PDA

View Full Version : For those who like P-51



Mirtma
07-08-2004, 06:20 AM
Sorry if that link (http://cpcug.org/user/billb/mustang.html) was already posted http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif . I found it interesting....

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/McMatt/sig_LP.jpg
---------------------------
Athlon XP 2000+
1024 Mb DDram
Sapphire Radeon 9600/256
Audigy2 ZS
Zalman Theatre 6 Headphones
Saitek Cyborg Evo
---------------------------

Mirtma
07-08-2004, 06:20 AM
Sorry if that link (http://cpcug.org/user/billb/mustang.html) was already posted http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif . I found it interesting....

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/McMatt/sig_LP.jpg
---------------------------
Athlon XP 2000+
1024 Mb DDram
Sapphire Radeon 9600/256
Audigy2 ZS
Zalman Theatre 6 Headphones
Saitek Cyborg Evo
---------------------------

tsisqua
07-08-2004, 06:23 AM
Thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tsisqua

Bearcat99
07-08-2004, 06:29 AM
Nice link.... now wheres that popcorn.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

NegativeGee
07-08-2004, 06:40 AM
Here you go Bear, just don't eat it all at once http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0017-0308-3117-5832_SM.jpg

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Yellonet
07-08-2004, 06:53 AM
From the link above:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This final Mustang design was superior to anything else that flew at the time. The P-51B had a huge internal gasoline tank capacity (around 425 gallons) and its engine was very economical, using about half the gasoline of other American fighters. This meant its range was 1080 miles and could be extended to 2600 miles when extra drop-tanks were attached to the wings. This made its range far more than any Allied or German fighter's. As far as performance went, it was superior to all others as well. Neither of the other two main American fighters could compete; the P-47 was too heavy and the P-38 had too many technical problems. The British fighters, the Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range, speed, or power. But most important was its superiority over the German fighters, the most important of which were the FW-190 and the Me-109. The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you really trust this, and is it true in FB?
I mean the thing about P-51 outrunning, outdiving and outturning both Me-109 and Fw-190.


- Yellonet

dadada1
07-08-2004, 07:06 AM
Its funny, I always grew up thinking that the P51 was more manouverable than both 109 or 190. It's only been since I've been reading on these forums recently that I've seen others writing otherwise. Have all the aviation historians got it wrong?

242Sqn-TheProf
07-08-2004, 07:43 AM
Wartime propaganda said the P-51 was superior to all German aircraft and unfortunately a lot of what is written uses that propaganda as it's source. It had it's strengths and weaknesses like all aircraft and it certainly wasn't superior to all German Aircraft, you just have to look at the P-51 losses in combat to know that wasn't true. FB is a pretty fair representation of the P-51 except that you can't use it's tremendous range capabilities to any advantage.

http://members.rogers.com/laurie.button/242Sqn_TheProf.jpg

ImpStarDuece
07-08-2004, 08:14 AM
Hmmmm...... what to do, what to do http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif Deconstructing that drivel could take hours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Awwww... forget it. Was going to have some fun poking holes in this poor kids high school history assignment but i think i'll let him wallow in his misconceptions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Besides, its not worth the flames it'll generate.

Good for a laugh though. Might bookmark it when i need a bit of cheering up.

Remember kiddies as Zac de la Rocha said "if ignorance is bliss then wipe the smile of my face"

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"War is just an extension of politics carried out by other means" von Clauswitz.

[This message was edited by ImpStarDuece on Thu July 08 2004 at 07:40 AM.]

Jaws2002
07-08-2004, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now i'm confused http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
this means that the fw should turn better than the 109.
Strange http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

horseback
07-08-2004, 09:00 AM
One of the things you have to factor in is the 'up time', or availability, of German fighters compared to Allied fighters of the time. A Gruppe might have 40 fighters and pilots assigned to it, but after late 1943, they often had less than 25 aircraft able to take off at any time. Most of the rest were sitting in their revetments, awaiting parts or repair, and the majority of aircraft assigned cycled through the 'down for repairs' group during their careers, even excepting combat damage.

While German fighter production was up, their overall quality was way down, and this often translated into pilots lacking faith in the planes they flew, much like you would lose faith in your car if it regularly broke down on you for no apparent reason. Your mechanic might tell you it's fixed, but you'll be apprehensive about 'pushing it' to its limits. The 'experten' could count on getting the best available aircraft and maintenance teams, but the average fighter pilot had no such support.

Throw in the poor quality fuel and lubricating oil available, and German fighters' performance were rarely up to ideal standards.

Also, you have to take American fighter doctrine into account. It called for them to stay high, stay fast and be aggressive, making the most of their relative strengths. At high altitudes, the Mustang had better performance than the majority of the fighters it faced while it was making its reputation in early 1944.

Staying fast means that you don't have to accellerate quickly, and it allows you to run down an enemy aircraft that has just struggled up to your altitude and is still trying to get up to speed. At high speeds, the Mustang did (and does in the game) out turn the opposition. Given the Germans' almost reflexive tendency to dive away from trouble (after all, it always worked against the Tommies and the Ivans), its great advantage in diving accelleration and control made it a killer in its chosen environment.

In the game, we're playing with planes in their ideal condition, perfectly maintained and using high quality fuel, lubricating oils and coolant. A pilot flying German planes is not suffering the effects of poor quality foods and loss of sleep from the bombing of the night before. He's not afraid of dying or the likely results of Russian ground troops overrunning his home town. He hasn't seen dozens of pilots he knows were much more skilled than himself die in combat.

He often has hundreds of sorties' worth of experience, and has thoroughly learned his airplane, which hasn't been going through an ongoing series of modifications in armament and engines. He also knows what his opponents' planes can and can't do, because he's able to hop into one in a moment and try it out. In wartime, an accurate understanding of your relative strengths and weaknesses is learned the hard way, and if you make a wrong assumption at the wrong time, your lessons are permanently ended.

In short, the advantages the Mustang and the Allied air forces won through an extended air campaign to destroy and scatter German industry and lure up and destroy the Luftwaffe are not in the game. The Germans busted their tails to crank out improved and capable aircraft right to the end, but their infrastructure had been broken down to the point that they couldn't exploit these aircrafts' potentials.

The Allies were under no pressure to come up with greatly improved types by comparison, because the existing fighter force was more than adequate to the job. Their pilots were generally better trained and flying reliable aircraft from well maintained and protected fields and flying against a depleted and demoralized force.

Had they had to deal with K-4s, Dora-9s, and Ta-152s flown by experienced pilots in large numbers, the Mustang would have been upgraded to a Packard Griffon engine, and the P-47M/N would have been combat ready by June of 1944. It wasn't necessary, so it didn't happen.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Jaws2002
07-08-2004, 09:06 AM
One thing that had a huge impact on the German deffences, and usually overlooked, is the fact that somewhere in May 1944 the bomber formations moved 2000 m higher.
This forced the FW-190 (the main bomber interceptor) to fight at altitudes it was not designed for.
Now the FW's had lower speed, needed longer to get there, and had time for less passes on the bombers. Add the superb performance of the P-51 at those altitudes, and you get exactly what happened.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/Uber2sm.jpg

taiterbud
07-08-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

???? ummm that is backwards.

SithSpeeder
07-08-2004, 09:14 AM
Look deeper into the website. There is the war diary of Capt. Ankeny which is quite interesting (from a historical perspective) and contains _no_ propaganda--just his memoirs of the sorties he went on. He died in 2004 with 2 airkills (109s) and I think 1 ground kill (an He-111). See http://cpcug.org/user/billb/hankeny/index.html .

Good find!

* _54th_Speeder *

http://members.cox.net/~ijhutch/_images/400x200sig.jpg

DONB3397
07-08-2004, 09:47 AM
Mirtma, that was an interesting read. Thanks for the link.

Horseback: your usual, well thought out post. Clearly, quality of training, fuel/lubricants and construction affected the LW near the end of the war. And, after Doolittle released escorting fighters, they were able to use the advantages of altitude and energy.

I wonder what the results would have been if Mustangs had been assigned to a defensive role. Allied pilots acknowledged that P-51 needed altitude and speed to succeed. What would have happened if the Mustang had been required to climb up to incoming bomber streams protected the large numbers of fighters...with altitude and speed advantage?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v243/DONB3397/SpitSig01b.jpg
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth

Eagle_361st
07-08-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Mirtma, that was an interesting read. Thanks for the link.

Horseback: your usual, well thought out post. Clearly, quality of training, fuel/lubricants and construction affected the LW near the end of the war. And, after Doolittle released escorting fighters, they were able to use the advantages of altitude and energy.

I wonder what the results would have been if Mustangs had been assigned to a defensive role. Allied pilots acknowledged that P-51 needed altitude and speed to succeed. What would have happened if the Mustang had been required to climb up to incoming bomber streams protected the large numbers of fighters...with altitude and speed advantage?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v243/DONB3397/SpitSig01b.jpg
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51 was never designed as an interceptor. More than likely we would have used Spitfires for that role. The P-51 was designed to escort and to take the fight to the enemies front door, and that is what she did.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

"Two weeks, be sure" Oleg Maddox

mortoma
07-08-2004, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by taiterbud:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

???? ummm that is backwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly what I thought. It must be backwards.

lrrp22
07-08-2004, 10:14 AM
Excellent post Horseback but I do think that your comment regarding K-4's and D-9's is a bit simplified. Tactical and strategic advantges aside, all those two aircrat did was level the playing field (the Ta-152H was too rare and too specialized to really affect things at normal combat altitudes). Neither was an overrall better fighter. The D-9 was very evenly matched with the Mustang while the K-4's advantage in climb rate and initial acceleration were somewhat negated by other performance factors.

Besides, the AAF didn't have to design a Griffon-engined Mustang- the P-51H was ready and would have dominated any Luftewaffe prop adversaries. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
One of the things you have to factor in is the 'up time', or availability, of German fighters compared to Allied fighters of the time. A Gruppe might have 40 fighters and pilots assigned to it, but after late 1943, they often had less than 25 aircraft able to take off at any time. Most of the rest were sitting in their revetments, awaiting parts or repair, and the majority of aircraft assigned cycled through the 'down for repairs' group during their careers, _even excepting combat damage._

While German fighter production was up, their overall quality was way down, and this often translated into pilots lacking faith in the planes they flew, much like you would lose faith in your car if it regularly broke down on you for no apparent reason. Your mechanic might tell you it's fixed, but you'll be apprehensive about 'pushing it' to its limits. The 'experten' could count on getting the best available aircraft and maintenance teams, but the average fighter pilot had no such support.

Throw in the poor quality fuel and lubricating oil available, and German fighters' performance were rarely up to ideal standards.

Also, you have to take American fighter doctrine into account. It called for them to stay high, stay fast and be aggressive, making the most of their relative strengths. At high altitudes, the Mustang had better performance than the majority of the fighters it faced _while it was making its reputation in early 1944._

Staying fast means that you don't have to accellerate quickly, and it allows you to run down an enemy aircraft that has just struggled up to your altitude and is still trying to get up to speed. At high speeds, the Mustang did (and does in the game) out turn the opposition. Given the Germans' almost reflexive tendency to dive away from trouble (after all, it always worked against the Tommies and the Ivans), its great advantage in diving accelleration and control made it a killer in its chosen environment.

In the game, we're playing with planes in their ideal condition, perfectly maintained and using high quality fuel, lubricating oils and coolant. A pilot flying German planes is not suffering the effects of poor quality foods and loss of sleep from the bombing of the night before. He's not afraid of dying or the likely results of Russian ground troops overrunning his home town. He hasn't seen dozens of pilots he knows were much more skilled than himself die in combat.

He often has hundreds of sorties' worth of experience, and has thoroughly learned his airplane, which hasn't been going through an ongoing series of modifications in armament and engines. He also knows what his opponents' planes can and can't do, because he's able to hop into one in a moment and try it out. In wartime, an accurate understanding of your relative strengths and weaknesses is learned the hard way, and if you make a wrong assumption at the wrong time, your lessons are permanently ended.

