was available to the LW in 1945 ... which is completely inconsequential to the discussion.

Hartmann's last ride in WWII was the 109K4.

A long and heated debate about "light" 9000 lbs Mustangs. My conclusion: at 9000 lbs the Mustang was too light to do anything but cruise home to the UK, however in late 44 and 45 "light" Mustangs were probably fighting the LW.

150 octane fuel was used by the 8th USAAF from about mid 1944, but not by the 9th USAAF.

RAF some if not most Spitfires stationed in the UK used 150 octane fuel, but Spitfires on continental Europe did not use 150 octane fuel until January 1945. So combat between 150 octane Spits and LW fighters were probably a very rare event until 1945.

F4UDOA vehemently protests the 109G10/K4 superiority in climb, and argues that a "light" P-51D using 150 octane fuel would best the 109. He is of course wrong.

Isegrim makes his debut in the thread, and defends the 109 with charts and whatnot. His data later comes under question by Nashwan, MiloMorai and Neil Sterling. Isegrim and Nashwan seems to have some "prior history" ... which in this case is a polite term for blood feud.

The Merlin using 150 octane and +25 lbs boost would generate 1940 HP, but at speed at low alt would generate a shade over 2000 HP due to ramair aiding the blower.

>>> Follow up question: The 109G10 and K4 are rated at 2000 HP using MW50 boost. Would they too gain some HP from the ramair effect?

There is some debate on when the 109K4 was cleared for different boost levels. This issue remains unresolved.

F4UDOA shows lacking knowledge about elementary Newtonian physics presenting his "P-51 out-accelerate 109 theory".

Widewing enters the thread with information on the JG-26 and how they didn't like the 109K4 they had received, and that they preferred the 109G10. He also informs us that the K4's were equipped with cannon gondolas which were disliked by the pilots. He also tells us about the P-51's nasty departure characteristics and quirks. Widewings contributions to this thread were refreshingly objective and most welcome. :)

There is some debate on the 109K4's high alt handling, and if the cannon gondolas were the culprit. This issue remains unresolved.

Isegrim, Widewing and myself clumsily but amusingly work out the weight vs. fuel issues with the P-51, and as a byproduct find out a +25 lbs Merlin has horrible fuel economy.

There is some discussion on the drag coefficient of the 109 vs P-51. Remains unresolved.

Widewing has some problems with pounds and gallons. ;)

Isegrim and Nashwan continue their blood feud with renewed vigor and viciousness.

I reveal I'm a night owl, discussing 60 year old airplanes at 3 o'clock in the morning. ;)

F4UDOA insults me and reveals his bias against the 109 by uttering "The FACT is that the 109 was ***** slapped into history in a big way."

MiloMorai calls Isegrim "Herr Goebbels" and points to old discussions on a different BBS posted by Neil Sterling as proof of Isegrim being untruthful. Isegrim is now being ganged by MiloMorai, Nashwan and Neil Sterling. Not good.

Isegrim argues that the 109's slats would give the 109 an edge in combat against the P-51. This remains a disputed topic.

Hogenbor pops in to say the 109 has gentle departure characteristics while the P-51 does not.

Nomak proclaims he'll take opinions over facts anyday, whatever that means.

I make a "Freudian slip" and DiabloTX takes great pleasure in pointing this out to me. ;)

Dtango and I work out that the P-51H would be a great perk ride, however unlikely it is that it will be included in AH due to it's late appearance in the war.

Dtango agrees with Isegrim in that the 109's slats do make a difference, but argues that the P-51's flaps would even the playing field. He encourages further study, but sadly this is not followed up on. Remains unresolved.

F4UDOA posts an unreadable chart to prove his "400mph 3-hour cruise" claim. I would very much like to read this chart and hope F4UDOA will post the chart in higher resolution. Remains unresolved.

Neil Sterling posts performance figures of the P-51B running 75" HG boost. The figures show the P-51B to be superior to the 109G10 in speed under 10K, but otherwise inferior.

