Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ike 2K# on October 30, 2003, 09:02:58 PM
-
what was 109's K/D ratio from Spanish civil war to the end of WWII
-
are we supposed to guess the answer or do you not know and want to know?
id say it was low, in fact very low as the war went on and the 109 was outnumbered almost always. the vets lived on all 22-300 of em but thousands of noobs fought and died with few kills.
even most vets that survived with 200 kill streaks had only a 8 to 1 k/d with all the bailouts they did.
so I would guess the 109 kill ratio was around 4 to 1 maybe less.
they had more stuff to shoot at before they got shot down but shot down they got.
-
I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters.
I cant imagine it did very well in '44 '45
I seriously doubt it carried a 4 to 1. Probably far worse IMO
-
That's completely wrong nomak the 109g6/as the 109g10 and and k4 were all better then the d9 at altitiude.
The 109 wasnt some joke plane that the lw just kept using for no reason.
-
Hi Nomak,
>I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters.
Well, that's an often repeated statement :-)
However, don't underestimate the Me 109K-4 - it outpaced the Mustang below 20000 ft, it outclimbed the Mustang at all altitudes, and it was armed with a 30 mm cannon that could tear a Mustang into pieces with one or two hits.
I'd agree that the Mustang was the better overall fighter, but the Me 109 remained a dangerous opponent right to the end.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I will admit that was a statement that I do not have facts to back up.
I will also admit that Wotan knows alot more about LW stuff than I do.
I have alot of respect for the 109 series. I didnt mean to sound like I dont.
However.... The 109 goes all the way back before the Spanish civil war. In my opinion by 1945 it was an outdated aircraft. Even though it did continue in service into the 60s.
The 109 could from what I know never match the firepower of the FW series. I know this is debateable but some would argue that the 109 could not match the FWs handling either. I mean really.......overall wasnt the FW a superior aircraft? Everything I have read or seen on TV (WWII Documentarys) says they were.
As for allied aircraft, the Mustang was an incredable aircraft in every aspect. There is no arguing that. So comparing a 109 to a Merlin powerd Mustang is not realistic in my opinion.
-
Sorry Nomak I didn’t mean to be so short.
There’s no doubt that the 109 had its shortcomings but it never was as bad as some would say. In the west the LW tactics were all geared toward dealing with the allied bomber threat. Which for the most part was a failed strategy.
The LW took a massive beating and many of their experten were lost. But even so the 109 was a fine aircraft and preferred by many over the 190.
Which was the better aircraft? There’s no answer to that. The 190 was more new guy friendly. But an expert in a 109 was just as capable as an expert in any plane. Unfortunately many of those experten were killed and due to necessity newer pilots were rushed into combat without long training periods.
Units like JG53, JG52 and JG27 stayed in 109s through out the war.
-
In my opinion by 1945 it was an outdated aircraft.
This is a commonly held opinion. Yet the spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war.
-
It seems to me the spitfire airframe underwent a lot more development as time passed compared to what happened with the 109. The airframe of a late model Spit bears a resemblance to a Spit I airframe, but it isn't really that close. On the other hand, a 109K airframe seems pretty close to a 109F airframe, except for the addition of the much more powerful engine. This lack of airframe advancement is probably why late model 109s are capable of entering compression at the top end of their level flight speed. I suppose Willy was too busy working on designs for the 410, 262 etc… etc… to give the 109 upgrades the attention they deserved.
To address the original question: Losing wars catastrophically is very bad for k/d ratios. Almost all of the 35,000 109s made were destroyed so their k/d ratio is undoubtably horrible.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Batz
Sorry Nomak I didn’t mean to be so short.
.
No problem at all Wotan.....my statements were a little brash and perhaps unfounded. ;)
-
Originally posted by Virage
This is a commonly held opinion. Yet the spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war.
I dont think the Spitfire had as many issues with the basic airframe design as the 109 did to begin with. Giving the Spitfire a better foundation to upgrade with.
-
Hi Nomak,
>However.... The 109 goes all the way back before the Spanish civil war. In my opinion by 1945 it was an outdated aircraft.
Age doesn't make it outdated, lack of performance would - but as I pointed out above, it didn't lack performance.
>The 109 could from what I know never match the firepower of the FW series.
Neither could the Mustang :-) Was the Mustang outdated in 1945? No way!
>I mean really.......overall wasnt the FW a superior aircraft? Everything I have read or seen on TV (WWII Documentarys) says they were.
Don't believe everything you read (not to mention TV :-) The Focke-Wulf didn't have the altitude performance of the Me 109, not even the D-9. They were different aircraft, and the Me 109 held important strengths, too.
>So comparing a 109 to a Merlin powerd Mustang is not realistic in my opinion.
Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D. That's reality :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Hooligan,
>It seems to me the spitfire airframe underwent a lot more development as time passed compared to what happened with the 109.
Actually, the opposite is true. New Spitfire versions were created by mounting a new engine on the original aircframe, with few changes (usually just an increase of the radiator size).
The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section.
So in 1945, the Me 109 had a much more modern airframe than the Spitfire, yet noone considered the Spitfire outdated (at least, not more than any other propeller fighter).
>This lack of airframe advancement is probably why late model 109s are capable of entering compression at the top end of their level flight speed.
Utter nonsense (or you greatly overstimate the Me 109's level speed :-) The Me 109 could dive to Mach 0.79, about the same as the Fw 190 and the P-51, and considerably better than the P-47 and the P-38.
>To address the original question: Losing wars catastrophically is very bad for k/d ratios. Almost all of the 35,000 109s made were destroyed so their k/d ratio is undoubtably horrible.
According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1. That's not bad at all considering the catastrophic finale.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D. That's reality :-)
I'm not so sure about that. According to Butch2k, the 109 wasn't cleared for 1.8ata until Feb 45, and 1.98 until March. In the meantime, most 8th AF and British Mustangs were running on 150 octane fuel, with boost up to 25lbs, and close to 2000hp (the 8th AF used a slightly lower boost, iirc), and had been since summer 44.
-
Hi Nashwan,
>I'm not so sure about that.
Nomak wrote:
"I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters."
So the comparison really should be with the Me 109K-4 at the peak of its development. OK, with 100/150 fuel the P-51D got faster, too, but with its heavier weight, the climb rate advantage still remains with the Messerschmitt.
The Me 109 hardly was "totally outclassed" if things are as close-run as this :-)
And your post brings up a very good point: The engines were much more decisive in the question whether an aircraft remained competitive or not.
The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws, and it still could mount the best fighter engines the Luftwaffe had available. Did it have weaknesses? Certainly! Was it obsolete? Not a bit! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws
Henning (HoHun)
Are you serious? How about severe compression problems?
How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?
How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?
-
The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
Nuf said.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D. That's reality :-)
(HoHun)
Are you really saying that a 109k is a better aircraft than a Mustang? :lol
-
Originally posted by Nomak
Are you serious? How about severe compression problems?
How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?
How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?
This is pure nonsense. I can't imagine the slats killing anyone, and 5% of the 109's were lost in TO/landing accidents not 50%.
-
The 109 was a better interceptor than the P-51. The P-51 was designed as a long-range escort fighter, and many compromises were made to achieve this.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
Nuf said.
US fighters schreaded the LW and 109s over Europe. Shooting down far more aircraft than they lost.
This type of stat can be very misleading because the LW scored the majority of these victories early on the Eastern front against the soviet air force that had little to no experence.
Also the LW pilots kept flying sorties until the war was over or they were killed. So of course thier aces would rack up some staggering numbers.
-
Never the less it proves that the 109 was an able fighter. If the 190 was much better the 190 aces would be on top.
109G10 vs. P-51D the 109 holds almost all the cards. The 109 is faster at all altitudes over 10k, climbs much better, accelerates much better, only in a slow turnfight would the P-51 have an advantage due to its combat flaps, but if it comes to that the P-51 has already lost.
The 109 got shredded by the P-51's because it was drastically outnumbered in every fight and flown by mostly green pilots at the end of the war
-
Hi Nomak,
>Are you serious? How about severe compression problems?
What severe compression problems? The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests.
(Slightly modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing.)
>How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?
The auto-deployment of the slats was subject to extensive testing prior to WW2, and was found to be beneficial in all situations. In fact, the Me 109 had been designed with the slats locking down upon retraction of the flaps, but this mechanism was removed because the tests showed that it was much better to have the slats operating freely.
(In case you're not aware of it, but that's how the slats on the F-86, A-4 and F-4 worked too, to name just a few examples.)
>How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?
"Fact"? If it's a fact, please provide the proof! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Nomak,
>>Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D.
>Are you really saying that a 109k is a better aircraft than a Mustang? :lol
What I said is
"Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D."
I also said:
"I'd agree that the Mustang was the better overall fighter, but the Me 109 remained a dangerous opponent right to the end."
If you're unwilling to read what I write, the polite thing to do is not to answer my posts at all. If you insist on answering my posts - please read them before you do.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4........
Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.
The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable
While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production
-
(http://www.bf109.com/images/stigler4.jpg)
On 20/01/01, Markus and Ryan Muntener met Franz Stigler and had the chance to ask a variety of questions, many of which addressed hotly-debated topics regarding the 109, and the general misconceptions that people have.
Excerpts:
Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would lose them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 losing its' wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12G's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9G's there was never a problem. He was never worried about losing a wing in any form of combat.
Did you fly the 109 with the wing-mounted guns?
Yes he had, but almost everyone he new got the guns removed (including himself). The 109 handled much worse at low speeds with the guns on the wings, but climb was similar. It only really added some weight to the aircraft.
What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive.
Did pilots like the slats on the wings or the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in a dogfight, along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling....this was also useful when you were drunk!
How did the cockpit feel in the 109?
The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.
Were the guns on the bombers dangerous or worrisome to pilots?
Yes and no (as he points to his head where you can see an indent). If you have 28 bombers with 10 guns each, all pointing and shooting at you they could be very dangerous. He has an indent in the upper part of his forehead from a .5 cal bullet that had smashed through the thick armoured glass in his 109 cockpit. The bullet had lost enough speed by this time that it had only "stuck" into his head. He said he almost never returned home from a bomber attack without bullet holes somewhere on his aircraft.
EDIT: Note that 750 km/h is 468 mph.
-
Hi Nomak,
>The Best of the Breed by Col. "Kit" Carson
Carson is about the most biased author you can find.
Quotes from his article you didn't provide:
"I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.
Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further. [...]"
(It follows a lot of ignorant advice on how to make the Me 109 a 400 mph+ aircraft, which it was anyway. Carson bases it on the Emil, obviously failing to realize that the Me 109F and later variants were considerably different aircraft.)
More nonsense from Carson:
"The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.
Drag coefficient is the score for one hole, but total drag is the score for the entire course. Messerschmitt accepted a higher drag coefficient in favour of a smaller frontal area. That he was successful is evident from the observation that the Me 109 always achieved similar top speeds on similar engine power as the Spitfire.
If the Messerschmitt would have needed much greater power for the same top speed, it would have blown the Spitfire away at low speeds because the drag coefficient doesn't have much of an impact there. As you know, that didn't happen.
Quite obviously, Carson points to a secondary parameter (with great gesture) to make the Me 109 look bad. Either he's incompetent, or he's out to manipulate the reader.
Whether it's the one or the other, he's not a good source.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I missed this part about the 109:
The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Utter nonsense (or you greatly overstimate the Me 109's level speed :-) The Me 109 could dive to Mach 0.79, about the same as the Fw 190 and the P-51, and considerably better than the P-47 and the P-38.
"The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft."
-
Oh good grief not Kit Carson... :p
Nomak he hated the 109 and never even flew one. His article is mostly second hand inaccurate information..
3 109s for every spit shot down? The Hurricane was the 109s main opponent in BoB.
The 109 could dive to Mach 0.79. The 109 didn’t "compress" but the elevators became heavy. When adjusting trim the entire horizontal tail plane moved and reduced the force needed to pull out.
The LW in the west was defeated by going after the allied bombers streams. This allowed a small escorting force to go after them and build experience. As the LW experts were depleted and the LW wasted resources on "bomber killers" and the allies built up their fighter strength.
The LW should have pulled their fighters back from the channel. They should have gone after the allied fighters early when they were in p38s and p47cs. The LW tried to go after the bombers and kill enough of them to force the allies to give up. This seemed to be working early but the allies came with more and better fighters.
The bombing campaign by the allies wasn’t anywhere near as successful as they thought it would be. Its main effect on the war effort was wearing down the LW in the west. By the time the p51 was on station in numbers the LW was already "defeated".
At the same time the LW numbers were nearing their lowest the allies were nearing their highest. This allowed them free reign over Western Europe. The allies attacked trains and most roads were basically shut down. The LW had no fighter reserve at this point.
During D-day there was only 2 190s over the landing area.
It wasn’t the "109" that was the problem. It was a combination of bad tactical decisions, poor planning for a prolonged war (look how long it took Germany to completely mobilize its economy). The attrition of LW experten and short-training periods for the Nachwuchs cost more lw pilots then the "out dated 109".
It’s not as clear as some claim. There have been lots of claims and rumors passed on as fact. The late war 109s (109g6/AS, 109g10, and 109k4) were very completive aircraft. But there was never enough and by the time the k4 was ready it was too late.
-
Hehehe.......good debate fellas.......;)
-
Also the 109 was a demanding aircraft to fly, so was the 190. Late in the war the Luftwaffe couldn't field pilots with enough experience to use the 109 to it's full potential, except for a few experten.
-
Hi Nomak,
>"The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft."
That's a Carson quote, and it's nonsense.
The Supermarine Spitfire achieved dive speeds well above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one occasion.
P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80, and the Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 (source is Radinger/Otto/Schick's "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and 2).
The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'." (From Eric Brown's "Testing for Combat".) As a result of Brown's tests, the P-47 was fitted with dive recovery flaps that raised the permittable Mach number to ca. Mach 0.75.
Have a look at these threads for a more in-depth discussion of this rather complex topic:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=91933&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The LW should have pulled their fighters back from the channel. They should have gone after the allied fighters early when they were in p38s and p47cs. The LW tried to go after the bombers and kill enough of them to force the allies to give up. This seemed to be working early but the allies came with more and better fighters.
Not trying to siderail the discussion, but I disagree with the idea that the LW would of prevailed had they focused on the Allied fighters. The LW could not down as many fighters as the Allies could produce. Detering the concept of Strategic Bombing by creating unacceptable Bomber losses was the right strategy imo. The LW learned this lesson in the Battle of Britain. Not consolidating the defense hurt this strategy. Even then it is doubtful the LW could of sustained the amount of pressure the Allies could put on them.
-
Early on the allies didn’t have many fighters. If the major effort would have went after these limited fighters and pilots it would have forced the allies to rush more pilots into the fray. But pulling back deeper into Europe the allied fighters would have face the same situation the LW did in BoB. Even damaged aircraft would have been considered a “kill”.
Going after the bombers did nothing but get the LW killed. The strategic effects that the bombers had on industry were very limited early in the war.
From 1941 to 1943 (according Penguin Atlas of World History) the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945).
From late 44 into 45 the war was a fore gone conclusion. Germany had lost.
The real effect on the bombers was in depleting the LW fighter strength in the west. This took place before the p51 in the theater in strength.
There was no reason to go after the bombers. As it was this error was catastrophic in that it allowed the allies fighter-bombers free reign over Western Europe. As a result moving supplies and reinforcements to the front was very difficult. The German Army on the ground could not rely on CAS from LW fighter-bombers nor could defend against the massive numbers of allied fighter-bombers. The LW had large numbers of fighter and pilots tied up with “Defense of the Reich” that it had a real effect on all 3 other theaters.
The strategic bombing campaign never achieved its goal of collapsing the German economy nor did it cause the collapse of German civilian morale.
The LW wasn’t killing bombers faster then they were produced. The Lw could not have killed allied fighters faster then they were built but they could have killed many fighter pilots. They could have maintained enough fighter strength to make the prospect of a Normandy landing with out air dominance very risky.
It would not have won the war. Germany was destined to lose. But it may well have delayed the allied landings.
-
While its proponents have always made great claims about the effectiveness of strategic bombing, the results have rarely lived up to those claims. As a means of destroying the industrial base of the enemy, strategic bombing during World War II failed. Bombing Germany became devastating only in the final year of the war, at a time when the military outcome of the war was already reasonably predictable. While the bombing campaign certainly had an impact on Luftwaffe deployments and interfered with production to some extent, this cannot be argued to be of decisive importance to the war.
Richard Overy, in his book Why the Allies Won, makes the following statement about the effectiveness of British and American bombing of the Third Reich: "At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 percent fewer tanks than planned, 31 percent fewer aircraft and 42 percent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies."
On the surface, Speer's analysis tells us that the Allied strategic bombing campaign had a decisive impact on the German war effort in 1944. Based on figures found in Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," the Germans produced in 1944: 17,800 tanks, 39,807 aircraft. So that, on the basis of Speer's statement, they aimed to produce 24,030 tanks and 52,147 aircraft. For comparison, Allied production of tanks and aircraft in 1944 resulted in 51,500 tanks (USSR: 29,000; UK: 5,000; USA: 17,500) and 163,079 aircraft (USSR: 40,300; UK 26,461; USA: 96,318). Therefore, even with the additional production that would have resulted from no bombing at all, the Allies still produce twice as many tanks and more than three times the number of aircraft as the Third Reich.
Such figures do not support Overy's conclusion that bombing Germany had "fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies." In terms of the kind of war of attrition fought in 1944 the additional German production would not have made a decisive difference. Allied production for 1944 is clearly overwhelming. Looking at the military situation on the ground in 1944 is even more telling of how the war is going.
Overy goes on to say: "The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat." At least, an ever-increasing number of Luftwaffe units were devoted to the air defense of the Reich as the war progressed. And, new aircraft production shifted towards fighters and away from bombers. The question remains as to whether this impact of the Allied bombing campaign was decisive to the outcome of the war or had just a marginal effect on it.
Furthermore, the converse of Overy's remark was also true. The production of bomber forces represented a significant resource expenditure for the US and especially Great Britain. Was this a worthwhile military expenditure? The results of the campaign are debatable. Certainly the German capitulation did not come about because of the Allied bombing campaign. That honor must go to the land campaigns fought by the allies. So, could the resources devoted to the bomber force been more effectively employed elsewhere?
Perhaps the greatest oversight in an analysis that focuses on the latter part of the war is that the crucial period to consider is from 1941 to 1943. It is in this period that German power is substantial and the possibility of a German military victory exists. How effective was the Allied bomber campaign during this period? According to a table found in the Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945). Considering that Germany dropped about 37,000 tons on the UK in 1940, another 22,000 tons in 1941, with a few thousand tons every year thereafter with marginal results, there is little reason to believe that the scale of Allied bombing between 1940 and 1943 was substantial enough to alter the military balance in 1941 or 1942 either. Yet those are critical years to consider because that was when Soviet survival hung in the balance and British possessions in the Middle East were threatened by conquest.
Indeed, a look at the effectiveness of strategic bombing during the Second World War suggests that it is only effective against an enemy that has already been defeated militarily. In the case of the air war against the Third Reich, bombing only caused serious economic disruptions in the final year of the war, roughly from June 1944 to May 1945. By this time a German military defeat was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Based on such results, it is impossible to demonstrate that the bombing campaign would have achieved an economic breakdown of Germany since by the time such destruction was being caused; the fronts were already collapsing in both east and west. The Soviet Union, for all intents, had won the land war by the middle of 1944 and the successful Normandy invasion delivered the coup de grace. To make a case for the bombing campaign being decisive the reverse would have to be expected. That is, the fronts would have had to collapse after the industrial damage was done. As it was, strategic bombing merely contributed to the wholesale destruction caused by the general weakness of German resistance in the final year of World War II.
THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm)
From Butlers JG 26 Page
Aircraft Losses By theater (http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm)
-
Hi Batz,
>Early on the allies didn’t have many fighters.
Neither did the Luftwaffe - they were largely tied up in the East.
>As it was this error was catastrophic in that it allowed the allies fighter-bombers free reign over Western Europe. As a result moving supplies and reinforcements to the front was very difficult.
If we're talking about the post-invasion time scheme when a front existed, the Luftwaffe suffered heavily exactly because it tried to contest air superiority over the front.
>The strategic bombing campaign never achieved its goal of collapsing the German economy
The attacks on the fuel industry made a big difference. From June 1944 on, the Luftwaffe suffered from fuel shortage as a result of the strategic bombing campaign. In September, they receied only 20% of the fuel tonnage they'd have needed for normal operations. German industry might not have collapsed, but only because the front collapsed quicker.
>They could have maintained enough fighter strength to make the prospect of a Normandy landing with out air dominance very risky.
According to Galland, the Allies had 12837 aircraft available for the invasion, 5409 of them fighters.
At the same time, the Luftwaffe had 3222 aircraft available on all fronts, 1195 of them fighters.
Achieving even limited air superiority over the Normandy never was an option. The Luftwaffe moved a reserve of 600 fighters into Northern France immediately after the invasion, which was 50% of their total fighter force - under the conditions of total Allied air superiority, they were attrited without achieving anything.
The Luftwaffe simply was fighting against impossible odds - there was no winning move for them. If anything, they should NOT have moved their reserves into France but kept them for the defense of the German industry.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Batz,
Where's the article you're quoting from?
Just look at this:
>The Soviet Union, for all intents, had won the land war by the middle of 1944 and the successful Normandy invasion delivered the coup de grace.
If that's the yard-stick, nothing that happened after the middle of 1944 matters. However, that's not a useful way of measuring the success of the strategic bombing campaign.
Certainly the bomber offensive didn't win the war single-handedly - but I don't remember anyone claiming that anyhow.
The question is, would the decision not to build and employ a strategic air force and do something else with the resources spent on it have made victory easier? I can't see how, and though the article poses the question, it fails to answer it.
Another question the article does NOT ask is whether the strategic air war could have been more effective than it was. This is a regrettable oversight as this question can be easily answered - yes, it could!
The bombing offensive suffered from several mistakes. The attacks against the ball-bearing industry had had a tremendous impact which the US leadership failed to detect the large stocks of production material inevitable with WW2 era logistics initially covered the production gap. Repeated attacks on Schweinfurt would have had the crippling effect the USAAF planners had envisioned - they just gave up too early.
A systematic offensive against electric power plants could have made great impact on the German war industry, too. The British dambuster attacks were quite serious because it reduced the power output available for industrial production in the Ruhr area. Follow-up attacks against power plants could have hurt the German war machine considerably - however, there was no determined campaign against the electric power system.
And then there was the fuel industry. Adolf Galland remarked that after seeing the huge impact the first raids against the refineries had had on the German military, he couldn't understand why the Allies had begun a campaign against the fuel industry earlier. He considered the anti-fuel campaign highly effective, and the German attempts at repairing the damage were completely in vain as the USAAF kept flying regular follow-up attacks to keep production down.
The strategic combing campaign made a considerable contribution to the Allied victory, and it could have been even more telling if it had been conducted with better information on the German industry, and with greater determination once targets had been identified as crucial.
The question your article is trying to answer actually is not whether the strategic bombing offensive was successful - it is whether WW2 could have been won primarily from the air. Obviously, this question, interesting as it might be, isn't really that relevant.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
From the THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY linked above:
The Attack on Oil
With the reduction of German air power, oil became the priority target in the German economy. The bomber force for several months had been adequate for the task. A preliminary attack was launched on May 12, 1944, followed by another on May 28; the main blow was not struck, however, until after D-day. In the months before D-day and for a shorter period immediately following, all available air power based on England was devoted to insuring the success of the invasion.
Virtually complete records of the German oil industry were taken by the Survey. In addition, major plants that were subject to attack and their records were studied in detail.
The German oil supply was tight throughout the war, and was a controlling factor in military operations. The chief source of supply, and the only source for aviation gasoline, was 13 synthetic plants together with a small production from three additional ones that started operations in 1944. The major sources of products refined from crude oil were the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania and the Hungarian fields which together accounted for about a quarter of the total supply of liquid fuels in 1943. In addition, there was a small but significant Austrian and domestic production. The refineries at Ploesti were attacked, beginning with a daring and costly low-level attack in August 1943. These had only limited effects; deliveries increased until April 1944 when the attacks were resumed. The 1944 attacks, together with mining of the Danube, materially reduced Rumanian deliveries. In August 1944, Russian occupation eliminated this source of supply and dependence on the synthetic plants became even greater than before.
Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and by July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output.
The Germans viewed the attacks as catastrophic. In a series of letters to Hitler, among documents seized by the Survey, the developing crisis is outlined month by month in detail. On June 30, Speer wrote: "The enemy has succeeded in increasing our losses of aviation gasoline up to 90 percent by June 22d. Only through speedy recovery of damaged plants has it been possible to regain partly some of the terrible losses." The tone of the letters that followed was similar.
As in the case of ball-bearings and aircraft, the Germans took the most energetic steps to repair and reconstruct the oil plants. Another czar was appointed, this time Edmund Geilenberg, and again an overriding priority on men and materials was issued. Geilenberg used as many as 350,000 men for the repair, rebuilding, and dispersal of the bombed plants and for new underground construction. The synthetic oil plants were vast complex structures and could not be easily broken up and dispersed. The programs of dispersal and underground construction that were undertaken were incomplete when the war ended.
The synthetic oil plants were brought back into partial production and in remarkably short time. But unlike the ball-bearing plants, as soon as they were brought back they were attacked again. The story of Leuna is illustrative. Leuna was the largest of the synthetic plants and protected by a highly effective smoke screen and the heaviest flak concentration in Europe. Air crews viewed a mission to Leuna as the most dangerous and difficult assignment of the air war. Leuna was hit on May 12 and put out of production. However, investigation of plant records and interrogation of Leuna's officials established that a force of several thousand men had it in partial operation in about 10 days. It was again hit on May 28 but resumed partial production on June 3 and reached 75 percent of capacity in early July. It was hit again on July 7 and again shut down but production started 2 days later and reached 53 percent of capacity on July 19. An attack on July 20 shut the plant down again but only for three days; by July 27 production was back to 35 percent of capacity. Attacks on July 28 and 29 closed the plant and further attacks on August 24, September 11, September 13, September 28 and October 7 kept it closed down. However, Leuna got started again on October 14 and although production was interrupted by a small raid on November 2, it reached 28 percent of capacity by November 20. Although there were 6 more heavy attacks in November and December (largely ineffective because of adverse weather), production was brought up to 15 percent of capacity in January and was maintained at that level until nearly the end of the war. From the first attack to the end, production at Leuna averaged 9 percent of capacity. There were 22 attacks on Leuna, 20 by the Eighth Air Force and 2 by the RAF. Due to the urgency of keeping this plant out of production, many of these missions mere dispatched in difficult bombing weather. Consequently, the order of bombing accuracy on Leuna was not high as compared with other targets. To win the battle with Leuna a total of 6,552 bomber sorties were flown against the plant, 18,328 tons of bombs were dropped and an entire year was required.
Consumption of oil exceeded production from May 1944 on. Accumulated stocks were rapidly used up, and in six months were practically exhausted. The loss of oil production was sharply felt by the armed forces. In August the final run-in-time for aircraft engines was cut from two hours to one-half hour. For lack of fuel, pilot training, previously cut down, was further curtailed. Through the summer, the movement of German Panzer Divisions in the field was hampered more and more seriously as a result of losses in combat and mounting transportation difficulties, together with the fall in fuel production. By December, according to Speer, the fuel shortage had reached catastrophic proportions. When the Germans launched their counter-offensive on December 16, 1944, their reserves of fuel were insufficient to support the operation. They counted on capturing Allied stocks. Failing in this, many panzer units were lost when they ran out of gasoline. In February and March of 1945 the Germans massed 1,200 tanks on the Baranov bridgehead at the Vistula to check the Russians. They were immobilized for lack of gasoline and overrun.
It wasn't until May '44 that the allies went after the Oil industry. Why they didn’t go earlier? Who knows, but look at the case with Luena included in the quote above. To win the battle with Leuna a total of 6,552 bomber sorties were flown against the plant, 18,328 tons of bombs were dropped and an entire year was required. That was 1 of the 13 synthetic oil-producing facilities. In '43 the allied raids against Ploesti weren’t as effective.
The refineries at Ploesti were attacked, beginning with a daring and costly low-level attack in August 1943. These had only limited effects; deliveries increased until April 1944 when the attacks were resumed. The 1944 attacks, together with mining of the Danube, materially reduced Rumanian deliveries. In August 1944, Russian occupation eliminated this source of supply and dependence on the synthetic plants became even greater than before.
I dont recall where i got that article and i had it on my hardrive for sometime. I was cleaning stuff out a week or so ago when i rediscovered. I kept no notes as to where it came from. I agree that the point of that article is to question whetehr the allies were correct in focussing resource on strategic bombing as opposed to else where but it confirms much of what is outlined in the THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY linked above.
Indeed, a look at the effectiveness of strategic bombing during the Second World War suggests that it is only effective against an enemy that has already been defeated militarily. In the case of the air war against the Third Reich, bombing only caused serious economic disruptions in the final year of the war, roughly from June 1944 to May 1945.
In the case of the the allied attacks on the German Oil production this seems to be the case. Even their success against the ball bearing plants was short lived.
[cont]
-
The Ball-Bearing Attack
The German anti-friction bearing industry was heavily concentrated. When the attack began, approximately half the output came from plants in the vicinity of Schweinfurt. An adequate supply of bearings was correctly assumed to be indispensable for German war production.
In a series of raids beginning on August 17, 1943, about 12,000 tons of bombs were dropped on this target -- about one-half of one per cent of the total tonnage delivered in the air war. In an attack on August 17 by 200 B-17's on Schweinfurt, the plants were severely damaged. Records of the industry taken by the Survey (and supplemented and checked by interrogation) show that production of bearings at this center was reduced sharply -- September production was 35% of the pre-raid level. In this attack 36 of the 200 attaching planes were lost. In the famous and much-discussed second attack on October 14, 1943, when the plants were again severely damaged, one of the decisive air battles of the war took place. The 228 bombers participating were strongly attacked by German fighters when beyond the range of their fighter escort. Losses to fighters and to flak cost the United States forces 62 planes with another 138 damaged in varying degree, some beyond repair. Repeated losses of this magnitude could not be sustained; deep penetrations without escort, of which this was among the earliest, were suspended and attacks on Schweinfurt were not renewed for four months. The Germans made good use of the breathing spell. A czar was appointed with unlimited priority for requisitioning men and materials. Energetic steps were taken to disperse the industry. Restoration was aided by the circumstance -- which Survey investigations show to have been fairly common to all such raids -- that machines and machine tools were damaged far less severely than factory structures. German equipment was redesigned to substitute other types of bearings wherever possible. And the Germans drew on the substantial stocks that were on hand. Although there were further attacks, production by the autumn of 1944 was back to pre-raid levels. From examination of the records and personalities in the ball-bearing industry, the user industries and the testimony of war production officials, there is no evidence that the attacks on the ball-bearing industry had any measurable effect on essential war production.
After Schweinfurt the allies had to rethink their strategy. Unescorted bombers no matter how good of a formation they fly or how "well armed" they were still did not prevent serious losses.
The attack on the German aircraft industry -- primarily on airframe plants -- was opened in the summer of 1943. The German aircraft industry had been well distributed over the Reich with a view to the possibility of air attack. Isolated raids early in 1941 and 1942 had caused some further shift in production to eastern territory but only limited steps had been taken to disperse individual plant units in order to reduce their vulnerability. The industry was found to have had substantial excess capacity. The efficiency of the industry was low. Unlike other armaments, procurement was not under the direction of the Speer Ministry but under the Luftwaffe.
In '43 the Survey suggests that the allies decided to go after aircraft manufacturing. They were no more effective then against the ball bearings or Fuel. Maybe one could argue that if they stayed with 1 of the three they would have seen success earlier. I agree the allies missed an opportunity in not taking out the power stations. I totally agree the allies made mistakes but I am limiting my speculation to the LW :p.
But back to my point. It was during these raids on the aircraft manufacturing that the LW in the west was worn down. So even though the aircraft industry wasn’t broken the LW lost many experienced pilots over this period.
By the time of the allied invasion nearly every Gruppe that could have opposed the landings suffered so many losses most were withdrawn to Germany for re-equipment. The LW had no reserves and its my opinion that the LW was wasted being thrown at the allied bombers. When they finally withdrew to the Reich they built up some reserves but foolishly wasted them in Bodenplatte.
Once the allies had landed there would be no possibility to push them out of Europe. With no aircraft at all to oppose the landings (and with the huge numerical superiority over the the invasion front) the west was lost. As I said above I dont think there was anything the LW or Germany could have done to change the course of the war, they clearly were going to lose.
-
My second and third hand sources can kick your second and third hand sources arse. ;)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Batz,
>Early on the allies didn’t have many fighters.
Neither did the Luftwaffe - they were largely tied up in the East.
>As it was this error was catastrophic in that it allowed the allies fighter-bombers free reign over Western Europe. As a result moving supplies and reinforcements to the front was very difficult.
If we're talking about the post-invasion time scheme when a front existed, the Luftwaffe suffered heavily exactly because it tried to contest air superiority over the front.
Post invasion is when I suggested that the lw be pulled back to from the channel. I dont think they needed to win (or could) establish air superiority but they could have held back and built up a reserve. The allies werent going to invade until that had worn down the LW. The allies would have been forced to go after them as opposed to the LW getting jumped while forming their large gefetschverbands or getting chewed up while attacking the bombers. Its my opinion that allied losses would have went up and the invasion delayed.
>The strategic bombing campaign never achieved its goal of collapsing the German economy
The attacks on the fuel industry made a big difference. From June 1944 on, the Luftwaffe suffered from fuel shortage as a result of the strategic bombing campaign. In September, they receied only 20% of the fuel tonnage they'd have needed for normal operations. German industry might not have collapsed, but only because the front collapsed quicker.
From June '44 the war was over anyway. Even if the lw had fuel theres nothing they could have done.
>They could have maintained enough fighter strength to make the prospect of a Normandy landing with out air dominance very risky.
According to Galland, the Allies had 12837 aircraft available for the invasion, 5409 of them fighters.
At the same time, the Luftwaffe had 3222 aircraft available on all fronts, 1195 of them fighters.
Achieving even limited air superiority over the Normandy never was an option. The Luftwaffe moved a reserve of 600 fighters into Northern France immediately after the invasion, which was 50% of their total fighter force - under the conditions of total Allied air superiority, they were attrited without achieving anything.
The Luftwaffe simply was fighting against impossible odds - there was no winning move for them. If anything, they should NOT have moved their reserves into France but kept them for the defense of the German industry.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
By pulling back and not sacrificing themselves against the bomber streams the allied air losses would have went up. I dont think the allies would have landed until they had destroyed the lw in the west.
-
Hi Batz,
>Post invasion is when I suggested that the lw be pulled back to from the channel. I dont think they needed to win (or could) establish air superiority but they could have held back and built up a reserve. The allies werent going to invade until that had worn down the LW.
I can't figure out what you're trying to say! Prior to the invasion, the Luftwaffe WAS held back and a reserve WAS built. The Allies DID invade in spite of the reserve, and they wore down the Luftwaffe in the course of the invasion.
>From June '44 the war was over anyway. Even if the lw had fuel theres nothing they could have done.
The war wasn't over in June 1944, there was still a lot of fighting to be done - some of the worst fighting of the entire war, actually. The end result might have been obvious, but the price each side had to pay wasn't. The Luftwaffe could raise the price the Allies had to pay, and the strategic bombing offensive could - and did - lower it.
Von Clausewitz never saw an aircraft in his entire life, but he'd sure have understood that :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Post invasion
That was a typo, it should have read pre-invasion.
From Caldwell’s 1991 interview with Galland
Galland: ,,,,,,,
The Big Blow was the replacement for the 262. I finally won Goering's assent and convinced him not to throw every possible fighter against the enemy every day, which was the rule up to the time of the invasion. Every time, we sent this full force up to fight; there was no reserve, no time to recover, no training, and finally I got permission to build up this fighter reserve, which came up to 2000 prop fighters. These forces were not trained to fight on a battlefront, like in France; but they were sent there on order of Hitler immediately, and as you know, they didn't arrive, they missed the airfields, the airfields had been taken over by the enemy. Terrible disorganization; hundreds and hundreds of aircraft were lost every day by accident.
Planes weren’t the problem. Trained pilots like the ones lost while engaging the bombers were irreplaceable. The "reserves" that were finally built up and sent forward were not very effective.
My hypothesis in that after Dieppe the lw should of pulled back, concentrated its forces, conserved its pilots, built up an additional quality reserve and forced the allies to hunt them down over their territory where the lw could choose its engagements more carefully. Instead of forming up in large wings to go hit the bombers. This never would have happened because Hitler was incapable of restraint.
The object of defense is preservation; and since it is easier to hold ground than to take it, defense is easier than attack. "But defense has a passive purpose: preservation; and attack a positive one: conquest. . . . If defense is the stronger form of war, yet has a negative object, if follows that it should be used only so long as weakness compels, and be abandoned as soon as we are strong enough to pursue a positive object.
....Von Clausewitz :p
-
Hi Batz,
>My hypothesis in that after Dieppe the lw should of pulled back, concentrated its forces, conserved its pilots, built up an additional quality reserve and forced the allies to hunt them down over their territory where the lw could choose its engagements more carefully.
In fact, that's what they did. The channel front was defended only by one or two Geschwadern, and they seldom if ever flew over England.
>Instead of forming up in large wings to go hit the bombers.
Well, the bombers had to be hit, the problem is just how they were hit - with small numbers of fighters on every raid. Clausewitz demands a concentration of forces, and Galland agreed - he'd rather have had two or three raids unopposed to hit the forth decisively with a concentrated attack.
"The object of defense is preservation [...]" ....Von Clausewitz :p
Attacking bombers was defense :-)
Von Clausewitz on strategic bombing:
"The second way is to direct our enterprise with preference on such objects that increase the enemy damage. Nothing is easier than imagining two different directions of our forces, of which one is the far better choice if it comes to throw over enemy forces, though the other when throwing over is not the purpose can be much more profitable. By convention, one would consider the first to be the more military, the other more to be political. When one takes a higher vantage point however, is one as military as the other, and each one only useful, when it matches the given conditions."
Appliee to WW2, the bombing offensive was a profitable enterprise, and obviously the Luftwaffe had to try and raise the price for the USAAF so it became less profitable or even a loss.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Batz,
>It wasn't until May '44 that the allies went after the Oil industry. Why they didn’t go earlier? Who knows, but look at the case with Luena included in the quote above. To win the battle with Leuna a total of 6,552 bomber sorties were flown against the plant, 18,328 tons of bombs were dropped and an entire year was required.
"A preliminary attack was launched on May 12, 1944, followed by another on May 28; the main blow was not struck, however, until after D-day. [...]
On June 30, Speer wrote: 'The enemy has succeeded in increasing our losses of aviation gasoline up to 90 percent by June 22d. [...]'
Leuna was hit on May 12 and put out of production. [...]"
The success of the fuel bombing offensive didn't take a year, it came within just two months. Leuna had to be kept under continous attack to prevent it going back to serious production again, but the campaign was a success right from May 12 on as Leuna's production went down to the 9% average capacity immediately, not gradually over the course of the year.
Had the "Big Week" targeted the oil industry instead of the aircraft industry, and had the 8th Air Force not joined Bomber Command's ineffective Berlin campaign, the bombing offensive would have made much more of an impact than it actually did.
>In the case of the the allied attacks on the German Oil production this seems to be the case. Even their success against the ball bearing plants was short lived.
The success against the ball bearing plants was short-lived because Schweinfurth war largely left alone after the first highly effective raids. Again, the lack of ball-bearings seriously hurt the German war production, and a third attack of the same magnitude could not have been compensated for as the stocks had been used up. Obviously, it was not an option for the 8th Air Force to hit Schweinfurt again without fighter escort, but from January 1944 on, long-range escorts became available.
There should be no doubt that the Allied bombing offensive was very effective, and there were plenty of missed opportunities to make it even more effective. Of course, it did not win the war as the war was fought on many fronts, but that doesn't mean it was insignificant or superfluous.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Ike,
>what was 109's K/D ratio from Spanish civil war to the end of WWII
To get back on topic, I've just found a mention of a victory-to-loss ratio for a limited campaign:
From April 1941 to November 1942, the Luftwaffe scored 1294 confirmed victories for about 200 Me 109 lost in combat.
(During this period, the Luftwaffe almost exclusively used the Me 109F. They identified their victims as 709 Tomahawks, 304 Hurricanes and 119 Spitfires, plus others/unidentified.)
That's a ratio of about 6.5:1.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Seems like nobody brought it up... theres two things to dive: accerlation and maximum speed.
P47 accerlated very fast if put to dive, while spitfire was capable of achieving high speeds, but accerlated slower.
Also Bf109's drag cofficiency is way overrated from what I see and didn't see anyone saying a word on the 'high drag' comment.
Depending on source, it's drag coefficiency is about there with the spitfire.
Some sources would even give a little advantage for 109 over spitfire.
P51 isn't really so good of a fighter, since it was made to be capable of escorting over long ranges and that has had an effect on its capabilities.
The hype behind mustangs is overwhelming though, which explains why so many keeps thinking it as the best fighter of the WWII.
-
Hi Fishu,
>Seems like nobody brought it up... theres two things to dive: accerlation and maximum speed.
You're right of course, that's what I wrote:
"Have a look at these threads for a more in-depth discussion of this rather complex topic:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=91933&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending"
It really has been analyzed down to great detail on this forum :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The 109 was a better interceptor than the P-51. The P-51 was designed as a long-range escort fighter, and many compromises were made to achieve this.
Oh really??......
From Triple ace "Bud Anderson"
Being on the outside of the turn, we are vulnerable to attack from the rear. I look over my right shoulder and, sure enough, I see four dots above us, way back, no threat at the moment, but coming hard down the chute. I start to call out, but . . .
"Four bogeys, five o'clock high!" My element leader, Eddie Simpson, has already seen them. Bogeys are unknowns and bandits are hostile. Quickly, the dots close and take shape. They're hostile, all right. They're Messerschmitts.
We turn hard to the right, pulling up into a tight string formation, spoiling their angle, and we try to come around and go at them head on. The Me 109s change course, charge past, and continue on down, and we wheel and give chase. There are four of them, single-seat fighters, and they pull up, turn hard, and we begin turning with them. We are circling now, tighter and tighter, chasing each other's tails, and I'm sitting there wondering what the hell's happening. These guys want to hang around. Curious. I'm wondering why they aren't after the bombers, why they're messing with us, whether they're simply creating some kind of a diversion or what. I would fly 116 combat missions, engage the enemy perhaps 40 times, shoot down 16 fighters, share in the destruction of a bomber, destroy another fighter on the ground, have a couple of aerial probables, and over that span it would be us bouncing them far more often than not. This was a switch.
We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up. The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest.
We roll out and go after them. They're flying full power, the black smoke pouring out their exhaust stacks. I'm looking at the one who is climbing, wondering what he is up to, and I'm thinking that if we stay with the other three, this guy will wind up above us. I send Simpson up after him. He and his wingman break off. My wingman, John Skara, and I chase the other three fighters, throttles all the way forward, and I can see that we're gaining.
I close to within 250 yards of the nearest Messerschmitt--dead astern, 6 o'clock, no maneuvering, no nothing--and squeeze the trigger on the control stick between my knees gently. Bambambambambam! The sound is loud in the cockpit in spite of the wind shriek and engine roar. And the vibration of the Mustang's four. 50-caliber machine guns, two in each wing, weighing 60-odd pounds apiece, is pronounced. In fact, you had to be careful in dogfights when you were turning hard, flying on the brink of a stall, because the buck of the guns was enough to peel off a few critical miles per hour and make the Mustang simply stop flying. That could prove downright embarrassing.
