109 outturns, outclimbs, outperforms P-51

Nov 44 I think. Likely a G-10 or K-4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlfOWZHEGNk

 

You hear different information from different sources....Everyone seems to agree that in 44=45, that germans were very outnumbered in the sky, and a lot of the pilots were actually not the old pros cuz the old pros were dead, in wheelchairs or captured.

Some pilots say the 109 was already an obsolete fighter by the time the "G" class came out, and the germans just kept putting more and more powerful engines in it and tried to keep it a decent fighter plane, while the allies were doing the same thing with the spitfire and the americans came out with long range fighters, like the mustang, thunderbolt and lightning.

I'm convinced the 109 could outclimb a mustang by a signifcant margin. Also, the 109 could outmanouver a mustang, but the mustang had better fighter vs fighter guns, and a good gunsight too. Also the mustang had a much better cockpit/canopy. Apparantly the mustang had a higher service ceiling, and was faster at high altitudes and also handled better at high speeds. I recall reading somewhere that the roll rate of the late model 44-45 109s at high speeds was extremely slow, and that it was completely obsolete as a fighter in high speed combat. Drag coefficient of late model 109s was terrible, mustang in a wind tunnel was excellent, laminar wings, clean skins, etc.

109 vs mustang performance
very interesting interview about guy who flies p51 and the 109!!

 

Ah yes, those pesky late model 109 rumors. G-10 had new elevators & also new linkage, ( I'll get link), which gave it more bang for the buck in elevator response,( which translates into better-easier high speed turns). Stick travel also different. Some also had spring tabbed airelons.
http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/g-10-elevator-travel-t166.html


The new G-10/K assembly has less travel left/right, and therefore the ailerons were more sensitive than the regular E-G.
http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/control-column-and-sensitivity-on-the-late-g-k-t140.html


Wood tail also oscillates less giving it better dive capacity, ( I'll get data & link).



15-4-1943
This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#dives

906km is about 560 mph, P-51 D is redlined at 505-525 mph.






The above story if anything debunks the 109 crap at high speed late war myth.

Canopy, P-51 better for view, thick perspex of 109 better for protection, ( not to mention more aerodynamic, P-51 D porpoised in dives because of new bubble).

Guns, 109 in centerline, better for aiming, no harmonizing of aim to worry about, 30 mm cannon is assessed as best gun to appear on any fighter of WW 2 by more than 1 source, Tony Williams, Flight Journal.



Rolf Pingel...
The new arrangement of the guns in the nose of the Me 109 F enables pilots to fire very accurately while in a turn and to open fire at a greater range. This pilot, however, usually opened fire at about one hundred yards, closing to fifty yards. There have been absolutely no unfavourable comments on the reduction of armament; the present arrangement is regarded as ideal.

Spit guns spattered in turns by comparison. Wing mounted guns have their drawbacks.



During a turning combat the effectiveness of the outboard machine guns was low because if the aircraft was pulling 'g' the flexing of the wings meant that the rounds scattered in a large cone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin_powered_variants)

 

Bud Anderson: (shot down 9 fw190s and 7 109s) "In aerial combat it did not matter to me which type of enemy fighter I encountered. I felt that the Mustang could out perform both the ME109 and the FW190 and treated them pretty much the same. The FW190 had an air cooled radial engine and could probably take a little more damage than the liquid cooled ME109. I never encountered any of the twin engine fighters such as the ME110 & ME 410 but it appeared to me that the guy that got there first shot down the most of them."

interesting stuff

 

I'm more of a it's the man, not the machine type of guy, and for the sake of argument, later models of the 109 had very impressive climb rates, didn't bleed so much energy in turns compared to the P-51 (slats really do clean up the aerodynamic profile), and it was going to be a better turning aircraft because the P-51 almost always had the altitude on the 109. Therefore, the P-51 was going to be faster. Therefore, it wasn't going to be able to turn inside the 109 unless the pilot was drunk, half asleep, or cannon fodder. Being lighter helps the 109 turn well, too.