In short, the advantages the Mustang and the Allied air forces won through an extended air campaign to destroy and scatter German industry and lure up and destroy the Luftwaffe _are not in the game._ The Germans busted their tails to crank out improved and capable aircraft right to the end, but their infrastructure had been broken down to the point that they couldn't exploit these aircrafts' potentials.

The Allies were under no pressure to come up with greatly improved types by comparison, because the existing fighter force was more than adequate to the job. Their pilots were generally better trained and flying reliable aircraft from well maintained and protected fields and flying against a depleted and demoralized force.

Had they had to deal with K-4s, Dora-9s, and Ta-152s flown by experienced pilots in large numbers, the Mustang would have been upgraded to a Packard Griffon engine, and the P-47M/N would have been combat ready by June of 1944. It wasn't necessary, so it didn't happen.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

crazyivan1970
07-08-2004, 10:20 AM
This good enough for high school maybe...but damn lol

No offence to original poster, by all means

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

BaldieJr
07-08-2004, 10:23 AM
I predict MANY pages.

+1 (now the thread is usefull)

Owlsphone
07-08-2004, 10:26 AM
I thought the later 109s got a terrible turn rate when their weight went up. I'm not saying a Mustang could outturn say, a G2, but couldn't a Mustang outturn a late war 109?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Owlsphone/Sig.jpg
Vertically challenged since 1984.

DONB3397
07-08-2004, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This good enough for high school maybe...but damn lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where did this come from? Be patient. The young engineers will be along shortly with the same old climb, acceleration and turning charts. Will that raise the bar?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v243/DONB3397/SpitSig01b.jpg
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth

crazyivan1970
07-08-2004, 10:38 AM
The reason i said that... this "review" poped up on this forum not once... ORR, GD you name it. Just saying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

horseback
07-08-2004, 11:06 AM
irrp-

First, thanks for your kind comments. To answer:

The D-9 or K-4 with a decent quality of manufacture, fuel, lubes & maintenance (or simply put, a level playing field) would likely have had performance superior to the D model Mustang. None were ever obtained and seriously tested under ideal conditions, although the results obtained from Allied postwar tests of less than factory fresh a/c were disturbing.

As for the Griffon engine comment, it was quite a bit more powerful than the Merlin, and if the Mustang were hard-pressed or overmatched at its introduction, IMHO the direction of its evolution would have been altered to more power rather than lightening & aerodynamic refinement.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

F19_Ob
07-08-2004, 11:18 AM
I have come across the following standard tactic when a 109 got a p51 on their tail ; They used to dive away vertical, and if the p51's would follow they'd loose their wings.

This is an article by Mark Hanna about flying the 109:
Klick on "Flying the 109" and then "Mark hanna":
http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html

A quote from the article:

"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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Quotes:
"Now the big difference, talking about the airplanes we confronted. The Americans came in P-47 or P-38 or -P51. Their engines flew 7 hours with internal tank fuel, not external tank. We, and all continental aircraft, including the Spitfires, all the French planes, flew 1 hour 20. We had an external tank, but you had to drop the tank because it reduced mobility. This was a tremendous handicap against the Americans."
-------------------------------------------

" I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect. P-38. And I flew the Spitfire. The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but with a limited endurance like all the continental aircraft. So this was a good lecture for me."


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by F19_Ob on Thu July 08 2004 at 10:33 AM.]

horseback
07-08-2004, 11:23 AM
DonB3397/Eagle_361st:

I believe that as a defensive fighter, the Mustang would not be used as a classic interceptor. Its endurance would allow you to maintain standing combat air patrols over likely areas of ingress at a superior altitude, especially if we can assume that a comparable radar direction system was available as there was over Great Britain in late '43 to '45. Its speed would allow reinforcements to arrive and achieve position as the leading enemy elements were engaged by the CAPs.

Used in this way, it would certainly have been superior to the 109/190 combination as they had to be used in the Defense of the Reich role, asssuming equal numbers and availability, although the fuel and lube issue could have been equally problematic, assuming that the situation would have been allowed to become that dire.

It might have needed to be up gunned for heavy bombers, though. The Lightning was designed for the interceptor role, had a heavier punch and had a similar range capability. I might have preferred it for the job, but the Mustang would not have embarrassed itself.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

IL2-chuter
07-08-2004, 11:41 AM
" . . . the Mustang (Mustang III) could steadily outdive the Bf109G-6 and had no difficulty in out-turning the Messerschmitt."

"The roll rate and turning circle of the British fighter (Spitfire LF IX) was very much superior at all speeds" to the 109G-6.

"It was concluded that the Fw190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent."
" . . . the worst heights for its (Spitfire IX) pilot to engage the Fw190 in combat were between 18000 and 22000 ft (5485 and 6705 m), and at altitudes below 3000 ft (915 m).

Quotes from Eric Brown's Wings of the Luftwaffe.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

horseback
07-08-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
I have come across the following standard tactic when a 109 got a p51 on their tail ; They used to dive away vertical, and if the p51's would follow they'd loose their wings.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The losing the wings problem was much more endemic to the 109 than the Mustang, and largely anecdotal. The oft-cited example of Hub Zemke usually ignores the fact that he was caught in a thunderhead (modern F-15s don't fly into stormclouds voluntarily, and they are orders of magnitude stronger than a Mustang) a day or two after a sortie where he made an exceptionally long dive and sharp recovery. The other Mustangs in his flight made it back to base through the same weather system.

Given their favored tactics, Mustang drivers made (and survived) a lot more power dives than 109 drivers. After repeated dives and recoveries, it stands to reason that a few would have overstressed their airframes, and their intended victims might have come away with a skewed impression of relative airframe strengths.

Besides, diving straight down can be unnerving for the uninitiated, and if, like the lion, you're betting lunch rather than your life, you might choose to let the impala get away. If you're the impala, though, you don't have much of a choice.

Usually, if the Mustang was close enough to put a 109 into trouble, it was too close for the 109 to safely dive away. However, if the 109 peeled out before the Mustang had him in its sights, an overeager pursuit could end badly. Even with a speed advantage, there are some leads too great to overcome.

As Hanna points out, a smart Mustang driver isn't going to dogfight a 109 unless he is supremely skilled and confident. Low and slow, the 109 holds all the cards, but that's not where the bombers (or most of the Mustangs) were.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

gates123
07-08-2004, 11:57 AM
Harry's day by day accounts are a great read.

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

F19_Ob
07-08-2004, 12:11 PM
I'll be back to answer Horseback http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I dont agree....but have to eat now. See U soon.
(joking in friendly manner)
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 12:26 PM
Im not even going to bother. Yet another "Ow look! Someone posted about an American aircraft! Lets beat down on him" thread.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
One of the things you have to factor in is the 'up time', or availability, of German fighters compared to Allied fighters of the time. A Gruppe might have 40 fighters and pilots assigned to it, but after late 1943, they often had less than 25 aircraft able to take off at any time. Most of the rest were sitting in their revetments, awaiting parts or repair, and the majority of aircraft assigned cycled through the 'down for repairs' group during their careers, _even excepting combat damage._
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite. Until summer of '44 JGs received the roughly the same number of aircraft, then the number declined not because of decline in production, but because of poor supply. But what LW dramatically lacked from Spring of '44 were new pilots and fuel. USAAF stepped up the offesive 10 times in '44 compared to '43 (in number of sorties). A similar effort was done by British Bomber Command (which virtualy eliminated it as a force due incredible losses) and VVS. In '44 LW could barelly keep the number of sorties made in '43. Though the fuel quantities available to LW at the end of '44 were 5 times smaller than those at the beginning of '44, they kept almost the same number of sorties (mainly because bomber activity was almost suspended, fighters made short range sorties only).

The decrease in quality of the LW planes happened but nothing of the catastrophic you describe horseback. There were chronic problems with supply and maintenance beginning with summer of '44, which meant that usually only a half of a group force was maintained serviceable, but this happend also because there was no enough fuel to keep a full group in the air anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
While German fighter production was up, their overall quality was way down, and this often translated into pilots lacking faith in the planes they flew, much like you would lose faith in your car if it regularly broke down on you for no apparent reason. Your mechanic might tell you it's fixed, but you'll be apprehensive about 'pushing it' to its limits. The 'experten' could count on getting the best available aircraft and maintenance teams, but the average fighter pilot had no such support.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is really funny. German fighter pilots lacked the faith to fly their planes? Where have you read this??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Throw in the poor quality fuel and lubricating oil available, and German fighters' performance were rarely up to ideal standards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please quote the source for this. Scarcity yes, but poor quality?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, you have to take American fighter doctrine into account. It called for them to stay high, stay fast and be aggressive, making the most of their relative strengths. At high altitudes, the Mustang had better performance than the majority of the fighters it faced _while it was making its reputation in early 1944._ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You obviously never read charts to compare contemporary V-1710 and DB-605 variants. I'm sorry but V-1710-7 from P-51D was less powerful at altitude than DB-605D (and even ASC).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Staying fast means that you don't have to accellerate quickly, and it allows you to run down an enemy aircraft that has just struggled up to your altitude and is still trying to get up to speed. At high speeds, the Mustang did (and does in the game) out turn the opposition. Given the Germans' almost reflexive tendency to dive away from trouble (after all, it always worked against the Tommies and the Ivans), its great advantage in diving accelleration and control made it a killer in its chosen environment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mustang was a heavier plane but with worse power to weight ratio, so Bf-109 accelerates faster up to max speed in level flight, after that Mustang accelerates faster. Dive is a null match for those who know this, the winner is the one who picks the right speed for starting the dive. Fw-190 is similar but better than Mustang, because it has better power to weight and similar loaded weight.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In the game, we're playing with planes in their ideal condition, perfectly maintained and using high quality fuel, lubricating oils and coolant. A pilot flying German planes is not suffering the effects of poor quality foods and loss of sleep from the bombing of the night before. He's not afraid of dying or the likely results of Russian ground troops overrunning his home town. He hasn't seen dozens of pilots he knows were much more skilled than himself die in combat.

He often has hundreds of sorties' worth of experience, and has thoroughly learned his airplane, which hasn't been going through an ongoing series of modifications in armament and engines. He also knows what his opponents' planes can and can't do, because he's able to hop into one in a moment and try it out. In wartime, an accurate understanding of your relative strengths and weaknesses is learned the hard way, and if you make a wrong assumption at the wrong time, your lessons are permanently ended.

In short, the advantages the Mustang and the Allied air forces won through an extended air campaign to destroy and scatter German industry and lure up and destroy the Luftwaffe _are not in the game._ The Germans busted their tails to crank out improved and capable aircraft right to the end, but their infrastructure had been broken down to the point that they couldn't exploit these aircrafts' potentials.

The Allies were under no pressure to come up with greatly improved types by comparison, because the existing fighter force was more than adequate to the job. Their pilots were generally better trained and flying reliable aircraft from well maintained and protected fields and flying against a depleted and demoralized force.

Had they had to deal with K-4s, Dora-9s, and Ta-152s flown by experienced pilots in large numbers, the Mustang would have been upgraded to a Packard Griffon engine, and the P-47M/N would have been combat ready by June of 1944. It wasn't necessary, so it didn't happen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except the part with the equipment quality, I mostly agree with this last part.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now i'm confused http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
this means that the fw should turn better than the 109.
Strange http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's a dead old myth comming from British tests. Of course is not true.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Owlsphone:
I thought the later 109s got a terrible turn rate when their weight went up. I'm not saying a Mustang could outturn say, a G2, but couldn't a Mustang outturn a late war 109?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Owlsphone/Sig.jpg
Vertically challenged since 1984.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mustang also got heavier along it's development. No, Mustang could not outturn any 109 (both with standard equipment), not even early Mustangs compared with late war 109. No Mustang at loaded weight turned better than 22 sec, whereas K4, the heaviest 109, still turned in 21 sec.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
The reason i said that... this "review" poped up on this forum not once... ORR, GD you name it. Just saying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Maybe we should make those threads sticky. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
It's quite boring to have the same disccussion all over again.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
irrp-

First, thanks for your kind comments. To answer:

The D-9 or K-4 with a decent quality of manufacture, fuel, lubes & maintenance (or simply put, a level playing field) would likely have had performance superior to the D model Mustang. None were ever obtained and seriously tested under ideal conditions, although the results obtained from Allied postwar tests of less than factory fresh a/c were disturbing.