Neil Sterling informs us that only RAF Mustang fitted with the -7 Merlin were cleared for +25 lbs /81" HG and delivered 1940 static HP at sea level. He also says the US P-51's were only cleared for 72" HG / +20.5 lbs boost.

>>> Follow up question: How many RAF Mustangs had the -7 Merlin and were cleared for +25 lbs, and in what role were these Mustangs used? How much HP did the US P-51's develop at +20.5 lbs boost.

Finally Angus pops in to tell us that the RAF pilots were freezing their butts off while the US pilots were warm and comfortable. ;)

Neil Stirling1 · « **Reply #217 on:** November 10, 2003, 03:45:32 AM »

GScholz, do you think it is reasonable to produce a chart that compares the performance of 109K4 using maximum wep and a P51B using Military power? Why do you think one would produce a chart like this?

As of 3 May 45 Fighter Command had 14 squadrons of Merlin Mustangs, unfortunately I don't know how many of theses aircraft had the -7 Merlin.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Mustang.jpg

Neil.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #218 on:** November 10, 2003, 06:05:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
GScholz, do you think it is reasonable to produce a chart that compares the performance of 109K4 using maximum wep and a P51B using Military power? Why do you think one would produce a chart like this?

Neil.

Because in general most of the Mustang III`s had V-1650-3, which appears to only be cleared for 61 Hgmm or apprx. +15 lbs/sq.inch. That`s what my chart shows.

As according to the doc you yourself has posted, Neil. It is a British doc, isn`t it? It is dated the automn of 1944, and the V-1650-3 STILL isn`t cleared for anything higher than 61" mercury.

As since the power output of the V-1650-7 and V-1650-3 at 61" hgmm was very similiar (in fact the V-1650-7 I showed had 1490 HP vs. 1400 of V-1650-3 at 61" Hg), I see no reason why you have a problem with that. It shows the performance of a P-51B with it`s usual engine, and usual boost.

On the other hand, I ask myself why would one only post all the time the performance of P-51B with V-1650-7 at +25 lbs ...

Was the P-51B the major Mustang variant ? No, the P-51D was.
Was the V-1650-7 the major engine model for the P-51 B ? No, it wasn`t. V-1650-3 was.
Was the more common V-1650-3 cleared for 81" Hg ? No, it wasn`t.

So what`s your trouble, Neil ?

The fact that the K-4 was a couple of mph faster than the P-51 ? Is that so hard to swallow, even if there`s no real importance of a few mph better max. level speed in combat ?

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #219 on:** November 10, 2003, 06:23:26 AM »

P-51 D performance figures on 150 grade fuel

Avia 18/732.

AAEE Boscombe Down.
Mustang IV T.K 589 (Packard MerlinV.1650-7)
Posistion error of static vent and brief level speed trials.
July 1944.
Aircraft flown with faired bomb racks.

Speed at 0 ft using 67"hg 354mph
Speed at 10300ft using 67"hg 396mph
Speed at 0ft using 81"hg 379mph
Speed at 4300ft using 81"hg 398mph.

It`s an old post from Neil if he doesn`t mind if I post it.

For reference, K-4`s speed at 0 ft was 377 mph, and at 4300 ft 398 mph.

Basically the same numbers at P-51 D at those altitudes, though one must keep in mind that the K still enjoys speed advantage above 4300 ft because of the power drop in the Packard Merlin`s sawtooth shaped power output. The DB 605 did not have such sudden falldowns in power with it`s supercharger design. To see it better, one would have to see the exact speed curve of TK589.

In summary :

British Mustang IVs, when running on 150 grade fuel, are equal in speed to the K-4 up to 4300 ft, and inferior above due to the superchargers characteristics and inability to keep up high boost.

US Mustang`s were running on considerably lower boost than British ones even when using 150 grade fuel, so their speed performance would be inferior on the whole altitudue range to the K-4. At 72" I would estimate their SL speed as ~366mph, based on TK 589`s performance. This advantage is more marked when speaking about the non-8th AAF Mustangs, which didn`t use 150 grade fuel at all as I believe.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #220 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:48:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Was the P-51B the major Mustang variant ? No, the P-51D was.
Was the V-1650-7 the major engine model for the P-51 B ? No, it wasn`t. V-1650-3 was.
Was the more common V-1650-3 cleared for 81" Hg ? No, it wasn`t.

