109 it fly wrong

[Angus]

Somewhere on my HD I have a very good tale of Hartmann outfighting a P51 1 vs 1.
Rall also warmed up some US planes in dogfights...
Crumpp, you seem to be overly aware of the fact that some of us here don't have English as a 1st language, however I will have to debate you on the word "obsolete" in the term you defined it.
"If the pilots are equal and the performance of their equipment is not, then the equipment is obsolete. "
You should rather use "inferior", or "less suited to the task" IMHO. And then you hit another fact. Performance.
In 1945 the 109 was being used as a quick interceptor, thus modified for the role. In the design of an aircraft, one has to bear in mind that there is no free lunch (as J.Quill put it), - developing an aircraft into one direction will never be without sacrifice. Some US planes have some way to go in terms of say, low speed maneuverability, or performance at some altitude bands, and the 109 was not perfect either. But at what it was applied for late in WW2, it did pretty good. Fast-climbing relatively nimble interceptor, and as such, even in 1945, it was excellent. Find anything that can outsport the 109K in getting it and its armament to 20K in 4.5 minutes. Well, nothing, except perhaps the current Spitfire. Find anything with as easy and simple maintenance as the 109 in WW2, - well, I guess nothing (but this is not very much discussed)
Anyway, the 109 was in my definition not obsolete at the end of WW2. It wasn't the king any more, but not obsolete.
The Hurricane was obsolete. the F4F was. The P-40 was, and so was the I-16. But IMHO the 109 was NOT.
P.S. I don't think I can be described as a 109 fan, - ask Barbi

[Angus]

Ahh, about the range thingie.
The 109 always had short legs, on internal.
Haggling about range with DT's is just silly, - once in combat they would have to be dropped.
The only true single engined long ranged fighter of WW2 was the P51, only comparable with PR planes and late-late Spitties.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Some of you are pretty dense.  No where in my definition of Obsolete MiloMoran does it say anything about the plane not having some success.  In fact I point out in a target rich enviroment such as the Luftwaffe struggled on in 1944 it would not be amazing for an expert pilot to rack up kills.

Let me reword it for you without the "big words" you didn't look up so It's easier to understand:

If the pilots are equal and the performance of their equipment is not, then the equipment is obsolete.  

It's a tough concept to wrap your mind around, especially when there are many different parameters in measuring plane performance that can be critical in a fight.

Especially if they followed Hartmanns techniques and avoided DOGFIGHTING and stuck to See, decide, attack, coffe break, style he perfected.  Hartmann felt that mixing it up was stupid and strived to "ambush" his victims.  It's well documented.  Do a little research and you will see it.

Crumpp

   

Well I see, as other are saying, that the Crumpite has reading problems and is an prettythanghat.  Where in my post do you see your name. I was quoting Virage. At least some of have some matter between the ears which you are lacking. So sweet little Crumpite, would like to see an apoligy for your uncalled for words.

[Angus]

OIII
come on guys....cool it a little

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
Ahh, about the range thingie.
The 109 always had short legs, on internal.
Haggling about range with DT's is just silly, - once in combat they would have to be dropped.
The only true single engined long ranged fighter of WW2 was the P51, only comparable with PR planes and late-late Spitties.

Recalling from memory of the G-2/trop papers Neil kindly provided, IIRC on internal 400 liter tank the range was something like 700 miles or so. High altitude versions would develop higher speeds at higher altitudes with similiar or less fuel consumped, so I guess there could be even a marked increase in range with them in 1944. 109K also introduced a DP rear tank, which could be used as a extra fuel tank for 25% more internal capacity, if needed (MW50 could not be carried though).
IMHO, thats more than enough for any purpose this plane was used, including escorting the German medium bombers over Russia etc. It was enough to fight rather deep in enemy territory and then return, after the DT was droppen when engaging the enemy, or cruise over Germany for hours to build up a formation, plan the attack until the enemy bombers arrived. Not the longest ranged, but good enough to fullfill any task the LW would face.