As for the Griffon engine comment, it was quite a bit more powerful than the Merlin, and if the Mustang were hard-pressed or overmatched at its introduction, IMHO the direction of its evolution would have been altered to more power rather than lightening & aerodynamic refinement.

cheers

horseback
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Switching from Allison to Merlin took more than 1 year (contract to squadron service). Developing a water injected Merlin also took more than 1 year. It's very hard to believe that switching from Merlin to Griffon would have take less than switching to a water injected Merlin. Keep in mind that Merlin equipped Mustang appeared in early '44.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
DonB3397/Eagle_361st:

I believe that as a defensive fighter, the Mustang would not be used as a classic interceptor. Its endurance would allow you to maintain standing combat air patrols over likely areas of ingress at a superior altitude, especially if we can assume that a comparable radar direction system was available as there was over Great Britain in late '43 to '45. Its speed would allow reinforcements to arrive and achieve position as the leading enemy elements were engaged by the CAPs.

Used in this way, it would certainly have been superior to the 109/190 combination as they had to be used in the Defense of the Reich role, asssuming equal numbers and availability, although the fuel and lube issue could have been equally problematic, assuming that the situation would have been allowed to become that dire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw-190A-8 had roughly the same fuel capacity with P-51D with the fuselage tank empty (which could take only 65 US gall even though its capacity was 90 US gall). Long range G variants of Fw-190 carried two external fuel tanks, giving excellent range for escort missions.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It might have needed to be up gunned for heavy bombers, though. The Lightning was designed for the interceptor role, had a heavier punch and had a similar range capability. I might have preferred it for the job, but the Mustang would not have embarrassed itself.

cheers

horseback
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are a dreamer Horseback, how do you think poorly armed and armored P-51 could make a serious bomber interceptor? Fortunatelly for P-51 pilots LW was strictly a tactical airforce, no huge bomber formations to intercept.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu July 08 2004 at 12:51 PM.]

lrrp22
07-08-2004, 01:29 PM
A misleading comparison Huckebein. You're penalizing the Mustang for having two and a half times the 109's internal fuel capacity.

Any P-51B/D had substantially better wingloading than any G-10/K-4 at similar fuel loads and will outturn the 109 at all but the lowest speeds. The historical record firmly supports this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Mustang also got heavier along it's development. No, Mustang could not outturn any 109 (both with standard equipment), not even early Mustangs compared with late war 109. No Mustang at loaded weight turned better than 22 sec, whereas K4, the heaviest 109, still turned in 21 sec.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004
07-08-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
A misleading comparison Huckebein. You're penalizing the Mustang for having two and a half times the 109's internal fuel capacity.

Any P-51B/D had substantially better wingloading than any G-10/K-4 at similar fuel loads and will outturn the 109 at all but the lowest speeds. The historical record firmly supports this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Mustang also got heavier along it's development. No, Mustang could not outturn any 109 (both with standard equipment), not even early Mustangs compared with late war 109. No Mustang at loaded weight turned better than 22 sec, whereas K4, the heaviest 109, still turned in 21 sec.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Horseback, it's really funny to see the Huckebein parade like that. It's like an avalanche. He must have all this stuff hot-keyed on his PC.

..... Huckebein - You write: "USAAF stepped up the offesive 10 times in '44 compared to '43 (in number of sorties). A similar effort was done by British Bomber Command (which virtualy eliminated it as a force due incredible losses)..."

If RAF Bomber Command was "virtually eliminated" as a force as you say, how was it that it was still putting up regular 800+ bomber raids over Germany in 1945? No question that Bomber Command took terrific losses, particularly through 1943, but it was hardly "eliminated" as you claim.

BLUTARSKI

Hoarmurath
07-08-2004, 03:20 PM
"better" wingloading? please define "better" wingloading.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
A misleading comparison Huckebein. You're penalizing the Mustang for having two and a half times the 109's internal fuel capacity.

Any P-51B/D had substantially better wingloading than any G-10/K-4 at similar fuel loads and will outturn the 109 at all but the lowest speeds. The historical record firmly supports this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If only wing loading was important in turning rates then gliders would be the best turners, but is not the case. Excess thrust to weight ratio is also as important as wing loading. A good estimation of thrust to weight ratio differences between planes can be given by comparing their power loadings. Though P-51Ds wing loading at half fuel might not be higher than of G10s at half fuel, P-51D power loading is much worse than of K4. You should face the reality lrrp, P-51 was good enough for an escort but underpowered for a fighter.

Let's see the numbers:

P-51D loaded weight is 10200lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: (180 + 65) US galls * 0.75 * 6lb / US gall = 1102.5 lb so the remaining weight is 9097.5 lb = 4126.55 kg

wing loading: 4126.55/21.83 = 189.03 kg/sqm
power loading: 4126.55/1620 = 2.55 kg/HP

Bf-109G-10: loaded weight is 7275lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: 106 US galls * 0.75 * 6lb /US gall = 477 lb,
the remaining weight is 6798 lb = 3083.52 kg

wing loading: 3083.52/16.05 = 192.12 kg/sqm
power loading: 3083.52/1800 = 1.71 kg/HP


So nearly the same wing loading, though much worse powerloading (50% worse!!!)
I used 25% fuel for those who still think that Mustang should turn with 109 online.

lrrp22
07-08-2004, 03:37 PM
Lower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
"better" wingloading? please define "better" wingloading.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 03:44 PM
So the P-51 had less horsepower, much heavier, and was faster. I guess thats all attributed to aerodynamics? Also, aerodynamics is also a contributing factor for acrobatic performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

So nearly the same wing loading, though much worse powerloading (50% worse!!!)
I used 25% fuel for those who still think that Mustang should turn with 109 online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Lower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
"better" wingloading? please define "better" wingloading.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Read the numbers I posted. Wing loading for P-51D and Bf-109G-10 is aprox the same at 25% fuel, and this does not take into consideration the effect of slats and the fact that P-51 had a thinner airfoil (that produced less lift for the same wing area). Also P-51D power loading is much worse, 50% worse at 25% fuel load!!!

With full fuel 109 scores much better than P-51.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So the P-51 had less horsepower, much heavier, and was faster. I guess thats all attributed to aerodynamics? Also, aerodynamics is also a contributing factor for acrobatic performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

So nearly the same wing loading, though much worse powerloading (50% worse!!!)
I used 25% fuel for those who still think that Mustang should turn with 109 online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, it wasn't faster. G-10 was about 10km/h faster at sea level. P-51D and K-4 had nearly the same flat plate, so for similar power they have the same max speed. G-10 was slightly less clean than K4, but close. Weight has nothing to do with max speed.

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 03:59 PM
Your always compairing "flat plate" area. But thats only VERY basic aerodynamics. A brick can have the same flat plate area as a spear, but the sprear will be more aerodynamic because of the smooth surfaces that cuts through the air. The P-51 is smooth flowing lines wile the 109 has a lot of harsh flat edges. ITS NOT AS AERODYNAMIC! And yes, weight DOES have something to do with MAX SPEED because the engine needs to compensate for that weight. Why do you think race cars are made so light? Why do you think Reno air racers strip aircraft down?

Your not making any logic here. Your twisting things to fit your own warped agenda. I guess you are Huck!!!! Why the name change Huck? Were is Issy?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So the P-51 had less horsepower, much heavier, and was faster. I guess thats all attributed to aerodynamics? Also, aerodynamics is also a contributing factor for acrobatic performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

So nearly the same wing loading, though much worse powerloading (50% worse!!!)
I used 25% fuel for those who still think that Mustang should turn with 109 online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, it wasn't faster. G-10 was about 10km/h faster at sea level. P-51D and K-4 had nearly the same flat plate, so for similar power they have the same max speed. G-10 was slightly less clean than K4, but close. Weight has nothing to do with max speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
07-08-2004, 04:19 PM
Huckebein,

Here are various wingloadings vs. fuel states that I posted some months ago:

-------
"Full fuel weights for the Mustangs are P-51D/10100 lbs; P-51B-15/9800; P-51B-1/9200. Fuel weight is calculated at 6 lbs/gallon.

Weights for the K-4 are from the Object Viewer and weights for the D-9 (9442 lbs) come from the Jagdhund Dora sight.

wingloading (lbs/sq. ft):

Bf 109K-4@100%-----42.27---106 gal
Bf 109K-4@ 50%-----40.46---53
Bf 109K-4@ 25%-----39.56---26.5

Fw 190A-9@100%-----49.25---168?

Fw 190D-9@100%-----47.93---168 gal
Fw 190D-9@ 50%-----45.37---84
Fw 190D-9@ 25%-----44.09---42

P-51D@100%---------43.35---269 gal
P-51D@ 25%---------38.15---67.25

P-51B-15NA@100%----42.06---269 gal
P-51B-15NA@ 25%----36.87---67.25

P-51B-1NA@100%-----39.48---184 gal
P-51B-1NA@ 25%-----35.93---46"
--------

Note that at 25% fuel (26.5 gal) the K-4's wingloading is still higher than the P-51D's at 25% (67.25 gal), more so when compared to the B/C's. At 50% fuel, the K-4's wingloading disadvantage is further increasing yet the K-4 is still carrying 14 gallons (22%) less fuel than the P-51 at 25%.

At 25% fuel the K-4 had better be heading for home while the Mustang still has plenty of fight left. 25% fuel is just not an option for the 109.

I'm sure you'll now post all kinds of reasons why wingloading is now irrelevant, but there it is.

Where is you proof that the G-10 (or K-4) is faster at low level than the Mustang? The Object Viewer? Do you still believe that ETO Mustangs were limited to 67" WEP and 100/130 grade fuel?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Lower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
"better" wingloading? please define "better" wingloading.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)


Read the numbers I posted. Wing loading for P-51D and Bf-109G-10 is aprox the same at 25% fuel, and this does not take into consideration the effect of slats and the fact that P-51 had a thinner airfoil (that produced less lift for the same wing area). Also P-51D power loading is much worse, 50% worse at 25% fuel load!!!

With full fuel 109 scores much better than P-51.&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu July 08 2004 at 03:28 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
A misleading comparison Huckebein. You're penalizing the Mustang for having two and a half times the 109's internal fuel capacity.

Any P-51B/D had substantially better wingloading than any G-10/K-4 at similar fuel loads and will outturn the 109 at all but the lowest speeds. The historical record firmly supports this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Mustang also got heavier along it's development. No, Mustang could not outturn any 109 (both with standard equipment), not even early Mustangs compared with late war 109. No Mustang at loaded weight turned better than 22 sec, whereas K4, the heaviest 109, still turned in 21 sec.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Horseback, it's really funny to see the Huckebein parade like that. It's like an avalanche. He must have all this stuff hot-keyed on his PC.

..... Huckebein - You write: "USAAF stepped up the offesive 10 times in '44 compared to '43 (in number of sorties). A similar effort was done by British Bomber Command (which virtualy eliminated it as a force due incredible losses)..."

If RAF Bomber Command was "virtually eliminated" as a force as you say, how was it that it was still putting up regular 800+ bomber raids over Germany in 1945? No question that Bomber Command took terrific losses, particularly through 1943, but it was hardly "eliminated" as you claim.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand your frustation when people discuss P-51. Not much good to hear about it.

Though completely outside the topic I'll post some statistics to understand how awful were the losses BC had suffered from '43 to the beginning of '44, when they suspended the offensive against Germany.