 

Bud Anderson flew mainly against pilots with less training than he himself had. Bully Lang had no difficulty in shooting down p-51s.

and four P-51 Mustang fighters shot down in four minutes on 20 June 1944, plus another four P-51s on 24 June.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Lang_(fighter_ace)







As to 109 being draggy, there are a few studies about, Hoerner, & David Ledicner.

Messerscmitt docs show a Cd = 0.023 for the 109F-4/G-2

Mustang: 0.0175 x 21.8 = 0.382 (manufacturer data, NACA measured a 0.018 Cd).

Again, it a bit of a complex topic & G-6 with bulges would be more draggy than G-2, G-10 & K-4 better than G-6. Don't have data for G-10 & K-4 unfortunately.





The tables in Lednicer's WWII Fighter Aerodynamics present the following at ~360kts, 15,000 feet.
1. Spit IX Drag Area = 5.4 sq Ft, Wetted Area = 831.2 sq ft, CDwet = .0065
2. P-51B Drag Area = 4.61 sq ft Wetted Area = 874..0 sq ft, CDwet = .0053
3. P-51D Drag Area = 4.65 sq ft Wetted Area = 882.2 sq ft, CDwet = .0053
4. Fw 190A-8 Drag Area=5.22 sq ft, Wetted Area = 735.0 sq ft, CDwet = .0071
4. Fw 190D-9 Drag Area=4.71 sq ft, Wetted Area = 761.6 sq ft, CDwet = .0063

Like I said, confusing, but G-2 has lower figure than all the above.

 

If I had to fight in a p51 or a 109k in a dogfight, I would take the 109k. But you have to remember what the p51 was designed to do: escort bombers on long range missions deep into Europe and give them some protection at altitudes of about 30k and higher. The mustang did this very well. The p51 shot down something like 4950 aircraft.

The 109 was a very good overall fighter plane. During the battle of Britain, the 109s which were used to protect german bombers could only stay over the city of London for about 5 to 7 minutes before the warning light indicating low fuel would come on and they had to return to base. Also the german bombers that were used to bomb England were only two engined airplanes that had very little defensive firepower.

It was incredibly dumb for the germans to attack England from mainland Europe using the the 109 as escorts for that "bomber" called the He111 which used to be a transport aircraft until they made it a bomber, not surprising they got mauled and the Battle of Britain was over in a flash.

And there were always problems with this 109 aircraft. Adolph Galland thought that the firepower on the 109f was insufficient, and he recommended to his pilots they fly the 109E instead if possible, as it had 2 20mm cannons, one on each wing.

Messerchmitt tried many times to put guns on the wings of the 109, with little success. Early 109 pilots feared pulling hard G manouvers in the early 109s because sometimes the wings would rip off in flight.

Guns were moved to the fuselage and out of the wings to try and strengthen the wings of the 109. This is also the reason why the landing gear on the 109 was very narrow and stemmed from the fuselage area and were not attached to the wings like on the 190.

Gunther Rall tried to have guns on his wings but he said whenever he turned hard and tried to fire his guns, "the chain would break" referring to the chain which operated the wing guns on the 109. Like many pilots, he opted for just the fuselage guns instead. Not much point in having guns on your wings if they don't work in combat.

Versions of the 109 that had wing guns were in gondolas under the wing, because the wing structure was too weak if they were actually placed inside the wing as in the 109e.

And the canopy of all versions of the mustang were far more aerodynamic than any version of the 109 canopy. you must be making stuff up if you think that the 109 canopy is more aerodynamic the p51s canopy. This porposing effect was caused by fuel tanks and the effect they had on the center of gravity of the p51, not by the canopy, which was excellent.

" ... The Germans much admired the low-drag Mustang. One of their technical writers said, "A comparison of flight measurements shows quite unmistakably that the Mustang is far superior aerodynamically to all other airplanes and that it maintains this superiority in spite of its considerably greater wing area." German data, taken at a lift coefficient of 0.2 revealed the following wing profile drag coefficients:

Bf 109 ..... 0.0101
FW 190 ..... 0.0089
Mustang ..... 0.0072

From H. H. Arnold Manuscript, Von Karman Report, Library of Congress ... "

 

Messerschmitt data more reliable re wind drag. Here's French data...

