Bf 109 vs P-51 Mustangs

[Paul_9686]

...Four cal.50machine guns (in the Mustang B version) or six (in the D version) were actually enough to shoot down any opponent in the airwar over Europe, regardless of the fact that the wing-mounted Brownings tended to jam ...
Kristian

I believe I should point out that it was only the four-gunned B and C model Mustangs which were plagued by jamming guns. In those versions, the weapons were mounted at a thirty-degree angle within the wings, and during tight turns, the binding effect on the ammunition belts of the G forces would cause at least three of the four guns to jam. The 354th Fighter Group solved this problem by "liberating" ammunition booster motors from a nearby B-26 Marauder outfit; possibly other units did the same, but I don't know. On the D model--the "bubble-topped" Mustang--the guns were mounted upright, which solved the jamming problem by smoothing the flow of the belts into the machine guns.

The .50-caliber "Ma Deuce" was one of the best aircraft weapons of the war, and the decision to arm nearly all US fighters with a sextet of "Fifties" was one of the best decisions made by the USA in WWII.

Yours,
Paul

[Black Baron]

The jam problems of the C model were fixed with blocks of wood I have read. Also somethng about canting them at an angle. I do believe these probs were satisfactorily overcome.

The real shame of the Mustang is that the chin mounted guns of the A-36 were not carried forward.

[greenhorn]

"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."

Baron..... the engines......

Both have been powered by Rolls Royce!

The Bf109 prototype used a Kestel V or VI on 28/05/35.
Apparent the ones built from '43 to '57 under licence in Spain were Merlin powered due to lack of DB605 availability......

The ole Mustang originally powered by Allison V1710.... upgraded to RR Merlin 60 series engines ((V1650) on the suggestion of a Brit test pilot.
RR engined Mustang entered servive Nov 1942.

A great concept that carried over into cars post war......
Bristol (as in Bulldog/Blenheims) went on to build Gentlemen's Grand Tourers.... hand built chassis and coachwork..... with US muscle up front...

Same goes for Jensens, TVRs and Rover V8s....





Interesting comment from a USAAF comparing Spits v P51B.
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html

[Black Baron]

True about engines. good point. The torque prob of 109 was for the most part solved by installing a lockable tailwheel. The range of the Mustang was a great tactical innovation, but does not impress me as a fighting quality. Speed, turn, dive, cockpit visibility, roll rate, & firepower are more important to me. Sakai went 1800 miles one wai in his Zero. Don't care so much how far the plane went, moreinterested in how well it fought when it got there.

[Paul_9686]

I honestly don't know why synchronized nose-mounted machine guns went out of style in favor of all-wing-mounted weapons in the USAAF; perhaps it was a reaction to the lousy performance of the last American fighter to have them--the P-39 Airacobra?

Yours,
Paul

[sigrun]

I honestly don't know why synchronized nose-mounted machine guns went out of style in favor of all-wing-mounted weapons in the USAAF; perhaps it was a reaction to the lousy performance of the last American fighter to have them--the P-39 Airacobra?
Paul

Simplicity (maintenance), and standardisation, calibre etc which is of huge logistical advantage. Inarguably, logistics were then and still are America's forté.

Have a look at contemporary US military and civil (airline) aircraft. Despite some disadvantages in mounting them there, Boeing many years ago went for external wing (pod) mounted engines because of the huge advantage when it comes to maintenance. Similarly, though it is necessary in a fast (mil) jet to place the engines internally, many years ago the US standardised as a design requirement that they be located and designed for easy access and removal/replacement for maintenance.

[Paul_9686]

Thank you, Sigrun, for your insight.

Yours,
Paul

[sigrun]

The range of the Mustang was a great tactical innovation, but does not impress me as a fighting quality. Speed, turn, dive, cockpit visibility, roll rate, & firepower are more important to me. Sakai went 1800 miles one wai in his Zero. Don't care so much how far the plane went, moreinterested in how well it fought when it got there.

Hi BB

No disrespect old chap, but with a handle like "Black Baron" you'd not achieve the Red Baron legendary status in the air holding that perspective. You're thinking like one of those lay academic experts again.

If you are seriously interested in "how well it fought when it got there", then you'd bloody better well be impressed by and take endurance into account!

Airplanes are piloted by flesh and blood. Men are emotional creatures, a quality which is exacerbated in all including the coldest 'fish' under duress, if not overtly visible or understandably, mentioned. Though I wish Emersons's perspective on fear an knowledge were otherwise, it holds true. Fear IS the more powerful motivator.

Thus, to any pilot and particularly a fighter pilot with only one engine, endurance is ALL important. Endurance, apart from engine "bits stay together moving in unison" limitations (in effect life when some @#% is trying to nail you) determines how long you can remain at max. boost or combat power and still get home or back to the/an airfield. As such it remains rather salient in mind and reduces your capacity for other thought through what is technically termed load shedding, aka blind panic or fudge factor depending upon the individual and severity.

So not having to worry unduly about endurance at combat power is a very influental aspect upon any fighter pilot's mindset. But then you'd realise how strongly this can influence the operational capability of any fighter on a physical, intellectual and emotional level if you'd assimilated it as one of the two primary complaints ofy Galland et al during the Battle of Britain.