Read the losses vs nominal stregth for Lancaster or Hallifax in '43 or '44. They had 400% losses!!! No wonder that BC crews nerves cracked at the begining of the '44, when more and more crews started to drop the bombs after they crossed the Channel and went back. Even the "untouchable" Mossie crews did not feel that untouchable, they gained a bad reputation after they started to drop the "cookies" in the North Sea and return.

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/BC.jpg

In the second table you can see the total losses BC command had durring one year: 5881 planes written off!!! from which more than half were heavy bombers. Of course those losses could not be absorbed by BC so they admitted the defeat and did not return over Germany until basically very few twin engine planes still operated with LW (in '45). Of course they still had operations over Western Europe in '44, but of small importance.

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/BC2.jpg

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu July 08 2004 at 06:55 PM.]

Abbuzze
07-08-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now i'm confused http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
this means that the fw should turn better than the 109.
Strange http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It just show you how you should rate this source! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hmm 50mph faster, maybe this is a hint, they comparing a clean P51 with a 109 G6/R6 Bomberdestroyer, with gunpods the turnrate of the G6 was realy worse than without...

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Your always compairing "flat plate" area. But thats only VERY basic aerodynamics. A brick can have the same flat plate area as a spear, but the sprear will be more aerodynamic because of the smooth surfaces that cuts through the air. The P-51 is smooth flowing lines wile the 109 has a lot of harsh flat edges. ITS NOT AS AERODYNAMIC! And yes, weight DOES have something to do with MAX SPEED because the engine needs to compensate for that weight. Why do you think race cars are made so light? Why do you think Reno air racers strip aircraft down?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You obviously do not understand what "flat plate" area is. Unfortunatelly this takes more than 1 paragraph explanation, I can't do it right now, though I might try it later, for the sake of having a meaningful conversation. For now is enough to say that if two objects have the same flat plate and are pushed with the same thrust they will reach the same max speed (this won't happen in your brick/spear comparison). How fast this speed will be reached depends on the weight of the two objects, the lighter object will have a better acceleration.

Weight effects on max speed is another wide topic. Your comparison with cars is completelly irrelevant. Again I'll say a true affirmation that is enough for our discussion. A plane with the aerodynamic config of a ww2 fighter has almost the same max speed at full internal fuel load with max speed at half internal fuel load. The reason for this is because weight gives only more induced drag (drag produced by lift, if you have more weight you need more lift, therefore you also have more induced drag), but at max speed induced drag is about 3 to 5% of the total drag (for a ww2 fighter config), which means that variations in weight like those caused by fuel consumption have very little effects over max speed.

lrrp22
07-08-2004, 04:40 PM
[/QUOTE]

I understand your frustation when people discuss P-51. Not much good to hear about it.

[/QUOTE]

Huckebein/Magister,

A statement like that says just about all that needs to be said regarding your level of objectivity.


BTW, how is that U.S.-supplied post-graduate work of yours coming along?

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 04:45 PM
Read again my post lrrp. And pay attention to weights because they are wrong. 10200 is the loaded weight for P-51D, this is the value from the manual. I also have the manual for P-51B, I'll post the weight from there when I'll get home. Weight for P-51B-1 if correct is certainly not a representative value. P-51B got even the fuselage fuel tank soon after they entered in service. But let's see what the manual says. Until then enjoy a correct comparison between P-51D and Bf-109G-10.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

If only wing loading was important in turning rates then gliders would be the best turners, but is not the case. Excess thrust to weight ratio is also as important as wing loading. A good estimation of thrust to weight ratio differences between planes can be given by comparing their power loadings. Though P-51Ds wing loading at half fuel might not be higher than of G10s at half fuel, P-51D power loading is much worse than of K4. You should face the reality lrrp, P-51 was good enough for an escort but underpowered for a fighter.

Let's see the numbers:

P-51D loaded weight is 10200lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: (180 + 65) US galls * 0.75 * 6lb / US gall = 1102.5 lb so the remaining weight is 9097.5 lb = 4126.55 kg

wing loading: 4126.55/21.83 = 189.03 kg/sqm
power loading: 4126.55/1620 = 2.55 kg/HP

Bf-109G-10: loaded weight is 7275lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: 106 US galls * 0.75 * 6lb /US gall = 477 lb,
the remaining weight is 6798 lb = 3083.52 kg

wing loading: 3083.52/16.05 = 192.12 kg/sqm
power loading: 3083.52/1800 = 1.71 kg/HP


So nearly the same wing loading, though much worse powerloading (50% worse!!!)
I used 25% fuel for those who still think that Mustang should turn with 109 online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I understand your frustation when people discuss P-51. Not much good to hear about it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huckebein/Magister,

A statement like that says just about all that needs to be said regarding your level of objectivity.


BTW, how is that U.S.-supplied post-graduate work of yours coming along?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



How about inversing the order: Magister Huckebein sounds even nicer, don't you think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Otherwise I'm fine thank you. Just that it isn't post-graduate, just graduate, and I'm privately sponsored by the lab, not by US gov.

LuftLuver
07-08-2004, 04:51 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I suppose folks such as this Lagister_Mudi will never be able to choke down the fact that the P51 was a superb aeroplane that played a huge role in winning the war.

A toast to the uninformed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.zap16.com/images/lb01_p51_e2_z_2.jpg

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I suppose folks such as this Lagister_Mudi will never be able to choke down the fact that the P51 was a superb aeroplane that played a huge role in winning the war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm sorry but I enjoy more the version proposed by our friend lrrp: Magister Huckebein.

And to me P-51 looks gorgeous too and it did play a very important role in the war.

lrrp22
07-08-2004, 04:56 PM
Wrong? I don't think so. 10,1000 lbs is well within a P-51D's normal fully-loaded range of 10,100 to 10,176 lbs. Besides, you're talking less than a 1% difference. In fact, the weights I posted for the P-51B-15 and B-1 are a little on the heavy side.

Full internal fuel for a P-51D is 269 gal, not 245. The decision to limit the fuselage tank to 65 gal was an operational one and is not reflected in typically quoted gross weights.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Read again my post lrrp. And pay attention to weights because they are wrong. 10200 is the loaded weight for P-51D, this is the value from the manual. I also have the manual for P-51B, I'll post the weight from there when I'll get home. Weight for P-51B-1 if correct is certainly not a representative value. P-51B got even the fuselage fuel tank soon after they entered in service. But let's see what the manual says. Until then enjoy a correct comparison between P-51D and Bf-109G-10.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

If only wing loading was important in turning rates then gliders would be the best turners, but is not the case. Excess thrust to weight ratio is also as important as wing loading. A good estimation of thrust to weight ratio differences between planes can be given by comparing their power loadings. Though P-51Ds wing loading at half fuel might not be higher than of G10s at half fuel, P-51D power loading is much worse than of K4. You should face the reality lrrp, P-51 was good enough for an escort but underpowered for a fighter.

Let's see the numbers:

P-51D loaded weight is 10200lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: (180 + 65) US galls * 0.75 * 6lb / US gall = 1102.5 lb so the remaining weight is 9097.5 lb = 4126.55 kg

wing loading: 4126.55/21.83 = 189.03 kg/sqm
power loading: 4126.55/1620 = 2.55 kg/HP

Bf-109G-10: loaded weight is 7275lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: 106 US galls * 0.75 * 6lb /US gall = 477 lb,
the remaining weight is 6798 lb = 3083.52 kg

wing loading: 3083.52/16.05 = 192.12 kg/sqm
power loading: 3083.52/1800 = 1.71 kg/HP


So nearly the same wing loading, though much worse powerloading (50% worse!!!)
I used 25% fuel for those who still think that Mustang should turn with 109 online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong? I don't think so. 10,1000 lbs is well within a P-51D's normal fully-loaded range of 10,100 to 10,176 lbs. Besides, you're talking less than a 1% difference. In fact, the weights I posted for the P-51B-15 and B-1 are a little on the heavy side.

Full internal fuel for a P-51D is 269 gal, not 245. The decision to limit the fuselage tank to 65 gal was an operational one and is not reflected in typically quoted gross weights.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In the manual of P-51D the load limit for the fuselage tank is clearly stated at 65 US gall, and the loaded weight takes that into consideration. But if you want to redo the calculation for 10176lb go ahead, it won't make any difference.

lrrp22
07-08-2004, 05:16 PM
You're powerloading is off for the Mustang. You are comparing the G-10's best hp output (btw, why the G-10 instead of the K-4 all of a sudden?) to the Mustang's sea level/67" WEP power. Operational P-51B/D best output is anywhere from 1720 to 2020 hp.

USAAF tested weight for the P-51D was 10100 lbs, 10176 for manufacturer tested weight. I believe those weights represent full 269 gal internal fuel.


How about 'Magiebein Huckster'? Just kind of rolls of the tongue, doesn't it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm glad to hear your education is going well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Wrong? I don't think so. 10,1000 lbs is well within a P-51D's normal fully-loaded range of 10,100 to 10,176 lbs. Besides, you're talking less than a 1% difference. In fact, the weights I posted for the P-51B-15 and B-1 are a little on the heavy side.

Full internal fuel for a P-51D is 269 gal, not 245. The decision to limit the fuselage tank to 65 gal was an operational one and is not reflected in typically quoted gross weights.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In the manual of P-51D the load limit for the fuselage tank is clearly stated at 65 US gall, and the loaded weight takes that into consideration. But if you want to redo the calculation for 10176lb go ahead, it won't make any difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAF74_Buzzsaw
07-08-2004, 05:20 PM
Salute

Once again Magister Ludi/Huckbein shows his lack of knowledge by providing incorrect data.

Huck do you actually think the rest of us have not read the actual charts? Your figure for 10,200 lbs applies when the fuselage tank is filled to its maximum 85 gallons. The D model carried 269 gallons of fuel. Anyone who bothers to do the simplest level of research can discover that.

So first of all he posts the incorrect fuel load for the P-51, then he posts the incorrect horsepower rating for the P-51's engine.

Its peak horsepower can be seen from this chart for the Packard Merlin:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg

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 aircraft without drop tanks) The La-7 had a similar radius to the 109's.

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 at normal loaded weight.

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.

The B model P-51 would have even better wingloading than the D. And the K4 would be worse than the G10.

Bearcat99
07-08-2004, 05:32 PM
More popcorn...and bring me a beer will ya?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

NegativeGee
07-08-2004, 05:39 PM
Sure Bear, tuck in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/bobbanka/bobbankaheader.jpg

So what sort of beer we having? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Oh, nearly forgot, Magister_Ludi, you posted the same table twice re: Bomber Command losses. Could you post the table "Read the losses vs nominal stregth for Lancaster or Hallifax in '43 or '44."

Cheers.

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Thu July 08 2004 at 04:50 PM.]

horseback
07-08-2004, 07:04 PM
I have to watch my weight, because my wingloading has gone waay up over the last two-three years, so I'll have a lite beer and skip the popcorn. Did he bring up the 109's superior FOV compared to the D-model Mustang yet?

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
You're powerloading is off for the Mustang. You are comparing the G-10's best hp output (btw, why the G-10 instead of the K-4 all of a sudden?) to the Mustang's sea level/67" WEP power. Operational P-51B/D best output is anywhere from 1720 to 2020 hp.

USAAF tested weight for the P-51D was 10100 lbs, 10176 for manufacturer tested weight. I believe those weights represent full 269 gal internal fuel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1800HP is not the peak output for G-10, it's only the max output at sea level. The same for 1650-7, 1620HP is not the peak output, only the max output at sea level. However, 2020HP for 1650-7 is fantasy of yours, please keep it private.

And 245 US galls is the max internal fuel for P-51D, I'll post the chart below in a few minutes.