Tests in Charlais Meudon with the 109V24, a prototyte of the 109F, showed a CD of 0.24-0.3



& 109 canopy far more aerodynamic than any bubble. P-51 C could outdive P-51 D for this reason.


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."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.


Galland was in the minority regards firepower in F model.


Rolf Pingel...

The new arrangement of the guns in the nose of the Me 109 F enables pilots to fire very accurately while in a turn and to open fire at a greater range. This pilot, however, usually opened fire at about one hundred yards, closing to fifty yards. There have been absolutely no unfavourable comments on the reduction of armament; the present arrangement is regarded as ideal.




P-51 D dive report..

Porpoising.- The P-51D airplane, at high speeds, is subject to the longitudinal instability commonly referred to as porpoising.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html

 

Yeah, I think you are right black hornet. The 109k could outclimb, outdive, outturn, outmanouever and outgun the mustang. Oh, it was more areodynamic too, especially the canopy, which was also better than the boxy, cramped old p51 canopy. I'm sure you have some data to prove this. the mustang had all kinds of problems with high speed handling, whereas the 109's flew just great.

In actual reality, this 109k was an improved version of the 109G.

Another article by a pilot and engineer

 

P-51 cockpit wasn't crampy, & Carson's article is the most debunked & dismissed one in the known world.

"Flush" canopy designs are more aerodynamic than bubble canopies are McCloud, thats why they are called "flush". Just a basic fact of aerodynamics, which you can read up on here.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history-strategy/125188-aircraft-canopies.html


Since bubble canopies cause more drag than streamlined ones

a bubble canopy added. You pay for it with drag, but it's worth it.

 

okay so these flush canopies are more aerodynamic than bubble canopies...the early p51s had flush canopies like the 109..then the people who made mustangs decided to make bubble canopies..
oh I was just being sarcastic when I said that the p51 had a boxy, cramped cockpit...it was actually the 109 that had a boxy, cramped cockpit. You didn't notice that I see..

109 cockpit

Amazing how you have no respect for Kit Carson opinions, he was a mustang pilot and shot down 18 planes.. his opinion of mustang vs 109 is from real world, real life combat experience..also he was an engineer as well. He fought against 109s in p51 in real life, shot them down and lived to tell about it. And you, a guy with no experience in 109 vs p51 talk like you know everything, and he is full of shit. I don't think so. I don't see any problems with his article. It seems very good actually.

 

Carson never flew the 109 & his article has been extensively debunked, it is quite literally full of incorrect data, & the laughing stock of most any aviation forum, so it isn't just myself per se that considers it junk, it is literally thousands of aviation enthusiasts that also have this view. I will post some of the debunk links.

Sarcasm offers no academic advancement as regards data on the subject.




… “109 was least aerodynamic fighter of WW2”. The stupidity of that statement should be obvious to even a beginner enthusiast of ww2 aviation. Radial engined fighters are "way" less aerodynamic than V-12 ones.

P-47 anyone?? really, how can anyone take carson seriously after "that" boner?

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Me...43&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=bf33027,d04bcda8

 

Joahanns Steinhoff 1943 over Malta:

"...The Malta Spitfires are back again, they are fitted with high altitude superchargers and at anything over 25,000ft they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28000ft the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand in the thin air had to carry out every manoeuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control

Joahanns Steinhoff, commander of JG77 and very experienced pilot

 

Malta, 82 109s lost vs 148 Spits plus 44 Hurries.



1942... Malta, 82 109s to 148-214 Spits plus 45 Hurris?, ( Italian fighter losses should be mentioned also, 50 plus Macchis as I recall).

Shores ( page 646 summary states that the author suggests the summary result was 148 + 66 force landed/crash landed due to combat damage)


The 'Biggin Hill Wing' by Caygill states that from the beginning of June to the end of September 1941 saw Fighter Command lose 572 single engined fighters while the Luftwaffe loses were 128 .









& to finish up with Carson, might I suggest the view-s of pilots who flew it, like RAF chief test pilots Eric Brown, ( who holds 2 world records, most types of aircraft flown and most carrier landings).

