Super vrs Uber

[humble]

Originally posted by OttoJ
Complete humbug. The P-51 was a purpose designed and dedicated escort fighter. Its armament and climb rate made it a poor interceptor, and the placement of its radiator and fuel tanks made it unsuited for ground attack. In the fighter-bomber role the Fw190G series was eminently more effective with some specialized versions even having longer range than the P-51.

Obviously you are somewhat uneducated on the realities as indicated by all your posts here. The pony was easily the best production design of WW2 (since the F7F was never put in service). The P51-D was a very capable interceptor (superior to any 109 flavor)....more importantly it had the ability to project that capability. What made the pony so special wasnt just its raw capabilities...but the fact that it could project that capabilitiy over Berlin. IMO the 190 was a far far superior airframe to the 109 however it had a combat range of ~600km and had nowhere near the performance envelope of the P-51 (or P-38/P-47)...hence the need for so many specialized versions. A total of 800 or so G models were produced. Range could only be extended via drop tanks which reduced bombload. Even with the ETC-503 "bomb rack" the plane didnt have the range and payload a P51-D had. The G was a build out of the 190A8 so it had the same poor performance that forced development of the D-9 and Ta-152....in fact all german planes had to be modified from 1944 on do due there marked inferiority in some aspect of performance. Meanwhile the USAAF had the luxury of swapping out 38's for jugs for P51's and could utilize all planes in any role as needed without the need for any modifications.

[Bruno]

Bring something to the table to make an argument please.

My argument is well established, you are ignorant even on a basic level when comes to the 109 series .You have yet to provide one thing that contradicts that opinion. Not I only have I shown that but others have as well. I am no 'experte' myself but Hohun and Kurfurst can provide you with anything you need.

[straffo]

But the G6 is pretty not fit for operating from a CV

What about stoping comparing apple && oranges ?
Not only you Bruno.

[OttoJ]

Originally posted by humble
Obviously you are somewhat uneducated on the realities as indicated by all your posts here. The pony was easily the best production design of WW2 (since the F7F was never put in service). The P51-D was a very capable interceptor (superior to any 109 flavor)....more importantly it had the ability to project that capability. What made the pony so special wasnt just its raw capabilities...but the fact that it could project that capabilitiy over Berlin. IMO the 190 was a far far superior airframe to the 109 however it had a combat range of ~600km and had nowhere near the performance envelope of the P-51 (or P-38/P-47)...hence the need for so many specialized versions. A total of 800 or so G models were produced. Range could only be extended via drop tanks which reduced bombload. Even with the ETC-503 "bomb rack" the plane didnt have the range and payload a P51-D had. The G was a build out of the 190A8 so it had the same poor performance that forced development of the D-9 and Ta-152....in fact all german planes had to be modified from 1944 on do due there marked inferiority in some aspect of performance. Meanwhile the USAAF had the luxury of swapping out 38's for jugs for P51's and could utilize all planes in any role as needed without the need for any modifications.

It is rare for someone to be so completely wrong in every aspect of a post. Congratulations. There is not one correct assertion in your entire post. It is common practice to present some form of documentation that support your argument, like I and others in this thread have done. Can you back up anything of what you've said? No of course not, because it's all BS. Why do you even bother posting?

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift.

I guess you're not aware of the "Zulässige Geschwindigkeit in Abhängigkeit vom Klappenausschlag" graph for the Emil? 10° flaps are possible up to 780 km/h, 20° up to 470, 30° up to 350 and 40° up to 290 km/h.

>Almost all fighters in WW2 had Clmax's of between 1.3 and 1.6 with no flaps and engine power off.

Does that mean you used neither the historical F4U Clmax nor the historical Me 109 Clmax for your comparison?

Anyway, if you have to drain your tanks and sacrifice your operational advantage to get an advantage over the (relatively) poorest performing of all Me 109s, rumours of the Messerschmitt's obsolescence have been wildly exaggerated :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Debonair,

>Thought you might be interested in a slightly more accurate version of the history of the P-80 in Europe, which I guess you'd never seen.  

Actually, what I'd like to see is how you verified the "accuracy" of Baugher's research :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Charon]

Anyway, if you have to drain your tanks and sacrifice your operational advantage to get an advantage over the (relatively) poorest performing of all Me 109s, rumours of the Messerschmitt's obsolescence have been wildly exaggerated :-)

But then, what did a 109 have to do to carry 2,000 lbs. of bombs, 2,350 rounds of .50 ammo, 273 gallons of fuel and eight 55 lb. HVAR rockets? Or 3,000 lbs. of bombs with full fuel and ammo (and anecdotally much more from land bases over short distances)?

Or fly in an A2A role with a range of 1,000 miles (internal) or 1,500 miles (maximum)?

And do all that while operating from a carrier with the required folding wings and carrier gear?

This is just the F4U1d series. I don’t think the F4U-4 had to make too many compromises to get pure 1945 quality A2A performance.

The 109 was clearly more than competitive as a point defense interceptor against other fighters or medium bombers, and as a short-ranged tactical fighter. For countries where multi-mission capability was not essential, it was certainly not obsolete

Charon

[OttoJ]

Yes the F4U was a better bomber than the 109, and that's hardly a positive trait for a fighter comparison.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Debonair
I've never read about that anywhere.
P-51 & F4U I've heard of in lesser airforces in that era, but not the Lightning.  Would greatly appreciate a link to that info if you have one.  
I think A-26s may have been active for quite some time also, it was in Vietnam also, wasn't it?.  I know there is at least one A-26 is still flying around converted to a private plane (sort of an early bizjet conversion was done to some A-26s in the 50s or 60s.  It was apparently considered a great plane for cocaine smuggling also, another job the 109 never did)

The Honduran Air Force flew P-38s.  It was their first high performance fighter, which they later complimented with the F4U and P-51.  IIRC, all three took part in the "Soccer War" of 1969 against El Salvador.


ack-ack

[OttoJ]

Who won?