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 07:53 PM
2020 hp is the hp on 115/145 fuel at 80" hg. I believe someone around here posted some evidence that this fuel was used by the USAAF in the Pacific.

lrrp is correct.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 07:54 PM
Once your done editing it in Photoshop? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

And 245 US galls is the max internal fuel for P-51D, I'll post the chart below in a few minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Sure Bear, tuck in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/bobbanka/bobbankaheader.jpg

So what sort of beer we having? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Oh, nearly forgot, Magister_Ludi, you posted the same table twice re: Bomber Command losses. Could you post the table "Read the losses vs nominal stregth for Lancaster or Hallifax in '43 or '44."

Cheers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I corrected the link, you can read the table now. The source is "The Luftwaffe, 1933-45: Strategy for Defeat" Murray W

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Keep in mind that Merlin equipped Mustang appeared in early '44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Late 1943

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
2020 hp is the hp on 115/145 fuel at 80" hg. I believe someone around here posted some evidence that this fuel was used by the USAAF in the Pacific.

lrrp is correct.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do believe that 115/145 fuel was used in Pacific, but no Mustang squad used it beside short trials.

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

You are a dreamer Horseback, how do you think poorly armed and armored P-51 could make a serious bomber interceptor? Fortunatelly for P-51 pilots LW was strictly a tactical airforce, no huge bomber formations to intercept.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu July 08 2004 at 12:51 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had no huge bomber formations because they they had no huge bombers to form them. Reliable ones, at least. Universally recognized and one of Germany's greatest blunders.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Keep in mind that Merlin equipped Mustang appeared in early '44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Late 1943

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In december '43 were the first missions. Too little time to be considered a '43 fighter, there was a whole thread on the subject.

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
I do believe that 115/145 fuel was used in Pacific, but no Mustang squad used it beside short trials.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The evidence posted indicated it was used by Mustang squadrons escorting B-29s.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
In december '43 were the first missions. Too little time to be considered a '43 fighter, there was a whole thread on the subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, you were wrong. Though I'd point that out.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Once your done editing it in Photoshop? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

And 245 US galls is the max internal fuel for P-51D, I'll post the chart below in a few minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Seems that somebody else did it 50 years before me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

You are a dreamer Horseback, how do you think poorly armed and armored P-51 could make a serious bomber interceptor? Fortunatelly for P-51 pilots LW was strictly a tactical airforce, no huge bomber formations to intercept.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu July 08 2004 at 12:51 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had no huge bomber formations because they they had no huge bombers to form them. Reliable ones, at least. Universally recognized and one of Germany's greatest blunders.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


They had 1000 He-177, which had far less troubles than the 1500 B-29 that USAAF used in Pacific and lost 500, most of them in accidents cause by the engines (1/3 of the B-29 force lost, quite a lot considering the short period of usage and the fact that for most of the time they encoutered no oposition).

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

And to me P-51 looks gorgeous too and it did play a very important role in the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The role of decimating the superior Bf-109 over its own bases?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
I do believe that 115/145 fuel was used in Pacific, but no Mustang squad used it beside short trials.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The evidence posted indicated it was used by Mustang squadrons escorting B-29s.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nonsense. The high boosted Mustang could not be used for more than short intercept missions. Escort was out of the question, spark plugs could not take it, in short time the engine was running very rough, which pilots found disconcerting and the trials were suspended.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

And to me P-51 looks gorgeous too and it did play a very important role in the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The role of decimating the superior Bf-109 over its own bases?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Skychimp daydreaming...

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
In december '43 were the first missions. Too little time to be considered a '43 fighter, there was a whole thread on the subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, you were wrong. Though I'd point that out.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No I wasn't. There were a few missions in december '43 but they were suspended because of technical difficulties. Merlin Mustang presence was not felt until the Spring of '44.

Slickun
07-08-2004, 08:14 PM
We go through this periodically, huh?

The decisive air battles for air superiority over Europe took place in Jan-May 1944. A few long ranged escorts enabled the daylight bombing campaign over Germany to continue after its near demise in Oct 1943.

A few groups of P-51's and P-38's were the instrument of the LW's defeat. P-51B's and C's did it. The D's came along after the situation was pretty much decided.

The hiding place for LW supporters and anti-Mustang folks...namely, P-51's came along late and only faced the LW 's replacements, and in overwhelming numbers is just not factual.

Slow speed turning was shown to be not nearly as important as performance and range in WW2 anyway. The P-51 went fast, went far, fought you from the ground up over your place, turned and rolled fantastically at high speeds, dove and zoomed like a champ.....and this was the winning ticket, not wing loading and slow speed turning. Irrelevant.

No one has attempted to debunk the articles basic premise...that long range fighters had an immense effect on the war in Europe. We are arguing instead about wing loading?

Somebody mention one notch of flaps at 400 IAS, how 'bout it? Figure the wing loading out for that.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
We go through this periodically, huh?

The decisive air battles for air superiority over Europe took place in Jan-May 1944. A few long ranged escorts enabled the daylight bombing campaign over Germany to continue after its near demise in Oct 1943.

A few groups of P-51's and P-38's were the instrument of the LW's defeat. P-51B's and C's did it. The D's came along after the situation was pretty much decided.

The hiding place for LW supporters and anti-Mustang folks...namely, P-51's came along late and only faced the LW 's replacements, and in overwhelming numbers is just not factual.

Slow speed turning was shown to be not nearly as important as performance and range in WW2 anyway. The P-51 went fast, went far, fought you from the ground up over your place, turned and rolled fantastically at high speeds, dove and zoomed like a champ.....and this was the winning ticket, not wing loading and slow speed turning. Irrelevant.

No one has attempted to debunk the articles basic premise...that long range fighters had an immense effect on the war in Europe. We are arguing instead about wing loading?

Somebody mention one notch of flaps at 400 IAS, how 'bout it? Figure the wing loading out for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree with you, long range fighter were the basic ingredient of the success of USAAF daylight campaign against Germany. But some people just can't take the fact Mustang was too underpowered to be a real fighter (constricted to the escort role).

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

They had 1000 He-177, which had far less troubles than the 1500 B-29 that USAAF used in Pacific and lost 500, most of them in accidents cause by the engines (1/3 of the B-29 force lost, quite a lot considering the short period of usage and the fact that for most of the time they encoutered no oposition).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The He-177 mantra plays again. Probably the most unreliable plane ever made.

500 B-29s lost? That's interesting. And from where do you draw that information?

XX and XXI AFs used the B-29. USAAF counts for losses are 74 B-29 lost to enemy AF, 54 to AA, and 19 enemy A/C and AA, 267 to other causes. That's 414.

The difference is that the B-29 made a difference and was an effective bomber. Germany had nothing like it.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Skychimp daydreaming...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are seriously suggesting that Bf-109 wasn't dominated over it's own airfields? You mean Germany was able to maintain air superiority throughout thewar?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 08:29 PM
Were did He-177's and B-29's come from in a post about P-51's? WTF? Classic Huck. Obscure the truth in smoke and mirrors while you distract them by useless stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

They had 1000 He-177, which had far less troubles than the 1500 B-29 that USAAF used in Pacific and lost 500, most of them in accidents cause by the engines (1/3 of the B-29 force lost, quite a lot considering the short period of usage and the fact that for most of the time they encoutered no oposition).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Nonsense. The high boosted Mustang could not be used for more than short intercept missions. Escort was out of the question, spark plugs could not take it, in short time the engine was running very rough, which pilots found disconcerting and the trials were suspended.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huck, spark plug performance issues generally happen at low rpms, not high, because of lower heat. Revving to high RPMs "cleaned" the plugs. And yes, there were problems, no doubt about it. But they were overcome. And 115/145 was used for escoprt missions.

"To control the air speed at 210 MPH indicated, the throttle was wide open and the RPM reduced or increased with the propeller control. As the aircraft got lighter and particularly on the way home the pilot had to go to every lowering RPM in the 1,600 to 1,800 range. This of course caused the engines run very cool. The Command had begun using the 115/145 Octane leaded gasoline. This caused "lead" globules to form on the spark plugs shorting them out. The loss of even one plug out of 24 made the engine run very rough. This was most disconcerting to the pilots. It was found that by running the engine at full RPM and manifold pressure periodically during the cruise portion of the mission helped greatly to prevent the fouling from occurring. It was a long enough ride home without all the problems. This first mission and those that followed averaged about seven and a half hours."

http://www.glorene.com/aviation/7th/history.htm



Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Thu July 08 2004 at 07:43 PM.]

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
No I wasn't. There were a few missions in december '43 but they were suspended because of technical difficulties. Merlin Mustang presence was not felt until the Spring of '44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a minute, first you said:

Keep in mind that Merlin equipped Mustang appeared in early '44.

Then you said:

In december '43 were the first missions.

One of those statements MUST be wrong.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Maple_Tiger
07-08-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
We go through this periodically, huh?

The decisive air battles for air superiority over Europe took place in Jan-May 1944. A few long ranged escorts enabled the daylight bombing campaign over Germany to continue after its near demise in Oct 1943.

A few groups of P-51's and P-38's were the instrument of the LW's defeat. P-51B's and C's did it. The D's came along after the situation was pretty much decided.

The hiding place for LW supporters and anti-Mustang folks...namely, P-51's came along late and only faced the LW 's replacements, and in overwhelming numbers is just not factual.

Slow speed turning was shown to be not nearly as important as performance and range in WW2 anyway. The P-51 went fast, went far, fought you from the ground up over your place, turned and rolled fantastically at high speeds, dove and zoomed like a champ.....and this was the winning ticket, not wing loading and slow speed turning. Irrelevant.

No one has attempted to debunk the articles basic premise...that long range fighters had an immense effect on the war in Europe. We are arguing instead about wing loading?

Somebody mention one notch of flaps at 400 IAS, how 'bout it? Figure the wing loading out for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree with you, long range fighter were the basic ingredient of the success of USAAF daylight campaign against Germany. But some people just can't take the fact Mustang was too underpowered to be a real fighter (constricted to the escort role).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your saying that one on one, that the P-51 would not stand a chance.


I guess some of the US pilots where lying then. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

SkyChimp
07-08-2004, 08:46 PM
You know I'm just messing with you Huck. You're like Ralph Nader. You have few supporters, you know you lost before you start, but you still put on the game face. You gotta love it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

They had 1000 He-177, which had far less troubles than the 1500 B-29 that USAAF used in Pacific and lost 500, most of them in accidents cause by the engines (1/3 of the B-29 force lost, quite a lot considering the short period of usage and the fact that for most of the time they encoutered no oposition).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The He-177 mantra plays again. Probably the most unreliable plane ever made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you justify you opinion how?
Take a look at the groups that operated the He-177 and see that He-177 losses were comparable or even lower than those of the rest German bombers (scroll at the bottom of the page, and look at each group that used He-177, the links below are for bomber wings):

http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg1.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg40.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg50.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg100.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
500 B-29s lost? That's interesting. And from where do you draw that information? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

USAAF official statistics are good enough for you? follow the link:
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t101.pdf


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The difference is that the B-29 made a difference and was an effective bomber. Germany had nothing like it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree that B-29 made a difference whereas He-177 was a lost oportunity. But that has nothing to do with the capabilities He-177 had. He-177 had two major drawbacks: huge adversity from RLM (Milch and Goering especially) and lack of interest from LW part for a long range campaign. Engine problems were not an issue from mid '43 (large scale service began in late '43).

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Nonsense. The high boosted Mustang could not be used for more than short intercept missions. Escort was out of the question, spark plugs could not take it, in short time the engine was running very rough, which pilots found disconcerting and the trials were suspended.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huck, spark plug performance issues generally happen at low rpms, not high, because of lower heat. Revving to high RPMs "cleaned" the plugs. And yes, there were problems, no doubt about it. But they were overcome. And 115/145 was used for escoprt missions.