But I'm going like hell now, and I can see the bullets tearing at the Messerschmitt's wing root and fuselage. The armor-piercing ammunition we used was also incendiary, and hits were easily visible, making a bright flash and puff. Now the 109's trailing smoke thickens, and it's something more than exhaust smoke. He slows, and then suddenly rolls over. But the plane doesn't fall. It continues on, upside down, straight and level! What the hell . . . ?
The pilot can't be dead. It takes considerable effort to fly one of these fighter planes upside down. You have to push hard on the controls. Flying upside down isn't easy. It isn't something that happens all by itself, or that you do accidentally. So what in the world is he doing?
Well. It's an academic question, because I haven't the time to wait and find out. I pour another burst into him, pieces start flying off, I see flame, and the 109 plummets and falls into a spin, belching smoke. My sixth kill.
The other two Messerschmitt pilots have pulled away now, and they're nervous. Their airplanes are twitching, the fliers obviously straining to look over their shoulders and see what is happening. As we take up the chase again, two against two now, the trailing 109 peels away and dives for home, and the leader pulls up into a sharp climbing turn to the left. This one can fly, and he obviously has no thought of running. I'm thinking this one could be trouble.
We turn inside him, my wingman and I, still at long range, and he pulls around harder, passing in front of us right-to-left at an impossible angle. I want to swing in behind him, but I'm going too fast, and figure I would only go skidding on past. A Mustang at speed simply can't make a square corner. And in a dogfight you don't want to surrender your airspeed. I decide to overshoot him and climb.
He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and he peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, he can fly!--and he comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.
This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.
-
More from Bud.
More......
There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.
He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.
So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.
But I'm too busy to be frightened. Later on, you might sit back and perspire about it, maybe 40-50 years later, say, sitting on your porch 7,000 miles away, but while it is happening you are just too damn busy. And I am extremely busy up here, hanging by my propeller, going almost straight up, full emergency power, which a Mustang could do for only so long before losing speed, shuddering, stalling, and falling back down; and I am thinking that if the Mustang stalls before the Messerschmitt stalls, I have had it.
I look back, and I can see that he's shuddering, on the verge of a stall. He hasn't been able to get his nose up enough, hasn't been able to bring that big gun to bear. Almost, but not quite. I'm a fallen-down-dead man almost, but not quite. His nose begins dropping just as my airplane, too, begins shuddering. He stalls a second or two before I stall, drops away before I do.
Good old Mustang.
He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.
A lot of this is just instinct now. Things are happening too fast to think everything out. You steer with your right hand and feet. The right hand also triggers the guns. With your left, you work the throttle, and keep the airplane in trim, which is easier to do than describe.
Any airplane with a single propeller produces torque. The more horsepower you have, the more the prop will pull you off to one side. The Mustangs I flew used a 12-cylinder Packard Merlin engine that displaced 1,649 cubic inches. That is 10 times the size of the engine that powers an Indy car. It developed power enough that you never applied full power sitting still on the ground because it would pull the plane's tail up off the runway and the propeller would chew up the concrete. With so much power, you were continually making minor adjustments on the controls to keep the Mustang and its wing-mounted guns pointed straight.
There were three little palm-sized wheels you had to keep fiddling with. They trimmed you up for hands-off level flight. One was for the little trim tab on the tail's rudder, the vertical slab which moves the plane left or right. Another adjusted the tab on the tail's horizontal elevators that raise or lower the nose and help reduce the force you had to apply for hard turning. The third was for aileron trim, to keep your wings level, although you didn't have to fuss much with that one. Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat . . . while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the rudder pedals and your hand on the stick. At first it was awkward. But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and twirling the radio dial.
It's a little unnerving to think about how many things you have to deal with all at once to fly combat.
So the Messerschmitt is coming around again, climbing hard to his left, and I've had about enough of this. My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .
Hot damn! I'm going to make it! I'm inside him, pulling my sights up to him. And the German pilot can see this. This time, it's the Messerschmitt that breaks away and goes zooming straight up, engine at maximum power, without much alternative. I come in with full power and follow him up, and the gap narrows swiftly. He is hanging by his prop, not quite vertically, and I am right there behind him, and it is terribly clear, having tested the theory less than a minute ago, that he is going to stall and fall away before I do.
I have him. He must know that I have him.
I bring my nose up, he comes into my sights, and from less than 300 yards I trigger a long, merciless burst from my Brownings. Every fifth bullet or so is a tracer, leaving a thin trail of smoke, marking the path of the bullet stream. The tracers race upward and find him. The bullets chew at the wing root, the cockpit, the engine, making bright little flashes. I hose the Messerschmitt down the way you'd hose down a campfire, methodically, from one end to the other, not wanting to make a mistake here. The 109 shakes like a retriever coming out of the water, throwing off pieces. He slows, almost stops, as if parked in the sky, his propeller just windmilling, and he begins smoking heavily.
My momentum carries me to him. I throttle back to ease my plane alongside, just off his right wing. Have I killed him? I do not particularly want to fight this man again. I am coming up even with the cockpit, and although I figure the less I know about him the better, I find myself looking in spite of myself. There is smoke in the cockpit. I can see that, nothing more. Another few feet. . . .
And then he falls away suddenly, left wing down, right wing rising up, obscuring my view. I am looking at the 109's sky blue belly, the wheel wells, twin radiators, grease marks, streaks from the guns, the black crosses. I am close enough to make out the rivets. The Messerschmitt is right there and then it is gone, just like that, rolling away and dropping its nose and falling (flying?) almost straight down, leaking coolant and trailing flame and smoke so black and thick that it has to be oil smoke. It simply plunges, heading straight for the deck. No spin, not even a wobble, no parachute, and now I am wondering. His ship seems a death ship--but is it?
Undecided, I peel off and begin chasing him down. Did I squander a chance here? Have I let him escape? He is diving hard enough to be shedding his wings, harder than anyone designed those airplanes to dive, 500 miles an hour and more, and if 109s will stall sooner than Mustangs going straight up, now I am worrying that maybe their wings stay on longer. At 25,000 feet I begin to grow nervous. I pull back on the throttle, ease out of the dive, and watch him go down. I have no more stomach for this kind of thing, not right now, not with this guy. Enough. Let him go and to hell with him.
Straight down he plunges, from as high as 35,000 feet, through this beautiful, crystal clear May morning toward the green-on-green checkerboard fields, leaving a wake of black smoke. From four miles straight up I watch as the Messerschmitt and the shadow it makes on the ground rush toward one another . . .
. . . and then, finally, silently, merge.
Eddie Simpson joins up with me. Both wingmen, too. Simpson, my old wingman and friend, had gotten the one who'd climbed out. We'd bagged three of the four. We were very excited. It had been a good day.
I had lived and my opponent had died. But it was a near thing. It could have been the other way around just as easily, and what probably made the difference was the airplane I flew. Made in America. I would live to see the day when people would try to tell me the United States can't make cars like some other folks do. What a laugh.
I didn't wonder if I'd just made a new bride a widow, or if he might have had kids, any more than I would have wondered about a snake's mate and offspring. I may have given some thought to how many of my friends he had killed, or might have killed in the future, or how many bombers he might have shot down had he lived. But that's as far as it went. From what I could tell, he hadn't been overly concerned about me.
People ask about that all the time. People usually ask it hesitantly, as tactfully as they can, but they ask it. Did I wonder and worry about the mothers and children and wives of the men I shot down? Did I carry any guilt or regret?
No.
Not then, and not now.
-
Hi Nomak,
"The 109 was a better interceptor than the P-51."
The Me 109 had two attributes the P-51 lacked: Rapid climb and heavy cannon. That's why it was a better interceptor.
The P-51 had one attributes the Me 109 lacked: Long range. That's why it was a better long-range fighter.
I appreciate your enthusiam, but I'd like to encourage analytical thinking :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Bah, I love anectodal evidence, here's some more for you Nomak.
".... this was my first major dogfight I had in the war, in January 1945. I
was flying a P-51D and we were supposed to meet with bombers over Romania.
Well, the bombers never showed up! and we kept circling and wasting our
fuel. When we were low on fuel the squadron leader orders us back to base,
with the top group at 24,000 feet and the four bait Mustangs ordered to
15,000 feet. Now you might not really think about it, but the difference in
altitude, 9,000 feet, is almost two miles, and assuming that the top flight
could dive and rescue the 'bait' airplanes, it might take a full sixty
seconds or more for the top group to come to the rescue. A heck of alot can
happen in sixty seconds. Earlier, I requested to fly in the bait section
believing that I'd have a better chance to get some scores (at that time I
had no victories either) and this was my seventh mission. I have to say now
that I grew up in Kansas City, Kansas, and my older brother flew a Jenny
biplane in the late 1930s, so I learned the basics of flying even before
joining the Army. So we're all heading back to Italy when, all of a sudden,
a dozen or so Me109's bounce us. From one moment it's a clear blue sky, next
moment there are dozens' of tracers passing my cockpit. I'm hit several
times and I roll over to the right, and below me is an P-51, heading for the
deck, with an Me109 chasing him. I begin to chase the Me109. All this time I
believe there was another Me109 chasing me! It was a racetrack, all four of
us were racing for the finish line! Eventually I caught up with the first
Me109 and I fired a long burst at about 1,000 yards, to no effect. Then I
waited until about 600 yards, I fired two very long bursts, probably five
seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for
four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24
sec-onds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he
immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view
mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose
the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is
sixty mph faster than the Me109. So I pull up on the yoke and level out;
suddenly a Me109 loomes about as large as a barn door right in front of me!
And he fires his guns at me, and he rolls to the right, in a Lufberry
circle. I peel off, following this Me109. I can see silver P-51s and black
nosed camouflaged painted Me109s everywhere I look, there's Me109 or P-51
everywhere! At this time I cannot get on the transmitter and talk, everyone
else in the squadron is yelling and talking, and there's nothing but
yelling, screaming, and incoherent interference as everyone presses their
mike buttons at the same time. I can smell something in the cockpit.
Hydraulic fluid! I knew I got hit earlier.
-
.... I'm still following this Me109. I just got my first confirmed kill of
my tour, and now I'm really hot. I believe that I am the hottest pilot in
the USAAF! And now I'm thinking to myself: am I going to shoot this Me109
down too?! He rolls and we turn, and turn; somehow, I cannot catch up with
him in the Lufberry circle, we just keep circling. About the third 360
degree turn he and I must have spotted two Mustangs flying below us, about
2,000 feet below, and he dives for the two P-51s. Now I'm about 150 yards
from him, and I get my gunsight on his tail, but I cannot shoot, because if
I shoot wide, or my bullets pass through him, I might shoot down one or both
P-51s, so I get a front seat, watching, fearful that this guy will shoot
down a P-51 we're approaching at about 390 mph. There's so much interference
on the R/T I cannot warn the two Mustangs, I fire one very long burst of
about seven or eight seconds purposely wide, so it misses the Mustangs, and
the Me109 pilot can see the tracers. None of the Mustang pilots see the
tracers either! I was half hoping expecting that they'd see my tracers and
turn out of the way of the diving Me109. But no such luck. I quit firing.
The Me109 still dives, and as he approaches the two P-51s he holds his fire,
and as the gap closes, two hundred yards, one hundred yards, fifty yards the
Hun does not fire a shot. No tracers, nothing! At less than ten yards, it
looks like he's go-ing to ram the lead P-51 and the Hun fires one single
shot from his 20mm cannon! And Bang! Engine parts, white smoke, glycol,
whatnot from the lead P-51 is everywhere, and that unfortunate Mustang
begins a gentle roll to the right. I try to watch the Mustang down, but
cannot, Now my full at-tention is on the Hun! Zoom. We fly through the two
Mustangs (he was taken POW). Now the advantage of the P-51 is really
apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway
freight train. I press the trigger for only a second then I let up on the
trigger, I believe at that time I was about 250 yards distant, but the Hun
was really pulling lots' of negative and positive g's and pulling up to the
horizon, he levels out and then does a vertical tail stand! and next thing I
know, he's using his built up velocity from the dive to make a vertical
ninety degree climb. This guy is really an experienced pilot. I'm in a
vertical climb, and my P-51 begins to roll clockwise violently, only by
pushing my left rudder almost through the floor can I stop my P-51 from
turning. We climb for altitude; in the straight climb that Me109 begins to
out distance me, though my built up diving speed makes us about equal in the
climb. We climb one thousand fifteen hundred feet, and at eighteen hundred
feet, the hun levels his aircraft out. A vertical climb of 1,800 feet! I've
never heard of a piston aircraft climbing more than 1,000 feet in a tail
stand. At this time we're both down to stall speed, and he levels out. My
airspeed indicator reads less than 90 mph! So we level out. I'm really close
now to the Me109, less than twenty five yards! Now if I can get my guns on
him.........
At this range, the gunsight is more of nuisance than a help. Next thing, he
dumps his flaps fast and I begin to overshoot him! That's not what I want to
do, because then he can bear his guns on me. The P-51 has good armor, but
not good enough to stop 20mm cannon hits. This Luftwaffe pilot must be one
heck of a marksman, I just witnessed him shooting down a P-51 with a single
20mm cannon shot! So I do the same thing, I dump my flaps, and as I start to
overshoot him, I pull my nose up, this really slows me down; S-T-A-L-L
warning comes on! and I can't see anything ahead of me nor in the rear view
mirror. Now I'm sweating everywhere. My eyes are burning because salty sweat
keeps blinding me: 'Where is He!?!' I shout to myself. I level out to
prevent from stalling. And there he is. Flying on my right side. We are
flying side to side, less than twenty feet separates our wingtips. He's
smiling and laughing at himself. I notice that he has a black heart painted
on his aircraft, just below the cockpit. The propeller nose and spinner are
also painted black. It's my guess that he's a very experienced ace from the
Russian front. His tail has a number painted on it: "200". I wonder: what
the "two hundred" means!? Now I began to examine his airplane for any bullet
hits, afterall, I estimate that I just fired 1,600 rounds at the hun. I
cannot see a single bullet hole in his aircraft! I could swear that I must
have gotten at least a dozen hits! I keep inspecting his aircraft for any
damage. One time, he even lifts his left wing about 15 degrees, to let me
see the undercar-riage, still no hits! That's impossible I tell myself.
Totally impossible. Then I turn my attention back to the "200" which is
painted on the tail rudder. German aces normally paint a marker for each
victory on their tail. It dawns on me that quick: TWO HUNDRED KILLS !! We
fly side by side for five minutes. Those five minutes take centuries to
pass. Less than twenty five feet away from me is a Luftwaffe ace, with over
two hundred kills. We had been in a slow gradual dive now, and my altitude
indicates 8,000 feet. I'm panicking now, even my socks are soaked in sweat.
The German pilot points at his tail, obviously meaning the "200" victories,
and then very slowly and dramatically makes a knife-cutting motion across
his throat, and points at me. He's telling me in sign language that I'm
going to be his 201 kill! Panic! I'm breathing so hard, it sounds like a
wind tunnel with my mask on. My heart rate must have doubled to 170 beats
per minute; I can feel my chest, thump-thump and so. This goes on for
centuries, and centuries. The two of us flying at stall speed, wingtip to
wingtip. I think more than once of simply ramming him. He keeps watching my
ailerons, maybe that's what he expects me to do. We had heard of desperate
pilots who, after running out of ammunition, would commit suicide by ramming
an enemy plane. Then I decide that I can Immelmann out of the situation, as
I began to climb, but because my flaps are down, my Mustang only climbs
about one hundred feet, pitches over violently to the right and stalls. The
next instant I'm dangerously spinning, heading ninety degrees vertically
down! And the IAS reads 300 mph! My P-51 just falls like a rock to the
earth! I hold the yoke in the lower left corner and sit on the left rudder,
flaps up, and apply FULL POWER! I pull out of the dive at about 500 feet,
level out, (I began to black out so with my left hand I pinched my veins in
my neck to stop from losing blood). I scan the sky for anything! There's not
a plane in the sky, I dive to about fifty feet elevation, heading towards
Italy. I fly at maximum power for about ten minutes, and then reduce my rpm
(to save gasoline), otherwise the P-51 has very limited range at full power.
I fly like this for maybe an hour, no planes in the vicinity; all the time I
scan the sky, check my rear view mirrors.
I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with
the black heart and "200" written on the tail. That's when the whole room, I
mean everybody, gets instantly quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop. Two
weeks later the base commander shows me a telex: "....according to
intelligence, the German pilot with a black heart is Eric Hartmann who has
downed 250 aircraft and there is a reward of fifty thousand dollars offered
by Stalin for shooting him down. I never heard of a cash reward for shooting
down an enemy ace ... "
-Lawrence Thompson
Eric Hartmann, called "the Blond Knight of Germany", survived the war with
352 victories
Don't you just love it when aces meet up with green pilots? Both our stories is about superior pilots, but not superior planes.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Nomak,
"The 109 was a better interceptor than the P-51."
The Me 109 had two attributes the P-51 lacked: Rapid climb and heavy cannon. That's why it was a better interceptor.
The P-51 had one attributes the Me 109 lacked: Long range. That's why it was a better long-range fighter.
I appreciate your enthusiam, but I'd like to encourage analytical thinking :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Better climb rate doesnt always mean better zoom to altitude at speed. Notice how Buds 51 out zoomed the 109. The 109s climb rate didnt help it on that day. Buds Mustang out climbed that 109. Not a steady climb to altitude but a zoom in combat while at speed.
-
Hi Nomak,
>Notice how Buds 51 out zoomed the 109.
Notice how Anderson held both an energy and an angles advantage when the fight became a one versus one.
It seems I have to explain it again: The Me 109's superior climb rate is relevant for Scholz' statement because it makes the Me 109 a superior interceptor. An interceptor's duty is to climb rapidly, intercept enemy aircraft, and shoot them down quickly.
No good rate of climb, no good interceptor.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
.
Utter nonsense (or you greatly overstimate the Me 109's level speed :-) The Me 109 could dive to Mach 0.79, about the same as the Fw 190 and the P-51, and considerably better than the P-47 and the P-38.
Henning (HoHun)
>---posted by gscholz--->
Now the advantage of the P-51 is really
apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway freight train.
Hmmmm...perhaps a contridiction there?
Your own story shows that the "109 can dive with a 51" is total garbage.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by HoHun
No good rate of climb, no good interceptor.
(HoHun)
Are you claiming the Mustang had a poor rate of climb?
The ability of an aircraft to reach altitude quickly is certianly improtant. However, a fast climb does not a superior intercepter make. That is only one aspect of an intercepters job.
-
By the way gscholz that is a great story. I have come across it before. Thx for posting it ;)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Nomak,
The Me 109 had two attributes the P-51 lacked: Rapid climb and heavy cannon. That's why it was a better interceptor.
Henning (HoHun)
From what I have read about ariel gunnery and aircraft firearms, the most important thing to bringing down another aircraft is the amount of lead that can be put on target.
Can a 30mm cannon put more led on target faster than 6x50 caliber brownings? I doubt it. Even if it could the brownings had FAR better ballistics and far greater ammo load that that tater shooter. So a Mustang could be putting lead on target while the 109 was still trying to get close enough for the shot.
The 109 series sufferd from a lack of firepower its entire service career. If it didnt why in the world were they mounting gun pods under the wings that dramiticly affected the speed and handling of the aircraft?
-
Hi Nomak,
>Hmmmm...perhaps a contridiction there?
The Me 109 was diving at a section of Mustang 2000 ft below. Neither aircraft had even reached its limiting dive speed.
In fact, the Mustang pilot quotes a speed of 390 mph which is well below the level top speed of both aircraft at 15000 ft.
You can't even rule out that the Me 109 pilot pulled his throttle purposefully after killing the lower Mustang to provoke an overshoot of his pursuer.
If you want to know how good the planes really were, don't fetch bits and pieces from combat reports without proper analysis, but have a look at the technical data.
Here is some data. It's just for a game, but as far as I know it's a quality game at least :-)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/109g10.html
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/p51d.html
That's just a starting point, but it already displays the superior regions of the Me 109's performance envelope quite well.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Nomak,
>Are you claiming the Mustang had a poor rate of climb?
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/109g10.html
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/p51d.html
Compare the figures and reach your own conclusions.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Nomak,
You can't even rule out that the Me 109 pilot pulled his throttle purposefully after killing the lower Mustang to provoke an overshoot of his pursuer.
(HoHun)
Agreed......although given the circumstances I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Nomak
Can a 30mm cannon put more led on target faster than 6x50 caliber brownings? I doubt it. Even if it could the brownings had FAR better ballistics and far greater ammo load that that tater shooter. So a Mustang could be putting lead on target while the 109 was still trying to get close enough for the shot.
The 109 series sufferd from a lack of firepower its entire service career. If it didnt why in the world were they mounting gun pods under the wings that dramiticly affected the speed and handling of the aircraft?
This is a thing that is stated over and over again. Ok, how many Rounds of 50´s to bring a fighter down? And then, how many rounds of 30 mm?
Pods was used as an option. The pilot could have them removed or keep them.
I state that 3x151/20+2x131, delivers far more firepower then 6x´50.
then finely, I want to ask you: have you ever fired a M2 Browning 50. cal other then in the virtual skies?
-
Originally posted by HoHun
If you want to know how good the planes really were, don't fetch bits and pieces from combat reports without proper analysis, but have a look at the technical data.
I will disagree with you there.
Test data means nothing to a pilot in combat. Isnt true combat performance what we are trying to compare here? At least I am.
So in some test a 109 can out dive a p51. In a physics lab you can prove an elephant could hang from a daisy flower to. That doesnt make it real world accurate. Use your common sense.
In the instance posted in real world combat the p51 was flat out running down that 109 in a dive.
-
Hi Nomak,
>From what I have read about ariel gunnery and aircraft firearms, the most important thing to bringing down another aircraft is the amount of lead that can be put on target.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Compare the figures and reach your own conclusions.
>The 109 series sufferd from a lack of firepower its entire service career.
The P-51 never had to be used against heavy bombers, or you'd have heard the same complaints about lack of firepower about the US type.
>If it didnt why in the world were they mounting gun pods under the wings that dramiticly affected the speed and handling of the aircraft?
The gun pods were mounting 20 mm cannon which were less capable than the 30 mm cannon that were developed later.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Here is some data. It's just for a game, but as far as I know it's a quality game at least :-)
That same game data has the TA152 to be a slower aircraft than a Dora at most altitudes. :rolleyes:
-
Hi Nomak,
>Test data means nothing to a pilot in combat.
Captured aircraft were restored with considerable effort in WW2, and tested as thoroughly as possible, to provide just the kind of data I've pointed out to you for the pilots in combat.
>So in some test a 109 can out dive a p51.
You didn't follow the links on diving I provided for you, did you?
>In the instance posted in real world combat the p51 was flat out running down that 109 in a dive.
The P-51 was flat out - but was the Me 109? You can't tell for certain - but you want to believe it was :-) That's wishful thinking, not careful analysis.
Something to ponder for you: The aircraft with the higher top speed and the better climb also accelerates better, at least flat-out and below level top speed.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Nomak,
>That same game data has the TA152 to be a slower aircraft than a Dora at most altitudes. :rolleyes:
Hardly suprising - the Jumo 213A of the Fw 190D-9 was optimized for low and medium altitudes, while the Jumo 213E of the Ta 152H was optimized for high altitude.
If you compare original Focke-Wulf charts, you'll see just the same relation :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
“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
There you have it Boys......a reliable enough source for you?? or will I hear claims of bias again?
:rofl
Game......Set.......Match
Now that is reality :D
-
Real P51D vs real G10, who knows. But AH P51D vs AH G10 coalt and similar pilot skill would end in stalemalte (P51 will be able to flee in most situations) or P51 down. Same with AH P51D vs AH Spit IX. In both cases, P51D has a notable lack of climb rate and acceleration against these opponents at most alts.
-
Good work Nomak, you really convinced me.
Now I have become a dedicated P-51 fan, singing praises to the speed and outperformance of its opossition.
I am suprised it still took that long to win the war, though, with Aircrafts like that.
-
You fellas aren't seriously stating that the 109 was a better fighter than the 51 are you?
Please!
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Good work Nomak, you really convinced me.
Now I have become a dedicated P-51 fan, singing praises to the speed and outperformance of its opossition.
I am suprised it still took that long to win the war, though, with Aircrafts like that.
It really didnt......once the Merlin powerd Mustangs arrived on the scene it was all but trival.
The longest part of the war was before thier arrival.
Im not sure if you are being sarcastic with your praise.....but I will thank you anyway. ;)
-
Some more stuff I found......
To Fly and Fight
Memoirs of a Triple Ace
Clarence E. "Bud" Anderson
"Once airborne, however, the P-51 was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low thanks to the two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to persue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime."
Pg 74
"Still, the Mustang could do everything that the Spitfire could do--and better yet, could do it over Berlin."
Pg 75
"Although the Mustang was superior in most ways you measure it, the Me 109 was a worthy opponent. The Messerschmitt was in service from 1935 to the end of the war, and by 1944 they had exhausted most ways of refining it. The later-model 109G, or "Gustav", was a 400-mph performer at combat altitudes, although the faster it went. the less maneuverable it was. The Focke-Wulf 190 was marginally faster than the Messerschmitt, carried more fuel, and handled much better at speed--though, again, it wasn't a nimble airplane compared with the Mustang."
Pg 98
"Hartmann scored 344 of his kills there (Russian front), and only eight in the west against Mustangs"
Pg 124
-
of course I am sarcastic, Nomak, :lol
It is a matter of taste, 109 or P.51. The p-51 being the better one in its overall performance.
I prefere the 109
-
Originally posted by crabofix
then finely, I want to ask you: have you ever fired a M2 Browning 50. cal other then in the virtual skies?
Lets hear about your mk108 30mm cannon firing experence.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Nomak
Lets hear about your mk108 30mm cannon firing experence.
:rolleyes:
I missed that caliber, sorry, fired 20 mm oerlikon and 40 bofors mm, never got between thoose.
My point is, the density of bullets is not very high for a single Browning, due to the "low" firerate. But the result is satisfying on a nonmoving target.
:lol
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hooligan,
>It seems to me the spitfire airframe underwent a lot more development as time passed compared to what happened with the 109.
Actually, the opposite is true. New Spitfire versions were created by mounting a new engine on the original aircframe, with few changes (usually just an increase of the radiator size).
The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section.
So in 1945, the Me 109 had a much more modern airframe than the Spitfire, yet noone considered the Spitfire outdated (at least, not more than any other propeller fighter).
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Late to the party but I have to disagree with the comments on the Spit development. As with the 109, the Spit went through continuous development whether it be engine, airframe, or what have you.
While, for example the MkVIII looked similar to the IX, it was in fact much more developed. The IX having been a transitional aircraft that introduced the 60 series Merlin to the Spitfire line. It was essentially a Mk V strengthened to take the larger engine. The VIII however had redesigned ailerons, provisions for more internal fuel tankage, tropical air intakes, retractable tail wheel, Different elevators, better rudder design and on and on. The wing too was strengthened.
Obviously the Spit XIV took this even further with the redesigned tail section to compliment the greater power of the Griffon engine. This lead to the completely redesigned wings of the Spitfire 21,22,24.
Park a Spit 21 next to a Spit I and a Me109E next to a 109K. The resemblence in the end is probably the area around the cockpit section with not much else being the same and even then the canopies would be different.
Both were continuous developments. Neither were just lashups of their early designs. That's how it works with fighter development.
Dan/Slack
-
I seriously think this discussion should discontinue - ain't worth the trouble digging up sources and numbers and plunging into a serious discussion, when the competition relies heavily on popular hype material and uses that as an 'evidence'.
Seriously, it's a waste of time, Hohun.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
......when the competition relies heavily on popular hype material and uses that as an 'evidence'.
Seriously, it's a waste of time, Hohun.
What are you calling "popular hype material"???
-
Worth a chuckle...
Nomak was flyn 109s tonight.:eek:
-
Whatever flies in the face of the other "popular hype material."
-
Originally posted by Virage
Worth a chuckle...
Nomak was flyn 109s tonight.:eek:
Hehe.........I guess it probably has come off that I dont like 109s. Its just not true. I fly em in the MA all the time. I had my wife order me a "wings of the LW" series just for the 109 stuff.
I just think its insane to actually try to argue that the 109 series could compare to a p51.
-
How about Nomak starts listing the bad sides of P51, instead of the unheard good things.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
(http://www.bf109.com/images/stigler4.jpg)
[...] These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling....this was also useful when you were drunk!
:cool:
-
Nomak:
You wrote...
Test data means nothing to a pilot in combat. Isnt true combat performance what we are trying to compare here? At least I am.
In comparying anything you need to define the scope and the criteria by which you will compare. What set of benchmarks are you using for comparing the P-51 and the 109's "true combat performance"? There is some value to pilot accounts in comparing relative performance differences between aircraft when appropriately taken as just a part of the whole of the analysis. However common sense tells me that relying heavily or solely on pilot stories to compare relative performance differences is fraught with problems that prevent accurate peformance benchmarking.
Based on just the basic technical data comparing the P-51D to a Bf-109K-4/G-10, I'd have to say that the 109K-4 matched head-to-head against the P-51D would have been a tough opponent. That's not even running through any calculations.
P-51D
Powerplant: 1490HP, 1650HP WEP
Normal Loaded Weight: 9500 lbs
Max Level Speed: 437mph @ 25,000 ft
Wing Area: 233 sq ft
Bf109K-4
Powerplant: 1800HP, 2000HP WEP
Normal Loaded Weight: 7438 lbs
Max Level Speed: 452mph @ 19,700 ft
Wing Area: 174 sq ft
The K-4 has a lower weight, better thrust-to-weight ratio, and higher top speed below 20,000 ft. Not sure what the difference in wing area would have played in terms of energy retention and bleed without doing the calculations but my guess is that the K-4's T/W ratio balance out the induced drag in maneuver due to smaller wings vs. the P-51D.
The P-51D would probably have been outclassed against a K-4 below 20,000 ft in terms of both speed and sustained maneuvering. Above 20,000 things equalize more as you go up in altitude but the K-4 would have still been an extremely dangerous opponent.
And this comes from a lover of the P-51 ;).
Of course I've limited the scope of the analysis to basic technical data as a benchmark. Things change as you broaden or change the scope of what you're comparing. For instance the virtues of the P-51 show up at a more strategic level of comparison- e.g. it's range and endurance, it's flexibility in roles, etc.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Hi Nomak,
>I just think its insane to actually try to argue that the 109 series could compare to a p51.
The Me 109 doesn't merely compare - it compares favourably :-)
If you'd look at the P-51D and Me 109G-10 data, you'd see that the Mustang is completely outclassed performance-wise below 24000 ft.
Above that, the Me 109G-10 concedes the top speed advantage, but still retains a considerable climb rate advantage.
It easily has the more effective gun at any altitude.
You're welcome to offer your opinion on which of the two was the better fighter - but don't forget it's an opinion only. I'd rather discuss facts, though, and the superior low/medium altitude performance of the Me 109G-10 is a fact.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Dbeav,
>You fellas aren't seriously stating that the 109 was a better fighter than the 51 are you?
You could easily find out by reading my posts.
Here's one projection: If the Messerschmitt factories had suddenly turned out P-51s in WW2 instead of Me 109s, the Luftwaffe would have lost more fighters, and the USAAF would have had more of its bombers returning safely instead of getting shot down.
Why? Because the slow-climbing P-51 would have needed to spend more time in airspace patrolled by superior numbers of enemy fighters, making it an easier victim for the enemy hunters. Its poorer armament would have made it less lethal against the enemy bombers, which would have been a pleasant surprise for the 8th Air Force.
And the complementary projection: What if the North American factories would suddenly have turned out Me 109s instead of Mustangs? Pretty obvious: The 8th Air Force bombers would have been without a fighter escort over Berlin.
So which one was the better fighter? It's up to you to build your opinion. But don't forget - it's just an opinion.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I was about to say, our G10 vs our 51D 1:1 has the 51D as either winning right away or post-post-merge dead meat.
-
I do of course respect your opinion on the matter.
I strongly disagree........however if we all shared the same views what fun would the BB be anyway :)
I had alot of fun with this thread.
Dave
-
Well, I just took a 109G10 and shot down 3 P-51’s 2 P-47’s and 2 B-17’s. It cost me 600 liters of gas, 47 30mm shells, and a few liters of oil (last B-17 pinged me). Landed 7 kills on my first sortie this tour. Against the first 3 Ponies and single Jug I initially had a buddy, but he crashed with a Ki61 so I was 1:4, but the superior climb rate of my 109 let me keep on top of the fight and knock them down one by one. After that 5 min battle I was getting close to bingo fuel and left, however I found a lone P-47 and a B-17 buff on the way home. Killed the Jug on the first pass, and killed two B-17's in two passes, but in the second one he pinged my engine oil and I saluted the survivor and left for home. Wish I had filmed it, it felt so good. :)
-
Hm... I'm pretty sure that the Germans would have been a lot happier with a bit larger airframe than the Bf 109. With a drop tank (typical for intercepting missions as Rall noted) and wing cannons (also quite typical) the Bf 109 was not so well performing plane. We also know that the Mustang airframe could carry four cannons and fuel for 3 hr mission in clean condition (about same as the Bf 109 with drop tank) and while still maintaining very good performance. BTW, the K-4 and the G-10 were more or less rarities (only several hunred reached service), the G-6 and the G-14 were the planes used in large numbers. IMHO the Bf 109 airframe could not combine required range and armament. In the terms of raw performance it still keep up with the competion pretty well.
gripen
-
You mean like the 190D9 and Ta152? ;)
The 109 was not designed, and never intended for anything other than short range intercepts. Much like the Spitfire in that regard, and both excelled in that capacity. The 110 was intended as the LW’s long range escort fighter, but was disappointing in that role.
The 109 is perfect as it is … leave it alone. :)
-
Originally posted by gripen
BTW, the K-4 and the G-10 were more or less rarities (only several hunred reached service)
Uhhm no. There were about 2600 G10 built in all. As for K4 there were 534 delivered by November 44 and at least 1200 more were built by the end of the war.
2600 G10
1700 K4
4300 in total...
Not a small number at all....
-
Comparing climb rates of the P51 and the 109 is a wee bit like apples and oranges.
109 climbs quicker to altitude. But the rugged 51, made for long distance flights is a good bit heavier, and heavier also for each hp.
It would be interesting to know how well a weighted-down, boosted up mustang could climb. Maybe time to bring the P51H into the discussion?
I did a climb comparison between the Spitfire MkI and the 109E, which are more similar planes regarding weight and power. Turned out that when the Spitfire finally had a decent airscrew, it outperformed the 109. Carry that to Newtons to alt per sec, and the difference was in the Spits favour, - both the airframe as a whole, or performance in NM pr hp.
Would perhaps be fun to compare the 51 to the 109 on that basis, but for that I may need more data, particularly on later models of 109.
-
GSholz,
I'd say that the Bf 109 was a good close support fighter (like it was used in east) but for high altitude intercepting it had too little internal fuel load. The Spitfire carried fuel for about 2 hr clean and could take four cannons. The Bf 109 was simply too small airframe for that mission.
Grunherz,
OK, I have no source books here.
gripen
-
Gscholz, your are too good in that G-10. Have been flying it for a tour (and died a lot). Best I ever got was a 6-kill sortie with two refuels. All fighters though and on 'seeking out' mission not lame defending. Was Fester's map though so a base is never far away there.
I love the challenge this plane offers and a fighter vs. fighter kills still feel like I've accomplished something, much different from the 'point and shoot' experience of the SeaFire (my main carrier plane for the last tour).
Back to the G-10/P-51 argument, I think it is a close match and pilot skill will be the deciding factor. If the P-51 bleeds to much speed, he is dead. If the G-10 allows the P-51 to gain angles, it is dead. The longer and lower the fight, the more the G-10 has the edge. Can finally say that I've flown both planes a lot and had many G-10/P-51 fights. Which one would I choose? P-51 I guess, for the only reason it has .50's
One last remark: A while ago I wondered how anyone could have a 14% hit ratio in a 109... (like Gscholz had at the time). Now I've persevered with them for one tour I have already reached 13.5% and suddenly shooting with anything else is immensely easy. Only wish I could do deflection shots with that spud gun as good as Fester.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Not a small number at all....
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1305
That total includes the fighters of Kurt Tank(A-8, A-9, D-9).
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html
-
Gents,
I can't believe this is even an arguement.
Why are the numbers so heavily in favor of the 109K when this was not the case.
Here are a couple of facts to kick around.
1. With equal duration (meaning the same weight from fuel and ammo) the P-51D is much lighter than 9,500LBS meaning it climbs much better than listed stats would indicate for a 10,000lbs airplane.
2. The P-51 had manuever flaps which would have assisted it throught the entire speed range as well as lower wing loading for when it got slow.
3. I have never seen anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. It may be fast but if you can't maneuver at those speeds you are dead anyway.
4. Most importantly. The K4 has the advantage of Nitrious and other fuel additives at altitude but you are excluding the use of 150Octane fuel in the Mustang which was common. With 150 octane fuel the P-51D was much faster than the K-4 and would climb as well even with heavier loads.
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/mustang+25lbs.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1305
That total includes the fighters of Kurt Tank(A-8, A-9, D-9).
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html
Numbers can be a bit decieving can't they? :)
Paper strength vs operational in April 45 was a bit different I'd suggest. How many planes did the Luftwaffe get airborne on that last big attempt to stop the Allied Air Forces on April 7, 1945 when the "Schuleungslehrang 'Elbe"" crowd went up to try and ram American bombers? That crowd launched 120 of which 60 didn't make it to the bombers, upwards of 40 were killed with only 27 made it back to base after making contact with the bombers and fighter escorts.
The 8th AF contribution on that mission was over 2000 planes. If you include all Allied sorties flown against the Germans that day the totals nearly 5000 sorties.
The day with the most 262 sorties was April 10 with 55 262s able to get into action resulting in the loss of 29 of those fighters with 6 pilots KIA, 5 WIA and 14 MIA.
Having servicable fighters parked all over Germany with little fuei and poorly trained pilots does not make it an effective fighting force at that large number, wheras those 5000 sorties flown by the Allies at that point were well maintained aircraft flown by well trained aircrew.
Go back to January 45 and Operation Bodenplatte. How many Luftwaffe fighters involved? A bit over 900. Of course they lost 271 planes and 213 irreplaceable pilots while despite the setback, the Allies were easily able to replenish the aircraft destroyed and had more then enough pilots in the pipeline.
And keep in mind when using order of battle numbers that the Luftwaffe going back to the summer of 44 were unable to mount attacks of any significance against the Allied bombers on many occasions. Galland had to martial his strength to try and make a stand which lead to very little resistance in September and October 44. The Luftwaffe then managed to get 300 fighters into the air on November 2, 1944.
It's kinda like arguing whether the 109 or the 51 was the better aircraft. You can find numbers and opinions to support both but in the end it's irrelevant beyond the final outcome
Dan/Slack
-
Guppy, the OoB was posted in response to Grunherz'z post of 4300 in total(G-10, K-4) produced.
Why you typed so much, I don't understand.
operational = servicable, not 'on hand' or paper strength.
-
Thanks for that excelent link MiloMorai.
It seems 190A9 served in small numbers in a lot of units, probably totalizing more than 100 serviceable aircrafts between Nov and Dec 45.
-
Thanks for the link MiloMorai,
It's a pity that most units did not list Bf 109 version they had. Probably most of them were G-14s, G-10s and K-4s, possibly there were also some G-6s left too.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Thanks for the link MiloMorai,
It's a pity that most units did not list Bf 109 version they had. Probably most of them were G-14s, G-10s and K-4s, possibly there were also some G-6s left too.
gripen
Glad you and GODO liked the link. Here is a some more for you:
http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/index.html
http://hometown.aol.com/jlowry3402/feb45.html
change the month and year for more info
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/
http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Tactics/Tactics.htm
-
i dunno, but if i was gonna be in combat in that era and i could choose between and 51D or K-4, think id pick the K-4 for sure, and im sure there were some G-6s left at the end, didnt Erich Heartmann fly a G-6 until the end? or did he switch?
-
Hartmann's last ride in WWII was the K4.
-
Hiya F4UDOA:
1. With equal duration (meaning the same weight from fuel and ammo) the P-51D is much lighter than 9,500LBS meaning it climbs much better than listed stats would indicate for a 10,000lbs airplane.
P-51D fuel weight is 1600 lbs at 100% internal tanks. I agree that reduced weight would improve the Mustang's rate of climb. While I'm not running the calculations, I'm not sure that it would make up for over a 1000+ fpm rate of climb differential. All things being equal you would have to assume the 109K-4's weight would be reduced as well as it consumes fuel so it's performance would be improved as well. On top of that there's also a 200-300 hp differential in engine output that exists as well. The probability is that the K-4 in most situations would still have the T/W and rate of climb advantage.
2. The P-51 had manuever flaps which would have assisted it throught the entire speed range as well as lower wing loading for when it got slow.
The maneuver flaps would give the P-51D some enhanced performance when it comes to instantaneous turn performance. I don't have data on the K-4's stall speed etc. so can't really comment as to what this might translate into. There could be a seam that the Mustang could exploit here. However from a sustained turn performance standpoint I'm guessing the K-4 would have the advantage due to a better T/W ratio to counter energy bleed though I'm willing to concede that I don't know (and don't have the time to run the calcs!) what the difference in wing loading could result in here.
3. I have never seen anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. It may be fast but if you can't maneuver at those speeds you are dead anyway.
Interesting point. I'm afraid I'm not a collector of WW2 a/c data so others would need to weigh in on this.
4. Most importantly. The K4 has the advantage of Nitrious and other fuel additives at altitude but you are excluding the use of 150 Octane fuel in the Mustang which was common. With 150 octane fuel the P-51D was much faster than the K-4 and would climb as well even with heavier loads.
This is a pretty provocative point that I haven't considered. Do you have references regarding this? I'd be especially curious if there are charts for the Merlin-66 or P-51D data on 150 octane fuel. I've found only one reference on this but the numbers look a little strange to me:
Merlin Data (http://www.wwiitechpubs.info/hangar/ac-uk/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin-br.html)
Anyway to sum it up for me I would give the edge to the 109K-4 for essentially having a better T/W ratio meaning that it would translate into letting the 109K-4 driver a larger room for error and more available options. If the 150 octane fuel data shows a significant improvement in the P-51D's performance I might have a different perspective.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by dtango
If the 150 octane fuel data shows a significant improvement in the P-51D's performance I might have a different perspective.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
By mid 1944 150 octane fuel could be obtained by any USAAF fighter group simply by requesting it. Unlike what many seem to believe, avgas was blended at most airfields. Because the TEL would precipitate out of the fuel over a period of just weeks, the fuel was blended within a few days of being used. In February of 1944, Doolittle ordered that 150 octane fuel be custom blended specifically for use by the P-38 groups in an effort to eliminate detonation in the Allisons (a common cause of engine failure among the P-38s). I have a copy of his order in my files. Some may know that Doolittle helped develop high octane aviation fuel when he worked for Shell Oil in the 1930s. He specified the P-38 formulation himself. It was effective at reducing engine failures, and it wasn't long before crew chiefs were rigging wastegates to allow for over-boosting for additional power. When the P-38 groups switched to the P-51, they continued to use the same fuel formulation. Pilots from the 55th FG have told me that this fuel allowed them to over-boost the Merlins to 72 in/Hg without ill effect. It was not unheard of for pilots to return claiming to have pulled as much as 80 in/Hg in combat. That's roughly the same MAP limits for the V1650-9 fitted to the P-51H (which had water injection). I'd wager money that few fighter groups were flying with the standard AN-F-28 100/130 avgas by 1945, not when they could have up to 150 octane. Still, the blending was done by simple chart, and quality control was no better than the man mixing the TEL compound into the fuel. The 8th AF instituted fuel testing in the spring of '44 in an effort to improve the consistancy of octane rating. Samples of every lot mixed were submitted and tested. Indeed, by late 1944, improved TEL compounds tripled the shelf life of the avgas. Stan Richardson of the 55th says that the 150 octane fuel really made a difference when the throttle was pushed up to "full goose bonzo".
