Bf 109 vs P-51 Mustangs

German Luftwaffe 1935-1945.
User avatar
Hawk
Supporter
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Tijuana, Mexico

Post by Hawk »

stab131 wrote:Skill level does not matter. Randy Cunningham shot down the NV leading air ace. The NV pilot had 23 or more kills, Cunningham got his 5th when shooting him down.
Skill does matter when you want to compare the attributes of two different machines (be it aircraft or typewritters). When you are comparing to different items, you try to make the outside parameters as identical as possible. That why the same skill level is a requirement.
stab131 wrote:Say you take 2 pilots both with 300 hours, both with 10 kills, do they have the same level of skill?

Maybe not. If the first pilot had all those kills in WW1 does he have the same skill needed to achieve those results in WWII? Why did so many US aces in WWII not become aces in Korea? Why did USAF Korean aces not become aces in Vietnam?
For each case, again, you try to make your outside parameters as identical as possible. Which means that if you are trying to measure Vietnam era aircraft you would use Vietnam era pilots on both machines, if you use a WW1 pilot against a Gulf war pilot your parameters are not the same.
stab131 wrote:What is the pilot’s physical condition on the day they fly, tired, hung over, war weary? How badly does he want to engage the enemy?
We are not comparing the effectiveness of the airforce in the particular place and time, but the machines. What you are mentioning is very valid, as stated before, but not for comparing the aircrafts.
stab131 wrote:If skill level is the key, why then do the instructor pilots in Top Gun eventually lose air to air combat engagements to their students?

They practice ACM much more than other pilots and still their students beat them by the end of the course. Even flying similar aircraft as when the F16N fights against AF F16.

Chuck Yeager was blessed with exceptional eye sight which allowed him to see the enemy before he saw Chuck and his other pilots but still Yeager got shot down. How many leading aces in all air forces in WWII did not survive the war. The US two top aces did not, Bong died in a test flight of the P80 and McGuire crashed in combat. The US Navy's leading ace did, as did the Marines, but even Pappy Boyington with 20+ kills was shot down.

Skill helps, but it is not all about skill.
I think you are mixing two different parameters in one, skill and aptitude. Which would explain your last comment.
Last edited by Hawk on Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Erich
Enthusiast
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:16 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Erich »

skill is all important as well as overwhelming numbers which the US Allied escorts had sometime 11: 1 in some air battles.

Keep in mind the Bf 109G-6/AS and G-10 models could keep the altitidue pace with the P-51 D at 30,000 feet but by superior numbers game had the distinct height advantage while on bomber escorts and as the Höhenstaffeln tried to climb and engage they were sitting ducks ..........

as for the first posting and Walter Dahl his Mustang kills are dubious.

Erich ~
Image
User avatar
Kristian
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 6:29 am
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein

Post by Kristian »

Sorry, Erich is right. I was talking totally bulls**t.
Dahl was not the top "Mustang-Killer" nor he had
shot down 28 of them. Maybe I was confused be-
cause he shot down 128 planes at all:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mustang.html

:oops: :oops: :oops:

Sorry again.
greenhorn
Contributor
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:13 am
Location: ENGLAND

Post by greenhorn »

I have heard said that the Bf109 was a sonofabitch to takeoff and land due to chronic visibility problems.... harder to fly.

My understand of Luftwaffe practice was the pilots weren't rotated as often or at all, thus combat fatigue was prevalent in German pilots.....
Banzai!
greenhorn
Contributor
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:13 am
Location: ENGLAND

Post by greenhorn »

I have heard said that the Bf109 was a sonofabitch to takeoff and land due to chronic visibility problems.... harder to fly.

My understand of Luftwaffe practice was the pilots weren't rotated as often or at all, thus combat fatigue was prevalent in German pilots.....
Banzai!
greenhorn
Contributor
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:13 am
Location: ENGLAND

Post by greenhorn »

Question: Did the P51 become a better fighter after seeing service in England and having an engine upgrade to Merlins.... before it was a dog.....
Banzai!
Huck
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:43 pm

Post by Huck »

Mustang was a very good escort fighter, but mediocre as a dedicated fighter. It was underpowered for its weight. That translated in poor climb rate, acceleration and initial dive. Turn rate and radius were similar with those of contemporary Fw-190A variants, but inferior to Bf-109G variants.

Speed was decent for early '44, but 109G variants fitted with DB605 ASM, ASB, ASC, DB, DC that started to come at the end of spring (in '44) had equal or better speed.

