I met p51 ace Bob Goebel

[Anaxogoras]

I've been researching/reading about WWII flyboys and I've come to the conclusion that the Germans were better pilots.  Mostly because they were required to fly quite a few more mission than their American counter parts. There is no replacement for experiance.

Quite a few more missions means: until you are dead.

[BnZ]

What's his name (Mark Hanna?) has flown the P-51D and the 109G and says the latter is more maneuverable.  P-51D pilots in WW2 ETO were well trained and up against n00b opposition for the most part.

Without knowing the speeds, altitudes, configurations, weights, maneuvers, power settings, etc, of such mock dogfighting, it is difficult to say how useful such information is. One would think for safety's sake with old and rare warbirds, they wouldn't be running wide-open or doing high-G maneuvers at speeds beyond Vma.

Which is not to say I think the P-51D can make a smaller mininum turning radius than the 109 G6, physics tell me it probably can't, unless there is some factor we are overlooking.  A moderate differance here doesn't nessecarily decide dogfights though. I wasn't comparing the P-51 to 109s anyway, I was comparing them to Jugs, a plane with higher wing-loading and worse power-loading than the Mustang, that was acknowledged to be turn less tightly than the Pony. A Pony that turns somewhat better than the Jugs do in AHII right now, would be very, very deadly IMHO.

[BnZ]

 i thought i hd read somewhere that the pony was not originally intended as a dogfighter? actually, i thought i had read that about the pony, thunderbolt, lightning.....all of the "P" planes basicly. the "F" planes, such as the f4f, f6f, f4u, etc were intended as dogfighters.

am i right?

Uh, no I don't think so. Remember, the Navy planes were bnz/e-fighters vrs. their Japanese opposition themselves. If anything, a P-51 had a much better chance in a Luftberry with a 109 than a Corsair had with a Zero. Remember that most war planes in history have NOT been designed with turn radius in mind, or at least it was a lower priority than other things. Because the higher-ups have repeatedly pronounced dogfighting obselete...*shrug*.

The reason USN planes tend to have a turning advantage over USAAF planes is  that they had to land on a carrier, and this makes a lower stall speed nessecary, even at the cost of top speed, climb, range, etc. And because we all like to engage in t'n'b 1v1s in flight sims, indeed, this is the most intuitive strategy for a simmer, it can give the illusion that USN planes are much superior to their USAAF or Luftwaffe counterparts.

[Hajo]

If I remember the quote correctly by Robt. Johnson on the P51 and it's Pilots.

Of course the 51 did well!  The Jug Pilots shot down the Good LW Pilots before they got here!

In 1944 germany was putting out its' highest numbers of the war in fighter Aircraft.  Unfortunately their Pilots

were chiefly inexperienced and trained poorly. They had more fighters then qualified Pilots to fly them.

So there is truth to Mister Johnsons statement.  Only he forgot the P38 Pilots and the RAF Pilots.

P51s' were late comers to the war.  P51 is still considered widely as the best fighter of all time.
P47 is considered widely as the best fighter bomber of all time.  Methinks on both accounts it was their Pilots
that gave them both a great reputation as well as the Manufacturers of both aircraft.