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gents,
I can't believe this is even an arguement.
Why are the numbers so heavily in favor of the 109K when this was not the case.
This was the case.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Here are a couple of facts to kick around.
1. With equal duration (meaning the same weight from fuel and ammo) the P-51D is much lighter than 9,500LBS meaning it climbs much better than listed stats would indicate for a 10,000lbs airplane.
While this is true, even with dry tanks and no ammo the P-51 would still be considerably heavier than a fully loaded 109K, and with less power.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
2. The P-51 had manuever flaps which would have assisted it throught the entire speed range as well as lower wing loading for when it got slow.
Yes the maneuver flaps would give the P-51 additional turning capability, but at the cost of added energy bleed.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
3. I have never seen anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. It may be fast but if you can't maneuver at those speeds you are dead anyway.
This is of course utter BS, even in this thread I quoted a 109 pilot saying he dived to 450+ mph and had no trouble pulling out. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series which increased high-speed handling, especially in roll.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
4. Most importantly. The K4 has the advantage of Nitrious and other fuel additives at altitude but you are excluding the use of 150Octane fuel in the Mustang which was common. With 150 octane fuel the P-51D was much faster than the K-4 and would climb as well even with heavier loads. [/IMG]
109K4 used MW50, not GM1 (NOS). From what I have read even with 150 octane fuel the P-51 is slower and climbs poorer than the 109K4, even the 109G10 is better in climb. With 150 octane fuel the P-51 barely made it past the 4000 fpm mark while the 109K4 climbed over 5000 fpm. Deck speed was similar for both the P-51 and 109K4 at about 380 mph, however at altitude the 109K4 was faster (P-51 gaining slight speed advantage over 25K).
Mark Hanna flying the 109J (export early G6):
Just Imagine...
Track around the canopy though Nine, Eleven and now Twelve O'clock. Rolling out gently and now the specks are becoming objects and I can see wings and start to discern fuselages and engines. We're at five miles and closing at 420 knots and greater than seven miles a minute. Less than 50 seconds to go. There's the '51 escort high and behind the bombers... Good.... they're not a factor for the initial attack, but we will need to worry about them on the egress. 20 seconds and two miles. I've picked my target - the lead ship... I've misjudged the attack slightly, just missed the dead 180 so I've got a slight crosser which is going to foul up my sighting solution. 10 seconds to run... The B-17's light up ! Flashes from all over the airframes and smoke trails streak behind as the gunners let rip and fill the skies with lead. They're out of range buts its still frightening. The lead ship is filling my windscreen and closing rapidly. Now.... Fire ! Two second burst.... flash... flash... flash... HITS ! all in his cockpit and fuselage area... pull slightly on the control column to just clear the port wing, the fin slicing past just by me and roll hard left. World. B-17s gyrating round, stop inverted... pull 5 G's, nose down, down, down. Streamers pouring from the wingtips. I've lost the P-51's, I can't see them but I know they'll be after us. I'm out of here vertically down with a windscreen full of ground, rolling as I go to miss any pursuing Mustangs' sighting solutions - straight towards the Fatherland... only it isn't - it's Suffolk and Ron's calling... "Jimmy says can we do that one again Mark.. ". This is David Puttnam's Memphis Belle and we are airborne with five B-17's, seven P-51s, three '109's and a B-25. I'm leading the '109 formation. We're short on gas, it's cold at 12,000 feet and this is fantastic, tremendous fun. The Bf 109 is, without doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft that I have ever flown.
Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company relates his experiences flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109J (export version to Spain).
To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the '109 and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! As you walk up to the '109 one is at first struck by the small size of the aricraft, particularly if parked next to a comtemporary American fighter. Closer examination reveals a crazy looking knocked-knee undercarriage, a very heavily framed sideways opening canopy with almost no forward view in the three point attitude, a long rear fuselage and tiny tail surfaces. A walk-round reveals ingenious split radiator flaps which double as an extension to the landing flaps, ailerons with a lot of movement and rather odd looking external mass balances. Also independently operating leading edge slats. These devices should glide open and shut on the ground with the pressure of a single finger. Other unusual features include the horizontal stabilizer doubling as the elevator trimmer and the complete absence of a rudder trim system. Overall the finish is a strange mix of innovative and archaic.
Climbing on board you have to be careful not to stand on the radiator flap, then lower yourself gently downwards and forwards, taking your wight by holding onto the windscreen. Once in you are aware that you are almost lying down in the aeroplane, the position reminicent of a racing car. The cockpit is very narrow and if you have broad shoulders (don't all fighter pilots ?), it is a tight squeeze. Once streapped in, itself a knuckle wrapping affair, you can take stock. First impressions are of simplicity and straight forwardness.
From left to right, the co-located elevator trim and flap trim wheels fall easily to hand. You need several turns to get the flaps fully down to 40º and the idea is that you can crank both together. In practice this is a little difficult and I tend to operate the services separately. Coming forward we see the tailwheel locking lever. This either allows the tailwheel to castor or locks it dead ahead. Next is the throttle quadrant, consisting of the propeller lever, and a huge throttle handle. Forward and down, on the floor is an enormous and very effective ki-gass primer and a T shaped handle. DIrectly above this and in line with the canopy seal is the yellow and black hood jettison lever. Pulling this releases two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy, causing the rear section to come loose and therefore the whole main part of the hood becomes unhinged and can be pushed clear away into the aiflow. Looking directly forwards we have clustered together the standard instument panel with vertical select magnetos on the left, starter and booster coil slightly right of center and engine instruments all grouped together on the right hand side. Our aeroplane has a mixture of British, Spanish and German instruments in this area.
The center console under the main instrument panel consists of a 720 channel radio. E2B compass and a large placard courtesy of the Civil Aviation Authority warning of the dire consequences if you land in a crosswind equal to or greater than 10 knots, or trim the aircraft at speeds in excess of 250 knots. Just to the left of the center console, close to your left knee is the undercarriage up/down selector and the mechanical and electrical undercarriage position indicator. On G-BOML this is a rotary selector with a neutral position. Select the undercarriage up or down then activate a hydraulic button on the front of the control column. This gives 750 psi to the system instantly. Immediately beneath the undercarriage selector is the control for the Radiator flaps. These are also hydraulically controlled with an open/close and neutral position, and activated by the trigger on the stick at 375 psi. If you leave the radiator flap control in anything other than neutral and then try to activate the undercarriage you will not have enough pressure to enable the gear to travel.
-
Right hand side of the cockpit sees the electrical switches, battery master boost, pumps, pitot heat and a self contained pre-oil system and that's it ! There is no rudder trim, or rudder pedal adjust; also the seat can only be adjusted pre-flight and has the choice of only three settings. If you are any bigger than 6 feet tall, it's all starting to get a bit confined. Once you are strapped in and comfortable close the canopy to check the seating position. Normally, if you haven't flown the 109 before you get a clout on the head as you swing the heavy lid over and down. Nobody sits that low in a fighter ! The OFMC aeroplane has the original flat top ot it - however the Charles Church aircraft has a slight bulge to the top of the canopy - about an inch or so. This is practically indescernable externally, but gives a very helpful lift to the eyeline over the nose.
It's getting dangersously close to going flying now ! OK, open the hood again (in case we catch fire and have to get out in a hurry!). To start, power ON, bost pumps ON. Three good shots on the very stiff primer. Set the throttle about 1/2 inch open. "CLEAR PROP". Push the start button, a few blades and boost coil and mags together. It's a good starter and with a brief snort of flame the '109 fires up immediately. Checking oil pressure is rising right away... Idle initially at 700 RPM, then gently up to 1000 to warm up. Less than 1000 RPM and the whole aeroplane starts to rock from side to side on the gear with some sort of harmonic. This is a most unusual sensation and is quite good fun ! One is immediately aware after start that the aeroplane is "Rattley"; engine, canopy, reduction gear all provide little vibrations and shakes transmitted directly to the pilot.
Close the rad flaps with the selector, and activate the hydraulic trigger. Check the 375 psi and that they close together. Reopen them now to delay the coolant temperature rise. The '109 needs a lot of power to get moving so you need to allow the engine to warm a little before you pile the power onto it. Power up to 1800 RPM and suddenly we're rolling... power back... to turn, stick forward against the instrument panel to lighten the tail. A blast of throttle and a jab of brakes. Do this in a Spitfire and you are on your nose ! The '109 however is very tail heavy and is reluctant to turn - you can very easily lock up a wheel. If you do not use the above technique you will charge off across the airfield in a straight line ! Forward view can only be described as apalling, and due to the tail/brake arrangement this makes weaving more difficult than on other similar types. I prefer to taxy with the hood open to help this a little. By the time we are at the end of the strip the aircraft is already starting to get hot. So quickly on with the run-up. Hood closed again with a satisfying thud. I'm sitting as high as I can and my head is touching the canopy. I am not wearing goggles as they scratch and catch the hood if they are up on your head. A large bonedome is out of the question and in my opinion is a flight safety hazard in this aircraft. Hood positively locked... and push up on to it to check, Oil temperature is 30º, coolant temperature is greater than or at 60º. Brakes hard on (there is no parking brake), stick back and power gently up to 0 boost (30") and 2300 RPM. Exercise the prop at least twice, RPM falling back to 1800 each time, keep an eye on the oil pressure. The noise and vibration levels have now increased dramatically. Power back down to 1800 RPM and check the mags. Insignificant drop on each side. We must hurry as the coolant temperature is at 98ºC and going UP - we have to get rolling to get some cooling air through the radiators. Pretake off checks... Elevator trim set to +1º, no rudder trim, throttle friction light. This is vital as I'm going to need to use my left hand for various services immediately after take-off. Mixture is automatic, pitch fully fine... fuel - I know we're full (85 gallons); the gauge is unserviceable again, so I'm limited to a maximum of 1 hour 15 minutes cruise or 1 hour if any high power work is involved. Fuel/Oil **** is ON, both boost pumps are ON, pressure is good, primer is done up. Flaps - crank down to 20º for take off. Rad flaps checked at full open; if we take off with them closed we will certainly boil the engine and guaranteeed to crack the head. Gyro's set to Duxford's runway. Instruments; temps and pressures all in the green for take off. Radiator is now 102º. Oxygen we don't have, hood rechecked down and locked, harness tight and secure, hydraulics select down in the gear and pressurise the system check 750 psi. Controls full and free, tail wheel locked. Got to go - 105º. There's no time to hang around and worry about the take off. Here we go... Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to +8 (46")... it's VERY noisy ! Keep the tail down initially, keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique... tail coming up now... once the rudders effective. Unconcious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredcibly entertaining to watch the '109 take off or land. The rudder literally flashes around ! The alternative technique (rather tongue in cheek) is Walter Eichorn's, of using full right rudder throughout the take-off roll and varying the swing with the throttle !
The little fighter is now bucketing along, accelerating rapidly. As the tail lifts there is a positive tendancy to swing left - this can be checked easily however, although if you are really agressive lifting the tail it is difficult to stop and happens very quickly. Now the tail's up and you can see vagualy where you are going. It's a rough, wild, buckety ride on grass and with noise, smoke from the stakcs and the aeroplane bouncing around it's exciting !
Quick glance at the ASI - 100 mph, slight check back on the stick and we're flying. Hand off the throttle, rotate the gear selector and activate the hydraulic button. The mechanical indicators motor up very quickly and you feel a clonk, clonk as the gear comes home. Relect Neutral on the undercarriage selector. Quick look out at the wings and you see the slats fully out, starting to creep in as the airspeed increases and the angle of attack reduces. 130 mph and an immediate climbing turn up and right onto the downwind leg just in case I need to put the aeroplane down in a hurry. Our company S.O.P. is to always fly an overhead orbit of the field to allow everything to stabilize before setting off - this has saved at least one of our aeroplanes.
Start to frantically crank the flap up - now up the speeds, increasing through 150, power back to +6 (42") and 2650 for the climb. Plenty of airflow through the narrow radiators now, so close them and remember to keep a careful eye on the coolant gauge for the next few minutes until the temperature has settled down. With the rad flaps closed the aircraft accelerates postively. I'm aware as we climb that I'm holding in a little right rudder to keep the tail in the middle, but the foot loads are light, and it's no problems. Level off and power back to +4(38") and 2000 RPM. The speed's picked up to the '109 cruise of about 235-240 mph and now the tail is right in the middle and no rudder input is necessary.
Once settled down with adrenalin level back down to just high, we can take stock of our situation. The initial reaction is of delight to be flying a classic aeroplane, and next the realization that this is a real fighter ! You feel agressive flying it. The urge is to go looking for something to bounce and shoot down !
-
The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !
Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.
The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.
So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.
In addition to the above the small cockpit makes you feel more a part of the aeroplane and the overall smaller dimensions make you more difficult to spot. There's no doubt that when you are flying the '109 and you look out and see the crosses on the wings you feel aggressive; if you are in an allied fighter it is very intimidating to see this dangerous little aeroplane turning in on you !
Returning to the circuit it is almost essential to join for a run and break. Over the field break from 50 feet, up and over 4G's onto the downwind leg. Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10º to 15º. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that !
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! THe only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow !
When we first started flying the '109 both my father and I did a lot of practice circuits on the grass before trying a paved strip. Operating off grass is preferred. Although it is a much smoother ride on the hard, directionally the aircraft is definitely more sensative. WIthout doubt you cannot afford to relax until you are positively stationary. I would never make a rolling exit from a runway in the '109. It is just as likely to wrap itself up at 25 as it is at 80 mph. Another promlem is that you have to go easy on the brakes. Hammer them too early in the landing roll and they will have faded to nothing just when you need them ! The final word of advice is always three point the aircraft and if the wind is such that it makes a three pointer inadvisable it's simple: the aeroplane stays in the hanger !
Having said all this, I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Our intention is to eventually re-engine our aeroplane with a Daimler-Benz 605 and convert it to a late '109G or perhaps even a 'K'.
-
Originally posted by Nomak
>---posted by gscholz--->
Now the advantage of the P-51 is really
apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway freight train.
Hmmmm...perhaps a contridiction there?
Your own story shows that the "109 can dive with a 51" is total garbage.
:rofl
Missed this one.
First of all I have never claimed that the 109 was a better diver than the P-51. The P-51 was heavier than the 109 and naturally was a better diver. The P-51 is a great plane to run in, but running is not fighting. I'll always take superior climb over superior dive in a fighter. As I have found out I will always catch a P-51D in my 109G10 if he dives (if no other enemies interfere). He will of course gain a considerable initial separation, but once his speed has bled off to maximum deck speed I catch up to him because I didn't follow his dive and the 109G10 is faster at 10K than the P-51D on the deck. Now he is in grave trouble I'm faster and 10K above him.
-
10 K above or not, you'll have to get down there to kill him ;)
My bet is that in a G10 vs 51 meeting co alt, approx same speed, the G10 will have to gain initial altitude advantage, - hammerhead the guy. The 51 will outperform the G10 in most other important dogfight categories, - high speed rolls, instant turns, sustained turns.
Running from a G10 is just silly, - even from a G2 it is too ;)
BTW, at terminal diving speed, the 109 was pretty much cemented, and would need trim to pull up. P51 and P47 would catch it, - common fact. And imagine being in a dive in a very unmovable plane with something on yer tail, closing, and even rolling while at it :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
10 K above or not, you'll have to get down there to kill him ;)
My bet is that in a G10 vs 51 meeting co alt, approx same speed, the G10 will have to gain initial altitude advantage, - hammerhead the guy. The 51 will outperform the G10 in most other important dogfight categories, - high speed rolls, instant turns, sustained turns.
Running from a G10 is just silly, - even from a G2 it is too ;)
BTW, at terminal diving speed, the 109 was pretty much cemented, and would need trim to pull up. P51 and P47 would catch it, - common fact. And imagine being in a dive in a very unmovable plane with something on yer tail, closing, and even rolling while at it :D
Which is why I never dive away from superior diving planes, I climb above them. P-51 vs. 109G10 co alt, same speed? For the love of God why? The 109 allow me to engage any enemy with an alt advantage and usually speed advantage too, that's the strength of the 109! After I had run down the P-51 and was 10K on top of him I could B&Z him to death at will! My fighter kills so far this tour (three days) are 6 x P-51, 4 x P-47, 2 x N1K2, 1 x P-38, and 1 x Typhoon (+ 3 x B-17 and 3 x Lanc). In one fight I was alone against 3 P-51's and a Jug, yet I never felt that I was in danger and killed them all by climbing above them, forcing them to fight against my 109's strengths and their weaknesses. I have yet to be shot down by an enemy aircraft this tour, although I got waxed by fleet ack on my first hop (hate that), and today I managed to ram an Il2 (doh!). If you fly it right the 109G10 is untouchable.
-
Lets not forget that 109 accerlates faster alot faster than P51, without putting nose into a dive.
-
I made a chart overlay of the HTC data on the 109G10 and P-51D a while back because the range of the charts are different (which makes comparison more difficult).
First lets study the speed chart:
(http://r1329776.hostultra.com/Upload/data/media/3/109g10-P51Dspeed.jpg)
As you can see the 109 is faster at all altitudes except on the deck where the P-51 has a very minor advantage. The 109's speed advantage is actually very astonishing. Here we can also see the advantage of the 109's stageless automatic supercharger (basically a large clutch connected to a huge hairdryer ;)). When the P-51 lose performance at 13K the 109G10 has a smooth power curve.
The climb chart is even more telling:
(http://r1329776.hostultra.com/Upload/data/media/3/109g10-P51Dclimb.jpg)
From this chart we can see that not only is the 109 vastly superior in climb at all altitudes, but the 109 also has a higher service ceiling. The 109G10's ceiling is at about 39K. In fact the 109G10 even out climbs the P-51D without WEP!
I've done a time to altitude test between a 109G10 with 100% fuel + DT and a P-51D with 50% fuel. I started the timer when the aircraft reached 150 mph and autopilot climb was engaged. WEP on at take-off.
109G10
Time to 10K: 2 min 15 sec.
Time to 20K: 4 min 53 sec.
Time to 30K: 9 min 44 sec.
Fuel remaining after WEP climb to 30K: 76% internal + 100% DT (1x fuel consumption)
P-51D
Time to 10K: 2 min 57 sec.
Time to 20K: 6 min 47 sec.
Time to 30K: 12 min 23 sec.
WEP auto shut-off at 15K due to engine overheat. The engine had not yet cooled down at 30K
Fuel remaining after WEP climb to 30K: 45% (1x fuel consumption)
A heavy 109G10 is still vastly superior in climb to a light P51D.
So in less than 10 minutes I'm at 30K in my 109G10 with 50% internal fuel and 100% in the DT. At 30K the 109G10 can cruise at 420 mph (mil power) for approx. half an hour on the DT in the MA (2x fuel consumption).
I've also done a maneuverability test on the 109G10, and filmed it. You can download the film here (http://r1329776.hostultra.com/Upload/download.php?action=zip&image_id=13).
As you can see I start out at 10K going into a shallow dive to 510 mph TAS at which point I pull the 109G10 into a 10G+ barrel roll (probably more than 12G's since I broke the right wing off!). Instantaneous turn was at 5.5G's increasing rapidly as I manually trimmed up. Notice that I manually trimmed the 109 throughout the dive (it's second nature to me now).
The 109G10 is clearly the supreme unperked interceptor and air superiority fighter in Aces High.
-
If you wanna wax me in a 51, I'll have to leave the rooks ;)
-
Naw, there's plenty of prey out there. ;)
-
Snipped from this thread at SimHQ
http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=005153
Myths and Misunderstandings
1) “The Mustang was the fastest aircraft in the air”
At its rated altitude, the Mustang B had a maximum speed of 441mph. For December of 1943, that makes the B model the fastest aircraft in operation in Europe when compared to the 405mph 109G6, 418mph 190A5 and 396mph La-5FN.
The P-51D model would also be the fastest operational prop plane at altitude when it is introduced in the Spring of ’44 with a top speed of 437mph. At higher altitudes it is better than the 431 mph of the G6AS, the 426 mph of the 190D9 without MW-50, and the 410 mph of the La-7. It was much better than the Spitfire IX LF with its top speed of 407 mph., and the 190A8 with its top speed of 408 mph.
At sea level the P-51’s advantages were less.
At sea level the B model was rated at 355 mph. That compares to 336 mph for the G6, 356 mph for the 190A5, and 357 mph of the La-5FN.
At sea level, the P-51D at +18 boost was rated at 367mph. (362mph for the early D) That compares to 363 mph for the 109G6AS, 380mph for the La-7. It was superior to the 362 mph of the FW190D9 without MW-50. The Spitfire IX LF was slower at approximately 336 mph as well as the 190A8 at approx. 355 mph.
Against 1945 aircraft, the P-51D began to fall behind at higher altitudes when compared to the 452 mph of the 109K4 and the 440 mph of the FW190D9 with MW-50 with both aircraft. At low altitudes the 190D9 had significant advantages in speed at 378mph, with the K4 being almost identical to the P-51.
Conclusion:
It is clear that the Mustang had advantages of speed at higher altitudes in late 1943 and early 1944 when the crucial periods of combat in the ETO occurred. But the advantages were not there as much at lower altitudes, and by 1945 it was falling behind to some German aircraft. Of course, by 1945, the Luftwaffe was hopelessly outnumbered.
So it seems that the Mustang’s reputation for having superior speed is only partly true, but it is true for the periods when combat was the most intense.
2) “The Mustang had a great climb”
Level Climb
An examination of tests of climbrates for the P-51B show a maximum initial climbrate of 3200 ft per minute at Sea Level. (all tests at full fuel) This is not very good. It compares for example, to 4200 ft/min for the 190A5
The P-51D shows a maximum initial climbrate of approx. 3450 ft per minute. For a mid 1944 aircraft that is poor to mediocre. For example a mid 1944 Spitfire Mk IX LF had a climbrate in the area of 4700 ft per minute. A 109G10 had a climbrate of approx. 4600 ft per minute, a FW190D9 a rate of approximately 4200 ft per minute, a La-7 a rate of around 4400 ft per minute. Only against the 190A8 with its climbrate of 3400 ft per minute does it seem competitive. When the Mustang D is compared to 1945 aircraft, it comes off even worse.
There is no doubt that the Mustang’s reputation for having a great climb is a myth. However, when the subject is ZOOM climb, the answer is different. More on this later.
3) The Mustang had great acceleration.
Level Flight Acceleration
Level acceleration can generally be approximated by looking at the powerloading of an aircraft, which is the normal loaded weight of an aircraft, compared to its engine’s maximum horsepower. Acceleration is also significantly affected by the overall drag of an aircraft’s airframe. (more later on that issue) A look at the powerloading of the Mustang when when fully loaded as compared to other aircraft of the same era indicates that it lags significantly behind. Fully loaded, with maximum fuel, combat weight of a P-51D is 10,208 lbs. Maximum hp is 1720. That translates into a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per horsepower. A 109G10 with 1800 hp and a weight of approximately 7400 lbs, has a powerloading of approximately 4.1 lbs per horsepower. A Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a horsepower output of 1720 lbs has powerloading of 4.3 lbs per hp. A La-7 with a weight of approx. 7300 lbs and a horsepower output of 1700 has a powerloading of approx. 4.3 lbs per hp. The FW190A8 and D9 did not have as much of an advantage in raw powerloading, but were slightly superior.
It seems clear that in LEVEL flight, the Mustang’s reputation for great acceleration is a myth.
4) The Mustang was a great Dogfighter.
A conventional view of a dogfight has fighter aircraft in tighter and tighter turns, chasing each others tails. How would the Mustang do in that type of combat?
First of all, an aircraft’s ability to turn tightly is related to three main things: Wingloading, Wing Design and Powerloading. Low wingloading, and wing designs which generate more lift at high angles of attack give aircraft better ability to turn tightly. An aircraft’s ability to sustain it maximum tight turn is related to its acceleration and powerloading. A sustained turn will inevitably lead to a stall, unless an aircraft’s engine can generate enough acceleration to overcome the induced drag of placing the wings at an angle to the airstream. Higher powerloading will allow for sustained high Angle of Attack turns.
We seem to have determined that the Mustang has relatively poor Acceleration, which suggests its ability to sustain its maximum turnrate would be questionable.
How is its wingloading?
At fully loaded weight of 10,208 lbs on a wing area of 233 Sq/ft, a Mustang has a wingloading of 43.8 lbs per Sq/ft. That compares very poorly to a Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a wing area of 242 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 30.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It’s similar to a 109G10 with a wing area of 172 Sq/ft and a weight of 7400 lbs for a wing loading of 43 lbs per Sq/ft. It is inferior to the La-7 with a wing area of 189 Sq/ft and a weight of 7300 lbs for a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190A8 with a weight of 9750 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 49.5 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190D9 which has a weight of 9480 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 48.1 lbs per Sq/ft.
How about Wing Design?
The P-51D is unique in the listed aircraft in having a Laminar flow aerofoil as its chosen wing shape. The laminar flow design allows for low drag when air is travelling across the wings at high transonic speeds, but additionally, this wing design shape also produces reduced lift at high angles of attack. Ie. when a Mustang pilot pulls very tight turns at low speeds and high angles of attack, his wings generate lower lift than a conventional aerofoil.
On the basis of the above, one would have to conclude that a fully loaded Mustang would be a mediocre classic dogfighter. Against an aircraft like the Spitfire or La-7, or even a 109G10, (due to the G10’s much better acceleration) it would not have much of a chance in a classic low speed turnfight. Against a 190A8 or 190D9 it should be superior.
Overall Conclusions?
On the basis of an objective examination of the technical stats of the Mustang, and its competitors, one would begin to wonder why the Mustang did so well. It seems like a very mediocre aircraft.
However, a little deeper examination and the misunderstandings about the quality of this aircraft come into focus.
And its advantages and superiorities come to the fore.
To understand the Mustang, you have to first understand its design goals and designated role. Ie. a long range escort Fighter.
Range and Fuel Load
If we look at the Mustang’s range, we get our first clue as to the misunderstandings. The P-51D had a maximum range of approximately 1250 miles on internal fuel. That gave it a combat radius of 450 miles without drop tanks. (including climb to altitude, flight to and back from target, 10 minutes at combat power) When compared to other aircraft of the era, we see an incredible advantage. The 109G10 had a combat radius of approximately 130 miles. The Spitfire IX LF had a radius of 125 miles, the 190A8 had a radius of approximately 165 miles and the 190D9 had a radius of 175 miles. (all without drop tanks) The La-7 had a similar radius to the 109’s.
cont....
-
The P-51’s airframe had every spare space filled with fuel tanks. One of the last elements added prior to the Merlin version beng standardized was an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot’s seat. This tank when filled caused a dramatic shift in the aircraft’s centre of gravity, such that if a pilot pulled a turn over 3G’s with the tank full, the possibility of airframe damage was considerable. For that reason, the tank was only filled on long range missions. And orders were specifically penned by the 8th Air Force Commanders that the fuel in the tank was to be burned off before any other fuel, before even fuel in drop tanks. Once the fuel in the tank was below 45 gallons, the aircraft’s centre of gravity returned to normal. Most pilots emptied this tank completely first then started on their drop tanks. That meant that the Mustang went into combat with the behind seat tank empty. In essence it meant the aircraft’s maximum combat weight was actually 510 lbs, (85 gallons) less than the 10,208 lb fully loaded figure. Ie. maximum combat weight was actually 9698 lbs. Which meant that wingloading was actually 41.6 lbs per Sq/ft.
The Mustang carried 269 gallons of internal fuel. That compares to 106 gallons for the 109G10, or 170 gallons for the 190A8, or 138 gallons for the 190D9, or 102 gallons for the Spitfire IX.
As the P-51D carried more fuel, it could fly longer, and burn more, as it burned its larger fuel load, its wingloading improved proportionately more than its opponents.
At 50 % fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 40.34 lbs per Sq/ft. It still had a radius of 225 miles.
At 50% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 41.27 lbs per Sq/ft. It had a radius of 65 miles.
At 50% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 46.3 lbs per Sq/ft, and a radius of 87.5 miles.
At 50% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 47.0 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 82.5 miles.
At 25% fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 112.5 miles. Notice that the P-51’s radius with 25% fuel is nearly as good as the G10 at full fuel load.
At 25% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 40.4 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 32.5 miles.
At 25% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 45.8 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 40.1 miles.
At 25% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 45 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 43.7 miles.
At 25%fuel the German fighters better be returning to base, but the P-51 can still fly for a considerable distance.
Powerloading
The same would apply to powerloading for the Mustang at lower fuel loads.
At full fuel load, the Mustang as mentioned above, had a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per hp. At 25% fuel it improves to 5.2 lbs per hp, still not as good as the 109’s but proportionately a better improvement.
What this all tells us, is that while the Mustang wasn’t a very good dogfighter when fully loaded, when it was at a lower fuel load, it would get considerably more nimble.
Combat Flaps
Most aircraft of the WWII era could not deploy flaps over approximately 300 mph, or 480 kph. This applied for the 190’s, 109’s, Spitfires, Yaks, etc. If flaps were deployed at higher than those speeds, they would be damaged. What this meant was that during high speed maneuvers, an aircraft which could successfully deploy flaps, would have a considerable advantage.
The P-51 had a flap setting mechanism which allowed it to drop flaps up to speeds of 425 mph without damage. At very high speeds, only 5 degrees of flaps were used.
A pilot could drop the flaps momentarily, gain a brief advantage in turnrate to achieve a gun solution, and then retract them again to regain speed.
Combat flaps allowed the Mustang to outturn aircraft at high speed which it could not stay with at lower speeds.
Rollrate
The P-51 had a slightly above average rollrate at low and medium speeds, peaking at 94 degrees per second at 310 mph Indicated Airspeed. That does not come close to the 190A, the acknowledged King at low and medium speeds with a maximum rollrate of 165 degrees per second at 250 mph. But the big advantage the Mustang had, was the fact its rollrate was sustained at high speeds. The Mustang still rolled at 85 degrees per second at 400 mph IAS. That compared to the FW190A, which had its rollrate drop off to 70 degrees per second at 400 mph IAS. When compared to other opposition aircraft, the Mustang’s advantage at high speed was even more pronounced.
Aerodynamics
But perhaps the largest single design advantage that the P-51 had was its fuselage and wing shape.
The P-51 used flush rivets, which did not protrude over the surface of the aluminum which covered the wings. This reduced drag considerably.
The radiator intake on the P-51 was set back, behind the wing, on the underside of the fuselage. This avoided affecting most of the airflow over the frame. In addition, The P-51 design used a boundary layer gutter that separated the cooling air intake from the fuselage, preventing the intake from ingesting the boundary layer (the layer of turbulent air close to the skin of the plane) This reduced drag even more. In fact, when the radiator was opened at higher temperatures, the flow of hot air out the back acted as a addition to the thrust of the aircraft, and a net gain in speed of approximately 10 mph was seen.
The P-51 also used a Laminar flow aerofoil design on its wings.
http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/history/airfoils.jpg
Due the wing design with its intention of creating lift, airflow over wing surfaces moves at a high speed than the speed the aircraft is actually travelling. Speeds over the wing surfaces reach high transonic speeds at times, even when the aircraft is travelling much slower. A laminar flow aerofoil reduced the formation of turbulent airflow, which greatly increased drag.
http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/history/lamdiag.jpg
On aircraft with ordinary wings, as speed increases, drag increases expodentially. Laminar flow wings do not suffer as much of a penalty. Which meant that the P-51 bled speed much more slowly than other aircraft at high speeds.
The faster the speeds at which the P-51 met other aircraft in combat, the bigger its aerodynamic advantage. Low G turns at high speeds, zoom climbs, in all these the P-51 excelled.
The P-51 had a drag coefficient of .0176. This compares to the 190A8 and 190D, the most aerodyamically efficient aircraft in large scale production on the German side, which had a drag coefficient respectively of .0278 for the 190A8 and .0242 for the 190D9. On a wing area of 233 Sq/ft that gives the Mustang an equivalent flat plate area of 4.10 sq/ft compared to 5.22 Sq/ft for the A8 and 4.78 Sq/ft for the D9 on a wing area for both 190’s of 196.98 Sq/ft. This means the Mustang is aerodynamically 22% more efficient than the A8 and 15% more efficient than the D9.
This aerodynamic advantage was most noticeable in situations where aircraft were travelling at over their maximum level speeds. At those speeds, normal acceleration and powerloading is no longer effective in propelling the aircraft to go faster, and a major factor governing how an aircraft accelerates in a dive, or how long an aircraft retains speed in a zoom climb is the cleanliness of its airframe.
In these areas, the P-51 is the superior aircraft.
Overall
An overall analysis of the P-51 Mustang reveals an aircraft which, although it doesn’t have a very good climb or low speed acceleration, and which does not excell in low speed high angle of attack turnfighting, has excellent speed through the altitude range and should excell in high speed maneuvers, dives and zoom climbs.
This is what hopefully, we should see in FORGOTTEN BATTLES.
Sources are too numerous to post here, but include the books such as “America’s Hundred Thousand”, test data from NACA and AFDU, as well as original German sources.
Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw
For those who think the 109s controls "were locked in concrete" above 400 mph are just wrong.
-
Gsholz,
Do you realize that the P-51D flight data you have posted is for a 10,100lbs airplane?
The 109G10 carries 106 gallons of fuel. The P-51D carries 269 gallons of fuel. So the P-51 is carrying 1640lbs of fuel and the 109 636lbs. So if you take 1,000lbs off of the P-51D how do you think it would climb?
I can tell you that if you take a 12,000lbs F4U-1 at Mil power it takes 8 minutes to reach 20K. At 11,000LBS the same airplane takes 7 minutes to reach the same altitude. That is a huge difference in average rate of climb. This is from test data not AH. Apply that to the P-51D at WEP taking 7minutes to reach 20K at 10,100lbs. At 9100lbs that is 6minutes.
7 minutes= an average rate of climb of 2857fpm
6 Minutes= an average rate of climb of 3333FPM a 16% increase without subracting for equal ammo weight.
With a 16% increase in climb puts the initial rate of climb for the P-51D at 4000FPM.
That is not even including the use of 150 octane fuel.
BTW you ignored my chart. The 109G10 is not faster than the Mustang with 150octane fuel fuel. Did you look at it?
You keep mentioning power to weight but you aren't mentioning that the Cdo of the 109 is so much higher than the P-51 it needs that thrust just to compensate for for it's higher drag. Just look at the Sea level speeds are equal while the 109 has 200HP more. That drag takes its toll in real life acceleration.
Also if you want to prove that the 109 could maneuever at speed you should provide some test data. I have annecdotal evidence from two soucres that say the F4U could roll 180DPS but it still proves nothing.
When comparing the two you should use real life numbers not numbers from the game. If AH were perfect we wouldn't need AH2.
Here is another chart for you reading pleasure.
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg)
-
I have gathered my data regarding the speed and climb characteristics of P-51B and P-51D vs. Bf 109 K. The K-4`s advantage is rather massive, particularly below 7000m.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4%20vs%20P-51speed.jpg)
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4%20vs%20P-51clmb.jpg)
The P-51B results are from British flights tests. Data for P-51D is from the book America`s Hundred Thousend.
Data for Bf 109 K-4 are from German flight tests with DB 605 DB and DC engine, for 1850 and 2000 HP respectively, and a standard propellor.
Also, while I should note that F4U had somewhat right in that the 109 series were heavy to manouver in pitch, one should note that the Mustang was no better. As Mark Hanna mentioned, the elevator forces were similiar.
There`s also a confirmation to this by Dave Southwood:
The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.
It appears from the description that this wasn`t as restrictive though.
It also agrees with the finding of Society of Experimental Test Pilots, who ran a flight test comparison of the F6F-5, FG-1D (Goodyear F4U), P-47D-40 and P-51D. Chief test pilot was John Ellis of Kal-Aero.
The following give an insight to elevator stick forces and the pilot`s opinion :
MANEUVERING STABILITY stick forces/g at Vmax
FG-1--5 lbs/g (too light)
P-47--7.5 lbs/g (ideal)
F6F--12.5 lbs/g (barely acceptable)
P-51--over 20 lbs/g (excessive)
Regarding stall characteristics :
STALL normal (straight and level decelerating at 1 kt/sec.) and accelerated (constant 3g turn decelerating at 1 kt/sec.)
Aerodynamic warning:
Best--P-47, with buffet 5 kt above stall.
Worst--P-51, no buffet or other warning.
Height loss, accelerated stall:
Best--P-47, 100 ft.
Worst--P-51, 500 ft.
FG-1 and F6F both 150 ft.
Behavior during accelrated stall:
Most predictable and controllable: P-47 and F6F. Both could be flown at will into the pre-stall buffet, which at no time was heavy enough to present problems with tracking, and held at maximum usable lift coefficient with ease. Sideslip became noticeable as wing heaviness correctible with rudder. There was little tendency to depart controlled
flight. The FG-1 suffered severe airframe buffet shortly before the stall, but at the stall there was a strong g-break and rapid right wing drop--no matter which direction the turn. Careful left rudder could prevent wing drop, but then at the stall the aircraft became very unpredictable, bucking and porpoising, with a tendency to a sudden departure.
The P-51 gave no warning whatsoever of an accelerated stall. At the stall, the aircraft departed with complete loss of control, achieving 270-degree of roll before recovery. Departure was accompanied by violent aileron snatch strong enough to rip the control stick from the hand. In short, the P-51 suffered from a Part I deficiency.
Compare to Soutwood on the 109`s :
The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.
The control heavyness of the 109 only applied to the elevators, the ailerons and rudders were light.
In fact, I have 3 different sources which all state that the aileron forces were light, a German, Finnish test, and Soutwood`s and Hanna`s words, all indicate that even at 450-480 km/h IAS range, stick force required for full deflection was a mere 20 lbs. Very light indeed. The measured roll rate at this speed was 80-95 degree/sec at this speed, again, rather good.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gsholz,
Do you realize that the P-51D flight data you have posted is for a 10,100lbs airplane?
The 109G10 carries 106 gallons of fuel. The P-51D carries 269 gallons of fuel. So the P-51 is carrying 1640lbs of fuel and the 109 636lbs. So if you take 1,000lbs off of the P-51D how do you think it would climb?
I can tell you that if you take a 12,000lbs F4U-1 at Mil power it takes 8 minutes to reach 20K. At 11,000LBS the same airplane takes 7 minutes to reach the same altitude. That is a huge difference in average rate of climb. This is from test data not AH. Apply that to the P-51D at WEP taking 7minutes to reach 20K at 10,100lbs. At 9100lbs that is 6minutes.
7 minutes= an average rate of climb of 2857fpm
6 Minutes= an average rate of climb of 3333FPM a 16% increase without subracting for equal ammo weight.
With a 16% increase in climb puts the initial rate of climb for the P-51D at 4000FPM.
That is not even including the use of 150 octane fuel.
BTW you ignored my chart. The 109G10 is not faster than the Mustang with 150octane fuel fuel. Did you look at it?
You keep mentioning power to weight but you aren't mentioning that the Cdo of the 109 is so much higher than the P-51 it needs that thrust just to compensate for for it's higher drag. Just look at the Sea level speeds are equal while the 109 has 200HP more. That drag takes its toll in real life acceleration.
Also if you want to prove that the 109 could maneuever at speed you should provide some test data. I have annecdotal evidence from two soucres that say the F4U could roll 180DPS but it still proves nothing.
When comparing the two you should use real life numbers not numbers from the game. If AH were perfect we wouldn't need AH2.
Here is another chart for you reading pleasure.
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg)
Did you even read my post? I did a test with a fully laden 109G10 WITH DROPTANK and compared it with a P-51D WITH 50% FUEL. The 109 was still vastly superior in the test.
Parasitic drag does not become a major factor until high speeds are reached, at low speed induced drag and weight are the major factors affecting acceleration. The 109G10 and K4 accelerated much faster than the P-51D.
I didn't ignore your chart, It confirmed my statement. I never said that the 109G10 was faster than a P-51D with 150 octane fuel, I said that the 109K4 was equal in speed on the deck (approx. 380 mph), but superior at altitude. The 109G10 still out climbed the P-51D though. Your chart states that a not cleaned up for testing P-51D (A) did approx. 380 mph on the deck
I don't need to prove that the 109 could maneuver at speed, what evidence do you have that it didn't?
I use data from Aces High because believe it or not I don't have the luxury of flying real WWII planes in mock combat. I play Aces High and the performance in the game is what is important to me.
-
I also found this in my archieves,
Acceleration, as calculated by Greg Shaw. At SL, at Full Throttle, from 250mph TAS:
in feet/seconds
109 K-4 : 6.85
La-7 : 6.58
190 D-9 : 6.05
109 G-14: 5.59
Spit XIV: 5.55
109 G-10: 5.50
Yak-9U : 5.27
190 A-8 : 4.97
Yak-3 : 4.80
P-38L-5 : 4.75
109 G-2 : 4.62
P-47 M-5: 4.49
SpitIXLF: 4.41
109 G-6 : 4.22
P-38J-25: 4.17
F-6F : 4.09
F-4U1D : 4.08
P-47D-25: 3.79
P-51D-25: 3.34
I checked the Mustang acceleration data with America`s Hundred thousend, and it`s matches very well.
Nothing of a surprise, the K-4 had drag comparable to the P-51, but was a lot lighter and had a more powerful engine (Daimler Benz rules...).
Relevant powerloadings at SL were :
109 K-4 : 588 HP / t
P-51 D : 363 HP / t
Regarding Cd0 numbers... they are pretty irrevelant. They are useless for comparing aerodynamics of different shaped and sized planes. Don`t ask me, ask the NACA, they say the same.
Besided, that sand in the eye about Cd0s reminds me the historical conversation between Ersnt Heinkel and Willy Messerscmitt after the Bf 109 was choosen over Heinkel`s design for a fighter. Heinkel was arguing that he was building more aerodynamic planes.
Messerschmitt reply : "Well, I build fast ones." :)
-
The +25lb boost chart does not reflect reality. There exist 2 pages from detailed test report of a Mustang running at 25lb with a 1650-7 engine. Topspeed TAS was 355mph @ +18lb and 379mph @ 25lb (sealevel).
What´s strange is the fact that they even added +5mph to IAS.
I assume this comparision chart shown here is for highly tuned machines, probably lightly armed, specially prepared V1-chasers.
niklas
-
Originally posted by Nomak
Are you serious? How about severe compression problems?
How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?
How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?
Jesus, I haven`t read such massively WRONG statements for a long time.
Severe compressibility problems ?
Slats (!!!!!!!!) killing pilots ?
Half were lost in landing accidents ?
Where did you got all that BS ?
-
Originally posted by niklas
I assume this comparision chart shown here is for highly tuned machines, probably lightly armed, specially prepared V1-chasers.
niklas
That`s right Niklas, the test were done with planes intended as V-1 chasers, all were cleaned up greatly. In fact some of the machines were stripped of equipment, ie. wingtips, mirrors, antenna masts, bombracks etc. were removed.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Jesus, I haven`t read such massively WRONG statements for a long time.
Severe compressibility problems ?
Slats (!!!!!!!!) killing pilots ?
Half were lost in landing accidents ?
Where did you got all that BS ?
Didn't you know the lw never had any planes that could do anything more then fly straight and level? Then out of those it was a miracle just to take off and land with out killing yourself and destroying the plane.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
That`s right Niklas, the test were done with planes intended as V-1 chasers, all were cleaned up greatly. In fact some of the machines were stripped of equipment, ie. wingtips, mirrors, antenna masts, bombracks etc. were removed.
How does one remove the wingtips from a P-51? Most P-51s did not have mirrors - was not a standard fitting. All P-51s did not have bomb/drop tank racks as standard. How does one communicate with ground control if the antenna mast is removed?