Eric Brown...
There was, in fact, nothing mysterious about the Bf 109. It was simply a well-conceived, soundly designed fighter that maintained during maturity the success that attended its infancy...
The blind flying panel appeared somewhat better equipped than that of the contemporary FW 190.




I understand you dislike myself and the 109 McCloud, thats fine, but might I suggest perhaps the Spock avenue of travel regards the 109 & WW 2 fighters in general, i.e. just nuts & bolts, which you may ultimately find the more profitable pathway.

 

In 'Fighter Command vol 3', on page 85, Foreman states that the loss ratio was 4 to 1 in the Germans favor prior to the Spit 9.



Those were happy times for the Luftwaffe units in the Channel Front, as is clearly shown by the figures of losses reported for both sides: Between June 13 and December 31 1941, the RAF lost over 600 aircraft (including fighters and bombers) in air combat and 411 airmen KIA or POW, while the Luftwaffe's actual losses in the air in that same period of time were only 135 aircraft, a kill ratio of 4:1 in favour of the Germans.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/aces.htm

Note that this is 1941, before the FW 190 appeared in any large numbers.

 

It's ok black hornet, I don't dislike the 109, I said if I had to fight in a dogfight against a mustang, I would pick the 109.

Personally, I think you are extremely biased against any information or testimony, even from experienced combat pilots like Anderson and Carson, that may, even slightly indicate that german aircraft were not as awesome as you believe they are. you think that all these guys who flew the p51 against the 109 are fools, liars, etc, while you are a river of truth and experience.

You say "Carson never flew the 109". Neither did you. Also, you did not fly a p51, but Carson did. Do you really honestly think your opinion on the 109 vs p51 is more valid than that of experienced combat pilots on this subject? With all due respect, it isn't.

look at the testimony of steinhoff about spit vs 109. it seems that he, an actual german ww2 109 pilot is indicating that the 109 was not so great against the spit. he says the spits played cat and mouse with the 109's.

So what do you do? because his testimony conflicts with your opinion, you ignore his testimony and switch to the issue of scoring and losses.

P51 pilots in real life know how to deal with people like you

 

Again, Mcloud I gave you testimony from Eric Brown C, chief test pilot of the RAF, and 109 pilot Rolf Pingel
please stop incorrectly assigning said testimony to myself. Also testimony from P-51 pilots, ( Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot).

I've called no one a liar or a fool, please refrain from personal attack as its against the rules as it is in most any chatroom. Anderson & Carson did not fly the 109, Pingel & Brown did, hence their views on it are more authoritative.


I've also supplied you with offical flight tests, again, these are not my views, rather official tests. Please differentiate between the two.


P-51 D dive report..

Porpoising.- The P-51D airplane, at high speeds, is subject to the longitudinal instability commonly referred to as porpoising.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-divetest.html


Steinhoff has views that are diametrically opposed to other Luftwaffe pilots, he was in the minority in his appraisal of the P-38, which Galland & Buhligen considered easy meat. As to statistics, it is unacademic to ignore these as they are one of several legitimate means of ascertaining meaningful data on any assesment of a fighter, or campaign, hence why I used them.









WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?

Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets.

To see the entire interview, which I strongly recommend, open this:
http://www.historynet.com/searchresults/?terms=Steinhoff&Action.x=10&Action.y=8





Kurt Bühligen, third highest scoring German pilot on Western front with 112 victories, recalled later: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven.


Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring, "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our ME-110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning



Rall...
but P-38 and P-47 did not pose that much of a problem
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/guntherrall2003/

 