[Paul_9686]

Excuse me, Black Baron, but you've got your range wrong vis-a-vis the Zero. Saburo Sakai said in his book Samurai that the two longest missions he ever flew were to the Philippines from Formosa (which he did several times in December 1941) and from Rabaul to Guadalcanal (which he did only once, on August 7, 1942, as it was on that mission that he was so badly wounded). If I remember correctly, he said the radius from Rabaul to Guadalcanal was 560 miles--and it would be well to recall that getting there was only half the battle; one needed fuel for at least 20 to 30 minutes of high-speed fighting time over the target, plus fuel to return on. I would expect that the one-way range from Formosa to Luzon was also in the neighborhood of 560 miles.

Anyway, the P-51D was superior even in range to the Zero--a radius of about 800 miles with 108-gallon "paper" drop tanks. And again, let's not forget that the American pilots in their Mustangs had to be skillful with their fuel, and have enough for both combat over the target and the long flight back to Britain.

One can only imagine how the Battle of Britain might've turned out had the Germans built Zero-like range into the Bf-109. I'd be writing this in German, I'll bet.

Yours,
Paul

[Black Baron]

Well, Well. interesting responses. Don't know what my handle has to do with anything.I will respond to the more intellectual subject matter. Of course worrying about getting home is important. On that subject, the Gemans did have drop tanks in Spain, but not in BoB. I read that Professor Willy didn't install a valve or something on the E model 109. If someone has some data to share bout that, please do jump in.

Been a while since I read Sakai's book. The Zero did have good range as I recall from the book. But y'all must realize "All" pilots faced the "how much fuel is left - will I make it home problem". Even Hartmann mentioned the red fuel light coming on in one of his skirmishes in his book.

Range was very important in certain fronts. Most certainly the Britain to Berlin & back escort for bombers in 44.

So again range is very impotant from a tactical standpoint in certain strategic areas. BoB & B of Berlin. Even moreso for bombers. But again it has much less to do with the fighting quality of an aircraft.

Eric Brown rates the Mk 14 Spit & D9 as best piston fighters of ww2. Mustang a notch below these.

[Paul_9686]

The Mk. 14 Spitfire and Fw-190 D-9 were interceptors, though, Baron. And although I'm sure the British had no trouble training fighter pilots who could defeat virtually anyone, by late 1944, when the Dora began to reach the combat outfits, German fighter training was falling off badly.

I recall there was a Japanese Navy fighter pilot who once said something to the effect that inferior turning radius (for fighting the old-fashioned "dogfight") in a fighter could be more than compensated for by the superior skill of its pilot. His prediction came true in the war, when American pilots got the measure of the Zero and other Japanese fighters and refused to dogfight with them.

I understand Eric Brown wrote a book about his experiences as a test pilot. What's its title, Baron? Might make an interesting read.

Yours,
Paul

[Black Baron]

The book I have is called, Duels in the sky. Fabulous book. he pits plane vs plane without pilot skill being enetered into the discussion. In other words pure plane fighting quality vs another. He will pit planes that never met, & some that did against each other. Zero vs FW 190 for instance.

Yes Mustang was designed for long range & had wing tanks which made it vulnerable when these were full. Usually by the time the plane got near German border, much of this gas was gone & plane was ready for action. I will admit for as heavy as it was, it was very manoeverable. But then all US planes were heavy. P-40 weighed less than Mustang, but most of rest weighed more. 47 & 38 did. Corsair & Hellcat too.

I should really start collecting the rest of his books. He once had a ten minute draw with a 190 over channel coast, so his opinions are based on experience.

P.S. wonder how a P-40 N would do against a G-10. The last version of P-40 would do 422, & had got rid of chin scoop, ( replaced by wing root scoops similiar to Corsair ). Very streamlined it looked.

[Black Baron]

"(I recall there was a Japanese Navy fighter pilot who once said something to the effect that inferior turning radius (for fighting the old-fashioned "dogfight") in a fighter could be more than compensated for by the superior skill of its pilot)"

Dittos, very true. Couldn't agree more. 3 or 4 channel coast aces got over 50 Spits in their bag. mostly flying 190's. The turning circle is but one of many aerial manoevers. Vector rolls can be used to beat it. Perhaps the real secret is knowing exactly when to make the correct manoever. Rather like Preddy's scatter the flock approach. Galland used it too.

[sigrun]

So again range is very impotant from a tactical standpoint in certain strategic areas. BoB & B of Berlin. Even moreso for bombers. But again it has much less to do with the fighting quality of an aircraft.

Obviously comprehending what has been pointed out is beyond your 'ken. Endurance has a great deal to do with the "fighting quality" of any aircraft, and particularly a fighter aircraft.

Even where available, drop tanks aren't the optimum answer to endurance 'cos you've got to drop them prior to engagement. You can see where this places the WWII escort fighter if intercepted early, even as a feint.

Fuel management usually dictates you feed direct from the drop tanks if possible, or transfer from the drop tank to other tanks ASAP so you retain as much internal capacity if you have to drop them prematurely. Complicated fuel management systems don't enhance this task with 'boggie drivers' under pressure.

Ignoring fuel issues in a discussion regarding performance is about as ill-knowledgable as discussing speeds or bomb carrying capacity in terms of maximums without regard to the other inter-related considerations or limitational parameters albe they structural or performance orientated.

Stick with the Commando comics Air Ace series. They seem an entertaining source of 'information' for you thus far.

[Black Baron]

Comprehending what was said beyong my ken? No it is called disagreeing dingo.


Ignoring fuel issues in a discussion regarding performance
I didn't ignore it. perhaps reading not your strongpoint.

As for comic book comment, um fork you.