Oh btw, how was your "vacation" from Ubi?
-
You still have reading comprehension problems Milo. I said "some".
Vacation ? What vacation, Briddy ? Dreaming again ? I guess so. :D
-
Just to make it clear, Isegrim's charts show the 109K4 at 1.98 ata, which wasn't authorised until March 45, and 1.8 ata, which wasn't authorised until Feb 45.
His figures for the P-51 are with 100/130 fuel, not the 100/150 they switched to in summer 44. 100/150 allowed higher manifold pressure, up to 81 in HG in RAF service, a bit less in the 8th AF. That gave up to 2000 hp in the Mustang.
In fact some of the machines were stripped of equipment, ie. wingtips, mirrors, antenna masts, bombracks etc. were removed.
None of the planes had aerials removed. The Mustang had "a small projecting bracket at the base of the whip aerial removed", which doesn't mean the whole aerial.
The Mustang had the bomb racks removed, and a quick clean up of the paintwork.
As recieved from the squadron, with badly chipped paintwork, bomb racks (and "small projecting bracket"!) it had a speed of 383 mph at sea level. With the bomb racks removed, aerial bracket removed, and paint cleaned up speed went up to 403 mph at sea level.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
You still have reading comprehension problems Milo. I said "some".
Vacation ? What vacation, Briddy ? Dreaming again ? I guess so. :D
Not as bad as yours Barbi.:D
You going to call me a pediphile like you did to someone at Ubi?
-
Gsholz,
As soon as I saw you are basing your results on AH I disregard them. They are meaningless in the real world. If your only concern is the current AH FM then I won't even bother with the discussion.
However in the air where airplanes fly things are different.
An aircraft with higher drag will take longer to accelerate than one with lower drag even with higher HP many times. Drag is a huge factor especially cdi. Your cruise drag of the 109 is what cost so much. Fact is the pony could do a fast cruise of 400MPH at altitude that the 109 could never match. This was due to high cdi which slows the 109's acceleration drastically.
I have the P-47C AFDU where it accelerates as well as the P-38F despite less HP and worse power loading.
VO101_Isegrim actually proves my point. In the report you posted that shows stall and stick forces it also shows the P-51D out acclerating the F4U-1D, F6F-5 and P-47D despite having the worst power loading.
So much for Mr.Shaws calculations.
I already know the Pony has high elavator forces but the ailerons were very good.
Instead of pointing to your sources for the 109's ailerons why don't you post them?
Also your data you keep refering to is clearly marked in AHT as 10,175lbs P-51D for climb and climb times. In practical combat that airplane would weight less than 9,000lbs.
You insist at comparing the heaviest possible configuration to a light 109.
Why don't you ask a surviving German pilot how he felt?
-
Ok F4UDOA, I have a few questions for you.
First, do you have any data on the high alt performance of the P-51D using 150 octane fuel?
Second, since 150 octane fuel does not by itself increase HP did they replace the supercharger or merely increase boost pressure where the original blower could, i.e. at lower altitudes?
Thirdly, when did the P-51's start using 150 octane fuel for most if not all operational units (as opposed to just a few specialized ones)?
Fourthly, You say that combat weight for the P-51D was less than 9000 lbs. Does the P-51D have enough fuel to fight and then return to England from Berlin if it is weighing less than 9000 lbs?
Fifthly, you state that the 109 was "locked in concrete" above 400 mph, what documentation can you provide that support this?
Sixthly, your acceleration theories do not match with (what I preserve as) reality. Drag is not the most important factor in accelerating at low speeds so if the 109 is faster, lighter and have more HP it MUST accelerate faster than the P-51D at low speeds. What documentation can you provide that refutes this logic?
Seventhly, do you have any quotes from 109G10 and/or 109K4 pilots that say they felt the P-51D was superior?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
An aircraft with higher drag will take longer to accelerate than one with lower drag even with higher HP many times.
It fully depends on initial and final speeds to measure that acceleration. More than problably, P51D would be massively outaccelerated from 150 to 300 mph by a 109K, and the opposite for higher speeds.
-
First, do you have any data on the high alt performance of the P-51D using 150 octane fuel?
Second, since 150 octane fuel does not by itself increase HP did they replace the supercharger or merely increase boost pressure where the original blower could, i.e. at lower altitudes?
?I have what I posted, I do not have high alt 150 octane for those A/C. I do have a climb chart somehwere I am trying to flind that shows the P-51D climb rate at 4,000FPM+. Higher octane fuel does lower the critical altitude but that would olny match the loawer critical alt of the 109G10 which is also using C3 and MW50
Thirdly, when did the P-51's start using 150 octane fuel for most if not all operational units (as opposed to just a few specialized ones)?
Many of the units, not all. This was not just for V-1 chasers. It was deployed with the Navy as well for A/C that could use it. Not sure if the Navy used it during the war but it became common if not standard in some theaters of operation.
Fourthly, You say that combat weight for the P-51D was less than 9000 lbs. Does the P-51D have enough fuel to fight and then return to England from Berlin if it is weighing less than 9000 lbs?
I would say absolutely yes and I don't even know the distance between Berlin and England. I have the fuel cart for the P-51D. It could cruise at 400MPH at 30K for 3 hours plus on internal fuel only at 80GPH. Remember the Mustang carried drop tanks for the ride in so fuel level would have been optional for the ride home.
Fifthly, you state that the 109 was "locked in concrete" above 400 mph, what documentation can you provide that support this?
Yes, JG26 War Diaries Georg Ganth flying a 109K-4 could not center his stick and it took both hands to roll back from being inverted at 500KPH IAS. BTW they did not like the K-4 they preffered the G10.
Sixthly, your acceleration theories do not match with (what I preserve as) reality. Drag is not the most important factor in accelerating at low speeds so if the 109 is faster, lighter and have more HP it MUST accelerate faster than the P-51D at low speeds. What documentation can you provide that refutes this logic? This is strictly thrust vrs drag. How much thrust is required to overcome X amount of drag. If the P-47C can accelerate as well as a P-38F then a Mustang can do at least as well as a 109. I can't do the math right now but I will shortly. BTW at sea level the Mustang is at least as fast with less HP required. The Mustang is designed for low cruise drag thats why it accelerates through those speeds ranges so well.
Seventhly, do you have any quotes from 109G10 and/or 109K4 pilots that say they felt the P-51D was superiorYes there is one in this thread I believe
-
What was the drag coefficient of the 109K4 and the P-51D (operational, not test dragster)?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I have what I posted, I do not have high alt 150 octane for those A/C. I do have a climb chart somehwere I am trying to flind that shows the P-51D climb rate at 4,000FPM+. Higher octane fuel does lower the critical altitude but that would olny match the loawer critical alt of the 109G10 which is also using C3 and MW50
So the 109 would actually gain performance over the P-51 at higher alts since the 150 octane boost would lower the critical altitude of the P-51D?
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I would say absolutely yes and I don't even know the distance between Berlin and England. I have the fuel cart for the P-51D. It could cruise at 400MPH at 30K for 3 hours plus on internal fuel only at 80GPH. Remember the Mustang carried drop tanks for the ride in so fuel level would have been optional for the ride home.
A commercial flight from London to Berlin takes about two hours flight time. At 9000lbs the P-51D would have only 67 gallons left of its internal fuel. Your numbers don't match up.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Yes, JG26 War Diaries Georg Ganth flying a 109K-4 could not center his stick and it took both hands to roll back from being inverted at 500KPH IAS. BTW they did not like the K-4 they preffered the G10.
So the control weren't "set in concrete", he just needed both hands. You yourself discounted anectodal evidence earlier. Do you have anything except anecdotal evidence to support this?
Originally posted by F4UDOA
This is strictly thrust vrs drag. How much thrust is required to overcome X amount of drag. If the P-47C can accelerate as well as a P-38F then a Mustang can do at least as well as a 109. I can't do the math right now but I will shortly. BTW at sea level the Mustang is at least as fast with less HP required. The Mustang is designed for low cruise drag thats why it accelerates through those speeds ranges so well.
No, it how much thrust is needed to move X amount of mass. Just like with cars, rockets, airplanes, bullets, volcano lava and every other object that is accelerated. Drag only becomes a factor as speed increase.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Yes there is one in this thread I believe
I can't find it, but then again I might be going blind for all I know.
-
First, do you have any data on the high alt performance of the P-51D using 150 octane fuel?
High alt performance, at critical altitude and above, would be the same.
Second, since 150 octane fuel does not by itself increase HP did they replace the supercharger or merely increase boost pressure where the original blower could, i.e. at lower altitudes?
They allowed higher pressure at lower altitudes. Because of the relatively high critical alt on the engine, that means a power increase up to 20,000ft or so.
Thirdly, when did the P-51's start using 150 octane fuel for most if not all operational units (as opposed to just a few specialized ones)?
The 8th AF switched to 150 octane in early summer 44, for the vast majority, if not all, their Mustangs. The RAF had already switched most home based fighters over. 8th AF fighters used approx 20,000 tons of 150 octane per month.
So the 109 would actually gain performance over the P-51 at higher alts since the 150 octane boost would lower the critical altitude of the P-51D?
No, the critical altitude was lowered for the higher power setting. For example, if the V-1650-7 could maintain 67 in HG up to 20,000ft, the critical altitude would be 20,000ft. If it could maintain 81 in HG up to 14,000ft, then critical altitude at 81 in HG would be 14,000ft. Power would then decline until 20,000ft, where it would match the figure at 67 in HG. Between 14,000ft and 20,000ft, although the power would be declining, it would still be higher than at 67 in HG.
-
I see. Thanks. :)
So in the end what I said initially was correct. 150 octane fuel will allow the P-51D to match the 109K4 in low alt performance (edit: speed only), but as alt increases the 109K4 would gain superiority as it was over the 100/130 octane P-51D's. Perhaps AH should get a late war P-51D using 150 octane fuel as a perk Pony ... and the 109K4 of course! :D
-
Hmmm ... one issue just popped up in my mind. If they increased boost pressure, they increased fuel consumption (unlike MW50), which increases both power and heat buildup. Unless there was some cooling agent or modified cooling system the engine would overheat considerably faster than under normal WEP. Wouldn't it? If so, does anyone know how long these Ponies could run at +25 boost?
-
According to the manual, 25lbs boost was limited to 5 mins, same as 18 lbs boost (Note the US didn't allow 25 lbs at all, something like 76 " HG, 21 or 22 lbs boost iirc).
The Spit IX had the same limitations, 5 mins at 18 lbs and 5 mins at 25lbs. Neil Sterling posted the cooling trials of the Spit IX at 25lbs. Under temperate summer conditions, 10 mins cruise at max normal power, followed by a 5 mins climb at 25 lbs, all with radiators shut, took temp just up to max allowable, but not over.
10 mins cruise and 5 mins at 25 lbs, all level flight, radiators shut, kept temperate well under max allowable, even under tropical summer conditions.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
According to the manual, 25lbs boost was limited to 5 mins, same as 18 lbs boost (Note the US didn't allow 25 lbs at all, something like 76 " HG, 21 or 22 lbs boost iirc).
And what power did this boost yield? 2000hp? I find it strange that the boost time is the same. Either they improved cooling somehow or the 18lbs boost was unnecessarily restricted and could have been used longer?
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Spit IX had the same limitations, 5 mins at 18 lbs and 5 mins at 25lbs. Neil Sterling posted the cooling trials of the Spit IX at 25lbs. Under temperate summer conditions, 10 mins cruise at max normal power, followed by a 5 mins climb at 25 lbs, all with radiators shut, took temp just up to max allowable, but not over.
By 10 minute cruise you mean the engine temp was nominal or below nominal? Was this procedure limited to 10 min or could the Spit cruise for longer at mil power and still use the boost?
Originally posted by Nashwan
10 mins cruise and 5 mins at 25 lbs, all level flight, radiators shut, kept temperate well under max allowable, even under tropical summer conditions.
I find this strange, couldn't the boost be used indefinitely then? Or did the piston heads overheat? If so why didn't they overheat faster at 25lbs than 18lbs, as one would expect? Did they strengthen the Merlin (new model)?
-
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)
-
I asked Butch about those 109K performance figures posted above by Isegrim and it would seem that they are calculated. Has any one got actual flight test performance data for the 109K?
Neil.
-
And what power did this boost yield? 2000hp? I find it strange that the boost time is the same. Either they improved cooling somehow or the 18lbs boost was unnecessarily restricted and could have been used longer?
It often was used for longer. There's lots of annecdotal evidence that pilots ran wep for longer. Early Hurricanes and Spits during the BoB were limited to 12 lbs boost, for 5 mins only. I saw one pilot account of using 12 lbs for takeoff, and leaving it at that throughout the flight (deliberately)
By 10 minute cruise you mean the engine temp was nominal or below nominal? Was this procedure limited to 10 min or could the Spit cruise for longer at mil power and still use the boost?
From the wording of the test, as well as it's purpose (to determine if cooling was adequate at 25lbs boost) the 10 mins at maximum cruise was used to warm up enough to get an accurate figure from the combat power (25lbs) runs.
Don't forget the plane would have been warmed up on the ground first, and then climbed to test altitudes.
The test is a cooling report by the A&AEE to determine if Spit cooling is adequate for the new 25lbs rating. I should think they tried to replicate real life conditions, ie long cruise, period of combat etc.
Don't forget, even the cruise portion of the test was done with rad flaps shut, whereas in normal conditions the flaps would be open.
I find this strange, couldn't the boost be used indefinitely then? Or did the piston heads overheat?
I don't know what the limiting factors were. I suspect engine life was one of the main ones. I know that with extended running at 18 lbs or 25lbs, the exhaust stubs would burn out.
If so why didn't they overheat faster at 25lbs than 18lbs, as one would expect?
I should think they did, but not by that much. The Merlin used the fuel for charge cooling, and the greater fuel flow at 25lbs would have helped reduce temperate. But even then, I would expect an engine running at 25 lbs to break sooner than an engine at 18lbs.
Did they strengthen the Merlin (new model)?
No, same Merlin. The early Merlin 61 engines couldn't take 25 lbs, but the Merlin 63, 66 and 70, all used in the Spit IX from late 42/ early 43 onwards could take 25 lbs. I'm not 100% sure about the V-1650-3, though I think it could run at 25lbs, but the V-1650-7 certainly could.
-
I find this very interesting. I know the late 109's were superior in combat, but I've always felt that the Ponies in AH were too easy kills. Sure pilot quality and overwhelming odds were the primary factors in late 1944 and 1945, but still ... I think AH needs a late 1944 P-51D with 150 octane and a late war Spit IX, but the problem from HTC's point of view might be getting accurate data. Both would probably need to perked though. Same with 109K4 if we get it.
Woah! Look at me ... I turned out to be an alliedweeb. Who would have guessed. ;)
Edit: Still, F4UDOA is way off with his über performance figures. You can't strip down the Pony like that in operational service. If you removed the bomb racks the Pony can't carry the DT's and that aerial bracket was there for a reason too. And btw. most Ponies didn't have paint (except on the nose and insignias).
Woups ... relapse to Luftwobble status ... oh well :D
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Just to make it clear, Isegrim's charts show the 109K4 at 1.98 ata, which wasn't authorised until March 45, and 1.8 ata, which wasn't authorised until Feb 45.
[/qoute]
Just to make clear, Nashwan often makes up ridiculus things, like +25lbs being standard on Spit XIVs, or nonexistent "ghost" Spitfire XIV squadrons which are supposed to serve in India during WW2, or funny theories for the Murmansk convoys. This case is of no exception. His imagination knows no borders when it comes to making up false stories.
1.8ata was authorized from the very beginning, and 1.98ata was cleared already in 3rd (!!) edition of the DB 605DC manual, dated November 1944.
The only reason he invents these lies is because the true performance of the Bf 109 is red carpet to him (they so much outclass his precious Spit), and he needs to degrade this performance, if at nowhere else, in his wild fantasies.
His figures for the P-51 are with 100/130 fuel, not the 100/150 they switched to in summer 44. 100/150 allowed higher manifold pressure, up to 81 in HG in RAF service, a bit less in the 8th AF. That gave up to 2000 hp in the Mustang.[/qoute]
Just to make clear, Nashwan has again no idea of what he is talking about. First, not all Mustangs switched to 150 grade. Second, he "forgots" to mention that the 8th AAF used only 71" Hg with their Mustangs, instead of 67", when running on 150 octane. The reason for that was the enourmous increase in maintaince work due to using 150 grade, and frequent use of spark plugs. The power increase was rather modest this way. +14" is supposed to give +250 HP, so +4 is unlikely to give more than 70-80 bonus HP.
In flight tests, the actually measured max. SL speed of the P-51 D was only 359 mph at +67 Hg boost. As it is shown, my figures are significantly higher than that, so it`s for 150 grade fuel.
Also, not even +81 HP gave 2000 HP in the Mustang, only 1940, and only up to a mere 500 ft, then power fell of due to insufficent superchargin.
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
I asked Butch about those 109K performance figures posted above by Isegrim and it would seem that they are calculated. Has any one got actual flight test performance data for the 109K?
Neil.
The figures are NOT calculated for the 109 K - they are based n real life test, butch himself told you that very clearly. You know it very well. Why trying to make something different of that ? Because somehow you managed to convince yourself that no single real life test exist for German planes, therefore you can ignore their performance on the basis that "oh, every spec is calculated, never reached".
It seems you always find it very hard to accept the real life performance of German planes. Why is that Neil ? Preconception ?
Some of the figures on the graph are calculated - those performance figures for the new type VDM 12 199 "Dunnblatt" propellor, not for the "normal" figures I gave for the VDM 12 159 propellor. The former would increase maximum speed by 10-15 kph at the high altitude.
Again, the figures posted are from REAL LIFE tests. And Butch told you that.
You know Neil, the performance you and Nashwan producing here is a rather miserable one. You are hiding your heads in the sand.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Seventhly, do you have any quotes from 109G10 and/or 109K4 pilots that say they felt the P-51D was superior?
See pages 292-293 in Caldwell's "JG-26". It seems that the G-10 was far better liked than the K-4, at least within this organization. The book explains why, but it does seem that all of the K-4s they received were fitted with gondolas, which appear to have been universally disliked. Also, there is a description of the K-4's evil handling at high altitude.
Let's not overlook the handling quirks of the P-51D either. From an expert on the topic (as told by P-51 ace Sid Woods):
"In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude. The D model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft. In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach 0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but structural damage to the aircraft would result). The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get very nose heavy. It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if speeds over 400 mph were anticipated. However, in high speed dives, the plane's skidding changed to unintended snap rolls so violent that the pilot's head was slammed against the canopy. Depending on how much fuel was in the fuselage tank, on pull-out stick force reversal could occur, a real thrill that could totally flummox a low-time service pilot diving earthward at close to 1,000 ft per second trying to escape a pursuer. The P-51 was a good dogfighter, positively stable under all flight routines. A pilot didn't have to work hard to get it to the limits of its flight envelope (that is, he wasn't sweating heaving and pushing and pulling and kicking to get it to move its ass.)
It was important to burn down fuel in the fuselage tank to avoid longitudenal instabillity. Cranking into a tight turn with too much go-juice in the tank would mean instant stick force reversal and the pilot had to brace himself to oppose the stick slamming backward into his solar plexus, and shove hard to prevent the turn from tightening till, if he was lucky, he entered a high speed stall, or, if unlucky, the wing ripped off. Turns above 250 mph IAS were the killers, because they resulted in g forces high enough to black out the pilot so that he couldn't oppose the stick reversal and the Mustang would, unattended, wind itself up into a wing-buster."
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hmm ... are Niel and Nashwan naughty? Not good. Trickery is not acceptable in a serious debate. I very much like every plane in AH to be as accurate as possible, but falsities are uncalled for no matter how big an enthusiast you may be.
-
1.8ata was authorized from the very beginning, and 1.98ata was cleared already in 3rd (!!) edition of the DB 605DC manual, dated November 1944.
According to Butch2k, before he took the All About Warfare forum down, the 109K4 was tested at 1.8 ata by a single JG during Feb 45, and 1.8ata was then authorised. 1.98ata was then tested during March, before being authorised sometime during March. I seem to remember you claiming the manual "authorised" 1.98 ata, and Butch telling you he had copies of the documents saying otherwise.
Need I remind you that 190 manuals authorised 1.45 ata on the A3 and A4, but the planes were derated to 1.35 ata for a long time, or that 109G manuals quote 1.42ata, but that technical bulletins prohibit more than 1.3ata from June 42 until sometime in 1943?
Also, not even +81 HP gave 2000 HP in the Mustang, only 1940, and only up to a mere 500 ft, then power fell of due to insufficent superchargin.
My Merlin chart, which includes the V-1650-7, shows a shade over 2000hp at 4000ft, with ram.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
An aircraft with higher drag will take longer to accelerate than one with lower drag even with higher HP many times. Drag is a huge factor especially cdi. Your cruise drag of the 109 is what cost so much. Fact is the pony could do a fast cruise of 400MPH at altitude that the 109 could never match. This was due to high cdi which slows the 109's acceleration drastically.
I am sorry F4U, but this is again wishful thinking. The Mustang could do 400 mph cruise ? You know what, prove it. What model, what engine power ?
And even if your claims are true, I have to disappoint you : the K-4 could cruise for infinitive time for 400 mph (645kph). At dauerleistung the cruise speed is given as 645 km/h at 8400 m. That it can do without any time limit. For a 30 min duration, it could cruise at 670 km/h at 9000m.
That is, the K-4 could cruise faster than the P-51D`s highest maximum speed at that altitude...
Not competitive, eh ?
Besides, it`s quite clear that at low speeds circa where acceleration happens, powerloading is the deciding factor, as drag is low. The Mustang`s key to high maximum speed was not low drag in general, but low drag of the airframe at high speeds. Because of the laminar flow, drag increased less than with other designs.
Instead of pointing to your sources for the 109's ailerons why don't you post them?
Why would I need to ? I referred to them already. You on the other hand, without any reference, state that the 109`s ailerons were poor. You have to produce something in regards of that before anything else.
Until then, you have to accept what my reports say, that they were light and good.
Also your data you keep refering to is clearly marked in AHT as 10,175lbs P-51D for climb and climb times. In practical combat that airplane would weight less than 9,000lbs.
That`s nonsensical. Less than 9000 lbs would mean no ammuntion, and perhaps 1/4 fuel tank.
You insist at comparing the heaviest possible configuration to a light 109.
Sorry, that`s ridiculus. Both planes are at take off weight, the Mustang w/o it`s droptanks or rear tank.
Of course we could play with half-empty tanks, but this would increase the 109`s climb advantage even further, as a lighter plane would gain lot more from even a slight weight reduction.
[qoute]
Why don't you ask a surviving German pilot how he felt? [/QUOTE]
How he felt because he was outnumbered 10 to 1 despite having a better airplane ?
Why don`t you take HoHun`s advice, and confront your opinion with the hard facts : the K-4 was faster, turned and climbed better than the P-51 .
-
Interesting. Evil handling at high alts? Were they related to the gondolas or were they the result of some other factor?
-
Where is Butch2k anyways? What's he doing now? Could we maybe hijack him over here for a quick lesson?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
According to Butch2k, before he took the All About Warfare forum down, the 109K4 was tested at 1.8 ata by a single JG during Feb 45, and 1.8ata was then authorised.
Unfortunetely, that holds no water with reality. Understandable, as you are recalling it all from memory, and of course in the way you would like it to be.
Like as usual, you refer to butch with false qoutes from him, taking advantage that the forums are down, and nobody can check if you are lying. Expect of course, I have the page saved on my HDD. Bad luck, Nashwan.
Again : 3rd edition of DB 605 D manual dated late 1944 states the use of 1.98 ata.
1.98ata was then tested during March, before being authorised sometime during March.
Repeating it won`t make less wrong.
I seem to remember you claiming the manual "authorised" 1.98 ata, and Butch telling you he had copies of the documents saying otherwise.
Again you memory cheats you. Or it doesn`t, and it`s the usual dishonesty.
It wasn`t me who told butch about what the DB 605 D manuals says, but Schwarze man. And he is not just claiming it, like you do this nonsense here, but he has the manual, and it says 1.98ata. And of course your statement about butch saying the document says otherwise is just an utter nonsense. He never said that.
A sidenote, SM is an actual mechanic, working on restored G-10 with the very same DB 605 D engine type... but you might know better than him, relying on your memory...and bias.
Need I remind you that 190 manuals authorised 1.45 ata on the A3 and A4, but the planes were derated to 1.35 ata for a long time, or that 109G manuals quote 1.42ata, but that technical bulletins prohibit more than 1.3ata from June 42 until sometime in 1943?
Apart from being completely irrevelant to the subject, every
sentence is factually wrong.
No 190 manual ever called for "1.45 ata".
No 109G-2 manual qoute 1.42ata, in fact they say that the engine was "not yet cleared for them", and 1.3 ata is the maximum until furhter notice.
Of course, like in the 1.98ata case, you never ever saw any of those manuals you refer to, you just simply make big sweeping statements.
My Merlin chart, which includes the V-1650-7, shows a shade over 2000hp at 4000ft, with ram.
And my one says :
V-1650-7
Combat conditions
3000 rpm, + 25 lbs/ sq. in. BHP at SL = 1940
Max power in "MS" gear = 1940 BHP at SL
Max power in "FS" gear = 1810 BHP at 12000 ft
It`s a written text, not an approx. chart.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Interesting. Evil handling at high alts? Were they related to the gondolas or were they the result of some other factor?
Yes, in fact it`s possibly related to the added weight of gondolas. In the JG 26`s war diary, Caldwell notices that all K-4s assigned to JG 26 were equipped with cannon gondolas, and for this reason, pilots liked for the G-10 better for dogfighting, which didn`t have those.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
That`s nonsensical. Less than 9000 lbs would mean no ammuntion, and perhaps 1/4 fuel tank.
With full tanks (less the rear fuselage tank), full ammunition, oil, pilot and all standard equipment, a P-51D weighs in a 9,611 pounds. Burn off 1/2 of the fuel and its right at 9,000 pounds.
A 9,000 lb P-51D, making 2,000 hp at 80 in/Hg is going to be a very tough customer for any 109, be it the G-10 or the K-4.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What was the drag coefficient of the 109K4 and the P-51D (operational, not test dragster)?
I had a very interesting conversation about that a long time ago with Hans109. He had some polars and other drag docs for 109G, which also listed some later aerodynamic changes and drag values. From that, he could calculate the drag and drag coefficient for the K-4 in sustained climb. According to him, the K-4`s Cd0 as 0.0185 to 0.0190, for a flat plate area of 0.294 m2. The G-6`s Cd0 was 0.023.
As I recal the P-51`s Cd0 was something like .0173 or so, and varied quite a bit with surface finish quality. As since these coefficients are related to wing area, this would give the P-51 slightly more drag than the K-4.
-
10,208 lbs fully loaded with 269 gallons of fuel
- 510 lbs for the 85 gallon fuselage tank
= 9698 lbs.
698 lbs is approx. 116 gallons
At 9000 lbs the P-51D would have approx 68 gallons left, which is almost exactly 1/4 of max internal capacity of 269 gallons. Isegrim's guessimate was pretty damn accurate.
EDIT: That's actually a good deal less than a full 109 tank.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
With full tanks (less the rear fuselage tank), full ammunition, oil, pilot and all standard equipment, a P-51D weighs in a 9,611 pounds. Burn off 1/2 of the fuel and its right at 9,000 pounds.
A detailed loading plan would be most welcome to show this.
A 9,000 lb P-51D, making 2,000 hp at 80 in/Hg is going to be a very tough customer for any 109, be it the G-10 or the K-4. [/B]
It would be as fast at low alts. Real test showed 379 mph for the P-51 D at 80 Hgmm, vs. 377 mph of the K-4. No real difference.
Because of the desing of the supercharger, the K-4 would still hold it`s speed advantage in the Merlin`s power drop zone, and high altitude performance would remain the same, favouring the K-4 again.
In climb however, I don`t that with any trick the P-51 could compete with a K-4, especially if the latter also only lightly loaded.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
As I recal the P-51`s Cd0 was something like .0173 or so, and varied quite a bit with surface finish quality. As since these coefficients are related to wing area, this would give the P-51 slightly more drag than the K-4.
I believe .0173 represents the P-51B/C.
It's a bit higher for the P-51D at .0176.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hmm ... are Niel and Nashwan naughty? Not good. Trickery is not acceptable in a serious debate. I very much like every plane in AH to be as accurate as possible, but falsities are uncalled for no matter how big an enthusiast you may be.
A word of warning about Isegrim. If you disagree with him, he's apt to call you a paedophile. He has a rather strange relationship with the truth. I know this for a fact, because he attempted to prove I was a liar by posting "quotes" from me that I hadn't made, or had made in a different context.
GSholz, if you have any doubts about the information I have posted, ask and I shall attempt to back it up.
As to Isegrim's allegations:
"Just to make clear, Nashwan often makes up ridiculus things, like +25lbs being standard on Spit XIVs,"
Isegrim likes to use the best figure he can find for anything German, no matter what the context.As such, I am comparing like for like. There is a source showing Spit XIV speeds that can only be achieved at 25lbs boost, so I am using it until I see evidence otherwise. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html
or nonexistent "ghost" Spitfire XIV squadrons which are supposed to serve in India during WW2,
You could look up the career of "Ginger" Lacey, who commanded a squadron re-equipped with Spit XIVs in India during the war. If the story goes into enough detail, you will see that he was originally allocated Spit XIVs with bublle canopies, which he rejected, and were passed to another squadron in India.
or funny theories for the Murmansk convoys
The "funny theory" about the Mrmansk convoys is that they were also used as bait to lure out the Tirpitz. The dispute with Isegrim started over PQ17, which I said was being used as bait. Isegrim maintains the covering force for PQ17, which included 1 British an 1 US battleship, a carrier, and many cruiser, ran away as soon as they heard Tirpitz was out. He's taken my comment that the convoys were used as bait to mean they were ONLY bait, and had no other purpose.
1.8ata was authorized from the very beginning, and 1.98ata was cleared already in 3rd (!!) edition of the DB 605DC manual, dated November 1944.
This is directly contradicted by Butch2k. I don't know if you ever went to his board, but it was a good place to discuss WW2 aircraft. Butch occasionally posts here, I hope he is still reading these forums. I believe he is researching a book on the 109, and most of Isegrim's 109 information comes from Butch, including the original documents that he quotes in his speed and climb graphs.
Butch was adamant that 1.8 ata wasn't authorised until Feb45, 1.98 ata until March 45.
Just to make clear, Nashwan has again no idea of what he is talking about. First, not all Mustangs switched to 150 grade.
I never said all. I said 8th AF Mustangs did, and British home based Mustangs did.
I don't know for certain that every 8th AF Mustang switched, but I did give you the figures for 8th AF 150 octane consumption, 20,000 tons per month, which is a very large number of fighter sorties. (700 a day assuming 1 ton of fuel used per fighter)
Second, he "forgots" to mention that the 8th AAF used only 71" Hg with their Mustangs, instead of 67", when running on 150 octane.
I didn't "forget" anything.
To quote myself:
According to the manual, 25lbs boost was limited to 5 mins, same as 18 lbs boost (Note the US didn't allow 25 lbs at all, something like 76 " HG, 21 or 22 lbs boost iirc).
The 71" figure Isegrim quotes sounds too low to me. I believe the 8th used 72" in the V-1650-3. They may have used the same figure in the -7, but I wouldn't be suprised if they used more. I can't track down a source with the exact figure at the moment.
Doing the conversion now, my figure of 21 or 22 lbs boost equals 73 or 75" HG, which isn't far off given my "iirc"
Also, not even +81 HP gave 2000 HP in the Mustang, only 1940, and only up to a mere 500 ft, then power fell of due to insufficent superchargin
Isegrim is deliberately distorting again. He likes to give sea level only HP figures, no matter what altitude is being discussed. His 500 ft figure is correct only for low speed, not high speed flight, where ram air assists the supercharger. The figures from the Merlin chart have are about 1940 at 0ft 400mph, to about 2040 at 4,000ft 400mph. If you want proof, I can arrange to send you the chart.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
10,208 lbs fully loaded with 269 gallons of fuel
- 510 lbs for the 85 gallon fuselage tank
= 9698 lbs.
698 lbs is approx. 116 gallons
At 9000 lbs the P-51D would have approx 68 gallons left, which is almost exactly 1/4 of max internal capacity of 269 gallons. Isegrim's guessimate was pretty damn accurate.
EDIT: That's actually a good deal less than a full 109 tank.
Thanks. I believe these are US gallons, right ? That would give around 50 imp. gallons. Now, since we are asking for 150 grade and increased boost, we should also take increased consuption into account. The Merlin on these extreme boosts was a fuel hog, the SpitIX test show no less than 197 gall/hour consumetion at +25 lbs. That would mean that our low weight, high boost Mustang would actually consume half of it`s fuel capacity in about 5 minutes when running on maximum boost... how would it go home ? Gliding ?
-
1/3rd is more accurate. (EDIT: if the 197 gallons were Imperial)
US gallons yes.
-
Like as usual, you refer to butch with false qoutes from him, taking advantage that the forums are down, and nobody can check if you are lying. Expect of course, I have the page saved on my HDD. Bad luck, Nashwan.
Perhaps you could post Butch's quotes? Or better yet, send a copy of the page to GScholz, if he's willing?
My Merlin chart, which includes the V-1650-7, shows a shade over 2000hp at 4000ft, with ram.
And my one says :
V-1650-7
Combat conditions
3000 rpm, + 25 lbs/ sq. in. BHP at SL = 1940
Max power in "MS" gear = 1940 BHP at SL
Max power in "FS" gear = 1810 BHP at 12000 ft
It`s a written text, not an approx. chart.
Okay, did some diging, it's over at Mike William's Spit site:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
scroll to bottom of page, click on "Merlin 66 HP Chart "
Just under 2000hp to just over 2000hp at 4,000ft.
-
There was another interesting document there:
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/2taf150_112044.gif)
Look at the date.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
A detailed loading plan would be most welcome to show this.
Sure thing.
Empty weight: 7,205
Trapped fluids: 61
.50 guns: 401
.50 cal ammo: 564
Pilot: 200 includes parachute and personal equip.
Pyrotechnics: 6
Usable oil: 94 typically consumed 2-3 gallons/hour.
Internal fuel 1,080 calculated from 5.87 lb/gal.
____
9,611
Less 1/2 fuel -540
____
9,071 lb.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Thanks. I believe these are US gallons, right ? That would give around 50 imp. gallons. Now, since we are asking for 150 grade and increased boost, we should also take increased consuption into account. The Merlin on these extreme boosts was a fuel hog, the SpitIX test show no less than 197 gall/hour consumetion at +25 lbs. That would mean that our low weight, high boost Mustang would actually consume half of it`s fuel capacity in about 5 minutes when running on maximum boost... how would it go home ? Gliding ?
That's not GALLONS per hour, it's POUNDS per hour! LOLOL
My regards,
Widewing
-
"1,080 calculated from 5.87 lb/gal."
That's only 184 gallons. The 85 gallon fuselage tank is not accounted for.
Half that leaves the P-51D with just 92 gallons at 9071 lbs. That 8 gallons less than a 109, how was this P-51 going to get home?
-
GScholz, that's for the 2nd TAF. RAF fighter squadrons based in Britain were in ADGB (air defence Great Britain), fighters based on the continent were 2nd TAF. US fighters were in 8th AF (based mostly (wholly?) in Britain, and 9th (?) AF based on the continent.
I don't think 9th AF ever converted to 150 octane, 2nd TAF did so in Jan 45, but as I said earlier, the home based units, ADGB and 8th AF converted in early summer 44.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
A word of warning about Isegrim. If you disagree with him, he's apt to call you a paedophile.
Quite a typical reaction from Nashwan. Calling you a pedophile ? LOL, how low you get with your lies.
He has a rather strange relationship with the truth. I know this for a fact, because he attempted to prove I was a liar by posting "quotes" from me that I hadn't made, or had made in a different context.
OK, let`s say politely that`s Hop`s version.
My version is that I catched him how he twists his own words regarding his current needs, like in the present.
On ubi forums, I catched him doing that. On one occasion, he vehemently denied that he ever posted these infamous +25klbs Spit XIV tests, or claimed that +25lbs was standard for the plane.
About 2 weeks later, when his actual needs required to boost Spit performance, he suddenly said the very opposite, as can be seen below. He writes there as "Hop2002".
Author: hop2002
Rank: Over 200 Postings
Date: 06/28/03 12:49AM
"Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."
"Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire. "
"It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration."
"It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either."
"Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service."
"Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web."
Author: hop2002
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 07/15/03 09:06PM
-- Those "true figures" refer to a single prototype in
-- a crash programme agaisnt V-1 raids; it never saw
-- service.
" It did, as you can see the ministry of supply are quoting it as the speed of a Spitfire XIV. "
"No, sorry, 389mph at sea level was the speed of the Spitfire XIV, in standard operational conditions."
"Speed of Spitfire F XIV 389 mph at sea level. It's there in black and white."
"It's based on a Spitfire XIV cleaned up to normal standards."
Speaks for itself.
BTW, it`s very funny compare the two versions, and what he says about these test right here. You actually got 3 conflicting versions from the same man. :D
You could look up the career of "Ginger" Lacey, who commanded a squadron re-equipped with Spit XIVs in India during the war. If the story goes into enough detail, you will see that he was originally allocated Spit XIVs with bublle canopies, which he rejected, and were passed to another squadron in India.
The background of this story : Nashwan is contiously embrassed by the fact that the 109 K-4 not only was faster, climbed better etc. than his pet MkXIV, but also vastly outnumbered it in service. As usual, he cannot accept this reality.
I took some time and dug up the number of K-4s in service and MkXIVs in service, and what I found was 314 K-4s at a time and about 50-60 Mk XIVs.
Quite clear to see, there were about 5-6 times as many K-4s than Spit XIVs in service (not surprising, as there were a lot more produced of those).
Hop`s reaction was that he started to make up Spitfire squadrons from nothing that supposed to have equipped with MkXIVs, operating in exotic areas like India (as he could not prove more squadrons operating in Europe, he choosed a distant location).
However, he could support it with nothing, and when I asked for such simple thing like the Squadron`s number, he couldn`t even provide that, and neither can now, because he knows that then it could be checked.
The "funny theory" about the Mrmansk convoys is that they were also used as bait to lure out the Tirpitz. The dispute with Isegrim started over PQ17, which I said was being used as bait.
That`s Naswhan`s version.
My version is he started arguing that the German navy was some kind of a coward and was too scared of those super-duper British ships. This was his reaction to a qoute from the latter of a British sailor whaich said he was "thankful to god he never caught up with the Tirpitz" on the King George V he was serving.
In order to prove that, he started inventing a colourful tale that the Murmansk convoys were set up to lure the Tirpitz out from where it was "hiding from the Royal Navy". It was neccesary, otherwise the they would never come out etc. So, according to Nashwan, the Brits came up with that smart plan, using merchant ships as a decoy to lure Tirpitz out. A poor part in the story, that Tirpitz only transitioned to Norway after the convoys were already on route.
Isegrim maintains the covering force for PQ17, which included 1 British an 1 US battleship, a carrier, and many cruiser, ran away as soon as they heard Tirpitz was out.
Not much to comment on that, it`s an outright lie. I said the merchantman run away ASAP.
Butch was adamant that 1.8 ata wasn't authorised until Feb45, 1.98 ata until March 45.
Cut the long story short, he is lying.
-
What was the 18lbs fuel consumption rate of the Merlin? At 25lbs there was an increase of 24% in fuel consumption.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
GScholz, that's for the 2nd TAF. RAF fighter squadrons based in Britain were in ADGB (air defence Great Britain), fighters based on the continent were 2nd TAF. US fighters were in 8th AF (based mostly (wholly?) in Britain, and 9th (?) AF based on the continent.
I don't think 9th AF ever converted to 150 octane, 2nd TAF did so in Jan 45, but as I said earlier, the home based units, ADGB and 8th AF converted in early summer 44.
So 150 octane was not commonly used by all until late 44 early 45?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
That's not GALLONS per hour, it's POUNDS per hour! LOLOL
My regards,
Widewing
LOLOL, it was stated it is imp. gallons/hour. Or 895 liters consumed / hour at +25 lbs.
"Maximum fuel flow obtained near FT height in FS gear was about 197 gallons / hour."
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What was the 18lbs fuel consumption rate of the Merlin? At 25lbs there was an increase of 24% in fuel consumption.
150 gallons. See Parag. 4.5 Fuel flows.
-
See §4.5 of what?
Some nasty tales there Nashwan. Not good at all.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"1,080 calculated from 5.87 lb/gal."
That's only 184 gallons. The 85 gallon fuselage tank is not accounted for.
Half that leaves the P-51D with just 92 gallons at 9071 lbs. That 8 gallons less than a 109, how was this P-51 going to get home?
By August of 1944, P-51s of the 9th tactical AF were operating from France. Eventually, by November, they were based in Belgium, just 20 minutes from the German border. They NEVER used the fuselage tank. Furthermore, when the 8th AF Mustangs flew from Britain, they used the fuselage tank for climbout, switching to the drop tanks only after the fuselage tank was empty. The Luftwaffe never fought against a Mustang with fuel in the fuselage tank, unless they intercepting the Mustangs over the channel, and that never happened.
The basic air superiority fuel load for the P-51D left the fuselage tank empty. A P-51D in autolean cruise configuration burns much less than 40 gallons of fuel an hour. With 540 pounds of fuel, it has more than 2 hours of range. Even at military power for 5 minutes, it has more than 1 hour of fuel. But, no one flies for more than 10 minutes at power settings above cruise.
Even the P-38L, with two engines at military power (3,000 rpm, 56 in/Hg) burns only 334 gallons/hour.
Those big Daimler engines powering the late 109s burned fuel at a ravenous rate. On the other hand, the P-51D had a combat radius of 750 miles, with 15 minutes at military power, and a one hour reserve.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Those big Daimler engines powering the late 109s burned fuel at a ravenous rate. On the other hand, the P-51D had a combat radius of 750 miles, with 15 minutes at military power, and a one hour reserve.
I am sorry, but those big Daimlers were the most fuel effiecient engines of the war.. plenty of displacement, high compression ratios, direct fuel injection and advanced automatic mixture control did the trick.
If you want actual numbers, it was rather throughly discussed in a thread on these boards.
-
Widewing, please check your numbers. At 90 lbs/hr the P-51D can fly for 17.5 hours on internal fuel only, and giving it a very conservative 200 mph could traverse 3508 miles. That's almost intercontinental range. Check your numbers.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
See §4.5 of what?
Oh, sorry. I though you already know that site. Go see fourthfightergroup.com, an URL is already posted there. There`s a Spit MkIX test there at +25 lbs, and it stated 150 gal/hour for +18 lbs, and 197 gal/hour for +25 lbs.
-
So 150 octane was not commonly used by all until late 44 early 45?
It was used used by most British based fighter squadrons from summer 44, and the British fighter squadrons on the continent switched over in Jan 45.
On ubi forums, I catched him doing that. On one occasion, he vehemently denied that he ever posted these infamous +25klbs Spit XIV tests, or claimed that +25lbs was standard for the plane.
About 2 weeks later, when his actual needs required to boost Spit performance, he suddenly said the very opposite, as can be seen below. He writes there as "Hop2002".
Now if that's what Isegrim had posted over at the Ubi boards, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Between those two posts, I saw new information, and changed my mind. Isegrim wasn't satisfied with accusing me of changing my mind, and took parts of my June post, and put a date after my July posts on them.
In essence, I said in June I didn't believe that was the normal speed for a Spitfire, and that I had never claimed it was.