Firepower of 6*0.50s was not so good either, but it was easier to aim with for low time pilots.
User avatar
Hawk
Supporter
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Tijuana, Mexico

Post by Hawk »

greenhorn wrote:I have heard said that the Bf109 was a "bad" :shock: takeoff and land due to chronic visibility problems.... harder to fly.
It had problems when first taxing, as the pilot could not see in front of him as where he was going until he had build some speed and the tail was elevated.[/quote]
User avatar
Max Boost
Supporter
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:47 am
Location: Finland

Post by Max Boost »

Hawk wrote:
greenhorn wrote:I have heard said that the Bf109 was a "bad" :shock: takeoff and land due to chronic visibility problems.... harder to fly.
It had problems when first taxing, as the pilot could not see in front of him as where he was going until he had build some speed and the tail was elevated.
[/quote]

Hi guys,
the biggest problem on taxing and taking off the Bf109 was not the visibility, but the torque of the engine that twisted the chassie and the narrow landing gear. Visibility on any fighter was poor before one could gain enough speed to get the tail up. Bf109 veered very strongly to the left, and if pilot tried to get airborne too early (with not enough speed), it tend to bank over to the left side and crash. That was the main reason for damages and pilotcasulties while training. Even for a experienced pilot the Bf109 was a challenging plane to take off. In Finland, at Utti airbase, Finnish pilots learned it also through the hard way, they even called the forrest on the left side of the runway as "Messershcmitt-corner" :?

There's an quite interesting interview of two finnish pilots who flew Moranes, Brewsters and finally Messershcmitts on this website;
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... ml#jussibw

Yours, Max
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

Have to agree with Eric & Huck. G6-AS totally different kettle of fish to G-6. Or G-10, G14 etc. Mustang D was not good as C model. D had thicker wings & extra guns which made wings heavier. The bubble also causing dive probs for D model past 505 mph. Radial 190 could dive to 580 mph safely. Don't have exact numbers for G series in dive. Met a mustang pilot in Idaho, he said Mustang was not a good climber. Dive turn & roll were all good. top speed good. visibility & armament good.

Kurt Buhligen said;we could outurn the Mustang with both,( 109-190 ). Even turn ability is a pilot skill topic. Finnish piots mentioned the green horns would only turn the 109 up to the point that the slats started to come out, but the oldtimers were just beginning to turn when the slats came out.

Again, as stated above it is not the violin, it is the player.
User avatar
sigrun
Supporter
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:03 pm

Re: Bf 109 vs P-51 Mustangs

Post by sigrun »

HunterSeeker wrote:Which one is more better ??
You have to put that question into an operational context for any sort of a meaningful answer.

However, in brief, if you've ever seen or sat in them, you'd realise the P-51 is a much larger and more powerful aircraft than the Me-109. By the time the two were operational adversaries, it was the Me109G variants versus predominently the P51D.

In a 1 V 1 against your clone, the P-51's power would dictate the terms of the engagement, especially at altitude. As such, you would choose to only engage the 109 on favourable terms in which case the 109 pilot would be always be defensive. Being a target is not a good position for a fighter pilot.
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

Perhaps true against a G-6. & "maybe" against G6-AS.

G-6 AS reports speeds aroud 445,( on Boost ). The G-10 & Particularly K-4 had similiar altitude performance to The Mustang D. K-4 arrived Oct 44. Have no hard data on G-14, or G-14 AS, but must assume it was close to G-6 AS in performance.
User avatar
2nd SS Panzer Das Reich
Supporter
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: NC
Contact:

Post by 2nd SS Panzer Das Reich »

The P-51D is the best icon (coming second to the B-17) of the USAF in WWII.
Wehrmacht: men of courage
greenhorn
Contributor
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:13 am
Location: ENGLAND

Post by greenhorn »

Can anyone tell me what the Me109 & P-51 had in common..... apart from a cockpit, 2 wheels, 2 wings, 1 tail etc.
Banzai!
Black Baron
Supporter
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Utah

Post by Black Baron »

They both had a V-12. They had scoops that were of similiar design-rear exit flow. Both had German design input,( Edward Scmued was one of the chief designers of the Mustang, & was a self taught German emmigrant). & both had some British design elements to boot. The 109 had Handley Page,(British design) leading edge slats, & the Mustang had the Merlin engine.
Post Reply