When in war, ya do not dare attack where your enemy is strong. IN ETO, the Nazi Germany lost because their strategy was without focus. Allies had a LOT of thinking people who were no scared half to death to speak up, like smarties in Nazi Germany were.
Look at at the Nazi German side's weak points the allies struck against, not their strong points. Tiger Tank and Panthers were not war winners, nor were FW190s and Bf 109s.
The war winners were examples of a American solution to a problem [not yankee, American, Canada was a BIG HUGE HELP in that effort. Undisturbed production, undisturbed transportation, unlimited natural resources, undisturbed populations etc and last, but NOT least:
USA Production Plant.
Is a Tigar tank more effective than 25 Shermans?
Same goes with, say, the P-51 vs FW-190.
190 was fine. But so were P-51 and the Yaks 3/9 (many lives wasted due to Stalin's meth habit]. The right weapons for the job. P51 had a fat rosy cheeked and over-trained crew. Yak had a crew with fataic willing ness to work and sacrifice. Yanks were sent home after they flew X Missions. They got good pay. It only took a couple 'disastrous' raids [shweinfurt? Regansburg?] to come very close to the USA calling the whole thing off and going home and paying the Jews to develop the nuke for them. And they would have, they could have.
Few other fighting nations had room or time for fine things. The t-34 wasn't made like a switch watch either, eh/ Nor was the Lag fighters, they sometimes had probllems due to wings falling off.......
On allied side, resources, time and space. Little Nazi Germany could not have defeated all the free world, no fuckin way.
Hitlerites were stupid assholes. If Hitler had not started the thing, if he had waited patiently, he could have attacked USSR, who stood alone. I think they still would have lost that effort. Russians fight like heroes.
Never mind. I am not arguing with anyone.

 

Anderson & Carson were fine combat pilots, but not familiar with 109. Skip Holm flys both P-51 & BF 109 & holds the US record for most combat hours logged & has 15.000 hours in fighters. His view, ( not mine, let's be clear with that), is the 109 turns considerably better than P-51 & also that P-51 bleeds off speed in turns more than 109 does.


Holm has raced eight different types of aircraft and posted 17 top Three-medal race finishes at Reno

He logged 1,172.4 combat fighter hours flying F-105s and F-4s, more than any other fighter pilot in the world. After Vietnam, Holm worked as an Air Force test pilot and test pilot instructor

Holm holds the record for most combat hours flown by any fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force; 1,171.

http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,1595.0.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94


15,000 hours in fighter types
Fighter types: A-4, A-6, A-7, A-37, F-4, RF-4, F-5, F-8, F-11, F-15, F-16, F-86, F-89, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-111, F-117, T-1, T-2, T-6, T-33, T-34, T-37, T-38, O-2, OV-1, OV-10, U-2, Casa, Draken J35, Fouga, Gnat T-1, L-29, L-39, Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-19, Mig-21, Mig-23, Sepa jet, Soko, SU-25, SU-27, Vampire, Meteor, P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51, F-8, ME-109, Yak-3, Yak-8, Yak-11, Yak-50, Yak-55, Spitfire, Skyraider, Mosquito, Sea Fury, Corsair, Lear Stang, Ag Cat, Steerman, Bear B-360, Thunder Mustang, T-6, T-28, T-41, BD-5J, BD-10.



Steinhoff's Malta comment is circa 1943, this would be the time of the MK 9 Spit, which was considerably better than previous models, a new injection carb was fitted which finally eliminated all the Spit's carb issues.

Spitfire Mk IX
Merlin 61 and 63 engines have S.U.float-type carburettors, but on Merlin 66, 70 and 266 engines these are replaced by Bendix-Stromberg injection carburettors.
http://folk.uio.no/hungnes/avia/spitfire/mkixvar.htm

 

It's unsurprising that the 109 is better at turning than the P-51 ... the Mustang obviously was never intended to be a T&B kind of fighter. It's also unsurprising that the 109 outclimbs the P-51. The Mustang was never more than a mediocre plane when it came to climbing and acceleration. However, the "outperforming" part in the title of this thread I take exception to. A plane that has better low-speed handling and rate of climb does not automatically outperform another plane. There are too many other factors, some of them far more important than turn performance and rate of climb. I assert that a Mustang flown the way it was meant to be flown, i.e. keeping up its speed and not getting suckered into a turn fight, was fully the equal of the 109.


P.S. If the Germans had had to design and build a plane capable of escorting other planes hundreds of miles deep into enemy airspace, protecting those planes from anything the enemy throws at them, and then returning to base, I wonder if it would still have turned and climbed so well. The P-51 was a purpose-built plane, and it fulfilled that purpose very well, despite the obvious compromises a designer has to make when thinking up such a plane.