By July 15th, I had changed my mind, and said I did believe it was a proper speed for a Spit. Isegrim then took the line "Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures."
from June, and posted it with a date claiming I had said it on July 16th, 1 day after I had said the opposite.
I know very well not to trust Isegrim's "quotes", because if he can make up quotes from me, what's to stop him making up quotes from others?
Some nasty tales there Naswan. Not good at all.
You could try reading some of his contributions on the Ubi boards, I won't go into more details, but it's a jibe he's levelled at me, and at least one other.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Widewing, please check your numbers. At 90 lbs/hr the P-51D can fly for 17.5 hours on internal fuel only, and giving it a very conservative 200 mph could traverse 3508 miles. That's almost intercontinental range. Check your numbers.
Yeah, I fixed the typo... had pounds on the brain.. LOL
I was looking at the Flight Operation Instruction Charts for the P-51 and P-38 and became delirious..... It's a common malady at my age. :)
My regards,
Widewing
-
LOL Widewing, I know the feeling. It's half past three in the morning here now and I'm seeing stars. One last post before I go off in a coma:
"Even the P-38L, with two engines at military power (3,000 rpm, 56 in/Hg) burns only 334 gallons/hour."
That would mean that a single Merlin consumes 167 gallons at mil power. It would seem that Isegrim's claim of 197 gallons/hr for the Merlin at 25lbs boost doesn't sound so far fetched after all?
Edit: Which would mean that the P-51 would consume 1/3 of its fuel in 5 minutes at 9000lbs.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Oh, sorry. I though you already know that site. Go see fourthfightergroup.com, an URL is already posted there. There`s a Spit MkIX test there at +25 lbs, and it stated 150 gal/hour for +18 lbs, and 197 gal/hour for +25 lbs.
cc Isegrim, and I think Widewing just proved your point. :)
-
Gsholz,
You need your head examined really.
If you ask me how the P-51D would make it back one more time I'll staple the flight chart to your head. This is how. Write it down.
1. My 400MPH at 80GPH cruise for three hours is an example of high speed cruise from the P-51D pilots manual. Just an example, it can cruise at 40GPH or less at 200MPH plus for much longer.
2. Did the fact that the Mustang used drop tanks on the outbound trip ever occur to you?? If the pilot wanted to he could have full tanks hen he arrived over Berlin. That is the reason Mustangs had time to strafe everything that moved and stop for coffee.
And just so you can understand.
10,175LBS with 269 gallons of fuel.
269Gallons = 1614LBS
10,175lbs - 1,175LBS = 9,000lbs leaving 73 Gallons of fuel (439lbs) 3/4 the 109's full tank and enough to fly back.
And BTW the Mustang carried 1880 rounds of .50cal ammo weight 564lbs. How much ammo did the 109 carry?
Here is a point to kick around. Do you think a 109 ever saw a Mustang in combat weighting more than 9500LBS? Doubtfull.
Drag,
I don't think I have ever heard anyone ever say that drag didn't matter until high speed. Are you dreaming? It has more to do with low speed when you are talking about cruising range. Cdi is induced drag or lift drag which is highest at low to moderate speeds.
The 109 had more total drag than the Mustang. How do I know this? Because with 200HP more than Mustang they are the same top speed. That includes Parasite drag, induced drag, cooling drag despite the larger flat plate area of the Mustang.
The fact is the Mustang could cruise for long distances at low power settings because of low Cdi. It didn't carry the most fuel and it wasn't even the most fuel efficient. But it was the lowest drag A/C of it's day. And it was the 109 which lost the BOB while it was the Mustang, P-38 and P-47 that squashed the 190 and 109 over it's home court. You say numbers did it? Well there were 30,000 109's which is the total of the production of the P-47 and P-51 not including the 190's.
The FACT is that the 109 was ***** slapped into history in a big way.
Get over it.
-
Bf109 looks meaner and has a cooler paintjob - does anything else matter? :)
-
Isegrim:
...the K-4`s Cd0 as 0.0185 to 0.0190, for a flat plate area of 0.294 m2. The G-6`s Cd0 was 0.023.
As I recal the P-51`s Cd0 was something like .0173 or so, and varied quite a bit with surface finish quality. As since these coefficients are related to wing area, this would give the P-51 slightly more drag than the K-4.
Cd0 = parasite/form drag or the non-lift portion of the total drag polar. This includes the entire airframe, not just the wing.
Just to clarify, .0173 is less drag then .0185 :). Smaller coefficients = less draggy airframe. This gives us a measure of how clean the airframe is. What gets confusing is that coefficients of drag are just that and not the actual drag itself since D = cd * q * wing area. So the P-51D has a cleaner design than the 109K-4, but the actual parasite drag might be greater because of the greater wing area of the P-51D.
Flat plate area is a comparative figure used to convert dimensionless drag coefficients into something with dimensions for comparison purposes. It doesn't mean the physical frontal profile of an aircraft.
Equiv Flat Plate Areas:
P-51D - 4.10 sq ft
109K-4 - 3.16 sq ft
Gscholz:
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
-
Oh, and one more thing-
Isegrim wrote...
Why don`t you take HoHun`s advice, and confront your opinion with the hard facts : the K-4 was faster, turned and climbed better than the P-51
Faster and better climbing, I'd agree based on the data we've thrown around here.
Better turning, that one is up for debate. Simply looking at the wingloading based on 7400 lbs and 9500 lbs we get:
109K-4: 42.5 lbs/sq ft
P-51D: 40.7 lbs/sq ft
That suggests to me better instantaneous turn performance for the P-51D. Add the P-51's combat flaps to that equation improving the Mustang's performance as well. This also suggests to me that the K-4 would also pay a penalty in induced drag as well. What I'm not sure about is if the K-4's T/W ratio advantage would offset the penalty in energy bleed and translate into comparable or better sustained turn performance vs. the P-51D.
I would still love to see any charts folks have regarding 150 octane fuel peformance for the P-51D or the V1650-7 engine.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Isegrim's K performance figures have been discussed before,
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109K.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109k1.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109K2.jpg
As you can see the words "calculated and based"
Something else of interest
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109g.jpg
Neil.
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Isegrim's K performance figures have been discussed before,
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109K.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109k1.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109K2.jpg
As you can see the words "calculated and based"
Something else of interest
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/109g.jpg
Neil.
LOL, Neil. Thanks for the saved text.
If one does not believe what Herr Goebbels has to say, why would you then believe what Isegrim has to say ? As can be seen in Neils post, Isegrim can't be trusted with the truth.
-
Thanks Neil.
Butch was adamant that 1.8 ata wasn't authorised until Feb45, 1.98 ata until March 45.
Cut the long story short, he is lying.
Note what Butch says, it's on the second of Neil's links:
"Isegrim you are very wrong on this point, it took a lot of time to clear 1.98ata for operational use.
Indeed operational test began in Feb 1945 with just one Gruppe, and it seems it was cleared for use by all gruppe in March 45."
and futher:
"Yes Chris but I have thanks to george a report from the RLM regarding the operational evaluations made at 1.8, 1.9 and 1.98ata. It seems that 1.8 was not validated until late January 1945, and 1.98 ata test began at that moment. IIRC correctly there were again some sparkplug troubles."
I was posting from memory, and said 1.8 in Feb, 1.98 in March. Butch actually said 1.8 in "late Jan", 1.98 in March. Isegrim, who admits to having the page saved, calls me a liar.
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Isegrim's K performance figures have been discussed before,
As you can see the words "calculated and based"
Neil.
Actually I can see te words "it appears to be calculated data for some parts based on some real tests"
To me, that reads something quite different than Neil`s version that it`s ONLY calculated data.
Of course on the same basis we can safely ignore all Boscombe Down tests, since their numbers are nothing else than calculated and corrected values, some parts being based on real tests.
I also find interesting your attitude, Neil. It seems to me that I asked you on that thread about wheter +25 lbs was used operational on MkXIVs, as Nashwan likes to tell us. You answered it was not, perhaps it was used on a handful of individual machines.
I find it worthy to note that you did not show the same zeal about correcting Nashwan statements like the job you did to dismiss the real life performance of the K-4, neither on this thread, nor in any other, like it wouldn`t be againts your liking so that people would believe surrealistic performance numbers when it comes to British planes, and as it would annoy you if people get information about the performance of German planes under operational conditions.
A point of interest is also what schwarze man said :
"Hi Butch! If you remember I gave you a copy of the third (!) edition of the DB/DC Hanbuch dated 1 Dec 44 , listing the 1.8/1.98 RATINGS."
It`s quite clear.
So as it stand now, we have the Handbuch (manual) itself, which says 1.98 ata is possible some time ago by 1 Dec 44, while Butch assumes (see his wording.. "it seems" etc.) it is not, because he has some operational evaluations which tested boost rates, but doesn`t explicitely say they were not cleared by that time.
I take the facts displayed in the Handbuch over anyone`s, even Butch`s assumptions.
Otherwise, thanks for the engine listing document, Neil. It seems that according to it, the boost was raised to even 2.1 ata on the DB 605 D.
But of course we can come to an agreement in this, and using the same logic, we can safely assume that the Griffon 65 was not cleared for +21 lbs until July 1945, since the first known operational evaluation is listed for it at that date for a Mk 21. Silly logic, but let`s apply it both ways.
-
Originally posted by dtango
Oh, and one more thing-
Isegrim wrote...
Faster and better climbing, I'd agree based on the data we've thrown around here.
Better turning, that one is up for debate. Simply looking at the wingloading based on 7400 lbs and 9500 lbs we get:
109K-4: 42.5 lbs/sq ft
P-51D: 40.7 lbs/sq ft
That suggests to me better instantaneous turn performance for the P-51D. Add the P-51's combat flaps to that equation improving the Mustang's performance as well. This also suggests to me that the K-4 would also pay a penalty in induced drag as well. What I'm not sure about is if the K-4's T/W ratio advantage would offset the penalty in energy bleed and translate into comparable or better sustained turn performance vs. the P-51D.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
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.
As can be seen below :
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/TH17G2.jpg)
This seems to be supported by the AFDU`s test, where they pitted the higher wingloading FW 190A vs. P-51B, yet they found their turning performance basically identical. I`d like to add that 109s were generally found to be the better turning machines in all German and Soviet tests vs. 190s. Also, stall characteristics of the 109 were very gentle and forgiving with plenty of warning, as opposed to the P-51. This also helped the pilots to push their aircraft to the limits of stall.
The parts I see the P-51 had advantage is basically roll rate over 300-350 mph IAS, and advantage in longer dives. Arguably, six .50 are easier to use vs. fighters, too. It has similiar top speed and a high cruise speed, which makes it equal to the K in that regard.
IMHO, the K has advantages on the following areas : speed (slight adv.), accelearation, handling and climb, roll rate below 250 mph (large advantage), turn rate (moderate advantage).
-
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.
-
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 :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
...had a cursing speed of...
Ummmm...Freudian slip there bud??
LOL!!
-
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.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Ummmm...Freudian slip there bud??
LOL!!
ROFL! Fixed now. :)
-
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 :D!
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
-
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.
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/51FOIC.gif)
-
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 (http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/types/P51H.htm)
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
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.
-
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.
-
F4UDOA could you please post a readable chart?
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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 :D
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/V-1650-3.jpg)
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gsholz,
If you are insulted you should be.
Insults are uncalled for in a serious debate no matter what.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.
No, you said:
This is strictly thrust vrs drag. How much thrust is required to overcome X amount of drag. If the P-47C can accelerate as well as a P-38F then a Mustang can do at least as well as a 109. I can't do the math right now but I will shortly. BTW at sea level the Mustang is at least as fast with less HP required. The Mustang is designed for low cruise drag thats why it accelerates through those speeds ranges so well.
and ...
Most importantly. The K4 has the advantage of Nitrious and other fuel additives at altitude but you are excluding the use of 150Octane fuel in the Mustang which was common. With 150 octane fuel the P-51D was much faster than the K-4 and would climb as well even with heavier loads.
So you did say the P-51 could out accellerate the 109 and you did say the P-51 could climb as well as the 109 with heavier load, indicating it could out climb the 109 with equal load.
The 109 could out climb any allied fighter at high altitudes also at speed, as Franz Stigler commented:
The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.
You persist in being rude. Even with no fuel and no ammo the P-51D is still considerably heavier than a fully loaded 109, and the P-51 has less power. At a very light configuration I have no doubt the P-51 had a better instantaneous turn rate, however it lacked the power to match a 109 in sustained turn and at any case a 109 would just spiral climb above the P-51 in such a case.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.
I have no documentation on the 109G10 or K4 except what HTC has posted (and I think their sources are good), and Isegrim's charts are disputed. That's why I said this remains unresolved.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.
I know, but this is a debate on the 109 and P-51.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.
Do you have that chart in higher resolution? I'd like to read the "fine print" as well.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.
Basically any engagement between the 109G10 or K4 against a P-51D would in most cases end up with the P-51 being shot down or running. A 150 octane British Mustang with -7 Merlin would have a better chance against a 109G10. If the P-51 runs the 109 would in most cases let it go since the 109's job was to attack bombers or protect "formation destroyers". If the 109 did decide to run the Mustang down it could do so since the P-51 cannot run on full throttle for long due to fuel considerations and at low alt (after diving away) is not fast enough to run from a high 109. In any case, making the P-51's run from the bombers they were meant to protect would be a victory for the interceptor 109's, and would allow the 109's or other aircraft to attack the bombers undisturbed.
-
Adam you got your P51B data from here
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedchart.jpg
Notice the full throttle height for speed is about 8400M, your diagram 8400M, you will notice from the original document that the engine used was the -7 Merlin, Military power is +15lbs (61"hg)
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Pilots+notes.jpg
Military power full throttle height with the -3 Merlin is about 9450M as you can see here.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Mustang+4.jpg
Pilot notes Mustang III V.1650-3
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/3+Merlin.jpg
Some Mustang III Climb and Level speed performance trial data for you. Mustang III F.X 953 Feb to May 44.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/3+climb.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/3+speed.jpg
How about changing your climb chart, use a K4 with 1.8ATA Vrs a P51 using 67"hg.
Neil.
-
While searching for the drag coefficient numbers and calculations for the 109 and P-51 I stumbled upon this interesting article (especially for you Nomak):
Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html)
-
The drag coefficient is a number that aerodynamicists use to model all of the complex dependencies of drag on shape, inclination, and some flow conditions. This equation is simply a rearrangement of the drag equation where we solve for the drag coefficient in terms of the other variables. The drag coefficient Cd is equal to the drag D divided by the quantity: density r times half the velocity V squared times the reference area A.
Cd = D / (A * .5 * r * V^2)
This means that actual drag is:
D = Cd * (A * .5 * r * V^2)
Now, from this thread we know (undocumented though) that the P-51D had a Cd of 0.0176 while the 109K4 had a Cd of 0.0185 to 0.0190.
r and V are variables we can set to be identical for comparison purposes, however we still lack information on the reference area A.
Notice that the area (A) given in the drag equation is given as a reference area. The drag depends directly on the size of the body. Since we are dealing with aerodynamic forces, the dependence can be characterized by some area. But which area do we choose? If we think of drag as being caused by friction between the air and the body, a logical choice would be the total surface area of the body. If we think of drag as being a resistance to the flow, a more logical choice would be the frontal area of the body that is perpendicular to the flow direction. And finally, if we want to compare with the lift coefficient, we should use the same wing area used to derive the lift coefficient. Since the drag coefficient is usually determined experimentally by measuring drag and the area and then performing the division to produce the coefficient, we are free to use any area that can be easily measured. If we choose the wing area, rather than the cross-sectional area, the computed coefficient will have a different value. But the drag is the same, and the coefficients are related by the ratio of the areas. In practice, drag coefficients are reported based on a wide variety of object areas. In the report, the aerodynamicist must specify the area used; when using the data, the reader may have to convert the drag coefficient using the ratio of the areas.
Does someone know the reference area used for the Cd of the P-51D and 109K?
-
From nasa.gov
The drag area f is the product of the zero-lift drag coefficient and the wing area. The resulting number is of interest because it represents, approximately, the area of a square flat plate, or disc, held normal to the direction of flight, which has the same drag in pounds as the aircraft at a given speed and altitude. (The relationship is exact for a flat-plate drag coefficient of 1.0. According to reference 72, the actual drag coefficient of such a plate is 1.171.) For example, the drag area of the P-51 fighter is 3.57 square feet as compared, with, 12.61 square feet for the much smaller Fokker E-III of World War I. The improvement in aerodynamic efficiency over the 25-year period separating the two aircraft is obvious. Comparisons of the drag area of aircraft of different periods designed for the same missions can thus provide some indication of comparative aerodynamic cleanness or streamlining. Furthermore, the maximum speed is approximately proportional to the cube root of the ratio of the power to the drag area (ref. 90). The larger this ratio, the higher the top speed.
Note: Also know as "flat-plate area".
Ok, so the P51 (unknown model) had a drag area of 3.57 ft^2 according to NASA, while every other source I can find on the net says 4.63 ft^2 for the P-51D. Which is right?
Now if Isegrim's data on the 109K4 having a flat plate area of 0.294 m2 which is 3.163 ft^2 it would seem that the K4 indeed produced less drag than the P-51 despite having a higher Cd because of the difference in size between the aircraft.
Now, if these numbers are correct the 109K4 would be faster, accelerate faster and cruise more economically (with the same engine) than the P-51. HTC seems to agree with this since the 109G10 in AH is both faster and accelerates faster than the P-51, however the Cd and drag area of the G10 is not known to me.
-
From behind the dark bushes: :)
But doesnt the Mustangs radiator design offset some of that drag by providing thrust?
-
GScholz:
Reference area used typically is the wing area in drag calculations. (This gets interesting when you have aircraft that don't have "traditional" shapes with regards to lift generation! It's an interesting topic especially from a modern aerodynamics perspective and there are some interesting debates on this topic regarding which area to actually use for the calculations which is beyond the scope of my personal study.)
CD0 and total parasite drag comparisons - yes that was Isegrim's point he made and I corroborated it clarifying that what the data tells us is that the P-51 had a cleaner design vs. the K-4 but has a higher parasite drag because of the greater "wetted" surface area presented by P-51.
Flat plate conversion is based on the following equation:
FPA = CD0 * Ref Area
The NASA 3.57 sq ft vs. my 4.10 or the 4.63 you've seen is probably a difference in the ref area. I'm guessing the 3.57 is based on some of the current thought in the aerodynamics field regarding which reference area to use - e.g. they may have substracted fuselage portion of the wing area etc.
So yes at equivalent airspeeds the K-4 has a lower parasite drag vs. the P-51D.
What does this mean? At equal thrusts the plane with lower parasite drag would have a faster max level speed.
However a lower parasite drag doesn't neccesarily mean that a plane will out accelerate another, nor does it mean that a plane would cruise more economically.
Aircraft acceleration is not linear and varies over a piston a/c's velocity envelope by the difference of power available - power required (total D * V).
Regarding most economical cruise as being defined as maximum range or the best ratio of fuel burn to distance, for a piston a/c this occurs at the best L/D ratio for the aircraft or at the point of lowest total drag where induced drag and parasite drag are equal.
Grunherz:
Yes, the radiator design resulting in the Meredith Effect or ramjet thrust via the exhaust stacks for the P-51D does contribute but it's already shows up via the flight test data for the Mustang's top level speed. Here's an interesting article on it all:
Meredith Effect on the P-51 (http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj99/Mustang.html)
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Does someone know the reference area used for the Cd of the P-51D and 109K?
In America's Hundred Thousand, Dean states that the flat plate of the P-51D is 4.10 square feet.
However, we can't rule out mitigating factors, such as the P-51's Merideth Effect radiator design and the clever use of boundary layer splitter to minimize drag associated with the radiator inlet.
These are some of the reasons that the P-51D, with considerably greater flat plate area than the Spitfire Mk.IX, was 30 mph faster on the same horsepower. The same can be said for the Bf 109G-2, which had, IIRC about 1,475 hp, but was about 35 mph slower than the P-51D. Both the late-war Spitfires and 109s needed far greater power than the P-51 to match or slightly exceed its level speed.
Years ago I read an article that discussed the Bf 109's drag issues. It did not employ the Merideth Effect radiator ducting, did not use boundary layer splitters and had all manner of protruding humps, bumps and scoops that contributed to a very high level of parasitic drag. I don't have a copy of the article, but is was based upon an engineering analysis performed at Langley Field in late 1945, including some wind tunnel runs. It was a Brit magazine, although I can't recall which one.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Gsholz,
Since when does out accerate or out climb equal at least as well or as well?? If you don't want me to be derogatory then don't misquote me.
Also you should read Dtango quote very clearly.
What does this mean? At equal thrusts the plane with lower parasite drag would have a faster max level speed.
Widewing beat me to it but even the 109K-4 at sea level had 2,000HP and the P-51D had 1750HP and they both had the same top speed. So which aircraft had the higher drag?
Also your comment about the P-51D not being able to disengage at fullpower because it would run out of fuel is rediculous. Just think about that.
Do you even know what the fuel consumption of the 109K4 is? I do I have a entire document on it. The 109 had limited amounts of C-3(Nitrous) and MW-50. It would run out of those additives long before the Mustang would run out of fuel or overheat.
By the way by senario I meant offensive manuevers. My airplane will beat yours up does not count.
Also your sustained turn theory doesn't work if the other 109 has a higher stall speed than the P-51D. If the 109 is pulling max G then he is deccelerating. If the P-51D is not pulling max G the he can still accelerate and fly on the edge indefinetely without loosing E while turning inside the 109.
In other words if the P-51D has a 3G stall of 160MPH and the 109 has a 3G stall 170 MPH then the Mustang can fly 165MPH all day and turn inside the 109 while not burning E and the 109 will eventually loose speed and not be able to pull enough G to keep out of gun range. This problem only gets worse when the 51 drops combat flaps.
-
Ok Dtango you seem to be knowledgeable about such things (I'm learning as I go along ;)). Tell me which plane do you think would accelerate faster. The 7400 lbs, 2000hp, 3.163 ft^2 FPA Messerschmitt Bf109K4 or the 9000 lbs (light Pony), 1940hp (Merlin -7 on 150 octane), 4.61 ft^2 FPA North American Mustang IV (British P-51D)?
(http://www.bf109.com/images/bf109k4.jpg)
VS
(http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/Eng/Collection/image/sd091b.jpg)
WHO WILL WIN?
All this and more ... next on TOWNTALK with Dtango!
-
Originally posted by Widewing
In America's Hundred Thousand, Dean states that the flat plate of the P-51D is 4.10 square feet.
However, we can't rule out mitigating factors, such as the P-51's Merideth Effect radiator design and the clever use of boundary layer splitter to minimize drag associated with the radiator inlet.
I wonder if the Meredith effect is included in the Cd/FPA calculations or not? The boundary layer splitters must surely be included since they are a normal part of the parasitic drag.
Originally posted by Widewing
These are some of the reasons that the P-51D, with considerably greater flat plate area than the Spitfire Mk.IX, was 30 mph faster on the same horsepower. The same can be said for the Bf 109G-2, which had, IIRC about 1,475 hp, but was about 35 mph slower than the P-51D. Both the late-war Spitfires and 109s needed far greater power than the P-51 to match or slightly exceed its level speed.
Years ago I read an article that discussed the Bf 109's drag issues. It did not employ the Merideth Effect radiator ducting, did not use boundary layer splitters and had all manner of protruding humps, bumps and scoops that contributed to a very high level of parasitic drag. I don't have a copy of the article, but is was based upon an engineering analysis performed at Langley Field in late 1945, including some wind tunnel runs. It was a Brit magazine, although I can't recall which one.
This is certainly true. However the 109K4, and to some extent the 109G10 as well, were considerably cleaned up aerodynamically compared to earlier 109G's, especially the 109G6. The 109K4 reintroduced the retractable tail wheel and had among other features completely covered wheel wells (like the P-51). The 109 was also a much smaller aircraft, even smaller than the Spitfire.
EDIT:
In this cutaway drawing you can clearly see how much more aerodynamic the 109K4 was, especially around the cockpit area. :)
(http://r1329776.hostultra.com/Upload/data/media/2/Bf109K4.jpg)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
109K-4 at sea level had 2,000HP and the P-51D had 1750HP and they both had the same top speed. So which aircraft had the higher drag?
You should take also in consideration the propellor design, not only the "raw" HPs.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
In America's Hundred Thousand, Dean states that the flat plate of the P-51D is 4.10 square feet.
However, we can't rule out mitigating factors, such as the P-51's Merideth Effect radiator design and the clever use of boundary layer splitter to minimize drag associated with the radiator inlet.
Yes I believe we can, because these things should already be accounted for in the flat plate area. For our purposes, total drag is ultimately the only thing that matters--not Cd and not flat plate area, except when we can use such things to calculate total drag. FPA is just a ref number, and Cd is calculated from that. No extra information here, really.
-
Hehe Gscholz, the answer regarding acceleration is I don't know :)! Seriously though, I don't have enough data to make an accurate assessment.
2ndly you can compare acceleration either as average acceleration or instantaneous acceleration and have different answers.
With the data we have posted in this thread I can make this assessment assuming the data is valid regarding best instantaneous acceleration:
K-4 7400 lbs best climb 4823 fpm
P-51B 9600 lbs with 150 octane 67" Hg best climb 4380 fpm (posted by Neil)
K-4 max sea level speed 377 mph
P-51B 150 octane 67" Hg max sea level speed 379 mph (posted by Neil)
The K-4 probably has the better instantaneous acceleration given the plane configs. I think this is pretty clear. The K-4 probably has a better average acceleration vs. the Mustang at 150 octane until toward the upper regions of the speed envelope. This is reading the tea leaves and I can't say with accuracy this is the case. Keep in mind that as already been batted around here regarding weights. As the P-51 burns fuel it would start making up the difference between the K-4's acceleration edge. How much this would be and if this would ever equalize or "cross-over" I don't know.
BTW - I misquoted myself LOL regarding the figure I used for the P-51's FPA figure. I had calculated and posted 4.10 sq ft but in quoting myself in my last post I mis-typed it as 4.61 sq ft which I have now corrected.
The CD0 .0176, FPA 4.10 sq ft figure most likely is not factoring in ramjet thrust for the P-51. NACA wind tunnel tests resulted in CD0 for the P-51 at .0173. The ramjet impact would show up in an actual flight test not while the plane sat statically.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by dtango
The CD0 .0176, FPA 4.10 sq ft figure most likely is not factoring in ramjet thrust for the P-51. NACA wind tunnel tests resulted in CD0 for the P-51 at .0173. The ramjet impact would show up in an actual flight test not while the plane sat statically.
Oh, I see...perhaps I was mistaken earlier. By "ramjet", are you referring to the fact that the engine isn't on in a wind-tunnel test?
-
Hi Mold:
Yes that is correct. The engine isn't on therefore we wouldn't see the Meredith Effect / ramjet thrust.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
.... I'm still following this Me109. I just got my first confirmed kill of
my tour, and now I'm really hot. I believe that I am the hottest pilot in
the USAAF! And now I'm thinking to myself: am I going to shoot this Me109
down too?! He rolls and we turn, and turn; somehow, I cannot catch up with
him in the Lufberry circle, we just keep circling. About the third 360
degree turn he and I must have spotted two Mustangs flying below us, about
2,000 feet below, and he dives for the two P-51s. Now I'm about 150 yards
from him, and I get my gunsight on his tail, but I cannot shoot, because if
I shoot wide, or my bullets pass through him, I might shoot down one or both
P-51s, so I get a front seat, watching, fearful that this guy will shoot
down a P-51 we're approaching at about 390 mph. There's so much interference
on the R/T I cannot warn the two Mustangs, I fire one very long burst of
about seven or eight seconds purposely wide, so it misses the Mustangs, and
the Me109 pilot can see the tracers. None of the Mustang pilots see the
tracers either! I was half hoping expecting that they'd see my tracers and
turn out of the way of the diving Me109. But no such luck. I quit firing.
The Me109 still dives, and as he approaches the two P-51s he holds his fire,
and as the gap closes, two hundred yards, one hundred yards, fifty yards the
Hun does not fire a shot. No tracers, nothing! At less than ten yards, it
looks like he's go-ing to ram the lead P-51 and the Hun fires one single
shot from his 20mm cannon! And Bang! Engine parts, white smoke, glycol,
whatnot from the lead P-51 is everywhere, and that unfortunate Mustang
begins a gentle roll to the right. I try to watch the Mustang down, but
cannot, Now my full at-tention is on the Hun! Zoom. We fly through the two
Mustangs (he was taken POW). Now the advantage of the P-51 is really
apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway
freight train. I press the trigger for only a second then I let up on the
trigger, I believe at that time I was about 250 yards distant, but the Hun
was really pulling lots' of negative and positive g's and pulling up to the
horizon, he levels out and then does a vertical tail stand! and next thing I
know, he's using his built up velocity from the dive to make a vertical
ninety degree climb. This guy is really an experienced pilot. I'm in a
vertical climb, and my P-51 begins to roll clockwise violently, only by
pushing my left rudder almost through the floor can I stop my P-51 from
turning. We climb for altitude; in the straight climb that Me109 begins to
out distance me, though my built up diving speed makes us about equal in the
climb. We climb one thousand fifteen hundred feet, and at eighteen hundred
feet, the hun levels his aircraft out. A vertical climb of 1,800 feet! I've
never heard of a piston aircraft climbing more than 1,000 feet in a tail
stand. At this time we're both down to stall speed, and he levels out. My
airspeed indicator reads less than 90 mph! So we level out. I'm really close
now to the Me109, less than twenty five yards! Now if I can get my guns on
him.........
At this range, the gunsight is more of nuisance than a help. Next thing, he
dumps his flaps fast and I begin to overshoot him! That's not what I want to
do, because then he can bear his guns on me. The P-51 has good armor, but
not good enough to stop 20mm cannon hits. This Luftwaffe pilot must be one
heck of a marksman, I just witnessed him shooting down a P-51 with a single
20mm cannon shot! So I do the same thing, I dump my flaps, and as I start to
overshoot him, I pull my nose up, this really slows me down; S-T-A-L-L
warning comes on! and I can't see anything ahead of me nor in the rear view
mirror. Now I'm sweating everywhere. My eyes are burning because salty sweat
keeps blinding me: 'Where is He!?!' I shout to myself. I level out to
prevent from stalling. And there he is. Flying on my right side. We are
flying side to side, less than twenty feet separates our wingtips. He's
smiling and laughing at himself. I notice that he has a black heart painted
on his aircraft, just below the cockpit. The propeller nose and spinner are
also painted black. It's my guess that he's a very experienced ace from the
Russian front. His tail has a number painted on it: "200". I wonder: what
the "two hundred" means!? Now I began to examine his airplane for any bullet
hits, afterall, I estimate that I just fired 1,600 rounds at the hun. I
cannot see a single bullet hole in his aircraft! I could swear that I must
have gotten at least a dozen hits! I keep inspecting his aircraft for any
damage. One time, he even lifts his left wing about 15 degrees, to let me
see the undercar-riage, still no hits! That's impossible I tell myself.
Totally impossible. Then I turn my attention back to the "200" which is
painted on the tail rudder. German aces normally paint a marker for each
victory on their tail. It dawns on me that quick: TWO HUNDRED KILLS !! We
fly side by side for five minutes. Those five minutes take centuries to
pass. Less than twenty five feet away from me is a Luftwaffe ace, with over
two hundred kills. We had been in a slow gradual dive now, and my altitude
indicates 8,000 feet. I'm panicking now, even my socks are soaked in sweat.
The German pilot points at his tail, obviously meaning the "200" victories,
and then very slowly and dramatically makes a knife-cutting motion across
his throat, and points at me. He's telling me in sign language that I'm
going to be his 201 kill! Panic! I'm breathing so hard, it sounds like a
wind tunnel with my mask on. My heart rate must have doubled to 170 beats
per minute; I can feel my chest, thump-thump and so. This goes on for
centuries, and centuries. The two of us flying at stall speed, wingtip to
wingtip. I think more than once of simply ramming him. He keeps watching my
ailerons, maybe that's what he expects me to do. We had heard of desperate
pilots who, after running out of ammunition, would commit suicide by ramming
an enemy plane. Then I decide that I can Immelmann out of the situation, as
I began to climb, but because my flaps are down, my Mustang only climbs
about one hundred feet, pitches over violently to the right and stalls. The
next instant I'm dangerously spinning, heading ninety degrees vertically
down! And the IAS reads 300 mph! My P-51 just falls like a rock to the
earth! I hold the yoke in the lower left corner and sit on the left rudder,
flaps up, and apply FULL POWER! I pull out of the dive at about 500 feet,
level out, (I began to black out so with my left hand I pinched my veins in
my neck to stop from losing blood). I scan the sky for anything! There's not
a plane in the sky, I dive to about fifty feet elevation, heading towards
Italy. I fly at maximum power for about ten minutes, and then reduce my rpm
(to save gasoline), otherwise the P-51 has very limited range at full power.
I fly like this for maybe an hour, no planes in the vicinity; all the time I
scan the sky, check my rear view mirrors.
I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with
the black heart and "200" written on the tail. That's when the whole room, I
mean everybody, gets instantly quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop. Two
weeks later the base commander shows me a telex: "....according to
intelligence, the German pilot with a black heart is Eric Hartmann who has
downed 250 aircraft and there is a reward of fifty thousand dollars offered
by Stalin for shooting him down. I never heard of a cash reward for shooting
down an enemy ace ... "
-Lawrence Thompson
Eric Hartmann, called "the Blond Knight of Germany", survived the war with
352 victories
Don't you just love it when aces meet up with green pilots? Both our stories is about superior pilots, but not superior planes.
Excellent story. Thanks for posting it up! What was the name of the book. I'd like to read it some time.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
See pages 292-293 in Caldwell's "JG-26". It seems that the G-10 was far better liked than the K-4, at least within this organization. The book explains why, but it does seem that all of the K-4s they received were fitted with gondolas, which appear to have been universally disliked. Also, there is a description of the K-4's evil handling at high altitude.
There is a question that's been vexing me for some time. I'm trying to build scale models of the airplanes used in Aces High, but the only late-war kit of the 109 I can find is the K4. What is the difference between a K4 and a G10? I know the K4 had a wooden tail empennage, but is there any other difference in the airframes or armaments?
Incidentally, Hasegawa makes/made a 1/72 scale model kit of the 109E used in Aces High, identical right down to the decals. I can't remember the unit, but it was one based on the Channel during BoB. I may still have the instruction sheet at home.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bf109 looks meaner and has a cooler paintjob - does anything else matter? :)
Got that right!
The 109 is the epitomy of evil elegance! :aok
-
Cool paintjob?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_68_1064414299.jpg)
-
Originally posted by gofaster
The 109 is the epitomy of evil elegance! :aok
Yes, that is true. Funny how just the German planes look this way--to me the 190 has a very evil menacing look as well.
-
Originally posted by dtango
Yes that is correct. The engine isn't on therefore we wouldn't see the Meredith Effect / ramjet thrust. [/B]
Got it. Was the measured thrust from the rad/ramjet ever documented? This is a really cool engineering idea, but I would imagine that the actual amount of net thrust from this would not be too huge.
-
Drag is a complicated matter, and with simple formulas you will definitly not be able to say this aircraft was better than this one.
Just look at the efficiency of the propeller, was it designed for speeds in the mid-range (better for climb) or for high speed? Where did it have it´s maximum efficiency peak?
What was the exhaust thrust of the engine? You have to know this, it´s not neglectable at high speed. Btw, do charts exist of american engines for exhaust thrust?
Then there´s the problem that CD is based on wingare for the aircraft. The spitfire had plenty of wingare with a rather thin profile, so the wing itself had a rather low CD. It was a nice trick to lower the drag coefficient of the whole aircraft, which, based on the large wingarea, was naturally lower than for a fighter with small wingarea but same fueselage size like the 109.
So either you find wind tunnel tests from the different aircraft, but to avoid errors of wind tunnel measurements you better find tests from the SAME windtunnel for the aircraft. Usual wind tunnel tests do not take care of the raditor, so you would need tests where in ONE windtunnel each aircraft is tested with running engine but NO propeller (just to produce radiator heat) AND Mach numbers up to 0.5 or so. AND measurement of exhaust thrust.
btw there exist a german report about the mustang wing, and they admitted that it exceeded the german manufactoring quality. This should also give some people to think who assume that everything was based on propaganda in germany. Actually, in my opionion, no official published speed and climb rate claims are more conservative (how i like to say, i mean careful, on the lower side) than german ones. Huh, i still would like to see OFFICIAL allied performance claims. I just can see factory tests, tests of single machines etc.. In the other thread i just wrote that the official published speed for the P-51B was "just" 425mph (from a note from Interavia).
Come on guys, i know you have the official docs, show them!!!
For example this british note about the SpitXV :
"Fitted with a 1890 HP Merlin engine, it has a top speed in the neighborhood of 400mph"
Now when the official claim for a SpitXV was ~400mph, how fast can be a "normal" SpitXIV?
Oh, and who think that the mustang had a CD below 0.20 should read this:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/P51B_drag.pdf
Definitly not below 0.20 in service condition (and natur influences like dust)
niklas
-
Originally posted by mold
Yes I believe we can, because these things should already be accounted for in the flat plate area. For our purposes, total drag is ultimately the only thing that matters--not Cd and not flat plate area, except when we can use such things to calculate total drag. FPA is just a ref number, and Cd is calculated from that. No extra information here, really.
My understanding is that FPA is nothing more than the calculated coefficient of drag X wing area. For the P-51D, this is .0176 X 233.19 = 4.14 FPA. Since the Merideth effect requires heat, and there is no heat without the engine at operating temperature, it is not accounted for in an FPA calculation.
There is another factor to be considered as well. As airspeeds rise above 0.6 Mach, drag rise increases dramatically. Dean offers an excellent example of the advantages associated with the Mustang's laminar flow wing. He compares the the drag rise between a conventional wing (a P-39N with NACA 0015 root airfoil and NACA 23009 wing tip airfoil) and that of the P-51D. As the P-39's speed rises above 0.62, drag rise begins and the Co reaches .050 at approximately Mach 0.77. On the other hand, the P-51 doesn't see a significant drag rise until well beyond Mach 0.7 and finally attains a maximum Co of 0.044 at Mach 0.83. So, when the P-39 has a Co of 0.050 at Mach 0.77, the Mustang's Co is just 0.0205 at that same speed.
We know that the Bf 109 used a conventional airfoil (anyone know which NACA profile was used? I do know that Kurt Tank used the same NACA profile for the 190 as Vought did for the F4U). Therefore, we can assume that the onset of significant drag rise would have occurred at a lower speed than would be seen with the P-51D. Precisely at what speed this happens I don't know, but it seems to me that the Co of the two aircraft will converge as the speeds increase and in all likelihood, the 109's will rise much higher than the Mustang's at Mach 0.7 and above.
Perhaps this is one clue as to why the P-51 attains similar max level speeds on much less horsepower.
As to the initial level acceleration debate; this can be calculated if you know the total thrust available and total drag. Dean gives us a useful explanation in his book (page 117-118).
The calculation is: Total thrust minus total drag divided by mass (weight/32.2). This provides an acceleration rate in feet per second per second, and you can divide that by 32.2 to obtain a constant G value.
Hypothetical example: You have a fighter weighing 8,000 lbs. It has 2,000 pounds of thrust and 750 pounds of drag.
So, 2,000 - 750 = 1,250 net pounds of thrust.
8,000/32.2 = 248.45
1,250/248.45 = 5.03 feet per second per second initial acceleration, or 5.03/32.2 = .156 G
So, if we know the total trust and total drag of the Bf 109K-4 and P-51D, we could calculate acceleration and end the debate. However, the caveat is that this calculation is only valid for speeds below the speed where dramatic drag rise is encountered because the total drag is rapidly increasing.
It seems to me that the 109 will have considerably better initial acceleration than the P-51D at low to moderate speeds. However, it also seems that this advantage probably disappears as speeds rise above Mach 0.6 and greater.
Well, those are my thoughts anyway.. :)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing - nice post. To add to the acceleration discussion that's also only for a fixed value of drag or thrust as well. a situation like that is what I would call instantaneous acceleration. Obviously drag varies with velocity, but thrust also varies as well as a function of propeller efficiency so it really gets tricky.
mold - I don't have any reports regarding the measurement of impact of meredith effect. However the article I linked to has some qualitative discussion on that. Exhaust thrust does have more than just slight impact and all engines have some form of exhaust thrust, not just the P-51D. I remember some charts on the FW190A-5 engine with close to 100 lbs of exhaust thrust (or something to that effect) so it's no small matter. When it all boils down though the performance of an aircraft demonstrated by flight test data embeds all these factors. Here's the Meredith Effect link for the P-51 that I posted earlier. Read down past the explanation of Meredith effect - lots of nuggets down there.
Meredith Effect & the P-51 (http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj99/Mustang.html)
niklas - the report you are referring to describes the total CD of the P-51B. (Incidentally that's a pretty cool report especially when you read about how risky it was since they didn't have a prop on the plane and then crashed the aircraft on it's 3rd test pilot surviving however!) CD = CD0+CDi. No one is making the claim that the P-51B/D had below a .02 overall CD. CD0 for the P-51 being in the neighborhood of .018 - .017 is pretty well documented. Regarding the P-51 max speeds etc. I'll leave that to your other thread and not mix that stuff in here :). That "debate" is pretty old hat though.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Ohhh long thread... What is it really about now? I haven't read much? Flame fest yet?
-
For example this british note about the SpitXV :
"Fitted with a 1890 HP Merlin engine, it has a top speed in the neighborhood of 400mph"
Now when the official claim for a SpitXV was ~400mph, how fast can be a "normal" SpitXIV?
There's no such thing as a Spit XV. There was a Seafire XV, however. Does the note refer to that?
It seems likely, because the HP output sounds about right for a Seafire XV, not a Spit XIV, and the Seafire XV had a max speed of approx 400 mph.
The Seafire XV was similar to the Spit XII, it had a single stage Griffon, with a critical alt well under 20,000ft, and a fiarly low max speed, although it was pretty fast at low level.
It doesn't really say anything about the speed of the Spit XIV.
As to the speed of a normal Spit XIV, the flight tests of a Spit XIV with the revised supercharger gearing fitted to production aircraft show just under 360 mph at sea level, 397 mph at 8,000ft.
The tests done to determine speeds for chasing V-1s, which included the Mustang data posted earlier in this thread, took a production Spit from a squadron. It had a speed of 354 mph at sea level, 384 at 8,000ft, but the paintwork was described as being badly chipped and scored, particularly around the leading edge. The leading edge was stripped and repainted, the rest of the aircraft given a quick rub down. The speed increased to 362 mph at sea level, 392 at 8,000ft. This is for the aircraft in full operational condition, all aerials, guns, mirrors, full span wings etc. The aircraft was running 19lbs boost instead of the regular 18lbs.
The Spitfire XIV on test ran at 18.5lbs instead of 18lbs, because of difficulties setting the boost control, so I assume such slight unintentional overboosting was common.
-
Originally posted by Nomak
The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4........
Ah, that text.
Carson never flew a 109. That text is quite fantasy and not useful as any kind of source. He for example mixes up various 109 types as if they are the one he flew, makes lots of mistakes and misassumptions. Sorry, Carson's text isn't a useful reference.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Isegrim argues that the 109's slats would give the 109 an edge in combat against the P-51. This remains a disputed topic.
That is most correct.
The highest scoring living Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila bagged two P-51s.
He was expert on using his Me 109 G-6 with slats. He actually dogfighted with G-6 equipped with wing cannons. His usual tactic was pop out the slats and pull back on the throttle, that way he was able to turn inside enemy planes - and the other P-51, which then received full broadside from five cannons from point blank range.
Kyösti has also said, that the slats enhance low speed handling of the 109 extremerely well making it to turn better, which is most useful in close range / low speed battles.