"To control the air speed at 210 MPH indicated, the throttle was wide open and the RPM reduced or increased with the propeller control. As the aircraft got lighter and particularly on the way home the pilot had to go to every lowering RPM in the 1,600 to 1,800 range. This of course caused the engines run very cool. The Command had begun using the 115/145 Octane leaded gasoline. This caused "lead" globules to form on the spark plugs shorting them out. The loss of even one plug out of 24 made the engine run very rough. This was most disconcerting to the pilots. It was found that by running the engine at full RPM and manifold pressure periodically during the cruise portion of the mission helped greatly to prevent the fouling from occurring. It was a long enough ride home without all the problems. This first mission and those that followed averaged about seven and a half hours."

http://www.glorene.com/aviation/7th/history.htm



_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this THE SOURCE that proves that Mustang used operationally 115/145 fuel?
I think you are kidding.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
No I wasn't. There were a few missions in december '43 but they were suspended because of technical difficulties. Merlin Mustang presence was not felt until the Spring of '44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a minute, first you said:

_Keep in mind that Merlin equipped Mustang appeared in early '44._

Then you said:

_In december '43 were the first missions._

One of those statements MUST be wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Both are true. A start of service was tried in December, after delays, but suspended after troubles. Effective service started in '44.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Were did He-177's and B-29's come from in a post about P-51's? WTF? Classic Huck. Obscure the truth in smoke and mirrors while you distract them by useless stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The smoke screen belongs to Skychimp. He wants to deviate the discussion from P-51 where he knows he has no chance, to bombers where he feels more safe.

However I made earlier a comparison between B-29 and He-177, there are amazing analogies between the two. I like both. Read here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=900105984&r=753109005#753109005

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 09:42 PM
Huck. I have a quick question for you. I just want to clerify something. You use the "Flat plane area" in your post's about the aerodynamics of the 109. I just want to make sure you and I are thinking the same thing here.

My BASIC understanding is the "flat plane area" is the ammount of forward area on an object. For instance.

http://www.gibbageart.com/fp01.jpg

Those two objects are facing the camera and have roughly the same surface area forward. So they would have the same "flat plane area"? And therefor would have the same aerodynamics?

Im just trying to understand a little. Please clerify it for me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Were did He-177's and B-29's come from in a post about P-51's? WTF? Classic Huck. Obscure the truth in smoke and mirrors while you distract them by useless stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The smoke screen belongs to Skychimp. He wants to deviate the discussion from P-51 where he knows he has no chance, to bombers where he feels more safe.

However I made earlier a comparison between B-29 and He-177, there are amazing analogies between the two. I like both. Read here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=900105984&r=753109005#753109005&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=900105984&r=753109005#753109005<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

Once again Magister Ludi/Huckbein shows his lack of knowledge by providing incorrect data.

Huck do you actually think the rest of us have not read the actual charts? Your figure for 10,200 lbs applies when the fuselage tank is filled to its maximum 85 gallons. The D model carried 269 gallons of fuel. Anyone who bothers to do the simplest level of research can discover that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course this is wrong. The chart from P-51D manual clearly states that max internal fuel load is 245 US gall

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51FQD.jpg

10200lb is the loaded weight of P-51D fitted with wing racks for external fuel tanks. Again, read the chart:

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51NPC.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So first of all he posts the incorrect fuel load for the P-51, then he posts the incorrect horsepower rating for the P-51's engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mistakes belong to you dear Buzzsaw. Read the charts above until you'll finally learn the correct values at least for your favourite aircraft.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Its peak horsepower can be seen from this chart for the Packard Merlin:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



The chart shows 1590HP max power at sea level. That's even worse than value I posted. However, in service 1650-7 was uprated to 1620HP at sea level (for a further decrease in critical altitude).

After you made so many mistakes for P-51, I cannot credit the rest of your post with the least of credibility and I have no further desire to correct your errors (I just read the part with Mustang having 4 times the range despite 2 times the fuel load of Bf109 - don't you see it cannot be right, obviously you are comparing planes in different cruising regime). Therefore if you want to continue the comparison between P-51D and Bf-109G-10 we will start with the data I already posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If only wing loading was important in turning rates then gliders would be the best turners, but is not the case. Excess thrust to weight ratio is also as important as wing loading. A good estimation of thrust to weight ratio differences between planes can be given by comparing their power loadings. Though P-51Ds wing loading at half fuel might not be higher than of G10s at half fuel, P-51D power loading is much worse than of K4. You should face the reality lrrp, P-51 was good enough for an escort but underpowered for a fighter.

Let's see the numbers:

P-51D loaded weight is 10200lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: (180 + 65) US galls * 0.75 * 6lb / US gall = 1102.5 lb so the remaining weight is 9097.5 lb = 4126.55 kg

wing loading: 4126.55/21.83 = 189.03 kg/sqm
power loading: 4126.55/1620 = 2.55 kg/HP

Bf-109G-10: loaded weight is 7275lb, from which we substract 75% fuel load: 106 US galls * 0.75 * 6lb /US gall = 477 lb,
the remaining weight is 6798 lb = 3083.52 kg

wing loading: 3083.52/16.05 = 192.12 kg/sqm
power loading: 3083.52/1800 = 1.71 kg/HP


So nearly the same wing loading, though much worse powerloading (50% worse!!!)
I used 25% fuel for those who still think that Mustang should turn with 109 online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Huck. I have a quick question for you. I just want to clerify something. You use the "Flat plane area" in your post's about the aerodynamics of the 109. I just want to make sure you and I are thinking the same thing here.

My BASIC understanding is the "flat plane area" is the ammount of forward area on an object. For instance.

http://www.gibbageart.com/fp01.jpg

Those two objects are facing the camera and have roughly the same surface area forward. So they would have the same "flat plane area"? And therefor would have the same aerodynamics?

Im just trying to understand a little. Please clerify it for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Unfortunatelly I don't have the time now for a good and clear explanation. Maybe I'll do it in the weekend. However, to answer your question: no, flat plate area does not have anything to do with the "forward area". Wing area, which is normally used in flat plate area computation, is not a "forward area" of a plane flying.

crazyivan1970
07-08-2004, 10:29 PM
HWG

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 10:29 PM
Your such a gimp Huck. You did not even READ YOR OWN PROOF! Look at the bottom. It CLEARLY says "Fuseloge tank restricted to 65 gallons because of adverse CG condistions" and thats EXACTLY what was said on the previous page. That the tank could hold 85, but was restricted to 65. Did you lower the size of the photo so we would not notice? Nice try.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51FQD.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 10:31 PM
Then just answer the simple question. Do the two shapes have the same aerodynamics according to your flat plane area?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Huck. I have a quick question for you. I just want to clerify something. You use the "Flat plane area" in your post's about the aerodynamics of the 109. I just want to make sure you and I are thinking the same thing here.

My BASIC understanding is the "flat plane area" is the ammount of forward area on an object. For instance.

http://www.gibbageart.com/fp01.jpg

Those two objects are facing the camera and have roughly the same surface area forward. So they would have the same "flat plane area"? And therefor would have the same aerodynamics?

Im just trying to understand a little. Please clerify it for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Unfortunatelly I don't have the time now for a good and clear explanation. Maybe I'll do it in the weekend. However, to answer your question: no, flat plate area does not have anything to do with the "forward area". Wing area, which is normally used in flat plate area computation, is not a "forward area" of a plane flying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 10:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Your such a gimp Huck. You did not even READ YOR OWN PROOF! Look at the bottom. It CLEARLY says "Fuseloge tank restricted to 65 gallons because of adverse CG condistions" and thats EXACTLY what was said on the previous page. That the tank could hold 85, but was restricted to 65. Did you lower the size of the photo so we would not notice? Nice try.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51FQD.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, it could not hold 85 gal because of adverse CG. They used 85 gal tank because this was what they had available for manufacture. P-51D never took off with 85 gal in the fuselage. Just read the caption below the table:

"TOTAL USABLE INTERNAL FUEL: 245.4 GAL"

What more do you need???

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51FQD.jpg

psychoslaphead
07-08-2004, 10:53 PM
[I do agree with you, long range fighter were the basic ingredient of the success of USAAF daylight campaign against Germany. But some people just can't take the fact Mustang was too underpowered to be a real fighter (constricted to the escort role).]

Well, this may have been true of the early Allison models, but the Merlin Mustangs were not underpowered and were competitive with about anything in acceleration. If you jam on full throttle to a Merlin Mustang at slow speeds, it WILL snaproll.

BTW, not many people know this, but the Mustang was made available to the USAAF as a pure interceptor, it was the "F" model (which was designed before the "D"). It was a completely new plane designed to Spitfire load ratings. It had a climb rate of 7,500 ft/min and could cruise easily at 45,000 ft. According to test pilot Bob Chilton (the only person to fly all marks), it handled like a dream and was far superior to any other version. The USAAF just didn't understand the concept of pure air superiority fighters, prefering multirole fighters (USAF only recently made a change in this regard). As such, they had no mission for the plane and it wasn't put into production. They ordered the stretched long range H model instead, which most pilots didn't like as well as the D (and most preferred the B/C over the D).

Also, the British did a lot of experimenting with Merlin Mustangs and had versions that matched the roll rate of the early FW190's and climb at over 4,500 ft/min.

Magister__Ludi
07-08-2004, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by psychoslaphead:
[I do agree with you, long range fighter were the basic ingredient of the success of USAAF daylight campaign against Germany. But some people just can't take the fact Mustang was too underpowered to be a real fighter (constricted to the escort role).]

Well, this may have been true of the early Allison models, but the Merlin Mustangs were not underpowered and were competitive with about anything in acceleration. If you jam on full throttle to a Merlin Mustang at slow speeds, it WILL snaproll.

BTW, not many people know this, but the Mustang was made available to the USAAF as a pure interceptor, it was the "F" model (which was designed before the "D"). It was a completely new plane designed to Spitfire load ratings. It had a climb rate of 7,500 ft/min and could cruise easily at 45,000 ft. According to test pilot Bob Chilton (the only person to fly all marks), it handled like a dream and was far superior to any other version. The USAAF just didn't understand the concept of pure air superiority fighters, prefering multirole fighters (USAF only recently made a change in this regard). As such, they had no mission for the plane and it wasn't put into production. They ordered the stretched long range H model instead, which most pilots didn't like as well as the D (and most preferred the B/C over the D).

Also, the British did a lot of experimenting with Merlin Mustangs and had versions that matched the roll rate of the early FW190's and climb at over 4,500 ft/min.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


7500 fpm for a piston fighter? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif well..
P-51D had a climb rate at combat power of 3400fpm.

Gibbage1
07-08-2004, 11:36 PM
You dont even know your own words.

"The chart from P-51D manual clearly states that max internal fuel load is 245 US gall"

Now its total useable? 245 was total useable, but it was not max copacity. Why do you think they put that tank restrictions at the bottom? To explain the total useable number!

Hows this. Warbirds parts list.

L-26 Fuselage fuel tank gauge, new, 85 gal capacity, P-51B or P-51D, new.

How about THIS!!!

http://www.gibbageart.com/511.jpg

Misprint? LOL! You been taught an important lesson. Dont try to rewrite history. There is just too much proof http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Your such a gimp Huck. You did not even READ YOR OWN PROOF! Look at the bottom. It CLEARLY says "Fuseloge tank restricted to 65 gallons because of adverse CG condistions" and thats EXACTLY what was said on the previous page. That the tank could hold 85, but was restricted to 65. Did you lower the size of the photo so we would not notice? Nice try.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51FQD.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, it could not hold 85 gal because of adverse CG. They used 85 gal tank because this was what they had available for manufacture. P-51D never took off with 85 gal in the fuselage. Just read the caption below the table:

"TOTAL USABLE INTERNAL FUEL: 245.4 GAL"

What more do you need???

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51FQD.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 12:03 AM
Just what do you think an escort fighter does once it engages the enemy, Huck?

"Constricted to the escort role"? You're kidding, right? Bomber escort was the quickest way to battle in 1944, straight into the heart of the beast, and was the mission that every hot-blooded fighter pilot wanted to fly. Besides, AAF and RAF Mustangs flew every imaginable fighter mission beginning in the early Spring of '44.