[MiloMorai]

Not to say there wasn't any P-38s, P-51s but there is none listed below.

Honduras

- F4U-5N: 601/124724 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 602/124560 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 603/124447 (damaged in rough landing on 13 February 1968, used as decoy at Tegucigalpa during the war)
- F4U-5N/P: 604/123168 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N/P: 605/122184 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 606/124486 “El Guajiro” (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 607/124692 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 608/124493 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 609/124715 (mid-nite blue overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green)
- F4U-4: 610/93788 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 611/93782 (operational in 1969; crashed in 1974)
- F4U-4: 612/92688 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 614/96995 (non-standard camouflage in - what was apparently – mid-grey overall, with black anti-glare panel and standard national markings)
- F4U-4: 615/97280 (seen at Toncontin in 1969, mid-nite blue overall, with white checkerboard over the engine cowling; damaged the FAS C-47 “FAS-101”, on 15 July)
- F4U-4: 616/97320 (under repair during the war, used as decoy at San Pedro Saula)
- F4U-4: 617/97059 (look unknown, but known to have been active during the war: interned in Guatemala after running out of fuel during combat sortie over El Salvador, on 15 July 1969; crashed in 1977)
- F4U-4: 618/96885 (operational in 1969)
- SNJ-4: FAH-202
- SNJ-4: FAH-205
- T-6G: FAH-206
- T-6G: FAH-208
- T-6G: FAH-211
- T-28A: (5)0-272/FAH-212 (COIN-grey overall, engine cowling in yellow)
- T-28A: (5)0-267/FAH-213 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-293(?)/FAH-214 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-234/FAH-215
- T-28A: (5)0-???/FAH-216
- C-47: FAH-301
- C-47: FAH-302
- C-47: FAH-304
- C-47: FAH-305
- C-47: FAH-306
- C-47: FAH-307

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by OttoJ
The vast majority of the Red Airforce was destroyed on the ground, and the Luftwaffe did not count those as kills. In our western culture both movies and history books have focused more on the western front of the air war. The biggest air war was fought in the east however, so it is natural that the Russian Front aces had more kills. Russian pilots also accumulated more kills than their western counterparts and the leading allied ace of WWII is a Russian. After all the real war was fought in the east.


Just for clarification here's a list of the 50+ kills Luftwaffe aces of the western front. First number is rank, second number (immediately behind the pilot's name) is kills over western/southern Europe and Africa, third number is kills over the eastern front, the fourth and final number is the kill total for all fronts.

 

IIRC, only a small few, like 5-6 pilots (if that) scored +100 kills against the Western Allies.  The majority of the aces in the LW padded their scores against the Soviets during the early part of the Eastern Front war, where superior LW equipment and training over came the outdated and poorly trained Soviet air force, who's main fighter at the onset of the Eastern war flew the I-16.  It wasn't until late '42 and early '43 that the Soviets were able to make gains against the LW.


ack-ack

[HoHun]

Hi Charon,

>The 109 was clearly more than competitive as a point defense interceptor against other fighters or medium bombers, and as a short-ranged tactical fighter. For countries where multi-mission capability was not essential, it was certainly not obsolete

I, too, said "Buy the F4U" :-)

The Me 109 was limited in its roles, just like the Spitfire. However, it's traditionally seen much more critically than the Spitfire - just look at this thread :-) In my opinion, the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt could have switched sides in WW2, and it would have changed nothing at all.

The Spuckfeuer would have failed to achieve air superiority in the Battle of Britain just the same, as the Knife-Smith would have stepped aside to let the USAAF fighters do the long-range work, too.

(The Messerschmitt was designed as a pure air superiority fighter. That it didn't carry a heavy load and couldn't perform long range work is not really a function of the age of the design, but rather a result of the original specification. So "obsolete" is not the correct term for this capability disadvantage - just to rule out definition-fueled disagreements :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[OttoJ]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
IIRC, only a small few, like 5-6 pilots (if that) scored +100 kills against the Western Allies.  The majority of the aces in the LW padded their scores against the Soviets during the early part of the Eastern Front war, where superior LW equipment and training over came the outdated and poorly trained Soviet air force, who's main fighter at the onset of the Eastern war flew the I-16.  It wasn't until late '42 and early '43 that the Soviets were able to make gains against the LW.


ack-ack

You didn't read the whole thread did you? I listed all the western front aces with more than 50 kills on page 3. Also I posted how Erich Hartmann didn't start flying until October 1942.

You really should read the whole thread before commenting. Saves us a lot of bullchit.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
IIRC, only a small few, like 5-6 pilots (if that) scored +100 kills against the Western Allies.

Actually, they were 8  http://luftwaffe.cz/western.html

The majority of the aces in the LW padded their scores against the Soviets during the early part of the Eastern Front war, where superior LW equipment and training over came the outdated and poorly trained Soviet air force, who's main fighter at the onset of the Eastern war flew the I-16.  It wasn't until late '42 and early '43 that the Soviets were able to make gains against the LW.
 

Quite wrong... lets' see:

Hartmann first victory: November 1942

Barkhorn: 198 post/43 victories

Rall: most of his victories are post/1943

Kittel: 243 post/1943 victories

Nowotny: 159 post/1943 victories

Batz: first victory march 1943. (total 237)