Source:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-KyostiKarhilaEnglish.html
-
Ah yes the 109G6 is definitively more maneuverable than the P51, except at very high speed, however the G10 and K4 are heavier than the G6. I feel (from what I've read and AH) that the P-51 would have the edge in high speed maneuvering, the 109 would be better in a medium speed fight, and in a slow turn fight the 109 would have superior maneuverability unless the P-51 uses its flaps which would give it an edge. In every speed range the 109 hold the edge in vertical fighting though, especially in a slow fight, due to its superior power.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Ohhh long thread... What is it really about now? I haven't read much? Flame fest yet?
109G10/K4 vs. P-51. Not much flaming yet.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
109G10/K4 vs. P-51. Not much flaming yet.
Hm... I have been under impression that this thread was originally about kill ratio of the BF 109. Somehow this turned to P-51 vs 109G-10/K4 flame fest. BTW under original topic it was much more relevant to talk about how many 109s were really on service than how fast P-51D or 109K-4 was at sea level.
In reality these so called "optimal interceptors" (G-6s, G-14s, G-10s and K-4s) were wiped out from the sky by P-51Ds while these 109s with gondolas and drop tanks were trying to catch high flying bombers (Bf 109 needed wing cannons and also drop tank for that task). The kill ratio was certainly extremely poor in these cases.
gripen
-
Something of interest I found a while ago :
American pilot Robert C.Curtis remembers :
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"
-
Originally posted by gripen
In reality these so called "optimal interceptors" (G-6s, G-14s, G-10s and K-4s) were wiped out from the sky by P-51Ds
I believe this ground has been covered already. Numerical gangbangs etc. The K/D doesn't neccessarily tell you which plane is more "optimal".
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Widewing beat me to it but even the 109K-4 at sea level had 2,000HP and the P-51D had 1750HP and they both had the same top speed. So which aircraft had the higher drag?
It appears most of your similiar statements are suffering from the same problem - wrong data to start with.
For you again:
Bf 109 K-4
DB 605 DC
Power at SL = 2000 PS (1 PS = 0.986 HP) = 1972 HP
Speed at SL = 377 mph
P-51 D with 150 octane, 81 Hg"
V-1650-7
Power at SL = 1940 HP
Speed at SL = 379 mph
Also your comment about the P-51D not being able to disengage at fullpower because it would run out of fuel is rediculous. Just think about that.
WEP time for P-51 D = 5 mins
WEP time for K-4 = 10 mins
Clear case.
Do you even know what the fuel consumption of the 109K4 is? I do I have a entire document on it. The 109 had limited amounts of C-3(Nitrous) and MW-50. It would run out of those additives long before the Mustang would run out of fuel or overheat.
You don`t have anything on that, clearly. So much bs..
ad 1, C-3 is not "nitrous". You don`t even know that... :eek
ad 2, "nitrous" (GM-1 injection) was not used on K-4
ad 3, MW 50 quantity was aduquate for 26 mins of use at full power .
ad 4, If the P-51 would run on 81" Hg for 26 mins, with 197 Impg/gall consumption as the Brit report notes, it would consume (26/60)*197*4.54 = 388 liter fuel, which means the ~1/3 of the full interal tankage which means you are DRY with your lightweight P-51D at 9000lbs a good time by then. And of course since the V-1650-7 could only run for 5 min at a time then some time has to be spent on cooldown, in fact you have even less fuel left.
etc.
I challenge you to post the documents you claim to have. You won`t do that of course, as you were just bluffing.
Further lies will only make your situation worse.
Also your sustained turn theory doesn't work if the other 109 has a higher stall speed than the P-51D.
Post numbers and source.
If the 109 is pulling max G then he is deccelerating. If the P-51D is not pulling max G the he can still accelerate and fly on the edge indefinetely without loosing E while turning inside the 109.
So the much worser accelerating P-51D can actually beat a K in situation when ability to accelerate is the key... :rofl
Acceleration at 250 mph:
K-4 : 6.85 fps
51D : 3.34 fps
You are welcomed to tell me it was the exact opposite, and the Mustang with the ~same drag (as shown above) was able to outaccelate the K-4 with about half the powerloading :
Powerloadings :
K-4 : 1972 HP / 3.362 t = 586 HP / t
51D :
1940 HP / 4.3 t = 450 HP / t [150 oct. at 81" w/o rear tank ]
1630 HP / 4.3 t = 380 HP / t [at 67"]
Notice though, the USAAF`s Mustang run on 71" inches, above data only true to British mustangs.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
There is a question that's been vexing me for some time. I'm trying to build scale models of the airplanes used in Aces High, but the only late-war kit of the 109 I can find is the K4. What is the difference between a K4 and a G10? I know the K4 had a wooden tail empennage, but is there any other difference in the airframes or armaments?
K-4 was different from G-10 in the following :
-rearranged internal equipment (not much interest to you)
-different cocpit arrangement
-no rectangular bulge in the rear of the cocpit (for point above)
-DF loop moved one frame to rear on fusalge top
-long tailwheel*, wheel bay doors for main and tail u/c, rectangular upper fairings for larger wheels on top wing*. Retractable tailwheel
-slightly wider undercarriege
-longer spinner
-circular access hatch for compass deleted on port lower fusalge
-rectangular access hatch on port lower fusalge was redesigned in shape, moved one frame front, and to higher postition
-wooden tail unit* (as a matter of fact, this is true for 90% of the late 109)
-slightly raised upper cowling
-MK 108 being standard. Otherwise same armament.
-abilty to carry bombs as large as 500 kg
-ability to use 115 liter MW tank as ferry tank with fuel
-G-10 being a few dozen kilos lighter, but -20 km/h faster. On the other hand, it climbed marginally better on similiar power.
So much I can think at the moment.
-
Originally posted by dtango
Hehe Gscholz, the answer regarding acceleration is I don't know :)! Seriously though, I don't have enough data to make an accurate assessment.
2ndly you can compare acceleration either as average acceleration or instantaneous acceleration and have different answers.
With the data we have posted in this thread I can make this assessment assuming the data is valid regarding best instantaneous acceleration:
K-4 7400 lbs best climb 4823 fpm
P-51B 9600 lbs with 150 octane 67" Hg best climb 4380 fpm (posted by Neil)
K-4 max sea level speed 377 mph
P-51B 150 octane 67" Hg max sea level speed 379 mph (posted by Neil)
The K-4 probably has the better instantaneous acceleration given the plane configs. I think this is pretty clear. The K-4 probably has a better average acceleration vs. the Mustang at 150 octane until toward the upper regions of the speed envelope. This is reading the tea leaves and I can't say with accuracy this is the case. Keep in mind that as already been batted around here regarding weights. As the P-51 burns fuel it would start making up the difference between the K-4's acceleration edge. How much this would be and if this would ever equalize or "cross-over" I don't know.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
I`d only like to congratulate you for your balanced posts, Tango. I can agree fully.
A couple of points though : since the drag coeff of the Mustang is, as told by others,
As for Cd0s : imho calculating them with such a lack of data is pointless. We don`t know exhaust thrust, propellor effiency, radiator thrust.... further we don`t know engine torque (which BTW I belive would favour the larger DB), or the engine/propellor`s ability to "run up" and "accelarate" itself to max. power output... this Could make the difference in actually available power as much as 20-40% in extreme cases, but at least 15%. It`s already too big margin to tell accurately and compare.
As I already pointed out, Cd0 has little practical relevance, for if you have the exact same drag with a small plane/high WRelated Cd0, and a large plane/low Cd0, then one only make a prestige question of it, but still the fact remains that the two planes with the same power will have similiar acceleration, for the simple matter they have the same DRAG ! Also, since it seems from the speed/power requirement data that the P-51D and 109K had roughly the same drag at max. SL speed, I would believe the K-4 would have less drag at lower speeds, since the Mustang`s laminar flow wings mean the Cd0s are not so Mach-sensitive, whereas the "normal" airfoil on the 109`s is, so at lower speeds the Cd0 it has must be lower as well.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Years ago I read an article that discussed the Bf 109's drag issues. It did not employ the Merideth Effect radiator ducting, did not use boundary layer splitters and had all manner of protruding humps, bumps and scoops that contributed to a very high level of parasitic drag.
I don't have a copy of the article, but is was based upon an engineering analysis performed at Langley Field in late 1945, including some wind tunnel runs. It was a Brit magazine, although I can't recall which one.
My regards,
Widewing
I think the article you refer to is Hoerners, however it was shown the basic data he uses is "highly questionable" (=dead wrong), he gives way lower max. speed and an insane (100%) powerplant effiecy.
As regards to the "109 did not use Meredith effect, did not have boundary layer splitters" etc.
Meredith effect was nothing of unusual to be used in WW2 fighter radiators. Even the Spit enjoyed this effect, also Yakovlevs etc, AND the Bf 109. In fact the Bf 109F`s radiators were designed to take maximum advantage of it.
To qoute the relevant part from the Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F:
"Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling".
In other words : the same principle as on the Mustang. Also, oil cooler on 109 worked the same way.
Also of interest :
"The Messerscmitt fusalge is remarkably clear and bulletlike. The engine is compactly mounted in the nose and enclosed by easily removeable cowling. Proturbulances that mar the clean lines are cut to the minimum by partially submerging the coolant radiators in the wing."
-
Just a quick note to point out that the Mustang that achieved 379mph at SL was fitted with wing racks, it would appear that nearly all P51D's were fitted with them. Modification stage 1 Item19 (removal) was carried out on Tac R aircraft only. This according to The P51 Merlin Mustang in WW2 by R Freeman.
Can this be confirmed?
Neil.
-
Good, Neil`s here. Neil, I am making a similiar graph for the Mustang III you just provided. Do you have a similiar for IV which would show above FTH performance as well ? Otherwise I can`t include only but up to ~10 000 ft for IV.
And a slight off-topic : Do you know any wartime indian Spitfire squadrons that employed the Mk 14 during the war ? I asked Mike Williams already, but his listing didn`t include any of those.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
K-4 was different from G-10 in the following :
-rearranged internal equipment (not much interest to you)
-different cocpit arrangement
-no rectangular bulge in the rear of the cocpit (for point above)
-DF loop moved one frame to rear on fusalge top
-long tailwheel*, wheel bay doors for main and tail u/c, rectangular upper fairings for larger wheels on top wing*. Retractable tailwheel
-slightly wider undercarriege
-longer spinner
-circular access hatch for compass deleted on port lower fusalge
-rectangular access hatch on port lower fusalge was redesigned in shape, moved one frame front, and to higher postition
-wooden tail unit* (as a matter of fact, this is true for 90% of the late 109)
-slightly raised upper cowling
-MK 108 being standard. Otherwise same armament.
-abilty to carry bombs as large as 500 kg
-ability to use 115 liter MW tank as ferry tank with fuel
-G-10 being a few dozen kilos lighter, but -20 km/h faster. On the other hand, it climbed marginally better on similiar power.
So much I can think at the moment.
... and that information will be cut-n-pasted into my other thread for easy reference. Thank you so much for the details. I will print it out so I don't lose it!
Thanks again!
-
Adam, the charts that show FS as well as MS for the MkIV/D are at 67"hg and I think this is where the charts in Americas 100,000 come from. I am visiting the RAF Museum records this week, if I find anything I will let you know.
Spitfire the Story of a famous fighter by Bruce Robertson, this states "later in 1944 a large consignment of MkXIV's arrived at Bombay" However The Spitfire story by A Price gives June 45 and No11 as the date and squadron.
Neil.
-
Climb and Speed graphs with the Mustang III data Neil provided, plus the other British test with Mustang III I already posted vs. K-4 at 1.8 and 1.98 ata.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/SPD_P-51-B_K-4.jpg)
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/CLIMB_P-51-B_K-4.jpg)
Notes :
1, Neil`s Mustang III speed data at 67" shows the plane at takeoff weight corrected to 95%, or approx. 1/3-1/2 fuel load, as usual in British speed tests. IMHO this would give slightly higher speeds above rated altitude, as with the lighter plane, less lift and thus angle of attack would be required to keep the plane level. Reducing angle of attack would of course reduce drag. German practice was to give speeds at full take off weight.
2, On the Climb chart I gave K-4 with 605DC at 1.8ata. It should be known that 605D series engines produced different powers at a great number of possible combinations, including using MW or not, octane rating and type/configuration of engine (DM, DB, or DC) and boost.
This refers to w/o use of MW, giving 1800 PS at SL with 96 octane fuel, a highly unlikely combination, as using DB config at 1.8/1.8 ata would yield 1850 PS w. MW injection, requiring only 87 oct. fuel. I have no chart for that configuration though.
At 1850 PS, I would estimate ~23 m/sec at SL for 1.8ata, with similiar increase up to 6000m.
This was deducted from the climb rates at SL I know with corresponding power :
DC, set to 1.98, running 1.8ata w/o MW : 20 m/sec w. 1725 PS
DC, set and running to 1.8ata w/o MW : 21.7 m/sec w. 1800 PS
DC. 1.98/1.98 w. MW : 24.5 m/sec w. 2000PS.
Indicates roughly 1 m/sec increase per 50 PS.
PS: Neil, I would be very interested in 67" MkIV data, as I don`t trust AHT too much, there are often errors in it. A primary source would be certainly more reliable to use as comparision base on my site.
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Spitfire the Story of a famous fighter by Bruce Robertson, this states "later in 1944 a large consignment of MkXIV's arrived at Bombay" However The Spitfire story by A Price gives June 45 and No11 as the date and squadron.
Neil.
Neil, you might find this one interesting. With Sqn number known, it took little time to read a bit on it on the Indian Air Force`s official website :
http://www.indianairforce.nic.in/afhist.htm
"In August 1945, No. 4 Squadron was designated a component unit of the British Commonwealth Occupation forces in Japan, exchanging it`s Spitfire VIIIs for Mk XIVs in October and arriving in Japan aboard the HMS Vengence in 23rd April 1946."
Hope it`s the same Squad you were talking about. Also checked on the RAF`s site, and appears to be the same.
It seems that the confusion comes from that the VIII and XIVs were very similiar airframes with different engines..
-
BTW, going back to the topic:
Me 109s in Finnish service had 25:1 kill ratio 1943-1945.
Originally Me 109s equipped HLeLv 34, an elite squadron built from the best Finnish fighter pilots. In 1944 also HLeLv 24 and HLeLv 30 were equipped with 109s.
-
Isegram,
When your wrong do you just make things ups?
I have an entire German document on specific fuel consumption of DB605 with specific engine data. I have many original German docs.
It is no bluff. I can post the entire doc or do a capture of the page.
How exactly is a P-51D going to run out of fuel in 10 Minutes regardless of power setting? You are WRONG!!
Also in a sustained turn if you are not pulling beyond the max intantanious ability of the aircraft then you are accelerating. The aircraft withthe lower stall speed will always have this advantage.
The 109K had very high wingloading and a higher stall than the P-51. You posted some Cl max numbers in this thread that are bogus. Why don't you pull that document out if you have it. Why don't you provide some 109K stall speeds out.
BTW I have the JG26 War diaries in which a German pilot describes his 109K4 as being impossible to maneuever at 350MPH and loosing most of the panels on the cowl after exceeding 466MPH IAS.
And just to show how wrong you are at a glance here is some data from the doc I have.
DB605L with C3 and MW50
1700PS
1.75 ATA
C-3 = 520L/HR
MW-50=150L/HR
DB 605 AM-BM C-3 and MW-50
1800PS
1.7 ATA
560 L/HR C3= 148 Gallons per Hour
150 L/H MW-50
So how much C-3 did the 109K carry? At 1.98ATA what would be the consumption be?
Why don't you tell me how long your 109K can really perform at the numbers you want to show and are so proud of?
Basically your 109K is a rocket for about 10 minutes and then it becomes very average.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Isegram,
When your wrong do you just make things ups?
I don`t, you do.
I have an entire German document on specific fuel consumption of DB605 with specific engine data. I have many original German docs.
You said you have consumtion data for K-4`s DB 605 D. Post it.
It is no bluff. I can post the entire doc or do a capture of the page.
OK, do it.
How exactly is a P-51D going to run out of fuel in 10 Minutes regardless of power setting? You are WRONG!!
I can`t be wrong in a statement I haven`t made. You fight your own windmills (that`s refers to an old novel you know).
Also in a sustained turn if you are not pulling beyond the max intantanious ability of the aircraft then you are accelerating. The aircraft withthe lower stall speed will always have this advantage.
Good, you are almost there. As you told, in sustained turn, acceleration = 0.
Which aircraft will have more reserves in acceleration, one with 3.3 fps acc rate, or one with 6.85 fps acceleration rate ?
The 109K had very high wingloading and a higher stall than the P-51.
You still need to produce stall speed numbers for P-51D and K-4 respectively to prove that.
You posted some Cl max numbers in this thread that are bogus.
I didn`t post CLmax numbers, just the simple fact that planes with LES have higher CL, especially if we speak vs. laminar flow wings w/o because of undisturbed airflow.
What do you think caused harsh stall characteristics in P-51 ? High CLmax values ?
Why don't you pull that document out if you have it. Why don't you provide some 109K stall speeds out.
I don`t have for K, just for other models.
BTW I have the JG26 War diaries in which a German pilot describes his 109K4 as being impossible to maneuever at 350MPH and loosing most of the panels on the cowl after exceeding 466MPH IAS.
Good, if it was impossible to manouver how the pilot lived to tell about it ?
I have dive test of 109s which pulled out from vertical dive at .805 Mach speed and within 1000m altitude he was straight and level.
And just to show how wrong you are at a glance here is some data from the doc I have.
DB605L with C3 and MW50
1700PS
1.75 ATA
C-3 = 520L/HR
MW-50=150L/HR
DB 605 AM-BM C-3 and MW-50
1800PS
1.7 ATA
560 L/HR C3= 148 Gallons per Hour
150 L/H MW-50
Good, these show extremely low consumption for the DB 605s, as I said.
So how much C-3 did the 109K carry?
400 liters of C-3 internally. :rofl
At 1.98ATA what would be the consumption be?
About 620 lit/h.
Why don't you tell me how long your 109K can really perform at the numbers you want to show and are so proud of?
I already told you. The K-4`s manual tells that WEP can be used for a total of 26 minutes, 10 minute at a time with 5 min intervals allowed
Basically your 109K is a rocket for about 10 minutes and then it becomes very average.
No, for 26 mins, ten minutes at a time. And after 26 mins, it`s time to return to base anyway.
Oh..Try to look up what C-3 really is... :cool
-
Hi everyone,
Having been away for two days I'm unable to catch up with the thread now.
There's one thing I'd like to point out though: After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang.
The thermodynamic effect of the engine cooling was well-known in the 1920s and 1930s and in fact had been first pointed out by Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he acquired a patent for the "Düsenkühler" ('jet radiator').
Thermodynamics probably were the most advanced science in the late 19th/early 20th century due to their tremendous economical value in a society that based its wealth primarily on steam engines. The "Meredith" effect probably was painfully obvious to Junkers, who included it right in the first aircraft he ever built.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Thanks for the chart Adam. I would just like to say that I do rate the 109K4 and would place it in the same WW2 league as (in no particular order) the FW190 D9, La7, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, Merlin Mustang, KI.84 and F4U-4.
Neil.
-
HoHun,
So, was there boundary layer separation in the radiators of the Bf 109G and K? I believe you know the answer as well as me...
gripen
-
Isegirl,
When your wrong do you just make things ups?
Yes you do.
You said you have consumtion data for K-4`s DB 605 D. Post it.
Viola
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/Pages_from_DB605_varianten-2.pdf
Out of time right now but you look at that until I'm ready.
By the way C-3 is only 96 octane anyway. Who cares whats in it.
BTW how much MW50 is there??
-
Hi Gripen,
>So, was there boundary layer separation in the radiators of the Bf 109G and K? I believe you know the answer as well as me...
What I meant to say: The Me 109's radiators had seperate ducts for the turbulent boundary layer air.
Other than my mis-formulation, I don't know what you're aiming at. I'm open for new information though :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
BTW I have the JG26 War diaries in which a German pilot describes his 109K4 as being impossible to maneuever at 350MPH and loosing most of the panels on the cowl after exceeding 466MPH IAS.
And your point? 109s dived regularly with 750-850-900 km/h speeds. The plane was well built and could bear the huge stress. It was question of the pilot if he could get it level early enough, though.
You'll find several examples of 109 high speed dives from my interviews, for example:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/
They did it and they lived to tell about those.
-
Nice document F4UDOA, too bad you obviously can't read it! LOL! That document doesn't even state the fuel consumption on max power, and I bet you can't even work out the numbers! However the document is dated 1944 and with a DB605 rated at 2000PS, that at least was important.
C-3 is just what the LW called its 96 octane avgas you DOLT! And when using MW50 boost the DB used LESS fuel than at max cruise.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Something of interest I found a while ago :
American pilot Robert C.Curtis remembers :
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"
It seems that Curtis was probably scared to dive the P-51. His "redline" figure applies only to altitudes below 9,000 feet. In point of fact, the P-51D was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph) at 35,000 feet. That's Mach .81 and that ain't slow. Jack Ilfrey, who was decidedly not shy about pushing the P-51D reported seeing speeds in excess of 550 mph at just 5,000 feet chasing a 109, which he caught.
Also, Curtis was wrong about the wing thickness and his understanding that this and the bubble canopy induced compressibility at lower speeds than the P-51B. What did happen was as described by Sid Woods, a double ace.
"The D model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft. In a dive, the P-51D was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach 0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but structural damage to the aircraft would result). The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get very nose heavy. It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if speeds over 400 mph were anticipated."
Since Curtis was flying over Vienna, he was likely flying with the 15th AF out of Italy. In all likelihood, they had just transitioned from the P-38J... And that plane made many pilots afraid to get into a high speed dive.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi HonHun:
Thanks for clarifying the understandnig of Meredith Effect by the various designers around the world. I hope it didn't come across from me that only the P-51 employed Meredith Effect. The question I think is how well they were able to employ it.
From what I understand the Bf109F and later models used a "boundary layer bypass duct which significantly improved pressure recovery at the radiator face." [Lednicer, Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995]
I think all this is pretty interesting from a point by point design perspective but in the final analysis all these factors are embedded in the flight performance of each a/c and hope this is not lost on everyone reading! :)
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I think the article you refer to is Hoerners, however it was shown the basic data he uses is "highly questionable" (=dead wrong), he gives way lower max. speed and an insane (100%) powerplant effiecy.
As regards to the "109 did not use Meredith effect, did not have boundary layer splitters" etc.
Meredith effect was nothing of unusual to be used in WW2 fighter radiators. Even the Spit enjoyed this effect, also Yakovlevs etc, AND the Bf 109. In fact the Bf 109F`s radiators were designed to take maximum advantage of it.
To qoute the relevant part from the Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F:
"Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling".
In other words : the same principle as on the Mustang. Also, oil cooler on 109 worked the same way.
Also of interest :
"The Messerscmitt fusalge is remarkably clear and bulletlike. The engine is compactly mounted in the nose and enclosed by easily removeable cowling. Proturbulances that mar the clean lines are cut to the minimum by partially submerging the coolant radiators in the wing."
This is all fine and dandy, but nothing here even hints at the Merideth Effect, nor does it refer to boundary layer splitters on the INLET of the ducting, where turbulance creates the most drag.
How about defining the principle of the Merideth Effect and how the 109's radiator ducting employs it. But before you do so, you should read Lee Attwood's comments which can be found by using the link DTango provided earlier in the thread.
Cutting to the chase, no Luftwaffe fighter used the Merideth Effect radiators even remotely as efficient as that designed by the North American team, period. End of discussion.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by dtango
Hi HonHun:
From what I understand the Bf109F and later models used a "boundary layer bypass duct which significantly improved pressure recovery at the radiator face." [Lednicer, Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995]
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Pressure recovery radiator designs were around since the 1920s. However, none came even close in efficiency to the design employed by North American Aviation. Was not the 109's boundary layer bypass effective only on the outlet side of the radiator, with the inlet actually in the boundary layer? I believe it was.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Gshultz,
Actually that is one page of the document. It shows fuel consumption on the other pages. I only posted it to show your nimrod butt buddy that I had something he doesn't obviously.
BTW Isagirl is the one who wants to play "guess whats in the fuel". I could care less as I said before. By 1945 the allies were using 150 octane so why should I care if 109's had 96 octane fuel?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Isagirl
This is really quite unbelievable. I hope the average maturity level in AH is a little higher than this.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
is the one who wants to play "guess whats in the fuel". I could care less as I said before. By 1945 the allies were using 150 octane so why should I care if 109's had 96 octane fuel?
Indeed. You don't care. Except that until you did a google search today you thought "C-3" meant "nitrous", and you posted those fuel consumption numbers above thinking that you could one-up your antagonists by claiming the DB engine used up too much "C-3" resulting in a limited WEP time. Little recking that the figures you posted actually demonstrate the superior efficiency of the DB motor, which produces similar power to the Merlin with less fuel (even counting MW50 consumption).
This discussion is actually becoming quite interesting, aside from your raving. Let it go.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gshultz,
Actually that is one page of the document. It shows fuel consumption on the other pages. I only posted it to show your nimrod butt buddy that I had something he doesn't obviously.
Actually the fuel consumption numbers ARE on that page, however not for max power. I knew you couldn't read that.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
BTW Isagirl is the one who wants to play "guess whats in the fuel". I could care less as I said before. By 1945 the allies were using 150 octane so why should I care if 109's had 96 octane fuel?
LOL! C-3 is just FUEL ... F U E L!!!! PETROLEUM GASOLINE!!!! THERE IS NOTHING IN IT!!!
And for your information the allies 150 octane avgas was not natural 150 octane THEY USED FUEL ADDITIVES. Without the additives the allied avgas would be less than 100 octane too! I use 98 octane IN MY CAR for Jebus sake!
-
Originally posted by mold
This is really quite unbelievable. I hope the average maturity level in AH is a little higher than this.
Yes, but unfortunately there are a few "rotten apples" that have little social intelligence and little interest in both truth and civility.
-
Widewing:
Regarding the 109's boudary layer bypass - that's a good question that I'm unqualified to answer! :). Maybe HoHun or gripen can comment. I don't have any details.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Actually I have posted more real data on these webpages than you dweebs combined.
And no I don't speak German.
But at least I am bringing something to the table other than Gems like "dolt" and "how would a P51 fly back all the way from Germany".
How big was that MW50 tank again? Enough to fly how long?
I always find it amusing when Luftwaffles talk about civility:lol
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
DB605L with C3 and MW50
1700PS
1.75 ATA
C-3 = 520L/HR
MW-50=150L/HR
DB 605 AM-BM C-3 and MW-50
1800PS
1.7 ATA
560 L/HR C3= 148 Gallons per Hour
150 L/H MW-50
Basically your 109K is a rocket for about 10 minutes and then it becomes very average.
No, for 26 mins, ten minutes at a time. And after 26 mins, it`s time to return to base anyway.
150 l/hr for 26 minutes = 65 litres.
It's not that you don't post relevant data F4UDOA, it's just that you're dishonest about it and generally unpleasant to debate with.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I always find it amusing when Luftwaffles talk about civility:lol
Oh really. Please, your humor is too subtle. Let's put this all the way on the table. What exactly do you find amusing?
-
dtango and HoHun,
Well, there was boundary layer splitter in the early Bf 109F but on later models radiator design was simplified and splitter was removed.
gripen
-
I have read where C3 fuel was the equivalent to 100/145 octane by allied standards.
Actually Hohun posted it in this thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100036
MW50 total = 26 min; 10 on 5 off
-
Originally posted by Batz
I have read where C3 fuel was the equivalent to 100/145 octane by allied standards.
Well, see here (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/MofFP/ger_syn_ind/mof-secth.pdf) or here (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm).
Based on these reports it seems that C3 was by octane rating about 100/130 PN fuel and by aromatic content close 100/150 PN.
gripen
-
F4UDOA
You seem to be having the same arrogant dismissivie know it all attitide in this thread as you did in that other one and which got you in trouble with HiTech. It's possible you'll just write my comments off as a luftwaffle complaint or whatever but at least I wanted to let you know how I see it. Maybe you could be more effective in this argument if you monitored and controled your tone more effectively.
-
Thanks Gripen
The fischer-tropsch archive is what I was thinking off.
Here it is for F4U so he won't forget C3 is not nitros.
(The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.)
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Image2.jpg)
-
All right geniouses, so I made a mistake. It's not like I sit up at night and read about fuel additives in the DB605.
Between GM-1, MW50 and C-3 I forgot which one was which.
I still don't care what's in C-3.
-
Grunherz,
I did not fire shot until until fired upon. You should check the whole thread not just my post.
-
Thank you for everyone who made usueful contributions to this thread, especially to Neil, HoHun, dtango, Batz and Gscholtz. I think we all learned a lot. Personally, now I got more accurate performance figures for the P-51, and also some new information regarding upgraded C-3 fuel types.
Regarding the amount of WEP time on the K-4, it`s pilot`s manual says the WEP can be used for 10 minutes at a time, with 5 min intervals for cooldown, for a total of 26 mins. Amount of MW is given as 75 liters (tank had capacity of 115 liters, but for CG reasons it wasn`t completelty filled up with MW, being heavier than avgas). This is for early variant with DB 605DM engine with max. 1800PS at 1.75ata. According to the GLC charts, it was later filled to 85 liters, I believe with the introduction of the DC and it`s 2000 PS, which probalby resulted the increased 180 lit/h MW consumption.
All in all, WEP time on the methanol equipped messers was enough for about 30 min use, which means that practically for the whole duration of flight, when one taking into account avgas consumption and the need to save some for RTB as well. MW injection was only used during WEP performance, otherwise it was inactive (ie. for cruising).
The consumption figures that were given for DB 605 AM and L... the former was never used in K series, and anyway illusrates that the MW was enough for 30 mins (75 lits at 150lit/h).
DB 605 L was the single two stage engine in the DB 605 family to my knowladge, and because of the larger SC, consumption was somewhat more than in single stage models. However, I don`t think some of the people would be pleased if I would post curves with the K-14`s high altitude performance, which was equipped with this sort of engine in the end of the war. Suffice to say, the only WW2 plane that exceeded it`s climb performance above 7000m was the Ta152 H..
However, I must also comment on some posts which was posted by some who just cant put up with the facts... ie. the Meredith effect, Mustang wing thickness, and people who argue about things they don`t have the slightest clue on.
I think the mindset of some people can be the best illustrated by this single sentence :
"I still don't care what's in C-3."
Which, in my opinion translates to :
"I am dead primitive, it`s good for me this way, I will never change."
Thank you again.
-
Show me the K14 data, is there speed data too? Does the chart also include the 4 blade prop performance?
-
Hi Gripen,
>Well, there was boundary layer splitter in the early Bf 109F but on later models radiator design was simplified and splitter was removed.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Widewing,
>In point of fact, the P-51D was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph) at 35,000 feet. That's Mach .81 and that ain't slow.
Well, my copy of AAF Manual 51-127-5 gives the redline speed at 35000 ft as 290 mph IAS and 500 mph TAS, which equals Mach 0.75, the value given in the manual as being just below the compressibility threshold. (Contradicting Curtis a second time.)
Of course, the P-51D could go beyond redline speed, but the Me 109 could go to Mach 0.79, too.
(290 mph IAS at 35000 ft convert into 520 mph TAS, but if you account for the compressibility error of the airspeed indicator you'll end up at a lower corrected value actually. Apparently, this wasn't usually taught to WW2 pilots, which gave rise to many exaggerated dive speed stories on both sides.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Widewing,
>Cutting to the chase, no Luftwaffe fighter used the Merideth Effect radiators even remotely as efficient as that designed by the North American team, period. End of discussion.
Do you actually have comparative efficiency figures? Then I'd like to ask you to share them with us so we might become enlightened, too :-)
If you don't ... well, "end of discussion" ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Ask him if he knows what mw50 is/does? That ought to be entertaining.
-
Who cares??
Did you ever notice how many of these Luftwabble threads go in the same direction? If your super plane isn't the best then I must be a lunatic.
I'm out of this thread so you can wear your leather thong without fear of someone disagreeing with you.
Don't break your arms stroking to pictures of ole willie guy's.:aok
-
Mustang charts here,
Speed
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/P51+-7+Merlin+speed.jpg
Climb
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/P-51+-7+Merlin+climb.jpg
8th Airforce Mustangs 72"hg RAF Mustangs 81"hg with 100/150 grade fuel.
Thanks to Greg Shaw for the Graph paper.
Neil.
-
Ok this is erratating the watermelon out of me. It's a Bf109 ;)
-
Originally posted by JB42
Ok this is erratating the watermelon out of me. It's a Bf109 ;)
:confused:
As opposed to what?
-
They keep calling it a Me 109.
-
Oh? Quoting wrongly from the Holy scripts of the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke? ... Those blasphemers!!! ;)
-
Found this on the medideth effect from Air&Space magazine. It seems the Mustang fully utilized all the elemets required to maxamize the effect while planes like the Spitfire etc. only made it half way.
"It seems that most other contemporary airplanes attempting to take advantage of the Meredith Effect failed for one reason or another to combine an efficient duct system with a properly designed and regulated exit-closing mechanism and did not develop the energy recovery inherent in the Meredith method. They generally used 10 percent or more of their power available at high speed to overcome cooling drag. A notable exception was the DeHavilland Mosquito multi-purpose plane with the same Rolls-Royce engines and which used a wing leading edge radiator mounting with a short and direct inlet duct. The controllable exit opening had a minimum area little more than half that of the Spitfire, and while it was a larger two-engine airplane, it had a speed of 425 mph.
Here again, while Meredith's analysis was coherent and mathematically instructive, he failed to convey the practical aspects through an example or two, although he did offer a chart showing drag reduction for various discharge area ratios and conditions. The point I am making was that his work was generally in unfamiliar mathematical terms and was poorly understood. In fact, in two cases I know about, it was described in terms of mild ridicule. In any case, some if not most of the designs of wartime aircraft, including the Spitfire, failed to get the full advantage of this available air pump.
It should be pointed out here that the controversy and misunderstanding of the Meredith Effect on the performance of the Mustang developed largely because it was essentially impossible to get a reasonable measure of the effect from wind tunnel models at the time. The mass flow and momentum could not be accurately measured on a scale model, and no large tunnels were fast enough--200 to 400 miles per hour--to get meaningful results.
It has been reported that Messerschmitt made extensive efforts to determine the reason for the low drag of the Mustang, but his wind tunnel measurements did not disclose the restoration of momentum to the radiator cooling air, and most probably could not have done so with the wind tunnel equipment available at the time.
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj99/Mustang.html
Charon
-
hmm i´m surprised that so many sources say the Merideth effect was devoverd in 35. This is not true, acutally Hugo Junkers had a patent already in 1915 for a ramjet cooler design.
The trick is always the same, slow down the air by increasing the flow area to minimize cooler drag. Nothing special.
Zero cooling drag would have made the P-51 way faster, just look at the 109R
niklas
-
If you Deutschland guys keep this "my national male unit is bigger than your national male unit" stuff going, the gloves are bound to come off: German noodlees 'too small for EU condoms' (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_358876.html) :)
If it makes you feel any better, the designer of the P-51 was a German guy, so you can have your cake and eat it too.
Charon
[edit: LOL, just take this quote, and substitute Bf-109 for "german man"]He denied the German man was any smaller than the rest of Europe, adding: "We think the EU has got its sums wrong, and if other countries were to check out their men's assets they would find the EU has made a mistake in its calculations.
-
Why bother even entering this thread if you are just going to be an arse?
It's f4udoa with noodle envy, just read his replies. It's folks like him and yourself that post inaccurate info and when corrected you decide to insult.
Niklas posted facts. They have nothing to do how you "feel".
The real question is why do you think it is necessary to throw insults when wrong? Trying to portray the p51 as some miracle plane is wrong.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,
>Cutting to the chase, no Luftwaffe fighter used the Merideth Effect radiators even remotely as efficient as that designed by the North American team, period. End of discussion.
Do you actually have comparative efficiency figures? Then I'd like to ask you to share them with us so we might become enlightened, too :-)
If you don't ... well, "end of discussion" ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hiya Henning,
In March of 1976 Lee Attwood spoke at a symposium where he produced data accumulated from both Britain and Langley comparing the total thrust loss to cooling drag after pressure recovery. The aircraft referred to were the Spitfire Mk.VIII, Bf 109G-6/R2 and a P-51D-10-NA. Losses were defined as a percentage of available thrust.
Spitfire Mk.VIII: 10.7%
Bf 109G-6/R2: 11.6%
P-51D-10-NA: 2.9%
The full text of Attwood's speech was published in the Spring 1977 issue of the American Aviation Historical Society Journal.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Why bother even entering this thread if you are just going to be an arse?
It's f4udoa with noodle envy, just read his replies. It's folks like him and yourself that post inaccurate info and when corrected you decide to insult.
Niklas posted facts. They have nothing to do how you "feel".
The real question is why do you think it is necessary to throw insults when wrong? Trying to portray the p51 as some miracle plane is wrong.
Batz
LOL, something in my post must have hit a bit too close to home. I don’t really recall providing inaccurate information in this thread (or being corrected for it). If I have, open season on me, please post it for my embarrassment instead of yours.
As for insulting someone in a post, we all can’t be as evenhanded and impersonal as Wotan is in contentious threads, now can we. I sincerely apologize to any Germanic person who was actually offended by my post. If anybody took it seriously, and not as the obvious jest it was, well, I’m truly sorry. I don’t think Germanic people actually have smaller (or larger) noodlees than the rest of Europe, red-blooded apple pie fed Americans or even Corsair aficionados. And as we all know, size really doesn't matter anyway.
As far as the general quantity and quality of the "information" offered throughout this post, with all the meandering points (from formulas for winning the war for the Luftwaffe, to murmansk convoys to drag coefficient and Meridith effect debates) being raised, just what was the question again? The NIKI thread has more focus and continuity, and that says a lot :) I just see the same conjecture and scattered, disconnected factoids from the last four or five times this type of thread has run. I personally have less emotional attachment to the P-51 than I do the Bf-109 series or the P-47, P-38, F4U… a pretty long list. If it came down to it, CO-E I would probably choose the 109K-4 in a “dogfight to the death.” Just as long as I didn’t have to win a war with the airplane. I generally agree with Gscholz’s assessment:
Ah yes the 109G6 is definitively more maneuverable than the P51, except at very high speed, however the G10 and K4 are heavier than the G6. I feel (from what I've read and AH) that the P-51 would have the edge in high speed maneuvering, the 109 would be better in a medium speed fight, and in a slow turn fight the 109 would have superior maneuverability unless the P-51 uses its flaps which would give it an edge. In every speed range the 109 hold the edge in vertical fighting though, especially in a slow fight, due to its superior power.
What touched off my toung-in-cheek response was the religious belief by a few that if the P-51 had something like the Meredith effect, then the 109 must have it in spades (just prove it didn’t!) and that commonly stated flight characteristic deficiencies noted by allied, German and modern day pilots are overstated or non existent. I mean, really, did the 109 have any faults at all from a flight characteristics standpoint? Was it light on the control at all speeds, tighter turning better in a dive in addition to the clear advantages in acceleration, climb and speed in various configurations at various altitudes. Why did they bother with the 190 at all?
German engineering was/is great. But the US and UK had some quality engineering as well, which seems to be hard for some to reconcile with the mythology of the grand Nazi war machine. Forget about the extensive prewar work conducted by NACA, or the engineering genius of a Mitchell or an Edgar Schmued -- if Willie or Kurt or Ernst didn’t have a hand in it, it just can’t be first rate. With greater weight and less power, the multi-role long range P-51 performs comparably to the 109K-4 tactical battlefield fighter/ interceptor. Could that possibly be due to superior aerodynamics in an airframe developed 6 years after the Me-109. Six years that saw rapid increases in aerodynamic knowledge and fighter development throughout the world? Isn’t it enough that the 109 was ahead of its time technologically compared to contemporaries like the P-35/36/40 or the Hurricane? Does it have to still be ahead of its time 10 years and two generations of fighter aircraft later to be a great airplane?
The G6 I observed at the NASM was noticeably more bumpy than the 51 or Spit or 205 in the same room.
For a long time I had as a screen saver a close up shot of the nose section of that Duxford G-2 that crashed a few years back (Black 6?, the N. Africa machine). The bumps, exposed cowling latches, antenna, balky cockpit framing and generally loose fit of panels and cowling even in the “clean” G-2 series suggest that the Bf-109 was a plane that carried on past its prime by stuffing progressively bigger engines into a small airframe until aerodynamics finally became too important to ignore any longer. The K-4 obviously was much improved, but it would have to come a long way to match the smooth package presented by a P-51.
Charon
-
How much wingarea equals slim formed antennas and bumbs in a region where the airflow is turbulent by the propeller anyway?
A wing or wingarea is also a kind of "bumb"
You can´t compare the shape of 109A-E to the F-K.
P-51 lovers make it too easy, they just read numbers in books and believe it. I still want to see a full test report including temperature, mach and static position error, or a multi aircraft test of the P-51. I already said that official performance claim was just 425mph for the B for example. The british test gives 355mph at sealevel with +18lb which is fast but not extraordinary fast for 1600. Actually this speed can be explained by the smoother surface of the P-51 alone imo, which is mentioned in the german report. The surface cover sheet was thicker, this way it didn´t had so many micro-bumps where the bolts were placed, for example. The P-51 was a bit heavy on the other side...
niklas
-
Hi Widewing,
>In March of 1976 Lee Attwood spoke at a symposium where he produced data accumulated from both Britain and Langley comparing the total thrust loss to cooling drag after pressure recovery. The aircraft referred to were the Spitfire Mk.VIII, Bf 109G-6/R2 and a P-51D-10-NA. Losses were defined as a percentage of available thrust.
The British figures for the Bf 109G-6/R2 they captured were far below par, so if these were used as a basis, I'm not surprised reverse-engineering the aircraft gave poor drag figures.
Probably based on these test, a post-war aerodynamics text book published a detailed drag break down of the Me 109 which is pretty far off the mark, too. If this kind of data was used to calculate the Me 109's cooling losses, they'd of course appear exaggerated.
These are just my spontaneous doubts about the accuracy of the figures you quoted, I could probably comment more reliably if I'd know that article :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The early Allison Mustang had adjustable inlet and outlet in the radiator but I have not seen if there was some kind of boundary layer separator. The chamber behind radiator cell and before outlet was quite small. Later Allison mustangs had somewhat different shaped inlet and outlet and there appear to be a small boundary layer separator visible. The P-51B and later Mustangs had all fixed inlet (boundary layer scoop) and overall radiator was longer and chamber behind radiator was bigger than in earlier model, intercooler was also located inside (edited: not intercooler but the radiator of the intercooler). The radiator of the Mustang still evolved after P-51B; the P-51H had all new design (appear to be smaller) and developement still continued in the F-82.
If compared to the Bf 109, the early Allison Mustang had functionally quite similar radiator as Bf 109G/K ie adjustable inlet and outlet, no boundary layer separator (it should be noted that the radiator flap was a part of flap in the Bf 109F/G/K). Late Allison Mustang had functionally similar radiator as early Bf 109F ie boundary layer separator was added. The Merlin Mustang radiator has no equivalent in the Bf 109 series but the Do 335 appear to had quite similar design for the rear engine (I don't know details of this system). From the functional viewpoint it seems that utilization of the backpressure was better in the Merlin Mustang because volume of the chamber appears to be bigger and size of the inlet was constant, in the Bf 109 radiator I don't see any structural attempt to utilize backpressure. But this is all pure speculation, anyway, I'm pretty sure that Attwood knew these things much better than us.
gripen
-
niklas,
You can easily get very detailed test data (real stuff including temp or what so ever...) of the P-51B and D from the PRO (http://www.pro.gov.uk/). But the Bf 109K is a very different story, so far I have not seen data which can be certainly rated as real test flight data. I have gone through quite many NASM (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/info/captured.htm) microfilms and I have seen all graphs claimed here as real test flight data (which I highly doubt).
gripen
-
Mustang tests contained within AVIA 18/732, order 10th part of report No. A.&A.E.E./781,c for Mustang III FX.953 and 3rd part of report No. AAEE/781,d for Mustang IV at +18lbs and +25lbs boost.