That statement does not jive with http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51specs.shtml

and http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html

which has 650 B/Cs with the -3 engine and 3738 B/Cs with the -7 engine.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #221 on:** November 10, 2003, 12:14:47 PM »

On the other hand, the numbers you qoute from the internet site does not match up with the numbers provided by Robert Grinsell, which gives 1988 P-51Bs built, out of which only 390 were built with V-1650-7.
Out of 1750 P-51Cs, 1400 were built with V-1650-7. Grinsell`s work gives a detailed block list with the number of planes built with what kind of engines.

In other words, out of 3738 P-51 B/Cs, 1790 were built with V-1650-7 engines, or 47%. Most of them in the final series, which the British probalby got in meaningless numbers. It could be found out easily, if Neil Stirling tells us the US blocks for the P-51s the RAF received. I am sure he has that information.

For comparision, 6502 P-51Ds were built, plus 1500 similiar P-51Ks.

In total, out of 11 740 P-51 B, C, D and K built, there were only 1790 were V-1650-7 engined B and Cs, and only a portition, about every 4th of that were British B and Cs running at higher boost, or 435 planes, if the they received the same porpotion of B/C production w. 1650-7 as their share of the total B and C production.

To me it appears that Neil Stirling would like to present this minority-within-the-minority, ~435 planes ( 3.7% )as the representative of Mustang performance, as opposed to ~ 11 305 planes which had much less of a performance, not being as aerodynamic model, not having as powerful engine, not running on such high boost, not having acess to high octane fuel...

The reason ? Ask Neil, my take is that he is unable to accept the reality as it is.

These numbers and the source were told about half a dozen times to MiMor.

Noteworthy though, that the US docs I have seen, list the V-1650-7 equipped P-51B/C limited to 61" boost.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #222 on:** November 10, 2003, 12:54:20 PM »

Serial numbers of P-51Bs:

43-12093/12492      North American P-51B-1-NA Mustang
            (NA-102) c/n 102024541/24940. 400 aircraft
43-6313/7112       North American P-51B-5-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-22816/23305, 24431/24540, 24941/25140.
            800 aircraft
43-7113/7202       North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25141/25230. 90 aircraft
42-106429/106540      North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25231/25342. 112 aircraft
42-106541/106738      North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25343/25540. 198 aircraft
42-106739/106978      North American P-51B-15-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25541/25780. 240 aircraft
43-24752/24901      North American P-51B-15-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25781/25930. 150 aircraft

   total of 1990 P-51Bs

Serial numbers of P-51Cs:

42-102979/103328      North American P-51C-1-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-22416/22765. 350 aircraft
42-103329/103778      North American P-51C-5-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-22766/22815, 103-25933/26332. 450 aircraft
42-103779/103978      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-26333/26532. 200 aircraft
43-24902/25251      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-26533/26882. 350 aircraft
44-10753/10782      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28886/28915. 30 aircraft
44-10783/10817      North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28916/28950. 35 aircraft
44-10818/10852      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28951/28985. 35 aircraft
44-10853/10858      North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28986/28991. 6 aircraft
44-10859/11036       North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28992/29169. 178 aircraft
44-11037/11122       North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-29170/29255. 86 aircraft
44-11123/11152       North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-29256/29285. 30 aircraft

   total of 1750 aircraft

Serials of the P-51D:

         Inglewood-built P-51Ds

44-13253/14052       North American P-51D-5-NA Mustang
            c/n 109-26886/27685. 800 aircraft
44-14053/14852       North American P-51D-10-NA Mustang
            c/n 109-27686/28485. 800 aircraft.
44-14853/15752       North American P-51D-15-NA Mustang
            c/n 109-28486/28885, 35536/36035. 900 aircraft
44-63160/64159       North American P-51D-20-NA Mustang
            c/n 122-30806/31885. 1000 aircraft
44-72027/72626       North American P-51D-20-NA Mustang
            c/n 122-31886/31985,38586/39085. 600 aircraft.
44-72627/74226       North American P-51D-25-NA Mustang
            c/n 122-39086/40085,40167/40766. 1600 aicrcraft
44-74227/75026       North American P-51D-30-NA Mustang
            c/n 122-40767/41566. 800 aircraft.