And please don't spout the old 'overwhelming numbers of Mustangs careening down from the stratosphere' drivle. From December '43 through the Spring of '44 frequently outnumbered Mustangs met the best the Luftwaffe had to offer- in the Luftwaffe's backyard nonetheless- and handily defeated them. This was done at the squadron, flight, and section level- from 30,000 feet down to terra firma. As often as not the Luftwaffe entered the fight with a tactical advantage, especially early on.

You really should quit disputing every single aspect of positive, and well-documented, Mustang performance. Don't you ever get tired of trying to wiggle off the hook over and over again? You're better than that Spanish, err...Huck (obscure 'Old School' reference http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

You need to accept the fact that the Mustang was not the underpowered pig you would like it to be, and argue from there. Granted, powerloading will naturally favor the 109 (with all its inherent advantages AND disadvantges) but total horespower frequently favored the Mustang. 1800+ HP Mustangs were the norm in the ETO while 2000+ HP Mustangs were common and most definitely statistically and historically more relevant than the handfull of 2000 HP K-4's available in March/April '45.


Further, not only does your posted chart clearly state that the fuselage tank was limited to 65 gallons for CG reasons, but it is also of Korean War-vintage (1951). If you want to use 10200 lbs as oppossed to 10100, have at it- one is as legitimate as the other (and accounts for a less than 1% difference). Just realize that a WWII Mustang quoted at those weights was carrying a full fuselage tank (see fuel and gross weights in AHT's P-51D loadout charts).

You're right though, eventually operational Mustangs with the fuselage tank did stop taking-off with the full 85 gallons but that was a result of operational experience and not capacity.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

I do agree with you, long range fighter were the basic ingredient of the success of USAAF daylight campaign against Germany. But some people just can't take the fact Mustang was too underpowered to be a real fighter (constricted to the escort role).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 12:12 AM
3400 fpm at 67" WEP and carrying nearly 1600 lbs of fuel, i.e worst possible circumstances.

How fast will that Mustang climb at 80-81" WEP and a similar fuel load to the 109's max internal load? Over 4000 fpm easily with substantially more not being out of the question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

7500 fpm for a piston fighter? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif well..
P-51D had a climb rate at combat power of 3400fpm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
07-09-2004, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You dont even know your own words.

"The chart from P-51D manual clearly states that max internal fuel load is 245 US gall"

Now its total useable? 245 was total useable, but it was not max copacity. Why do you think they put that tank restrictions at the bottom? To explain the total useable number!

Hows this. Warbirds parts list.

L-26 Fuselage fuel tank gauge, new, 85 gal capacity, P-51B or P-51D, new.

How about THIS!!!

http://www.gibbageart.com/511.jpg

Misprint? LOL! You been taught an important lesson. Dont try to rewrite history. There is just too much proof http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What proof have you brought?? Did I say that capacity of the fuselage tank was other than 85 gal? I said only that pilots could not use more than 65 gal. Who cares that tank had a larger volume, if it wasn't usable? In weight and balance charts only usable fuel loads are considered.

Mustang was fitted with a larger tank only because the 85 gal tank was supplied to the manufacturer. At no point P-51D used 85 gal of fuel in the fuselage tank.

Magister__Ludi
07-09-2004, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Just what do you think an escort fighter does once it engages the enemy, Huck?

"Constricted to the escort role"? You're kidding, right? Bomber escort was the quickest way to battle in 1944, straight into the heart of the beast, and was the mission that every hot-blooded fighter pilot wanted to fly. Besides, AAF and RAF Mustangs flew every imaginable fighter mission beginning in the early Spring of '44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously? How many victories Mustang had in the winter of '44?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And please don't spout the old 'overwhelming numbers of Mustangs careening down from the stratosphere' drivle. From December '43 through the Spring of '44 frequently outnumbered Mustangs met the best the Luftwaffe had to offer- in the Luftwaffe's backyard nonetheless- and handily defeated them. This was done at the squadron, flight, and section level- from 30,000 feet down to terra firma. As often as not the Luftwaffe entered the fight with a tactical advantage, especially early on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's really funny. USAAF ALONE (without RAF and VVS) made an average of 100,000 sorties per month in ETO + MTO, whereas LW barely managed a 10,000 sorties in both Western and Eastern Front. How can someone think that LW could outnumber any of its enemies?? The number of sorties is the only statistic that can give a clear picture of the air war. For example Iran had very well trained pilots that flew F-4 and F-14, the latest American fighters, but lost big time to the Iraqis that flew Mirage F-1 and MiG-21. Why? because readiness was much better on the Iraqi side, the peak number of sorties per day was 600, whereas Iran could barely pull 60.

At D-Day LW had only 2 fighter wings in the West to defend the coast, with slightly over 100 fighters serviceable. Do you think this tiny little force could fight the invasion force? or "outnumber" it ?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Although later more LW fighter groups joined the battle, the planning was very poor. They simply threw into the fight any squad available, with huge losses. Galland tried for months to convince Goering that this is a very poor tactic. Only because of fuel shortages at the end of summer ('44), Goering stopped this slaughter, and gave Galland the go ahead to try gather a larger force before engaging USAAF. No way a local superiority could have been achieved in '44 before that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You need to accept the fact that the Mustang was not the underpowered pig you would like it to be, and argue from there. Granted, powerloading will naturally favor the 109 (with all its inherent advantages AND disadvantges) but total horespower frequently favored the Mustang. 1800+ HP Mustangs were the norm in the ETO while 2000+ HP Mustangs were common and most definitely statistically and historically more relevant than the handfull of 2000 HP K-4's available in March/April '45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I showed before P-51D has 50% worse powerloading than G10 at 25% fuel (at full fuel being even worse). Because of this drastic disparity it can be said that P-51D was underpowered.
1800HP, 2000HP Mustangs are results of your exuberant imagination, no record of those planes actual operational service was ever found.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Further, not only does your posted chart clearly state that the fuselage tank was limited to 65 gallons for CG reasons, but it is also of Korean War-vintage (1951). If you want to use 10200 lbs as oppossed to 10100, have at it- one is as legitimate as the other (and accounts for a less than 1% difference). Just realize that a WWII Mustang quoted at those weights was carrying a full fuselage tank (see fuel and gross weights in AHT's P-51D loadout charts).

You're right though, eventually operational Mustangs with the fuselage tank did stop taking-off with the full 85 gallons but that was a result of operational experience and not capacity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


10200lb is the loaded weight of P-51D fitted with wing racks (for fuel tanks) like all escorts had. 65 gal was the USABLE volume of the tank, no weight measurements were made with 85 gal for the fuselage tank, simply because Mustang could not take off with it. That the tables are from a Korean war period F-51 manual does not matter at all. There were no significant differences between ww2 P-51D and Korean war F-51D (minor equipment refittings).

Hoarmurath
07-09-2004, 01:31 AM
"lower" wingloading is "better"... interesting... why?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 02:08 AM
From my understanding, the weight put on the area of your wings. If you have a heavy aircraft with small wings, it will hardly fly, let alone turn well. A big wing on a light aircraft like a Zero has more lift and will turn better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
"lower" wingloading is "better"... interesting... why?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoarmurath
07-09-2004, 02:39 AM
I'm sure you begin to wonder at what i'm doing with my questions... Don't worry, it comes...

OK, so lower wingloading is better for turning... Wanna speak about the Ta 152H ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 03:13 AM
you know the answer Horamuth

wing area & wing loading , 2 different things

higher wing loading is never more beneficial to having good turn performance

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
07-09-2004, 08:29 AM
For those interested in official P51D weight calculations. This comes from the now well known USAF Fighter Gunnery manual (see AoA chart for P-51D Aircraft, p. 3-2) -

First case:
full ammunition, less 1/2 fuel, without bombs.
9065 lbs

Second case:
Maximum overload gross weight, less 1/4 fuel, without bombs.
9354 lbs

Third case:
Maximum overload gross weight, less 1/4 fuel, without bombs.
10358 lbs

Note: the weight values for the second and third cases are reversed in the actual manual text, but common sense points to an editing error.


Unless I'm missing something, cases one and two would appear to represent the correct weight range (9065 to 9354 lbs) for a P51D in aerial combat over Europe.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
07-09-2004, 08:37 AM
Huckebein,

Thank you for posting the Bomber Command loss charts for 43-44. However, they do not relate to the issue at hand. I have already acknowledged that BC suffered terrific losses in its bombing campaign over Germany. The real point is whether BC was "virtually eliminated" as a fighting force, as you claim. The fact that BC was still regularly mounting raids of 800-1000 bombers throughout the second half of 1944 and into 1945 is hardly descriptive of a "virtually eliminated" force.

The rest of your florid prose alleging wholesale dumping of bombloads and Xmas trees into the Channel by demoralized BC bomber crews and Pathfinder units is fascinating. Where can I go to learn more about this hitherto totally unreported scandal?

BLUTARSKI

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 09:21 AM
Magister__ludi/Huck/isegrim....
Your all wet as usual.

The typical usable internal fuel load is 90%.
I am the source, I used to service aircraft.

Truth is you can use more like 95% in a well designed
fuel system.
After that flame outs and engine cut outs will
start to bring you down. In piston engines
back fires
will occour as you lean out. backfires have
been known to blow the engine to bits, or start
fires in the induction section.

Magister__Ludi, it is not so important that the
kill count was high for the P-51 as they were
killing off the best the Luftwaffe could field.

As usual you wave the banner of Tutonic superiority
and point to the hyperinflated scores of german
experten. I will post here my previous P-51 post.

"The Bodenplatte attack on new years day 1945
helped demonstrate how wrong you and others are about
low speed handeling of a P-51.
The Y-29 attack saw P-51Ds and P-47s caught
taking off with full internal loads including
full fuselage tanks.
The end result of this fight was over 20 confirmed
German planes shot down (smoking hole confirmations)
and the loss of no allied aircraft at Y-29.
(at least two experianced group leaders amongst them)
All of this in low speed combat.
I read the combat reports, except for the
P-47 drivers, no one reported having problems
turning with Me-109's or Fw-109s.
Remember, that's with FULL fuselage tanks.

http://352ndfg.com/Home/Y-29/legend.htm

The P-51 had to perform at under 80mph.
It had to take off and land! to say it
could not turn at 250kph is nonsense.
Some jet fighters need 300 kph just to take off.
The P-51 was airborne at the same speeds as
other contempoary piston fighters.
It was able to pass at carrier trials!
The only complaint in carrier trials was low speed
rudder responce.

Cry all you like, the P-51 was better than
the luftwaffe could field till the end.

And it could turn fight well."

da...

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 09:25 AM
C'mon Huckebein. It is simply not worth my, or anyone else's time to participate in these discussions if you insist on being so patently disingenuos.

In the interests of clarity, let's see if I have this straight: it is your contention that if the USAAF sortied 100,000 aircraft of all types in a given month and the Luftwaffe only 10,000 times, then it is an inherent truth that everytime the Mustang met Luftwaffe opposition it enjoyed a 10 to 1 numerical superiority. Is this correct? Even when the Mustang escorted bombers deep into Germany at a time (December '43/January '44) when the entire Mustang escort force consisted of the 40 or so P-51B's of the 354th FG?

I like how you have suddenly decided to focus on just the Channel Geschwader of JG 2 and JG 26 while ignoring the much more numerically significant Reich Defense Gruppen arrayed in Germany, the primary opponents of the Mustang escorts. Typical.

Alas, no one but yourself buys your simply obtuse assertion that the Mustang was limited to 1600 HP in the ETO. Again, not worth arguing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Just what do you think an escort fighter does once it engages the enemy, Huck?