As for late Spitties, the range remained very much like 450-460 miles on internal, and roughly 1000 miles w the 90 gallon droptank. Increasing internal fuel only managed to satisfy the growings thirst of Merlins and Griffons. The PR Spits were really long range, with much increased internal capacity and loaded to the maximum w. extra droptanks, but they were kind of special, unarmed breed, not fighters. The Spitty remained very much the same thing as it was developed for, at least the versions during the war, a short ranged defender of the air over the British Isles and their direct vicinity, much more a 'pure' interceptor than the Bf 109 which had to fill muliple tasks on 3 rather different fronts.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Angus
OIII
come on guys....cool it a little

Angus, I be kewl. Crumpite just gave me a good chuckle to go with my morning coffee and it is a beautiful day out there. Think I will not work today and go for couple hundred mile, or so, mc ride.


Barbi, during the last year of the war, Germany was a battle zone. Any a/c cruising along at a speed to conserve fuel would be a sitting duck. Just like the Spit did with the 190, a high speed would be used to give some safety. This uses more fuel.

The Spit had to fly in different fronts. ETO, MTO, CBI, SWP, and at sea from carriers. Rather diverse theatres.

[Angus]

Spit 24: roughly 1400 miles
Spit XVIII: the same, however not a popular model
Spit IX mods, both English and US: To Berlin and back at rather high speed under 1000 ft, and over the Atlantic over Greenland and Iceland.
I recall some more data, just can't find it in a hurry

[gripen]

Hm... well, I'm pretty sure that the germans would have been a lot happier with a type which could have carried at least three cannons and fuel for 2h (at practical power setting for climb and fight at say 30k) without sacrificing performance, maneuverability and tactical freedom (as in the case of the Bf 109 with wing cannons and  extra fuel).

But this has been discused here several times, no consensus so far....

gripen

[Crumpp]

MiloMorai,

Sorry bout that.  I skimmed through your post and misunderstood it.  Please accept my apology.


As to the DB-605D with GM-1.  It's clearly marked on an RLM test flight graph.  I'll post it if I can when I get to the house.

Crumpp

[GScholz]

Crumpp, believe what you will. It doesn't matter one bit.

>>>

Guys, please don't turn this into another 109 vs. Spit thread. Both were great fighters in their own way.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by HoHun
Me 109G-10 performance:

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

P-51D performance:

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

As you can see, below 25000 ft the Me 109G-10 is considerably superior to the P-51D. Above 25000 ft, the Me 109G-10 holds the climb advantage and the P-51D the speed advantage.

The charts I posted earlier are HTC's too, I just superimposed them on one another for easy comparison (I have done this on most planes vs. my favourite planes as a reference in fights). As you can see the 109G10 holds the speed advantage at any altitude except at SL where the P-51D is slightly faster. Above 25k the 109's speed advantage is marginal however.

[Angus]

P51B/C is faster than the D.
A 109 G10 would not be the typical opponent, rather the 109G6.
I'd take the Mustang.
None the less, the 109 in tha co-P51 situation is absolutely not obsolete.....

[GScholz]

"Our" G6 is a 1943 model. A 1944 model G6 would have better performance, and would match up pretty well to a Mustang. The P-51B/C is indeed faster than the D, however only very high up close to 30k and beyond. At low-med altitude the B/C is slower than the D. The D is also the better climber at all altitudes, so the B/C would be even more at a disadvantage in the vertical against a 109.

However this is all relative ... it all comes down to the pilot and luck.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
MiloMorai,

Sorry bout that.  I skimmed through your post and misunderstood it.  Please accept my apology.

Crumpp

All's well that ends well, so NP. accepted

[GODO]

All these comparatives about top speeds and who is faster than who are worthless. Acceleration/E retention can dictate a dogfight, top speed cant. And before getting into a "who turns better than who" battle, take into cosideration that hurricanes outturn easily any gustav, but any gustav will eat alive any hurricane. IMO, turning, as top speed are both secondary factors. Based on acceleration and climbing, 109 was certainly a killer for any 1 vs 1 encounter at most alts, I wouldnt consider that an outclassed fighter.