         Dallas-built P-51Ds

44-11153/11352      North American P-51D-5-NT Mustang
            c/n 111-29286/29485. 200 aircraft
44-12853/13252       North American P-51D-20-NT Mustang
            c/n 111-36136/36535. 400 aircraft
44-84390/84989       North American P-51D-25-NT Mustang
            c/n 124-44246/44845. 600 aircraft.
45-11343/11542       North American P-51D-25-NT Mustang
            c/n 124-48096/48295. 200 aircraft.
45-11543/11742       North American P-51D-30-NT Mustang
            c/n 124-48296/48495. 200 aircraft.

   total of 8100 P-51Ds/

Serials of the P-51K:

44-11353/11552      North American P-51K-1-NT Mustang
            c/n 111-29486/29685. 200 aircraft
44-11553/11952      North American P-51K-5-NT Mustang
            c/n 111-29686/30085. 400 aircraft
44-11953/12552      North American P-51K-10-NT Mustang
            c/n 111-30086/30685. 600 aircraft
44-12553/12852      North American P-51K-15-NT Mustang
            c/n 111-30686/30885, 111-36036/36135. 300 aircraft

   total of 1500 P-51Ks.

When you get the knot out of your knickers Ise, fill in the engine designations used in the above list of serial numbers.

Notice Dallas built 1600 Ds which you left out of your total D/K production numbers.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #223 on:** November 10, 2003, 02:44:54 PM »

Gsholz,

If you are insulted you should be.

1. I didn't say a P-51D will out accelerating or climb a 109K-4/G10. My point is that at a reasonable fighting weight the advantage of the 109 is reduced to being moot. When your inside of combat range low speed accleration/climb will not save you unless the differance is vast. And that is without 150 octane fuel.

What I did and will repeat is that differance is not so large when the P-51 is fighting at it's design weight. If you read an actual document instead of the comic books will Colonel Klink on the cover you will find things like "Empty weight, Design weight and max loaded weight". That design weight is at about 9300LBS in the P-51 and you have an agile fighter.

2. You or Isegrem have yet to produce one viable document on the K-4 or G10 showing performance. Specifically roll rate which you claim is good despite having shown to be poor in multiple AFDU test against various aircraft.

3. I am a F4U proponent. I would much rather post F4U data which I prefer to the pony as I prefer the 190 to the 109.

4. If you can't read the column where it shows 80 GPH at 403MPH at 30,000FT you are either hard of sight or in denial. The column is difficult to read but not impossible.

Challenge

Give me a senario at what altitude where a P-51D and 109K-4 Dogfight at any altitude how the 109 wins? The only possible altitude where the 109 could have an advantage is at sea level because the Pony could not dive away if it lost the advantage. And at sea level the P-51D can turn well inside the 109.

By 1944 it (the 109) was already obsolete due to an airframe that did not allow for major modifications. It had no range, load carrying capability and had very limited maneuverability at speed.

GODO · « **Reply #224 on:** November 10, 2003, 03:20:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
By 1944 it (the 109) was already obsolete due to an airframe that did not allow for major modifications. It had no range, load carrying capability and had very limited maneuverability at speed.

By 1944 and 45 it was an optimal interceptor, and, due its great acceleration, top speed and climbing performance, it was also a great cover fighter for other buff destroyers like 190A8s. Dont forget that the main role was to destroy bombers and to protect the tail of other bomber killers, not to engange in dogfights with the scorts.

About a 1 vs 1 coalt and co-E engangement, I agree with you, in most cases from medium to hi alts, any P51 (D or B) will be able to flee from a 109K, but to flee away is not to win. In any slow turning battle, P51 combat flaps will be of no help at all against a chandelling or spiralling up 109.