Neil.
-
Originally posted by Charon
LOL, something in my post must have hit a bit too close to home. I don’t really recall providing inaccurate information in this thread (or being corrected for it). If I have, open season on me, please post it for my embarrassment instead of yours.
As for insulting someone in a post, we all can’t be as evenhanded and impersonal as Wotan is in contentious threads, now can we. I sincerely apologize to any Germanic person who was actually offended by my post. If anybody took it seriously, and not as the obvious jest it was, well, I’m truly sorry. I don’t think Germanic people actually have smaller (or larger) noodlees than the rest of Europe, red-blooded apple pie fed Americans or even Corsair aficionados. And as we all know, size really doesn't matter anyway.
As far as the general quantity and quality of the "information" offered throughout this post, with all the meandering points (from formulas for winning the war for the Luftwaffe, to murmansk convoys to drag coefficient and Meridith effect debates) being raised, just what was the question again? The NIKI thread has more focus and continuity, and that says a lot :) I just see the same conjecture and scattered, disconnected factoids from the last four or five times this type of thread has run. I personally have less emotional attachment to the P-51 than I do the Bf-109 series or the P-47, P-38, F4U… a pretty long list. If it came down to it, CO-E I would probably choose the 109K-4 in a “dogfight to the death.” Just as long as I didn’t have to win a war with the airplane. I generally agree with Gscholz’s assessment:
What touched off my toung-in-cheek response was the religious belief by a few that if the P-51 had something like the Meredith effect, then the 109 must have it in spades (just prove it didn’t!) and that commonly stated flight characteristic deficiencies noted by allied, German and modern day pilots are overstated or non existent. I mean, really, did the 109 have any faults at all from a flight characteristics standpoint? Was it light on the control at all speeds, tighter turning better in a dive in addition to the clear advantages in acceleration, climb and speed in various configurations at various altitudes. Why did they bother with the 190 at all?
German engineering was/is great. But the US and UK had some quality engineering as well, which seems to be hard for some to reconcile with the mythology of the grand Nazi war machine. Forget about the extensive prewar work conducted by NACA, or the engineering genius of a Mitchell or an Edgar Schmued -- if Willie or Kurt or Ernst didn’t have a hand in it, it just can’t be first rate. With greater weight and less power, the multi-role long range P-51 performs comparably to the 109K-4 tactical battlefield fighter/ interceptor. Could that possibly be due to superior aerodynamics in an airframe developed 6 years after the Me-109. Six years that saw rapid increases in aerodynamic knowledge and fighter development throughout the world? Isn’t it enough that the 109 was ahead of its time technologically compared to contemporaries like the P-35/36/40 or the Hurricane? Does it have to still be ahead of its time 10 years and two generations of fighter aircraft later to be a great airplane?
The G6 I observed at the NASM was noticeably more bumpy than the 51 or Spit or 205 in the same room.
For a long time I had as a screen saver a close up shot of the nose section of that Duxford G-2 that crashed a few years back (Black 6?, the N. Africa machine). The bumps, exposed cowling latches, antenna, balky cockpit framing and generally loose fit of panels and cowling even in the “clean” G-2 series suggest that the Bf-109 was a plane that carried on past its prime by stuffing progressively bigger engines into a small airframe until aerodynamics finally became too important to ignore any longer. The K-4 obviously was much improved, but it would have to come a long way to match the smooth package presented by a P-51.
Charon
You give me a wall of text saying nothing. Despite "what a smooth package" the p51 was it was still out climbed and depending on alt slower then the k4. So if you are saying the k4 would have been even faster, climbed even better if it was "more smooth" then well ok.
But you made a post on the "Meredith Effect" (or medideth as you called it) and Niklas corrected an error in the article and you come back with "noodle size" and assumptions over motivation.
-
From what I see both sides, ceratin personalities in particular, are equally responsible for saying my plane is the bestest of the best and both sides eqally take offence at any data that does not go their way - a hillarious thread.
BTW I still maintain that the Bf109 looks mean as hell and has nice paintjobs. Go to hell any of you who now start a discussion obout which side had higher quality pigments in their paint or emplyed more malevolent designers. ;)
-
BTW I still maintain that the Bf109 looks mean as hell and has nice paintjobs.
It in fact had a HUGE variety of nice paintjobs. Excellent point Grun.
Hooligan
-
gripen: Thanks for the reference to PRO. I was tinkering with that site. How do you navigate and search it for the type of data we're interested in?
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I still don't care what's in C-3.
Funny boy. You might not, but since the performance of C-3 fuel was roughly equal of the Allied 100/150 fuel, knowing what it is is rather important if you're talking about fuels. Not knowing what you're talking about doesn't make your arguments believable.
-
You give me a wall of text saying nothing.
Well, when I don't provide a wall of text opinions get put in my mouth that I don't have and then I get attacked for them. Kind of a lose/lose situation.
Despite "what a smooth package" the p51 was it was still out climbed and depending on alt slower then the k4. So if you are saying the k4 would have been even faster, climbed even better if it was "more smooth" then well ok.
No argument here, never was.
But you made a post on the "Meredith Effect" (or medideth as you called it) and Niklas corrected an error in the article and you come back with "noodle size" and assumptions over motivation.
Forgive me for spell checking my work most of the time. Sometimes the wrong corrections are made or overlooked. Next time you make a typo I'll just assume you're entirely ignorant of the subject matter.
Niklas was referencing Reichspatent # 299799 in his "correction" which showed how ducting can reduce drag and increase cooling effectiveness. What Junkers failed to note, as far as I can tell, and what Meredith found: (c) Conclusions -- It is shown that the power expended on cooling does not increase with speed for a properly designed ducted system but that, owing to recovery of waste heat, a thrust may be derived at speeds of the order of 300 m.p.h. Nor did the Junkers patent show the variable exhaust mechanisms that made the process effective.
I haven't seen the whole patent text, but I don't see Junkers noting in 1915 how to provide thrust at speeds above 300 m.p.h. At the time, drag reduction itself was not even a sufficient benefit to make the patent viable in production aircraft from a cost/benefit standpoint. By 1935 this was no longer the case, and ducted radiators and ducted radial engine cowlings were finally necessary and cost effective given the increase in aircraft performance. (Much of the cowling work was conducted by the British and Vought, with NACA doing a lot of testing, and achieved the same goals -- reduced drag and improved cooling).
FWIW, you could say Hugo Junkers was just doing something Bernoulli developed much earlier (with some debate on that point too, I see) and be just as "accurate" so, yes, I did see it as a mine’s bigger than yours type of post. Comparing an apple to an orange just to prove we made the orange first. Like it or not, when you try to change conventional wisdom or common knowledge, the onus is on the person looking to make the change in perception to provide concrete data supporting those claims. There is already a wealth of primary and secondary sources to establish the “common knowledge" or else it wouldn’t be common knowledge.
http://www.bewersdorff.com/wankel/radiator/CoolingSystems1.html
http://www.bewersdorff.com/wankel/radiator/CoolingSystems2.html
Charon
-
BTW, bring the K-4 to Aces High. I know we already have the G10, but I would like to see how the aileron tabs impact roll rate at various speeds. And exchange the G10 for a G14, as Batz as called for in the past I believe.
Charon
-
@gripen: do you have this data? Can u sent me some?
btw, there´s no official speed claim of a k doing 600km/h with just 1600hp.
@charon: The heat energy IS transferred into the air assuming a steady state (constant cooling temperature). So the air gains energy in 1915 and in 1945 from the very same physical effect, and it produced the very same way in 1915 thrust or internal lift like in 1945.
You can´t close the radiator in every case to very low exit flow areas, somewhere is the limit. At the end what determines the exit flow area is the amount of heat that has to be taken away.
I have detailed drawings here of the Naca showing the evolution process of the cooler duct, after all it´s nothing special. The ratio cooler flow area to inlet area seems to be high, so low drag can be expected, on the other hand the big cooler increased weight.
niklas
-
dtango,
Neil allready claimed reference (AVIA 18/732; a large collection of various performance tests on Mustang). The easiest way to start searching in the PRO is PROCAT (http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/). There you can go directly to the reference or choose search. As an example you can search word Mustang and limit results under department code AVIA and voila! you have 59 hits (AVIA 18/732 among them).
niklas,
I have not that data, but I have gone through that map and there is quite many test reports on Mustang, most of them are well detailed and made with standard A&AEE procedures. Basicly most data I have collected is for planes which have served here in Finland all other is just for fun.
GRUNHERZ,
I think the tall tailwheel assembly of the late Bf 109s ruined cool german look of the plane on the ground. Otherwise I have no particular favorite plane, eh... maybe Gloster Gladiator
gripen
-
Hi Charon,
>Nor did the Junkers patent show the variable exhaust mechanisms that made the process effective.
The point is that the Messerschmitt design shows just this variable exhaust mechanism that made the process "effective".
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
.... and which worked in manoevering flights also, opening a bit, like an automatic combat flap (split type) ;)
niklas
-
The point is that the Messerschmitt design shows just this variable exhaust mechanism that made the process "effective".
... as long as all the other elements in the duct design were effective as well. My understanding is that this effect involves a successfully functioning system of elements from the inlet, to the internal duct design and demensions to the exhaust mechanism.
"In the case of the Mustang, the duct volume was larger and flow instability more violent, creating an unacceptable vibration and rumble. Resourceful engineers at North American, working with wind tunnel models, overcame the problem by lowering the intake upper lip below the wing surface boundary layer, thus beginning a new upper duct surface. In this design, the flow expanded gradually as the duct velocity decreased, and the pressure at the radiator face was reasonably uniform. This permitted the appropriate closure of the exit with a temperature-controlled power actuator, and a minimum pressure drop across the radiator consistent with efficient radiator function and cooling demand...
"It seems that most other contemporary airplanes attempting to take advantage of the Meredith Effect failed for one reason or another to combine an efficient duct system with a properly designed and regulated exit-closing mechanism and did not develop the energy recovery inherent in the Meredith method. They generally used 10 percent or more of their power available at high speed to overcome cooling drag. A notable exception was the DeHavilland Mosquito multi-purpose plane with the same Rolls-Royce engines and which used a wing leading edge radiator mounting with a short and direct inlet duct. The controllable exit opening had a minimum area little more than half that of the Spitfire, and while it was a larger two-engine airplane, it had a speed of 425 mph.
The conventional wisdom says that this system was developed to an optimal degree with the P-51. The onus is on those who think the bf-109 achieved the same results with what appears to be a markedly different physical design to provide the evidence supporting their opinions.
Not that it matters anyway. Raw performance figures are what matters at the core of this thread, and the angle being sought now seems to center on dismissing P-51 top speed claims as with IL2FB. Nothing new here, actually. This is fine at the end of the day, as long as conclusive, hard data is offered to support those claims. Don't see an awful lot of that here, just tidbits used to support some pretty broad and self serving conclusions.
Charon
-
double post
-
The onus is on those who think the bf-109 achieved the same results with what appears to be a markedly different physical design to provide the evidence supporting their opinions.
Who is it that said the 109 achieved the same results?
The only one that comes even close to saying that is HoHun.
Hi everyone,
Having been away for two days I'm unable to catch up with the thread now.
There's one thing I'd like to point out though: After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang.
The thermodynamic effect of the engine cooling was well-known in the 1920s and 1930s and in fact had been first pointed out by Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he acquired a patent for the "Düsenkühler" ('jet radiator').
Is this who you are talking about?
I don't feel like going through and quoting everyone but if you read back from Hohun's post I quoted above I don't think you will read where anyone said the 109 utilized the "Meredith Effect" as "efficient" as the mustang. I don't think anyone said it is all that important in discussing the performance of either the p51 or 109. After all the "Meredith Effect" is already factored in when discussing top speed.
Before Hohun's post the only other talk of "Meredith Effect" was from dtango in answering a couple of questions.
fyi,
I don't think the 109k4 is "needed" in AH. Our g10 performs well enough to sub for it as well as the g6/as and g14/as. What I would like to see is our current g6 have mw50 added and designated as a 109g14. Then I would like to see an early g6 modeled. I like the g6 in AH and when I flew last it was my favorite if not only plane to fly. But there are numerous wholes in the plane set that, at least imo, are more of a priority.
-
Hi Charon,
"In this design, the flow expanded gradually as the duct velocity decreased, and the pressure at the radiator face was reasonably uniform. This permitted the appropriate closure of the exit with a temperature-controlled power actuator, and a minimum pressure drop across the radiator consistent with efficient radiator function and cooling demand... "
That's just what the Messerschmitt does, too.
"It seems that most other contemporary airplanes attempting to take advantage of the Meredith Effect failed for one reason or another to combine an efficient duct system with a properly designed and regulated exit-closing mechanism and did not develop the energy recovery inherent in the Meredith method."
"... most other contemporary airplanes ..." is not "all other" - and note the sentence starts rather weak with "It seems ..." anyway.
And again, the Messerschmitt had just the regulated exit-closing mechanism.
>The onus is on those who think the bf-109 achieved the same results with what appears to be a markedly different physical design to provide the evidence supporting their opinions.
Actually, the aspects of the physical design you quoted are shared by the Messerschmitt and the Mustang. I won't claim the Me 109 was superior, but I have no reason to assume it wasn't in the same ballpark at least :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
If you look at the diagrams for the each radiator, their may be some shared components, but the designs are dramatically different.
In the Mustang:
"A long duct, gradually expanding ahead of the radiator and gradually converging behind it, was essential--the ideal duct, in fact, would have been as long as the entire airplane. While it might be utopian to expect a net thrust, Atwood hoped that what he came to call "the Meredith effect" would offset some or even most of the cooling drag."
http://www.icon.co.za/~pauljnr/radsta.jpg
In the 109:
http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/thilakari/Kuvat/mtkuvat/Image014.jpg
If I had my scanner working I would post the internal view of the 109 which shows no excess room around the radiator core, as the photo would suggest. The P-51 also had the boundary layer gutter that separated the cooling air intake from the fuselage - moving the duct away from the fuselage several inches - which is obviously not the case with the 109.
.
Aerodynamicist Irv Ashkenas came up with the idea of moving the entire duct away from the belly skin so that its inlet was in an undisturbed stream of high-speed air. A "gutter" about an inch and a half deep carried the turbulent, low-energy surface boundary layer air clear of the inlet. This arrangement became classic; the F-16's underbelly scoop is reminiscent of the Mustang's. Once the entry design was perfected, the variable-area inlet feature was dispensed with; an adjustable chute at the aft end of the duct controlled the volume of air flowing through it.
Maybe they are in the same ballpark, but maybe they are not even playing the same sport. The conventional wisdom (and Widewings figures) says they are not.
The differences are so glaring, you must just be trolling me to waste my Saturday afternoon with all this mental masturbation involving my learning more about the Meredith effect than I ever wanted to know :) for a job well done. At least I'll be fascinating at the next cocktail party I attend.
Here's a more involved link on Mustang development controversies over who actually came up with what during the design and on the fit and finish efforts that went into its construction to reduce drag. http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/AS/wmtm.html
I'm going to go fly a bit now, while the wife is away.
Charon
BTW: Here a link I came up with that illustrates the fit and finish issues that I noted previously with the earlier G series. It’s not just the MG bulges that jump out at you. The fit and finish on the G improves dramatically aft the engine. I wouldn’t mind seeing similar close-ups of a K series for comparison.
http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/thilakari/Kuvat/mtkuvat/Image020.jpg
http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/thilakari/Kuvat/mtkuvat/Image013.jpg
http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/thilakari/Kuvat/mtkuvat/Image006.jpg
-
Hi Charon,
>The conventional wisdom (and Widewings figures) says they are not.
I've seen so much "conventional wisdom" crumble away under careful analysis that I don't value it too highly. Widewing's figures are interesting in stating that the net force generated by the radiator is a drag and not a thrust, which "conventional wisdom" claims the Mustang radiator should generate.
>The differences are so glaring, you must just be trolling me to waste my Saturday afternoon with all this mental masturbation
You post an outside photograph of the Me 109 radiator to compare it to a Mustang radiator cross section, and proceed to talk about "glaring differences"?
The Me 109 radiator had the same components as the Mustang radiator, and if you'd look at the cross section instead of the photogaph, you'd see that it had a very similar internal geometry as well.
>The P-51 also had the boundary layer gutter that separated the cooling air intake from the fuselage - moving the duct away from the fuselage several inches - which is obviously not the case with the 109.
The radiator type introduced with the Friedrich did indeed have a boundary layer gutter though it was not visible from the outside as it was recessed behind the intake flap. The "turbulent, low-energy surface boundary layer air" was guided "clear of the inlet" of the heat exchanger duct just like it was in the Mustang.
Now Gripen tells me that this component was deleted in the Gustav, but it's quite obvious that it didn't make the difference between 2.9% cooling drag (as for the Mustang) and 11.6% (Widewing's Gustav figure) or the Gustav wouldn't have been any faster than the Friedrich (but it was).
For the Mustang, the deletion of the intake flap worked. For the Messerschmitt, it was the deletion of the boundary layer bypass duct. In any case, the sophistication of the Messerschmitt's radiator was equal to that of the Mustang's.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I've seen so much "conventional wisdom" crumble away under careful analysis that I don't value it too highly.
I tend to value it more than idle speculation based on selective data and broad conclusions. It's up to those revising conventional wisdom to provide the concrete data that proves the conventional wisdom incorrect.
You post an outside photograph of the Me 109 radiator to compare it to a Mustang radiator cross section, and proceed to talk about "glaring differences"?
The Me 109 radiator had the same components as the Mustang radiator, and if you'd look at the cross section instead of the photograph, you'd see that it had a very similar internal geometry as well.
My car has all of the basic components of a Porsche 911 -- for some reason it fails to perform the same. As I pointed out in my post, I have a cutaway in front of me in a book. If you have a digital version please post it for a direct comparison. You will see a glaring difference which you also seem to have overlooked from my previous post:
"A long duct, gradually expanding ahead of the radiator and gradually converging behind it, was essential--the ideal duct, in fact, would have been as long as the entire airplane. While it might be utopian to expect a net thrust, Atwood hoped that what he came to call "the Meredith effect" would offset some or even most of the cooling drag."
So, direct question. Does the 109 feature a long duct, gradually expanding ahead of the radiator and gradually converging behind it? Your cross section sure must look a hell of a lot different from mine.
In any case, the sophistication of the Messerschmitt's radiator was equal to that of the Mustang's.
Certainly equalivent to the Spitfire, and many other mid to late 1930s aircraft.
It really is pointless for an agnostic to discuss such things with "keepers of the faith." When you have hard data to back up the specualtion I'd be happy to see it and more than happy to accept it. Until then...
Charon
-
Are you an agnostic Charon?
-
Hi Charon,
Here's your quote with a different emphasis:
"A long duct, gradually expanding ahead of the radiator and gradually converging behind it, was essential--the ideal duct, in fact, would have been as long as the entire airplane."
Did the Mustang have such a duct? No - and so obviously doesn't match up with the ideal descripton either. About the relative dimensions - well, let's have a look at them.
The approximate geometry of the Mustang's ducts is:
Oil cooler path: 50% intake, 17% radiator, 33% outlet - radiator height 15%
Main radiator path. 40% intake, 20% radiator, 40% outlet - radiator height 20%
The approximate geometry of the Messerschmitt's duct:
20% intake, 30% radiator, 50% outlet - radiator height 27%
That's close enough, especially if you consider that the while the Messerschmitt radiator was deeper, it wasn't just a rectangular box but actually shaped to allow expansion of the intake air within the radiator itself.
>So, direct question. Does the 109 feature a long duct, gradually expanding ahead of the radiator and gradually converging behind it? Your cross section sure must look a hell of a lot different from mine.
The answer is: The Messerschmitt features a slightly shorter inlet duct than the Mustang, gradually expanding ahead of and within the radiator, and gradually converging behind it. I'm sure if you look at the cross section a second time, maybe even armed with a ruler, you'll find the similarity striking.
The much smaller side section of the Messerschmitt's system obviously makes the system appear much smaller than the Mustang's large duct, but this is compensated by the underwing radiators being much wider. Don't let yourself be deceived by the different looks - two ways of skinning the same cat, with minor differences only :-)
(I'll just leave the insulting part of your post unanswered in order to allow you to concentrate on getting the dimensions off your drawing ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
So i just studied the duct tests of the P-51, and while moving the radiator farer away of the fuselage definitly placed it in a better position for the air stream, the main effect of reduced drag seems to be a different one.
(http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/DuctEvolution_small.gif)
Here you can download a better scan. Just for the guys like charon who have to base their opinion on funny sketches, book phrases without any proofs, and photos from the outside lol.
de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/DuctEvolution.zip
It can be clearly seen that at minimum flap opening position the massflow of the final duct was 35% lower than for the original duct, the total inlet area being reduced form 197 to 188 inch^2. This alone explains why the later duct produced less drag, it simply had less drag (less massflow) at the expense of less cooling efficiency. This was imo the step from a ground attack aircraft flying in rather warm air (low alt) to the high alt escort Mustang. In high altitude you can close the inlet area, that´s the reason behind the front lip of the 109 radiator btw.
The doc also shows that the later duct had a slighly higher overall "static" cd value.
niklas
-
Are you an agnostic Charon?
Well, there are plenty of german weapons that were technologically advanced compared to the allied equivalent. Some even represent paradigm shifts. MG34/42; FW-190, Panther, Type XXI U-boat, V-2 (couldn't have got to the moon without the Germans) etc. I have no problem with that. The allies had the A-bomb/B-29, enigma breaking/purple breaking etc., centimetric radar etc. I certainly have no prolem with that. Frankly, if you substitute the FW-190 for the P-51 in this discussion I would be approaching the subject from the same basic position The 109 was a great plane but like plenty in the LW stated, it was a bit long in the tooth by 1944.
I'm personally a huge P-38 fan, and have been since I first read Martin Cadin's Forked Tail Devil 30 years ago at age nine. However, I accept that the 38 was a mixed bag. A great plane, but one that both excelled and lacked. I also came to see Cadin in a different light as a historian than I did at 9 years old - largely through the valid criticism of others. But then, the same applies for Galland and "The First and the Last."
Charon
-
That's close enough, especially if you consider that the while the Messerschmitt radiator was deeper, it wasn't just a rectangular box but actually shaped to allow expansion of the intake air within the radiator itself.
Then you should be able to find data showing similar efficiency. The only data provided so far (by Widewing) seems to to indicate that the 109 radiator was far less efficient.
You know, you're not debating me. You're debating Edgar Schmued and Lee Atwood. You're debating decades of that distrusted conventional wisdom. It's up to the person looking to do the revision to back up the theory with proof. Don't be insulted if I tell you I find Schmued or Atwood to be far more credible on the subject, and at least as objective. They seem to think North American came up with something pretty unique in its execution.
So i just studied the duct tests of the P-51, and while moving the radiator farer away of the fuselage definitly placed it in a better position for the air stream, the main effect of reduced drag seems to be a different one...
If you and Henning take your casual studies and assumptions and get them published by at least a minimally credible source -- or show data from someone who did -- your positions will have greater weight. Can you show source material from the Messerschmitt factory or company engineers establishing equal efficiency? That's fine too. Are you an aeronautical engineer formally trained in this area? If so, get that paper published and establish source material -- it would probably cause a minor stir.
I'm not a big fan of speculative "fact." I deal with it all the time as part of my job today, and I helped craft it in a former life. I've dealt with companies that claim you can slap a conventional magnet on a pipe and get essentially "soft" behaving water from hard water -- the magnetism aligning the calcium particles in a certain way... They back it up by taking bits and pieces of various scientifc theory that selectively overlooks other areas, flow dynamics for example, that would negate the theoretical possibilities. They even hired a hack at Univ. Fla. to support the scientific basis of their technology with a "study" that could never pass peer review. But the average customer wouldn't know the difference (it sounded all technical and such) and it sold a lot of magnets.
The trade group I worked for at the time actually conducted several legit, peer-reviewed, published studies that could find no benefit from magnetic water softening. However, there was always some minor factor the magnet people claimed wasn't followed (it wasnt turned quite the right way, etc.) that "negated" the legit research when contacted by the press or state attorney generals offices, etc. I just don't see much difference here.
Charon
-
Hi Charon,
>You know, you're not debating me. You're debating Edgar Schmued and Lee Atwood.
I'm debating Atwood alone, and I'm not alone in debating him. Other North American engineers don't even connect Atwood (or Meredith, who was Atwood's "discovery") with the radiator problem at all.
From the Air & Space article you referenced:
"Atwood's article brought a rebuttal from aerodynamicist Ed Horkey, who had come to North American from the California Institute of Technology in 1938 to work under Schmued. The aft location, he said, was an obvious choice; there was no room for a suitable radiator anywhere else. Neither he nor Irv Ashkenas, another Caltech-trained aerodynamicist who worked on the Mustang, remembers Lee Atwood having had a role in that decision."
>They seem to think North American came up with something pretty unique in its execution.
Then what was unique? :-) The Allison Mustang and the Friedrich had almost exactly the same subcomponents, arranged to almost the same geometrical proportions. (Do you remember you talked about "glaring differences"? Where are they?)
It's obvious that North American and Messerschmitt followed the same design intention. Do you concede that?
It's equally obvious that North American and Messerschmitt used the same subcomponents in their design. The solutions for the boundary layer problem differed. Do you concede that?
A cursory study of the geometry shows us that there is no marked difference in the proportions of the cooling systems of the Mustang and the Messerschmitt. Do you concede that?
>However, there was always some minor factor the magnet people claimed wasn't followed (it wasnt turned quite the right way, etc.) that "negated" the legit research when contacted by the press or state attorney generals offices, etc. I just don't see much difference here and have a higher standard for fact.
Well, if you'd posted that before the "smaller noodle" bit, or before the "keepers of the faith" bit, or before the "mental masturbation" bit , I might actually have been impressed :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
It's obvious that North American and Messerschmitt followed the same design intention. Do you concede that?
It's equally obvious that North American and Messerschmitt used the same subcomponents in their design. The solutions for the boundary layer problem differed. Do you concede that?
Sure. [edit]
A cursory study of the geometry shows us that there is no marked difference in the proportions of the cooling systems of the Mustang and the Messerschmitt. Do you concede that?
Sure, in raw numbers. However, those numbers come from different system designs and different execution. Would it also make sense that if they achieved the same level of sophistication that they would achieve similar efficiency? Show me contradictory data to that presented by Widewing and there's no problem at all.
Well, if you'd posted that before the "smaller noodle" bit, or before the "keepers of the faith" bit, or before the "mental masturbation" bit , I might actually have been impressed :-)
Wow, a tough and very literal crowd here outside the O’ Club. I’ll have to keep that in mind :) The "smaller noodle" thing was explained before. Frankly, it's too amusing a "finding" to just let pass into obscurity, assuming people actually get the fact that it’s tongue in cheek and that Germans really do not have smaller noodlees.
I have nothing invested in the 51/109 debate either way, except a nagging frustration with people who seem to feel the need to constantly marginalize allied technology and equipment and credit all allied success strictly to numbers. In particular, the Junkers bit by Niklas struck me as the start of another: “Kurt Tank invented the Bearcat” thing. With the proper data I can easily acknowledge the 109 radiator system was as sophisticated as that on the 51. Are you open to the opposite?
By keepers of the faith, I wasn't implying "keepers of the nazi faith" if that's what you though. It is a reference to people who have a religious level attachment to any issue -- PC vs MAC, Linux vs XP; 109 vs 51, Picard vs. Kirk, evangelical Christian vs. atheist. To be frank, it seemed that you were being somewhat selective in the radiator comparison by overlooking the internal dimensions component (perhaps the key component) of what was described as a full system approach. At the time you hadn’t presented your rebuttal.
As for the mental masturbation thing, that was a reference to all of us who spend a great deal of time debating things that will in most cases have no direct impact on our personal well being or improve humanity. It was primarily referencing my wasting an afternoon in something that presented some enjoyment (researching new stuff), but nothing particularly constructive in the greater scheme of things (or in regard to things my wife wanted me to do around the house). To a great extent I think that applies to 80 percent of the posts in all forums on this BBS, which doesn't stop me from doing it :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I have nothing invested in the 51/109 debate either way, except a nagging frustration with people who seem to feel the need to constantly marginalize allied technology and equipment and credit all allied success strictly to numbers.
Don't forget skilled pilot. Something the Allies had in spades at the end of the war while the Germans had a handful.
I find this discussion pretty unnecessary. The superior aerodynamics of the P-51 has been proven over and over again by its performance. With similar power (1940HP vs. 1970HP) the much larger P-51 was able to achieve similar top speed at SL. The P-51 with its large size was able to carry more fuel and had a very impressive range. However it's size comes at the cost of weight and even if the 109K4 was less aerodynamically efficient it was smaller and lighter giving it important advantages in air combat.
The performance of each aircraft shows that the 109G10/K4 was a formidable opponent in late 44 and 45, clearly superior in air combat than the P-51D at +18 lbs or +20.5 lbs boost, and this whole dick measuring debate was sparked off by comments like:
Nomak: "I would like to point out that by the end of the war the 109 was totally outclassed by its FW190 counterparts and by Allied fighters."
"Are you serious? How about severe compression problems?
How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?
How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?"
dBeav: "You fellas aren't seriously stating that the 109 was a better fighter than the 51 are you?
Please!"
The P-51 was a war-winning fighter, but not from the reasons most people think. The P-51 was a war-winner simply from being able to show up to fight anywhere in Europe providing cover for the bombers. This does not mean that the P-51 was not competent in air combat, however it was not the best in this regard and most Allied and German planes outperformed it in tactical air combat, but the P-51 proved vastly superior as a strategic fighter.
War-winner and dogfight-winner are two very different things.
-
Originally posted by Charon
The 109 was a great plane but like plenty in the LW stated, it was a bit long in the tooth by 1944.
Charon
Frankly, I am surprised to see these statements over and over again, like in this thread, where we had such great comparisions in flight performances releative to the 109. Of course, you can name me "Keeper of the Faith", and you`d be even somewhat right as I am a big 109 fan, and this could make me biased... but that doesn`t make it any different that it`s the objective facts and not my words that show the 109 was far from being obsolate in any form by 1942, 43, 44 etc., which myth originates to Eric Brown. So far I haven`t seen any proof or reason of those statements, especially not from "plenty in the LW". The 109 was among the best in the area it was designed for in 1944 just as it was in 1940.
And mind you, I was a 190 fan before I learned more about the 109s..
-
far from being obsolate in any form by 1942, 43, 44 etc., which myth originates to Eric Brown. So far I haven`t seen any proof or reason of those statements, especially not from "plenty in the LW". The 109 was among the best in the area it was designed for in 1944 just as it was in 1940.
In pure A2A performance threre's no argument, but that performance came with some trade offs relative to the design.
The obsolescence statements seem to focus mainly on the fact that (as Gscholz noted) by the middle of the war multirole capabilities, competitive fighter A2A performance but with greater internal armament (to kill bombers as needed) increased ruggedness for Jabo and general survival and greater endurance were all desirable on the Western front (with multirole likely on the eastern front as well). Designs like the FW had the capability to fufill these missions out of the box, and further room to grow as altitude performance became more important. More of a case of production efficiency -- why build the FW and the 109 when you can concentrate resources on the FW and get more bang for the buck?
Frankly, the same applies to the Spitfire. It took a complete redesign with the XXI/II series to significantly move ahead, and even then it wasn't a Jabo. The Tempest/Fury series IMO rendered the Spitfire obsolescent.
[edit: could it also be said that the 109 required greater experience and skill to maxamize its performance advantages and minimize it's faults relative to 1944/45 overall pilot quality? Even the Finns said it was a plane that could be trickey, particularly on take offs and landings. I'm not saying the "50 percent lost" or "30 percent lost" (because I have yet to see any data to back up the claims and you can't see production being allowed to continue if they were accurate) but that by the end of the war, with inexperienced pilots, landing accidents etc became far more likely to happen.]
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Then you should be able to find data showing similar efficiency. The only data provided so far (by Widewing) seems to to indicate that the 109 radiator was far less efficient.
provided, yes provided. I also could claim x was better than y. Show me the forumulas, the tests where this conclusions are based on!
It´s typcial that me, a german, is the only one that can provide ORIGINAL AMERICAN documents to this discussion, the very same docs where all those articles are based on (often wrong interpreting the results).
For americans it´s obviously good enough to read our fighter was the best. No furhter details needed lol. Why are so few original test data around? Look how much original german stuff is around in the net.
If you and Henning take your casual studies and assumptions and get them published by at least a minimally credible source
The doc i scanned isn´t credible? Hey man it´s from the NACA. What have YOU to offer?? You just believe what suits your opinion.
Can you show source material from the Messerschmitt factory or company engineers establishing equal efficiency?
Well, if the american engineers think their duct had zero drag, even thrust, then i´d say it´s not up to Messerschmitt to proove that his duct was as good but ít´t up to the Schmud to PROOVE that his duct produced thrust!!!!
Are you an aeronautical engineer formally trained in this area?
I´m mechanical engineer, having courses like flight mechanics, fluid dynamics I+II. Worked also during my studies in a company that deals with fluid dynamic questions of nuclear power plants. Enough? And what are you???
niklas
-
The doc i scanned isn´t credible? Hey man it´s from the NACA. What have YOU to offer?? You just believe what suits your opinion.
I was talking about your assumptions, and your bias, and your willingness to search for any scrap of information that might suit your preconceived notions. It's obvious in this and the other recent thread and a few others to boot as I recall.
For americans it´s obviously good enough to read our fighter was the best. No furhter details needed lol. Why are so few original test data around? Look how much original german stuff is around in the net.
The great conspiracy in action once again.
Well, if the american engineers think their duct had zero drag, even thrust, then i´d say it´s not up to Messerschmitt to proove that his duct was as good but ít´t up to the Schmud to PROOVE that his duct produced thrust!!!!
I doub you would be saying this of any data proving your agenda. You're the one looking to do the major revision. Evidence has been offered supporting North American. It's up to you to provide contradictory information.
I´m mechanical engineer, having courses like flight mechanics, fluid dynamics I+II. Worked also during my studies in a company that deals with fluid dynamic questions of nuclear power plants. Enough? And what are you???
Somebody who is used to working with PEs and PhD.s and a whole bunch of people more qualified in their areas of expertise than I am. Quite often, I speak with two eminently qualified people (even nationally or internationally known) who have different opinions on the same subject. Occasionally, one or both will be trying to spin their position and overlook mentioning uncomfortable data, findings, theories that weaken their positions.
Now, just how impressed would an aeronautical engineer be of your qualifications? Just how qualified would an aeronautical engineer be to do your job? Are all engineers interchangeable out of the box? What work have you conducted in the field? If you really, really are as qualified as you think you are, do the research and get the research published. When you offer something here to back up your agenda that is up to the quality demanded of your profession, people like me might pay more attention to it.
I am the senior writer/editor covering complicated and technical subjects (technology, international and national oil policy, changing market dynamics, etc.) for a 100-year-old trade magazine. My readership broadly knows far more about the industry I cover than I do (and some of them never even went to college!). Invariably some knowing far more about the specific subjects I cover. I can't afford to deal with sloppy primary sources. I see no reason to have a lower standard here.
Charon
[edit: and if you prove the P-51 was as slow as you hope it was, WTG! I will be your biggest fan in AH. But I don't think Pyro is going to make any changes unless you manage to do a better job with your proof.]
-
Hi Charon,
>Wow, a tough and very literal crowd here outside the O’ Club. I’ll have to keep that in mind :)
Just try to act like the professional you describe yourself as. Petty insults don't bother me - in fact, I think might be interesting for the audience as they provide a lot of information about the poster.
What do you think your mention of "high standards" right after comparing me to a wonder magnet salesman tells an unbiased reader - when just one post later, you have to agree to all three points I raised about the radiator design?
What's left from your arguments about uniqueness and glaring differences in the design is that they were differently executed but similar versions of the same design idea.
I do concede it's not proven that the Me 109's radiator was as efficient as the Mustang's.
However, if you keep it at the professional level, you will probably admit that if I'd try to prove a point with data of the same quality you use to defend the Mustang, you'd reject it. (At least, I'd reject it :-)
I'm quite ready to give the Mustang the benefit of doubt, and require better quality data for a pro-Messerschmitt proof. However, in my opinion it would not really indicate "high standards" to forget the generous treatment we give the Mustang while the case is still unresolved.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I doub you would be saying this of any data proving your agenda. You're the one looking to do the major revision. Evidence has been offered supporting North American.
Where? Show me the evidence. Show me the test report. Just CLAIMING is not an evidence.
Now, just how impressed would an aeronautical engineer be of your qualifications?
I have the very same qualification with fluid mechanics like a common aeronautical engineer to talk about this matters. Actually it was a bit crazy to take this courses, i did not have to do it, but it´s my interest. Not so easy, not easy.
I am the senior writer/editor covering complicated and technical subjects (technology, international and national oil policy, changing market dynamics, etc.) for a 100-year-old trade magazine.
ok, hehe, that explains a lot. Trade, writer, market dynamics. You PowerPoint freaks should sometimes learn that not everything is true that is presented in a nice way.
It´s interesting that you did made no comment about the Naca doc. Probably you don´t understand it? It wouldn´t surprise me. What´s with the temperature of the air in the duct right in front of the radiator? Equal, or was the later one cooler or hotter?
niklas
-
Just try to act like the professional you describe yourself as. Petty insults don't bother me - in fact, I think might be interesting for the audience as they provide a lot of information about the poster.
Honestly, I wasn’t aware of any personal insults (admitting the EU noodle thing was a pretty direct, but flippant response to Niklas) and certainly none were directed at you at any point. It really must be a language issue, linked to my taking the topic not quite as seriously as some. I mean, at the end of the day, how important is this really? Particularly if nothing that is derived from this discussion has any real world impact beyond the AH BBS archive? While in the process of responding to this earlier, my puppy bit through a power cord and had to be taken to the emergency vet. Fortunately, he is fine (unlike when he ate the Advil a month ago), but that clarified just how important in the greater scheme of things this radiator issue really is, at least for me.
What do you think your mention of "high standards" right after comparing me to a wonder magnet salesman tells an unbiased reader - when just one post later, you have to agree to all three points I raised about the radiator design?
As I noted, it had to be a language issue. I was explaining (in a general way not linked to the specifics of this thread) why I like published data reviewed and accepted by peers in the specific field, or even neutral third-party sources for that matter. Even though I do clearly think there are “magnet salesmen” in this and similar debates, I have never put you in that category. This goes all the way back to the first posts of yours I came across in the late Air Warrior days. I was a bit surprised (and I mean that, it did surprise me and I did wonder for a second) that you did not immediately address the differences along with the similarities in the respective designs. Particularly, when you closed with the statement: “In any case, the sophistication of the Messerschmitt's radiator was equal to that of the Mustang's.” Your rebuttal that followed clarified that.
Also, while I agreed with your basic points I did have a significant reservation on the third, which still exists: “Sure, in raw numbers. However, those numbers come from different system designs and different execution. Would it also make sense that if they achieved the same level of sophistication that they would achieve similar efficiency? Show me contradictory data to that presented by Widewing and there's no problem at all.”
Now, Widewings data may or may not be first rate, but at least it is a starting point from a source close to the issue.
What's left from your arguments about uniqueness and glaring differences in the design is that they were differently executed but similar versions of the same design idea.
I do concede it's not proven that the Me 109's radiator was as efficient as the Mustang's.
However, if you keep it at the professional level, you will probably admit that if I'd try to prove a point with data of the same quality you use to defend the Mustang, you'd reject it. (At least, I'd reject it :-)
I'm quite ready to give the Mustang the benefit of doubt, and require better quality data for a pro-Messerschmitt proof. However, in my opinion it would not really indicate "high standards" to forget the generous treatment we give the Mustang while the case is still unresolved.
Sure, and for all I know they are of equal sophistication. My only cravat would be that while there’s a generous treatment of the Mustang claims, there has been a long time to question them and not a lot of rebuttal that I’m aware of. You would have thought somebody would have come forward from Messerschmitt or Supermarine or any number of companies to say, "Hey, we did the same thing, and did it just as well." Or perhaps a graduate student working on a thesis. To change this conventional wisdom, some pretty solid work needs to be done or discovered.
Regards
Niklas…
Where? Show me the evidence. Show me the test report. Just CLAIMING is not an evidence.
Of course, you don’t even have that to go on.
ok, hehe, that explains a lot. Trade, writer, market dynamics. You PowerPoint freaks should sometimes learn that not everything is true that is presented in a nice way.
A little bit more than market dynamics. So you’re not an aeronautical engineer? You’ve not established a base of work in aeronautics or fluid mechanics? Nothing published in the area, no work history? Just making sure.
It´s interesting that you did made no comment about the Naca doc. Probably you don´t understand it? It wouldn´t surprise me. What´s with the temperature of the air in the duct right in front of the radiator? Equal, or was the later one cooler or hotter?
Why should I? I’m just a lay person where this is concerened, and I’m certainly not the one making the bold claims. But from what I can tell, a lot of people more competent than myself have failed to step forward over the years and point out how overrated the P-51s cooling system really was, and how the Messerschmitt had covered even earlier, or was it Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he developed the exact same conclusions as Meredith? Just do a detailed and exacting analysis of both systems, show similar efficiencies and get it published. Why not prove once and for all?
[edit: I mean, it's not like you would need a wind tunnel or computer modeling -- just a few formulas, right?]
I have the very same qualification with fluid mechanics like a common aeronautical engineer to talk about this matters. Actually it was a bit crazy to take this courses, i did not have to do it, but it´s my interest. Not so easy, not easy.
Hey, here’s a though. Let me see if I can shoot some e-mails out to some aeronautical engineers outlining your stated competence in their field, list the materials you have presented so far and see what they have to say? If you’re correct you might even get a career change out of it. Maybe Ripsnort over at Boeing knows someone? Eurocopter Deutschland would probably be a good place to start. Plenty at the university level.
Now, normally it might be difficult to get somebody to take the time to respond. But if I know engineers, your statement above could spark some interest :) Just to be clear in the e-mail, what specifically do you work on in your current profession?
Charon
-
Hi Charon,
>As I noted, it had to be a language issue.
Oh, sure.
>Particularly, when you closed with the statement: “In any case, the sophistication of the Messerschmitt's radiator was equal to that of the Mustang's.” Your rebuttal that followed clarified that.
I hope you have higher standards regarding accurate quoting in your professional life.
Here's what I actually wrote:
"After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang."
That's clear enough to make any playful insults unnecessary by any standards, may they be professional ethics or plain common sense.
My "clarifying rebuttal" indeed was a direct repetition of what I wrote earlier:
"The point is that the Messerschmitt design shows just this variable exhaust mechanism that made the process 'effective'."
>You would have thought somebody would have come forward from Messerschmitt or Supermarine or any number of companies to say, "Hey, we did the same thing, and did it just as well."
The Spitfire's radiator outlet only had two positions, fully open and partly closed. It would have to be continously adjustable like the Messerschmitt's or the Mustang's to be useful at varying speeds and altitudes. Additionally, the Spitfire's radiator was known for boundary layer separation issues.
"Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling system drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling drag to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of other aircraft tested by the RAE." (Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995)
In fact, that Atwood assigns the simple Spitfire radiator a better efficiency than the considerable more sophisticated Messerschmitt radiator is one of the reasons I don't put too much trust in his numbers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Whatever.
Charon
-
Pulling the head out of little details, like the radiator stuff, wasn't the Mustang a faster aircraft than the 109 at given power? The Mustang being bigger and heavier then has some merit to make that possible. It would eventually come down to just the radiator and the Wing,- wing loading being higher or similar, and frontal area being larger that is the only possibility.
-
Pulling the head out of little details, like the radiator stuff, wasn't the Mustang a faster aircraft than the 109 at given power? The Mustang being bigger and heavier then has some merit to make that possible. It would eventually come down to just the radiator and the Wing,- wing loading being higher or similar, and frontal area being larger that is the only possibility.
Angus, I believe the agenda, at least where Niklas is concerned, is to establish that it wasn't. The 109 K was faster regardless, but the P-51 shouldn't be as fast as it is, etc. See his "P-51: Maximum Speed / High Speed" thread.
Charon
-
Well, the P51 is certainly faster than the 109 G6 at a given power output, still being a heavier aircraft. To compare it perfectly, you would also have to strip some weight from it.
The 109K is faster, but lighter again with more power. Again, for a valid airframe comparison, you'd need to strip it to a lower weight, and boost it up to 2000 Hp. I think it would be faster.
Anyway, each HP of the P51 is pulling a lot more Nm through the air, be it climb or cruise.
-
In the British tests, a Mustang III (most likely a P-51C) did 383 mph at sea level at 25lbs boost. This was an operational aircraft, taken from a squadron, and had very poor paintwork (6 coats of badly chipped paintwork on the leading edges)
After some cleaning up, the speed increased to 404mph at sea level.
The cleaning up conisted of stripping the paint from the leading edge and repainting, rubbing down the rest of the aircraft, removing the bomb racks, and removing a small bracket.
The 21mph increase was a test result. All the aerodynamic improvements were carried out at the same time, so there are no test results of which did what, but the A&AEE estimated that the gains were 8mph due to bomb racks, 1 mph from removing the bracket, 12mph from improving the finish.
So with a fairly new finish, and bomb racks, and without removing the bracket, speed at sea level would be 395 mph. That's on approx 1940 hp.
I know there are Messerschmitt figures that give the 109K4 378 mph at sea level, and we'll leave out wether those are calculated or not, but I seriously doubt they take into account poor condition paintwork.
Which basically puts the Mustang, with the same power, marginally faster than the 109 when fitted with wing racks, and extremely poor paintwork, and about 25 mph faster without wing racks and cleaned up paintwork. Or about 17mph faster with wing racks and cleaned up paintwork.
The A&AEE test figures are corrected for instrument errors, compressibility, position error, temperature deviations from standard, and any minor variations from stated boost (manifold pressure) values.
-
Someone on the luftwaffe forum once wrote from a mechanic of a 109E. He sealed some gaps, did a new paintint, polished the machine. His pilot was very satisfied, because his machine was 40km/h faster now than those of his squadron comrades. And this means it probably exceeded slightyl 500km/h at sealevel.
Was the machine representative for a 109E?
niklas
-
Do German figures, especially the 109K4 figure of 378 mph at sea level, refer to planes taken from an operational squadron and tested with extremely poor paintwork? Is that what you're claiming?
Quite honestly, I'd suggest a figure of 40km/h improvement in a 109E is bull. The Mustang in this example gained 12 mph from cleaning up the finish, yet the Emil managed 28 mph?
-
Hi Nashwan,
>Quite honestly, I'd suggest a figure of 40km/h improvement in a 109E is bull. The Mustang in this example gained 12 mph from cleaning up the finish, yet the Emil managed 28 mph?
I'd agree that the figure seems vastly exaggerated. (I've seen other reports that refer to polishing, and 12 mph seems to be a good result).
On the other hand, I believe the mechanic was truthful :-) If I'd be a pilot whose mechanic invested hours and hours of work to polish my crate to a perfect finish, I'd tell him the aircraft gained 40 km/h even if it were only 10! ;-)
By the way, in one week Willy Reschke was shot down twice, wrecking a perfectly polished Messerschmitt each time. After that, he had to fly rough aircraft because the mechanics didn't like to invest so much work in planes with such a short lifespan :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
There is a new book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1903223148/102-8550506-5666540?v=glance) on Mustang available. I saw it briefly couple days a go it appears to be quite interesting one, also politics inside USAAF are discused.
I also noted that some Bf 109 reports also claim openings of the radiator. It seems that at high speed opening is somewhere around 60-120mm and somewhat more at climb depending on conditions (warmer weather -> more open). Fully open (270mm)affects about 50km/h decrease to speed at 500m if compared to fully shut (25mm). Based on these numbers it seems that the flap system could generate some backpressure.
gripen
-
With the Mustang always heavier than the 109,it seems like it most certainly the top racer of ww2....for each Hp at least ;)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
In the British tests, a Mustang III (most likely a P-51C) did 383 mph at sea level at 25lbs boost. This was an operational aircraft, taken from a squadron, and had very poor paintwork (6 coats of badly chipped paintwork on the leading edges)
Which basically puts the Mustang, with the same power, marginally faster than the 109 when fitted with wing racks, and extremely poor paintwork, and about 25 mph faster without wing racks and cleaned up paintwork. Or about 17mph faster with wing racks and cleaned up paintwork.
Oh, the classic blending arguement. First a Mustang III test, then based on that comes the claim that the whole "Mustang" series was far more aerodynamically efficient, not just the Mk III...
No, you are speaking of a rarer Mustang III with a very rare engine/boost combination, as I already shown in the production numbers. It was also cleaned up, and we all know the Mustang (and Tempest)series was more effected than other planes by uneven wing surface, as it prevented true laminar flow which was the key to the extremely good drag characteristics of the wing at increasing Mach numbers. Cleaning up, for example, a Spit`s wing would yield a lot less speed gain than on the Mustang l.flow wings, as was actually shown in the tests you refer to. The core is, the laminar flow wing on the Mustang was a theory, and not a practice, as to maintain laminar flow a perfect surface would be required, which wasn`t achieved even on brand new planes that just left the factory, not to mention under operational conditions.
No doubt that the single V-1 chaser variant you always like to pull out was faster and more efficient in turning HP into airspeed than the K, while convinently forgetting about the much more important Mustang D series, which were equal in that at best, however again one not should forget that this is hardly representative to the whole Mustang series.
I have already posted the numbers for the Mustang IV from the TK xxx series that was tested by the Brits just as well.
Well, that aircraft was also received from squadron, and was not even painted, it was pure bare metal, with the standard racks.
How much could it do ?
354 mph at 67" (~1630 HP), and 379 mph on 81" (~1940 HP). Hardly any better per HP than the K-4, that reached the same top speed on the same HP (378mph / ~1960 HP),.
Of course, neglecting the fact that actual thrust, unlike raw engine power outputs suggest, vary greatly to a number of factors, ie. propellor effiency, exhaust thrust, radiator thrust, testing conditions (air humidity, temperature), which, as they are unknown to us, prohibits any ability to make a serious statement about the airframe`s quality itself, for which we would need to know all those factors, ie. the total actually available thrust, the speed achieved, under the given air conditions.
-
No, you are speaking of a rarer Mustang III with a very rare engine/boost combination,
Hardly rare. I believe the majority of British Mustangs were Mustang IIIs with -7 engines. But it's besides the point.
The point that I was replying to was how the speed of the Mustang compared with similar power to the 109. It wouldn't matter if this was the only Mustang that ever ran at this power to work out comparitive efficency.
It was also cleaned up, and we all know the Mustang (and Tempest)series was more effected than other planes by uneven wing surface, as it prevented true laminar flow which was the key to the extremely good drag characteristics of the wing at increasing Mach numbers. Cleaning up, for example, a Spit`s wing would yield a lot less speed gain than on the Mustang l.flow wings, as was actually shown in the tests you refer to.
I don't get your point here. Cleaning up this particular Mustang, from a very poor condition, resulted in a 12mph gain. Are you suggesting that cleaning up other planes in a similar condition would yield far less improvement?
The three planes tested were a Mustang, Spit XIV, Tempest V. The Tempest was in the best condition (paintwork "fairly poor", to quote the test), and gained 5.5mph from improved surface finish, the Spit 8.5mph ("poor condition"), the Mustang the worst ("very poor") and gained 12 mph.
The fact that the Mustang gained 12 mph from "very poor condition", and the Spit 5.5 mph from "fairly poor" shows these were not the sort of special tuning you, or Niklas, are trying to suggest.
According to Niklas, an Emil could gain 28 mph from improving the surface finish. What sort of speed would you get out of this Mustang if you improved the finish to that extent?
The core is, the laminar flow wing on the Mustang was a theory, and not a practice, as to maintain laminar flow a perfect surface would be required, which wasn`t achieved even on brand new planes that just left the factory, not to mention under operational conditions.
And wasn't achieved on this Mustang either, otherwise you would have seen a more dramatic increase after the clean-up. I mean, no ammount of polishing would make a Spit XIV wing laminar flow, so we know that the Spit's gain of 8.5 mph from improving the surface finish from "poor" didn't result in laminar flow. So improving the Mustang's from "very poor", getting a 12 mph speed gain, hardly seems out of the norm.
No doubt that the single V-1 chaser variant you always like to pull out was faster and more efficient in turning HP into airspeed than the K, while convinently forgetting about the much more important Mustang D series, which were equal in that at best, however again one not should forget that this is hardly representative to the whole Mustang series.
Isegrim, what are the details of the 109K4 speed tests? How many aircraft, what condition, corrected for temperature etc?
I have already posted the numbers for the Mustang IV from the TK xxx series that was tested by the Brits just as well.
Well, that aircraft was also received from squadron, and was not even painted, it was pure bare metal, with the standard racks.
Can we have some details on this test? Condition of aircraft, what was fitted, wether the results were corrected for standard atmosphere etc?
354 mph at 67" (~1630 HP), and 379 mph on 81" (~1940 HP). Hardly any better per HP than the K-4, that reached the same top speed on the same HP (378mph / ~1960 HP),.
So a Mustang, in unkown condition, taken from an operational squadron, was the same speed as the factory data for the 109K4? We can all guess what condition the 109K4 was, even if it was an actual test, and not calculations.
Once again, Isegrim, you trying to compare different standards. Factory figures for the 109, aircraft pulled from squadron in unknown condition for the Mustang.
On the other hand, I believe the mechanic was truthful :-) If I'd be a pilot whose mechanic invested hours and hours of work to polish my crate to a perfect finish, I'd tell him the aircraft gained 40 km/h even if it were only 10! ;-)
True, encouraging the people you work with is always a good idea, in almost any field.
By the way, in one week Willy Reschke was shot down twice, wrecking a perfectly polished Messerschmitt each time. After that, he had to fly rough aircraft because the mechanics didn't like to invest so much work in planes with such a short lifespan :-)
Do you have any idea what the typical condition of German aircraft used in flight tests was? Normal factory finish, better than normal finish, or used aircraft taken from service units? Any info on the particular tests or calculations for the K4? (the ones Isegrim uses in his speed and climb charts)
-
I like pizza
-
Isegrim: The majority of Mustangs in the ETO were B, C and D, the Majority if not all reveived by the RAF were C's.
Also there is a factor missing in your piece about turning Hp to Speed, - again I repeat that the Mustang is also HEAVIER. I'll try a rough calculation at what the influence of lower weight could be, but I'll need more data to get it accurate. Well, this is a long thread, maybe my data is already somewhere there, or if I can't find it, you may be able to help me.
Additionally, if I understand Niklas right, the Germans were leading in the terms of airscrew and radiator design.....
-
Haven´t seen an official german document yet claiming 379mph for the serial machine.
Don´t forget that it is easier to come from 470 to 510 than from 570 to 610. Acutally, this should be clear and i´m wondering myself why even the easiest physical facts like drag increases with ~v^2 have to be mentionend. Tired.
niklas
-
Hey Niklas, would you happen to have a rough equation about the influence of weight in there?
-
Haven´t seen an official german document yet claiming 379mph for the serial machine.
By serial machine, do you mean average production, not prototype? Do you have any figures for a serial K4?
Don´t forget that it is easier to come from 470 to 510 than from 570 to 610. Acutally, this should be clear and i´m wondering myself why even the easiest physical facts like drag increases with ~v^2 have to be mentionend. Tired.
So to follow the logic, the Hurricane, max speed about 450 km/h at sea level could expect to gain about 50 km/h from cleaning up? Think of the speed the Fairy Battle could gain! Of course, following this to it's logical conclusion, you start to get to the point where a really slow aircraft could double it's speed by polishing the paintwork, which is simply ridiculous.
I think rather the gain from polishing would be lower at lower airspeeds, because the drag from rough finish is lower at lower speeds.
-
Niklas, I am fully aware of the base equation, that to double the speed, you need to quadruple the power. It's a good thumb rule, but far from perfect, as our world is, - it might of course work perfectly in a perfect world :D
Or would you suggest that doubling the power in a Gladiator from 800 hp to a Merlin 60 series would have put its top level speed above 600 kph?
The airframe will always affect this, and no matter how much you studied about fluids, a Mustang equal in power and weight as a 109 will be faster. Well, it was like that......
-
Originally posted by niklas
Don´t forget that it is easier to come from 470 to 510 than from 570 to 610. Acutally, this should be clear and i´m wondering myself why even the easiest physical facts like drag increases with ~v^2 have to be mentionend. Tired.
niklas
no. using your drag~v^2, by cleaning up the airframe (improving the drag coeff) it will be easier to come from 570 to 610 then make a 470 plane go 510.
Bozon
-
and it doesn't even have to go like v^2 as long as the power of v is positive...
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Hardly rare. I believe the majority of British Mustangs were Mustang IIIs with -7 engines. But it's besides the point.
Your argument was that the "Mustang" yielded more speed per power. Your example for that was Mustang III with V-1650-7 at high boost. Apart from the boost issues, it`s fairly evident that one cannot say that every Mustang was more effiecient when it`s only true to the the Mustang III series, and, speaking in absolute numbers, even most of those MkIIIs were not capable to achieve similiar speed, being more efficient or not.
To remind you :
Most "Mustangs" were Mk IVs, not Mk IIIs. So, if anything is a representative example of a "Mustang" airframe effiency, it should be from the numerous Mark IVs, not from the rarer Mark IIIs.
The point that I was replying to was how the speed of the Mustang compared with similar power to the 109. It wouldn't matter if this was the only Mustang that ever ran at this power to work out comparitive efficency.
It wouldn`t if you would have picked a standard "Mustang" airframe to show this. But what you picked was a stripped V-1 chaser from the faster III series (which were far less numerous than MkIVs / Ds), and based on that, you claimed that the Mustang (and that means in your context, that every Mustang - A, B, C, D types) were more efficient in turning power into speed.
Obviously, you choosed the faster, less common variant to show that all Mustang airframes had better effiency.
Which only stands for the Mk IIIs, but not to the slower, but much more common Mk IVs. In other words, a smaller series of Mustangs had better effiency in turning power into speed, while most of them were equal at best in that regard to the 109K series.
Isegrim, what are the details of the 109K4 speed tests? How many aircraft, what condition, corrected for temperature etc?
I don`t have the full documentation. However, it refers to full takeoff weight, unlike British tests, which all seem to show level speed at only 95% takeoff weight, or roughly at half fuel load.
Now, can we see the page that deals with the Mk III`s properties in your test ?
Can we have some details on this test? Condition of aircraft, what was fitted, wether the results were corrected for standard atmosphere etc?
See below. BTW, since it`s a British test on the MK IV, corrections, weight etc. should be the very same as on your V-1 chaser. Note, I haven`t seen any documentation regarding the condition of your V-1 chaser, expect your description of it. Personally, I doubt you have much information on it, expect you saw it on Mike`s Ultra Selective Test Site, and liked the performance figures claimed for it.
So a Mustang, in unkown condition, taken from an operational squadron, was the same speed as the factory data for the 109K4?
The condititions of it are maybe unknown to you, like in the case of the V-1 chaser, but that doesn`t mean it isn`t stated in the report.
Indeed, the most numorous, most common Mustang IV airframe on similiar power as the K-4 airframe achieved similiar speeds.
Once again, Isegrim, you trying to compare different standards. Factory figures for the 109, aircraft pulled from squadron in unknown condition for the Mustang.
The Mustang`s condition is not unknown, as I already mentioned it, though I understand you have to neglect it in some way as it`s very unfavourable to your statements.
Here are again :
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 0ft using 81"hg 379mph
Also the full report mentions the plane was bare metal, so it would be pretty hard to except the paintwork being in poor condition...
BTW, I did not notice you would have problems about conditions when Neil posted this very data.
And we know the K-4 did 593 km/h (368mph) at 1.8ata/1850PS, and 377 mph at 1.98ata/2000 PS at 3400kg.
So what we have is an official figures at known and similiar powers for a Mustang at 95% takeoff weight (also w/o rear tank), and a K-4 at 100+% TO weight, and the K-4 seems to get the very same speed as the Mustang... so it`s hardly a case about the P-51D`s superior drag design, since we have equal speeds achieved at equal powers and roughly equal thrust available.
-
Isegrim,
Do you happen to know any real test flight performance data on Bf 109K?
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Isegrim,
Do you happen to know any real test flight performance data on Bf 109K?
gripen
Good request gripen, but will get some 'song and dance' for not suppying .;)
We all know that German a/c were perfection, could win a concours d'eligance.:D Considering the 'fit and finish' of late war German a/c, assembled by 'slave labour', the results sound like factory calculated numbers.
The P-51D/K (Mustang IV) was less than 5mph (0.75kph) slower than the P-51B/C (Mustang III). Ise is 'barking at shadows'.
-
It wouldn`t if you would have picked a standard "Mustang" airframe to show this. But what you picked was a stripped V-1 chaser from the faster III series (which were far less numerous than MkIVs / Ds),
I "picked" what data is available. There's a test of the Mustang III giving details of testing conditions and conditions of the aircraft. I haven't seen any other Mustang tests at around 2000hp that give those details. If you can furnish me with the details you claim to have, I will glady use iother tests results.
and based on that, you claimed that the Mustang (and that means in your context, that every Mustang - A, B, C, D types)
Not at all. If you notice, I say what model of Mustang it was in the tests. Can I take it that your graph of the 109K4 speed means "in your context" that every 109 - b c d e f g and k types - were that fast?
Obviously, you choosed the faster, less common variant to show that all Mustang airframes had better effiency.
That's right, I went back to 1944 and carried out the test myself.
I don`t have the full documentation.
You don't? Yet you want to rule out comparison with a cleaned up Mustang, and only compare with a Mustang taken from squadron service. How strange.
Isegrim, answer honestly, what condition do you think the 109 in your graphs was in? What is the original source of the graphs?
Now, can we see the page that deals with the Mk III`s properties in your test ?
I have quoted almost every word to you, and given detailed descriptions of what was done to the aircraft. I am unable to post the pictures. Can we see the tests of the 109 you are reffering to when you claim 378 mph?
See below. BTW, since it`s a British test on the MK IV, corrections, weight etc. should be the very same as on your V-1 chaser
"Should be" doesn't cut it. Not every test the A&AEE, let alone the other establishments, carried out was a full test, with all the rigmarole that goes with them. The very fact it says "brief speed trials" indicates that was not the purpose of the test.
The condititions of it are maybe unknown to you, like in the case of the V-1 chaser,
The conditions of the V-1 chaser are known, and I've already posted them. Why do you think I put quotation marks around descriptions of the paintwork, like "very poor condition" or gave exact details like "6 coats of badly chipped paint"?
Indeed, the most numorous, most common Mustang IV airframe on similiar power as the K-4 airframe achieved similiar speeds.
You've already said those Mustang figures are for an aircraft taken from squadron service, and admitted you don't know the K4 condition.
Now, a Mustang III where we do know the condition managed 395 mph with bomb racks, small bracket, and cleaned up paintwork. We also know that the P-51D was slightly slower. Note, however, that it would need to be 17mph slower to match the figures you are touting as being representitive for the D series. I've never seen anything to suggest the D was that much slower.
BTW, did the 109K4 that you are quoting at 378 mph have bomb racks? What about gondolas? After all, if we're including bomb racks on the Mustang because most had them...
The Mustang`s condition is not unknown, as I already mentioned it, though I understand you have to neglect it in some way as it`s very unfavourable to your statements.
Here are again :
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 0ft using 81"hg 379mph
That says nothing about the condition of the plane other than it had bomb racks. You have also said it was unpainted. What else?
Also the full report mentions the plane was bare metal, so it would be pretty hard to except the paintwork being in poor condition...
So you have the report? Can we see it please, or could you at least quote the description of the Mustang.
It certainly couldn't have had poor quality paintwork, but what condition was the metalwork in?
BTW, I did not notice you would have problems about conditions when Neil posted this very data.
I'm not aware I saw it. Which isn't to say I didn't see it, just I don't recall, and probably didn't pay much attention to it at the time.
So what we have is an official figures at known and similiar powers for a Mustang at 95% takeoff weight (also w/o rear tank), and a K-4 at 100+% TO weight, and the K-4 seems to get the very same speed as the Mustang
Well, what we seem to know is the speeds of two aircraft, but not the conditions they were tested in, wether the tests are corrected for weather conditions, and even wether the 109 figures are tests or calculations, or a mixture of both. I suspect that as Butch said they were calculations based on tests (iirc) the 109 figures refer to a manufacturers prototype, which is not to say it wasn't to final specifications as regards weight, equipment etc, but it was probably better quality than average production, let alone than the average machine taken from squadron service.
-
Bozon, the gradient of prop efficiency is usually much steeper close to 600km/h than at 500km/h, if you want to have an aircraft with reasonable climb and acceleration. Then there exist other drag effects that can´t be described by v^2, but which begin to show up at ~550km/h. Then there is the effect of Reynolds number and so on. Prop running at higher Mach number. It´s way harder to come from 570 to 610, definitly.
Anyway, there don´t exist official german claims for a K to perform over 600km/h at sealevel on a regular basis. That´s the point. Individual machines may have performed better, like allied individual machines did perform in an impressive way. Still waiting to see official performance claims for the P-51. From the B i know it was 425mph at altiude.
The Schwarz company, manufactoring company of wooden propellers in germany, evaluated the propeller of a P-51. Let´s see if i can get out the design speed of the prop. Is Wells still hanging around? I think he could help me. Btw, the prop was unusual for the time. Completly laminar design on BOTH sides (for manufactoring reasons the bottom side was often rather flat).
You see, there are maybe other reasons than a cooler design that was based on 30 years old, pretty common ideas.
Just another note: I already wrote that the factory surface quality of a P-51 was superior to the 109 one´s. So the 109 could be improved much more by careful work done by the mechanics.
niklas
-
Hey, Isegrim, You're nuts....or you have Alzheimer.
Remember the base factors of flight, Thrust, Drag, Lift, and WEIGHT!
Once again, well to quote you:
"So what we have is an official figures at known and similiar powers for a Mustang at 95% takeoff weight (also w/o rear tank), and a K-4 at 100+% TO weight, and the K-4 seems to get the very same speed as the Mustang... so it`s hardly a case about the P-51D`s superior drag design, since we have equal speeds achieved at equal powers and roughly equal thrust available."
What is the Mustangs Weight? 95% (ONLY)of WHAT? Would it not happen that the Mustang is roughly 2000 lbs heavier? If you mention aerodynamical efficiency, you must not leave out the weight!
Unless it suits your thesis. Which would be what?
-
i like pizza
-
Guys i've been M.I.A. (missing-in-action) in this thread. Are you guys saying that Bf-109G-10 and K-4 is similar to specs?
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
Guys i've been M.I.A. (missing-in-action) in this thread. Are you guys saying that Bf-109G-10 and K-4 is similar to specs?
No, G-10 should be some 20 km/h slower than the K-4 (at same engine ratings), but at the same time, it should climb a little bit better.
-
Conditions of Mustang IV TK 589
"Condition of aircraft relevant to test
2.1 General.
The following were the chief external features :
Six .50 machine guns in the wings, ports and ejector chutes sealed with fabric.
Camera gun port in port wing, sealed with fabric.
Multi-ejector exhaust manifolds with shroud plates.
Air intake in nose with internal ice-guard.
Aerial mast without external aerials
Bead sight in front of windscreen.
Air filter intake in lower left cowling
Faired bomb racks under wings.
The aircraft was not painted. The under surface of the wings back to the main spar and whole top surface had been coated with smooth compositon, the joints being filled and the remainder being bare metal. The fusalge was left with bare metal except for a matt anti-glare finish on the top of the engine cowling. All other parts of the aircraft were also bare metal, except the elevator and rudder which were fabric covered and doped.
In order to obtain adquate cooling, level speeds were done with the radiatos exit duct flap set to a gap of 8 1/2 inches, as coolant temperatures were excessively high with the normal setting of 7 1/2" gap.
Loading.
The tests were done at a take off weight of 9480 lb, with a C. of G. at 100.2 ins aft of the reference axis. This correspondd to a typical loading with no fuel in the aux. fuselage tank and no external tanks or bombs.
[NOTE : level speeds refer to 9000 lbs, or 95% of the T-O weight as usual.]
Looks like this Mustang received some nice care, ie. gun ports, ejectors etc. were sealed with fabric,joints were filled, paintwork was non-present, and was coated with a smooth composition on most of the wing. Briefly, much better what an operational Mustang may receive.
The test also describes the various corrections done for propellor tip Mach numbers, air temperaturs, etc., the usual stuff. Noteworthy that pressure head static vent combination was used instead of a simple pitot-static head.
Speeds measured at SL:
MS gear, 3000 RPM. Radiator flap adjusted to give 8.5" gap. Corrected to 9000 lb[=95% T-O weight]
+18 lbs : 354 mph. Equals 1630 BHP
+25 lbs : 379 mph. Equals 1940 BHP
Compare to :
K-4, 3400 kg, at SL :
1.8 ata : 368 mph. Equals ~ 1805 BHP
1.98 ata : 377 mph. Equals ~ 1950 BHP
Normal takeoff weight of K-4 was given as 3362 kg.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Isegrim,
Do you happen to know any real test flight performance data on Bf 109K?
gripen
Gripen, I have the ones from these series :
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/K-4speed_title.jpg)
I don`t have all of them, however based on the date, I belive they might refer to Werk 330 130, which was tested at those time at the Messerscmitt Werke. It seems to me that these show calculations for the expected performance for K-4 and K-6 with the new type propellor, and also have a comparison data for test flight of normal K-4 with the serial propellor, on which probably the calculations were based, using propellor effiency. Do you have the full version of these papers ?
-
Isegrim,
I have that on microfilm (Obb. Forschnungsanstalt, Oberammergau, 19.1.1945). Nothing in that frame indicates that it's flight tested data (data points or something, weight claim actually speaks for calculation). Other frames on same data set give some engine numbers which appear to refer different engine versions (9-605-2290 and 91, 1.8ata or 1,98ata) and propeller blade versions. Other frames on same set don't either contain any indication if it's a flight tested data.
BTW smooth finnish on wing surfaces was a standard feature on all Mustangs.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Not at all. If you notice, I say what model of Mustang it was in the tests. Can I take it that your graph of the 109K4 speed means "in your context" that every 109 - b c d e f g and k types - were that fast?
How can a graph titled for K-4 refer to other versions as well ? I cannot imagine.
You don't? Yet you want to rule out comparison with a cleaned up Mustang, and only compare with a Mustang taken from squadron service. How strange.
How could I rule out comparision with a cleaned up Mustang ? The Mustang IV I showed was in very good condtion.
Isegrim, answer honestly, what condition do you think the 109 in your graphs was in? What is the original source of the graphs?
Full takeoff weight, standard propellor, and "clean" machine probably, ie. the one that one should expect to meet in a dogfight.
"Should be" doesn't cut it. Not every test the A&AEE, let alone the other establishments, carried out was a full test, with all the rigmarole that goes with them. The very fact it says "brief speed trials" indicates that was not the purpose of the test.
See above.
Now, a Mustang III where we do know the condition managed 395 mph with bomb racks, small bracket, and cleaned up paintwork.
No sorry. I checked your figures vs. that of Neil`s and they don`t match what I have got. You made several significant mistakes.
You qouted the meausured speed of the Mustang III at 395mph, but that it only achieved at 3900 ft (given as 391 mph in 6/10 618).
Sea level speed for in the August 1944 test in AVIA 6/10618 for Mustang III FB 377 w, Wing racks fitted, +25Lbs boost is given as 383mph at 0ft, and 391mph at 3900ft.
Neil also said the the Mustang was in same condition as the Tempest, ie. "fairly poor", and not "very poor".
He qoutes the following gains :
8mph due to the removal of bomb racks.
1mph due to removal of aerial bracket.
12mph due to improved finish.
So basically the 395 mph figure is a Mustang III w/o bombracks, w/o aerial brackets, and with improved finish.
In good finish, this Mustang did 383 mph w. the usual bombracks, and 391 mph w/o them.
We also know that the P-51D was slightly slower. Note, however, that it would need to be 17mph slower to match the figures you are touting as being representitive for the D series. I've never seen anything to suggest the D was that much slower.
It wasn`t that much slower, see above. It was about 4 mph slower than P-51B/C.
BTW, did the 109K4 that you are quoting at 378 mph have bomb racks? What about gondolas? After all, if we're including bomb racks on the Mustang because most had them...
I don`t know about bomb racks, 109s didn`t carry them anyway as standard like Mustangs did. They could be present though, as the K-4`s weight is given as some 40 kg heavier than normal TO weight. As for the effect of racks, there were two types, one for a drop tank and the other specially for bombs, and I don`t have speed loss for neither. I have them for gondolas though, they come with -8 kph (-5mph) penalty. In any case, they were optional fitting Ruestsatze, and as a matter of fact, I never seen any K-4 picture with those.
I suspect that as Butch said they were calculations based on tests (iirc) the 109 figures refer to a manufacturers prototype, which is not to say it wasn't to final specifications as regards weight, equipment etc, but it was probably better quality than average production, let alone than the average machine taken from squadron service.
Except that the officially given for K-4 is 3362kg, whereas the test machine is given as 3400 kg, so it has all equipment and possibly more. The test paper is also dated January 1945, when the K-4 was already in service for some 4 months, so it`s hardly a prototype. Most likely these are calculations for a new "Dunnblatt" proplellor type, and tests for the old propellor plane is given as reference as in other tests, ie. the ones which were done with Jumo 213 fitted to 109s, which contain G-5 figures.
-
Hi Gripen,
>Obb. Forschnungsanstalt, Oberammergau
Do you happen know what kind of institution this was?
All I learned from Google was that it was secret :-)
Other than that, I'm not sure what to think of this link:
http://www.the-wolery.demon.co.uk/briscon/back2.htm
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
Obb. Forschnungsanstalt, Oberammergau appears on late German docs, no idea what it exactly was or what they exactly did. Anyway, many organizations were relocated to countryside or where ever to avoid bombing.
Isegrim,
I repeat, nothing on these frames indicate that the data presented is based on flight tests, actually weights and shape of the curves indicate that these are calculations. Seems that you just wan't to use the best data you can find on the Bf 109 and worst you can find on the Mustang.
One person once said here that the wildest performance claims on these boards come for planes which have most controversial history.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Isegrim,
I repeat, nothing on these frames indicate that the data presented is based on flight tests, actually weights and shape of the curves indicate that these are calculations.
Still, Butch said "some parts" were based on real life tests. So as it stands now, nothing actually says wheter it`s calculation or a test, and which part of the performance figures is what, still you say it can`t be in any way, even partially a real life test, moreover, you say it`s kind of a wild claim, and in reality the 109K was so slow that even a tortoise could leave it behind.
Altough I have to mention, there`s absolutely nothing that backs up your story.
Seems that you just wan't to use the best data you can find on the Bf 109 and worst you can find on the Mustang.
Do you want the short version or the long version ?
The short one : Bull****.
The longer one : It`s seems to me that you are describing your own mindset.
Best data I can find on the 109 ? Hardly. The same data appears in every publication on the 109K, and it makes perfect sense for such a small plane with such a powerful 2000 HP engine to achieve such speeds. One can do aerodynamic calculations, and will arrive at the same figures. The G-6 with 1800 HP achieved some 570 kph, and you say that the K-4 with major aerodynamic improvements and no less then 200 extra HP was some 35 kph faster?
But OH my, I FORGOT, it`s about a bad 109, they say the 109K achieved 607 kph on the deck. And that`s happens to be the same as the P-51D with about the same power... Horrible. Impossible! It just didn`t happen! LA-7, 190D-9, Tempest, highly boosted Mustangs, F-4U4 etc. could all do the same or better... But it`s just not possible for a bad, bad, bad 109 to be anything else but slow. Anything else is unacceptable. So is Gripen`s mindset it seems.
And as for the Mustang data... the worst? What`s the BS again ? Since when are these the "worst" Mustang data ? Oh, I am sorry, I don`t really like to compare data for a single stripped V-1 chaser plane specially modified for speed, when there is data for the serial one, under the normal circumstances. You could read the shape of the Mustang IV I posted, it was in excellent condition. But of course you didn`t even bother to read it, it`s pretty much irrevelant if you can make up your mind without it, right ?
One person once said here that the wildest performance claims on these boards come for planes which have most controversial history.
Wildest performance claims, Gripen ? Don`t make me laugh, What the heck make these "wild claims"? Show any better or worser please, if you can. So far you couldn`t. The only thing you did is keeping repeating that it`s not possible, and it can`t be achieved in tests, because You say it doesn`t say it`s a real life test, it doesn`t say either it`s calculation, so, it only can be calculation... It`s just so miserably preconceptional.
And regards of "controversial history" (hysteria would be the better word). I don`t know about such in regards the 109. There are two sides, the opinions of those who flew it in combat, and liked it very-very much, praised it`s performance, and the opinion of the ones didn`t fly it or just for an hour or so, and want to tell us it`s the worst plane ever. And of course there are the actual historical records, an unsurprassed number of aerial victories, hundreds of aces made, the actual technical details, opposed by the errors and ignorance in William Green`s books and the Anglo-Saxon fury against it, ever since in 1940 the British pilot`s morale was all-time low, not to a small extent because of the 109, and they needed some juicy propaganda stuff to tell there pilots they are facing greatly inferior equipment, greatly inferior pilots and so on.
But, as you claimed the "best" 109 data I could find, I challenge you to show anything worser or just different at the same power for the K-4. I bet you can`t.
-
Hi Gripen,
>Obb. Forschnungsanstalt, Oberammergau appears on late German docs, no idea what it exactly was or what they exactly did. Anyway, many organizations were relocated to countryside or where ever to avoid bombing.
Obb. obviously means Oberbayerische (South Bavarian), Forschungsanstalt is research institute. I figure it might just as likely be a code name as a real one. If it actually was at Oberammergau, I'd agree that it would be due to dispersion.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Isegrim,
I wonder what are you trying to argue? I have no story, I'm merely saying that nothing in those charts support the claim (by you or someone else) that those are based on real flight tests.
In the case of the Mustang it's very easy to find real test data.
gripen
-
HoHun,
Seems that some parts of the Messerschmitt A.G. were located at Oberammergau. Some of their documents dated 1944 are signed there while titles of the documents state Augsburg.
UBBS bombing survey might give a better answer, they studied Messerschmitt A.G. quite thoroughly after war
gripen
-
*If* you are complaining about our 109K-4 FM take a look at this nice avi movie (Il-2 FB's 109K after a merge):
http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/k4flip.avi
:rofl ;) :)
-
"We" don't have a 109K4 ;)
-
GScholz,
hell, havent you ever had a bad monday? ;)
BTW, I wouldnt take Amadio's book about Gunther Rall as an example at all.
Considering the wing profile and surface, one of the best Pony's advantages probably was, among all those already described, the better E retention during a zoom. Real dogfights were mainly Hit&Run things, with very few aerobatics. Togheter with numbers and strong team tactics this should have given the Pony a big advantage.
-
Gunther Rall flew captured P51's as well as several other allied planes (Spits & more) as a combat instructor, teaching his pupils about the advantages and weaknesses of the allied planes.
He really liked the Mustang. I also remember him commenting about the allied engines being of a significally better quality than the German ones. He mentioned a Mustang with some hundreds of hours on the clock with still such a tight engine that you could not move the prop.
Wish I had the book, - well, I'll just order it ;)
-
Originally posted by gatt
Considering the wing profile and surface, one of the best Pony's advantages probably was, among all those already described, the better E retention during a zoom. Real dogfights were mainly Hit&Run things, with very few aerobatics. Togheter with numbers and strong team tactics this should have given the Pony a big advantage.
Indeed the Mustang had a good zoom climb, but again as usual it`s a bit overhyped. While I generally don`t give much credit to AFDU comparisions - as the more I learn about those docs the more inaccuracies I find - , as we have nothing better, these puzzles could be interesting :
Parts concerning zoom climb :
Tempest V vs Mustang III:
"These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similiar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb."
Tempest V. vs. Bf 109 G:
Note : This Bf 109G was a G-2 captured in Africa late 1942, most likely running below maximum boost, w/o wing gondolas.
"Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed..."
Bf 109 G vs. Mustang III.
Note : This 109G was different, a nightfighter "Wilde Sau" G-6, and it was also equipped with cannon gondolas for some 235 kg extra weight. Given British unfamiliarity with actual German boost clearances, and comments from Eric Brown that refer to 1.3ata only, I expect too that this was running below max. boost and certainly did not use MW injection either.
"When dived and then pulled up into a climb, there was little to choose between US and German fighter..."
(via Eric Brown)
[/i]
Now, considering how later models, or even the same models running at maximum boost, without the bulk of gunpods, related to these captured test machines, I seriously doubt that a Mustang would have any advantage in zoom climb, in fact I would except it to be in a slight disadvantage. This is also supported by the account of a US fighter pilot, who described his combat in Mustang vs. Hartmann`s G-6 in 1944, and found that he was outzoomed. I believe the primary reason for that was not as much as the superior E-retention of the 109s, rather their better slow speed stall characteristics at the top of the zoom.
-
How can a graph titled for K-4 refer to other versions as well ? I cannot imagine.
In the same way performance figures for a Mustang III can refer to a Mustang A or D, ie they can't.
Now, a Mustang III where we do know the condition managed 395 mph with bomb racks, small bracket, and cleaned up paintwork.
No sorry. I checked your figures vs. that of Neil`s and they don`t match what I have got. You made several significant mistakes.
You qouted the meausured speed of the Mustang III at 395mph, but that it only achieved at 3900 ft (given as 391 mph in 6/10 618).
Sorry, you're wrong. The level speed after cleaning up was 413.5 mph at 3,400ft. At sea level, the level speed as recieved was 383mph, and fully cleaned up 406mph.
The report notes that 8mph was gained from removing bomb racks, 12 mph from improving the surface finish, 1 mph from the aerial bracket, and 1.5 - 2mph from fitting Spitfire exhaust stubbs.
So, as I said, clean up the finish, leave the bracket, bombracks, and original Mustang exhaust stubbs in place, and you have 395mph at sea level, 403 mph at 3,900ft.
Sea level speed for in the August 1944 test in AVIA 6/10618 for Mustang III FB 377 w, Wing racks fitted, +25Lbs boost is given as 383mph at 0ft, and 391mph at 3900ft.
Yes, in very poor condition, with bombracks, aerial bracket, and original exhaust stubbs. With cleaned up paintwork, and everything else original, add 12 mph to those figures.
Neil also said the the Mustang was in same condition as the Tempest, ie. "fairly poor", and not "very poor".
Then either he made a mistake, or you are misinterpreting (or misrepresenting). The report clearly says "very poor"
He qoutes the following gains :
8mph due to the removal of bomb racks.
1mph due to removal of aerial bracket.
12mph due to improved finish.
Yes, so have I earlier in the thread.
So basically the 395 mph figure is a Mustang III w/o bombracks, w/o aerial brackets, and with improved finish.
Read what you have posted again:
Sea level speed for in the August 1944 test in AVIA 6/10618 for Mustang III FB 377 w, Wing racks fitted, +25Lbs boost is given as 383mph at 0ft, and 391mph at 3900ft.
383 mph. add 12 mph for the improved finish, and what do we get? 395 mph. With the bomb racks and bracket. Removing the bomb racks as well would take the speed to 403 mph, removing the aerial bracket as well adds another 1 mph, for a total of 404 mph at sea level. Add the 1.5 mph for the Spitfire exhaust stubbs, and you get 404.5, which is what the test shows. See for example Mike Williams Spitfire site, which has the final figures in a graph:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html
Click on the "Top level speed at +25 lbs/sq.in. Boost" link.
In good finish, this Mustang did 383 mph w. the usual bombracks, and 391 mph w/o them.
So how did it reach 404 mph at sea level in the final chart? 383 mph at sea level is the figure with the very poor finish, bracket, bomb racks etc. It's as recieved from the sqaudron. 383 + 12 mph for the cleaned up paintwork is 395 mph.
You can work backwards if you like, subtract from the chart on Mike William's site: 8mph for the bomb racks, 1.5 2 mph for the exhaust stubbs, 1 mph for the bracket. You'll still get back to the 395 mph figure at sea level with cleaned up paint. Which is what I said earlier.
We also know that the P-51D was slightly slower. Note, however, that it would need to be 17mph slower to match the figures you are touting as being representitive for the D series. I've never seen anything to suggest the D was that much slower.
It wasn`t that much slower, see above. It was about 4 mph slower than P-51B/C.
Not when you do the maths properly.
I suspect that as Butch said they were calculations based on tests (iirc) the 109 figures refer to a manufacturers prototype, which is not to say it wasn't to final specifications as regards weight, equipment etc, but it was probably better quality than average production, let alone than the average machine taken from squadron service.
Except that the officially given for K-4 is 3362kg, whereas the test machine is given as 3400 kg, so it has all equipment and possibly more.
As I said, I don't think it was underequipped, just that it was in factory fresh condition, not with "at least 6 coats of badly chipped paintwork"
-
# 400
I always wanted to be number 400 in a four hundred posts monster.
:D
-
Hi Leitwolf,
>I always wanted to be number 400 in a four hundred posts monster.
A dwarf on the shoulders of giants ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Cant get to Neil Stirling's site links. Anybody have it saved ? Would you be so kind to repost it here ? Especially
that dreaded AVIA 6/10618 report :). Please !
-
You are quite the gentleman in your debating
(and you've been winning as well :D )
Keep up the good work from an unbiased, virtual 51 AND 109 pilot
-
I have no time to read the WHOLE thread... So what is the real K/D ratio of 109 from 1937 to 1945?
:)
-
Hi 1K3,
>I have no time to read the WHOLE thread... So what is the real K/D ratio of 109 from 1937 to 1945?
"According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1."
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Dang! How many pages is this? I only read the first two so maybe I'll cover points already covered.
Though it can't be measured in any graph, I think it's very important to not forget the P-51D's bubble canopy and its gunsight. These are two factors that would be huge in any fight and do provide some level of advantage beyond the more tangible figures on a graph. As it is, most aircraft shot down never saw their pursuer and in those cases, visibility would've played a huge part in survival more than any turn or climb rate because they never got the chance to even utilize those elements.
But isn't a comparison of the P-51D and BF-109 really apples and oranges? I personally think the P-51D wins the comparison hands-down just based on the fact that it could bring the war to the enemy. You don't win unless you can bring it. Had the Mustang needed to play homeland defense, I'm sure it could've been modified to be much lighter and nimbler and been very destructive had its role necessitated that.
-
Originally posted by Virage
This is a commonly held opinion. Yet the spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war.
I think you just hit the nail on the head - a 1st generation 109 was probably outdated and outclassed but a later model would reflect the evolution of the airframe and powerplant - providing the performance improved to keep up with its counter parts it can't really be considered "obsolete". Nothing in the posts here has demonstrated that a late model 109 was absolutely not worth taking up against late model allied fighters. It may not have been bleeding edge but it seems a capable and deadly aircraft none the less.
I would just like to add something. This is the first post on the BB i've seen two people mutually appologize for appearing abrupt or short with someone. Bravo for civility!:aok