"Constricted to the escort role"? You're kidding, right? Bomber escort was the quickest way to battle in 1944, straight into the heart of the beast, and was the mission that every hot-blooded fighter pilot wanted to fly. Besides, AAF and RAF Mustangs flew every imaginable fighter mission beginning in the early Spring of '44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously? How many victories Mustang had in the winter of '44?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And please don't spout the old 'overwhelming numbers of Mustangs careening down from the stratosphere' drivle. From December '43 through the Spring of '44 frequently outnumbered Mustangs met the best the Luftwaffe had to offer- in the Luftwaffe's backyard nonetheless- and handily defeated them. This was done at the squadron, flight, and section level- from 30,000 feet down to terra firma. As often as not the Luftwaffe entered the fight with a tactical advantage, especially early on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's really funny. USAAF ALONE (without RAF and VVS) made an average of 100,000 sorties per month in ETO + MTO, whereas LW barely managed a 10,000 sorties in both Western and Eastern Front. How can someone think that LW could outnumber any of its enemies?? The number of sorties is the only statistic that can give a clear picture of the air war. For example Iran had very well trained pilots that flew F-4 and F-14, the latest American fighters, but lost big time to the Iraqis that flew Mirage F-1 and MiG-21. Why? because readiness was much better on the Iraqi side, the peak number of sorties per day was 600, whereas Iran could barely pull 60.

At D-Day LW had only 2 fighter wings in the West to defend the coast, with slightly over 100 fighters serviceable. Do you think this tiny little force could fight the invasion force? or "outnumber" it ?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Although later more LW fighter groups joined the battle, the planning was very poor. They simply threw into the fight any squad available, with huge losses. Galland tried for months to convince Goering that this is a very poor tactic. Only because of fuel shortages at the end of summer ('44), Goering stopped this slaughter, and gave Galland the go ahead to try gather a larger force before engaging USAAF. No way a local superiority could have been achieved in '44 before that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You need to accept the fact that the Mustang was not the underpowered pig you would like it to be, and argue from there. Granted, powerloading will naturally favor the 109 (with all its inherent advantages AND disadvantges) but total horespower frequently favored the Mustang. 1800+ HP Mustangs were the norm in the ETO while 2000+ HP Mustangs were common and most definitely statistically and historically more relevant than the handfull of 2000 HP K-4's available in March/April '45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I showed before P-51D has 50% worse powerloading than G10 at 25% fuel (at full fuel being even worse). Because of this drastic disparity it can be said that P-51D was underpowered.
1800HP, 2000HP Mustangs are results of your exuberant imagination, no record of those planes actual operational service was ever found.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Further, not only does your posted chart clearly state that the fuselage tank was limited to 65 gallons for CG reasons, but it is also of Korean War-vintage (1951). If you want to use 10200 lbs as oppossed to 10100, have at it- one is as legitimate as the other (and accounts for a less than 1% difference). Just realize that a WWII Mustang quoted at those weights was carrying a full fuselage tank (see fuel and gross weights in AHT's P-51D loadout charts).

You're right though, eventually operational Mustangs with the fuselage tank did stop taking-off with the full 85 gallons but that was a result of operational experience and not capacity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


10200lb is the loaded weight of P-51D fitted with wing racks (for fuel tanks) like all escorts had. 65 gal was the USABLE volume of the tank, no weight measurements were made with 85 gal for the fuselage tank, simply because Mustang could not take off with it. That the tables are from a Korean war period F-51 manual does not matter at all. There were no significant differences between ww2 P-51D and Korean war F-51D (minor equipment refittings).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slickun
07-09-2004, 01:53 PM
Huck, the long ranged escorts didn't enable the daylight bombing campaign to be a success. They enabled it to defeat the LW in time for the Invasion. The bombers lured the LW up, the escorts downed them. By the hundreds. I can get those kill figures for you if you'd like, for the winter spring of 1944. Suffice to say there was very little LW presence over the beaches on the 6th of June.

P-51 Groups scored at a rate twice that of the P-47 groups, and 4 times that of the P-38 groups during this time.

Do you think all the escorts just went up in a monstrous gaggle, and peeled off as the gas went?

Do just a little research and you can find out about how the 8th AF set the escorts up in relays. One P-51 group (4th) covered the entire bomber train over the target on the first Berlin mission they went on. One squadron in the front, one on each side. 50 miles of bombers.

Just do some research. If the Mustang wasn't a real fighter, what were those German planes they downed?

Slickun
07-09-2004, 01:53 PM
Huck, the long ranged escorts didn't enable the daylight bombing campaign to be a success. They enabled it to defeat the LW in time for the Invasion. The bombers lured the LW up, the escorts downed them. By the hundreds. I can get those kill figures for you if you'd like, for the winter spring of 1944. Suffice to say there was very little LW presence over the beaches on the 6th of June.

P-51 Groups scored at a rate twice that of the P-47 groups, and 4 times that of the P-38 groups during this time.

Do you think all the escorts just went up in a monstrous gaggle, and peeled off as the gas went?

Do just a little research and you can find out about how the 8th AF set the escorts up in relays. One P-51 group (4th) covered the entire bomber train over the target on the first Berlin mission they went on. One squadron in the front, one on each side. 50 miles of bombers.

Just do some research. If the Mustang wasn't a real fighter, what were those German planes they downed?

LilHorse
07-09-2004, 01:56 PM
Well, what have we learned here today kiddies? The same thing we learn everytime this debate comes up. The P-51 was neither the super plane of legend as portrayed in the first post, nor was it a flying tub with a lawn mower engine.

It was a damn good plane to be sure. Was it the "best"? No. No such thing. It had great high speed handling. Good performance at high alt. Good armament (for taking down fighters, anyway). Tremendous range. And (here's perhaps the most important thing of all) it was cheap to manufacture.

All great traits for a low price. But get low and slow with a 109 and you're dead meat. It couldn't do everything. No plane could. Also, get just one good shot from a .30 cal in your radiator and you're as good as having your engine riddled with 20mm (well, maybe you'd have a bit more flying time before you engine gave out, but still you're out of the fight).

We should have this (and a half dozen other threads) referenced under something like "Newbs who want to post legends of the P-51, please read."

Magister__Ludi
07-10-2004, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
For those interested in official P51D weight calculations. This comes from the now well known USAF Fighter Gunnery manual (see AoA chart for P-51D Aircraft, p. 3-2) -

First case:
full ammunition, less 1/2 fuel, without bombs.
9065 lbs

Second case:
Maximum overload gross weight, less 1/4 fuel, without bombs.
9354 lbs

Third case:
Maximum overload gross weight, less 1/4 fuel, without bombs.
10358 lbs

Note: the weight values for the second and third cases are reversed in the actual manual text, but common sense points to an editing error.


Unless I'm missing something, cases one and two would appear to represent the correct weight range (9065 to 9354 lbs) for a P51D in aerial combat over Europe.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So, in your opinion pilots should use the weight charts from the gunnery manuals instead of their POHs. Smart advice blutarski.

Read the operating chart for the P-51D without external loads (except the wing racks), it says: 10200lb for gross weight. When they met the enemy in escort missions P-51D pilots had the full internal fuel minus the fuselage tank (65 US gal).

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/51FOIC.jpg

Magister__Ludi
07-10-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Huckebein,

Thank you for posting the Bomber Command loss charts for 43-44. However, they do not relate to the issue at hand. I have already acknowledged that BC suffered terrific losses in its bombing campaign over Germany. The real point is whether BC was "virtually eliminated" as a fighting force, as you claim. The fact that BC was still regularly mounting raids of 800-1000 bombers throughout the second half of 1944 and into 1945 is hardly descriptive of a "virtually eliminated" force.

The rest of your florid prose alleging wholesale dumping of bombloads and Xmas trees into the Channel by demoralized BC bomber crews and Pathfinder units is fascinating. Where can I go to learn more about this hitherto totally unreported scandal?

BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


After the campaign that ended in disaster in mid spring Bomber Command would not go into the Germany for the rest of '44 (except in 2 or 3 occasions and then with much smaller forces - up to 500 bombers), nothing close to '43 campaign. Throughout this period, except for the bombing of the coast, they used much smaller bomber forces (around 200 per objective), which was basically similar to the force commited by LW in the 5 months of "Baby Blitz".

That is what a defeat in a air campaign is. After severe losses they stopped the missions in Germany for more than half an year (to gather a new force and restore the moral of the crews).

As for the "unreported scandal", well, is not unreported, just swept under the carpet. Read about the 5 months Battle of Berlin (Nov 43 - Mar 44).

Magister__Ludi
07-10-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Magister__ludi/Huck/isegrim....
Your all wet as usual.

The typical usable internal fuel load is 90%.
I am the source, I used to service aircraft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure that fuel tanks are not filled to 100%, there has to remain volume for expansion. Actually in P-51D fuel chart it says clearly that only 90 gal of the 97 gal wing tank can be filled with fuel.

The situation with the fuselage fuel tank is different. The manufacturer was supplied with 85 gal tanks, (probably used someplace else too), so they mounted those, even though the ground crews had to fill the tank up to 65 gal (otherwise take-off was not safe due to unbalance).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Magister__Ludi, it is not so important that the
kill count was high for the P-51 as they were
killing off the best the Luftwaffe could field.

As usual you wave the banner of Tutonic superiority
and point to the hyperinflated scores of german
experten. I will post here my previous P-51 post.

"The Bodenplatte attack on new years day 1945
helped demonstrate how wrong you and others are about
low speed handeling of a P-51.
The Y-29 attack saw P-51Ds and P-47s caught
taking off with full internal loads including
full fuselage tanks.
The end result of this fight was over 20 confirmed
German planes shot down (smoking hole confirmations)
and the loss of no allied aircraft at Y-29.
(at least two experianced group leaders amongst them)
All of this in low speed combat.
I read the combat reports, except for the
P-47 drivers, no one reported having problems
turning with Me-109's or Fw-109s.
Remember, that's with FULL fuselage tanks.

http://352ndfg.com/Home/Y-29/legend.htm

The P-51 had to perform at under 80mph.
It had to take off and land! to say it
could not turn at 250kph is nonsense.
Some jet fighters need 300 kph just to take off.
The P-51 was airborne at the same speeds as
other contempoary piston fighters.
It was able to pass at carrier trials!
The only complaint in carrier trials was low speed
rudder responce.

Cry all you like, the P-51 was better than
the luftwaffe could field till the end.

And it could turn fight well."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry but your story proves nothing, just that some LW pilots, probably out of ammo, after straffing the airfields, got cought and downed buy some Allied pilots.

Otherwise Operation Bodenplatte could hardly be considered an Allied victory, let me quote the numbers from RAF history site:

"1 Jan 1945 - The Allies are caught by surprise German fighter-bombers strikes on airfields in Europe (Operation Bodenplatte (Baseplate)). A total of 465 aircraft are destroyed on the ground, but the Luftwaffe loses 62 aircraft to Allied fighters and 172 to light AA (including RAF Regiment gunners). Whilst Allied losses are quickly replace, the Luftwaffe fighters arm is effectively destroyed."

Magister__Ludi
07-10-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
C'mon Huckebein. It is simply not worth my, or anyone else's time to participate in these discussions if you insist on being so patently disingenuos.

In the interests of clarity, let's see if I have this straight: it is your contention that if the USAAF sortied 100,000 aircraft of all types in a given month and the Luftwaffe only 10,000 times, then it is an inherent truth that everytime the Mustang met Luftwaffe opposition it enjoyed a 10 to 1 numerical superiority. Is this correct? Even when the Mustang escorted bombers deep into Germany at a time (December '43/January '44) when the entire Mustang escort force consisted of the 40 or so P-51B's of the 354th FG?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At that point Mustangs were not used as escorts. They started escorting missions at the beginning of the Spring when enough squads had the Merlin Mustangs operational. And when they appeared in '44, bubble canopy P-47Ds were also capable of deep escort missions, after engineers raised the total fuel capacity to 600 US gal. P-38 were capable too of limited escort into Germany. That Mustang was the only plane capable of escorting planes into Germany is a myth. USAAF planners thought that they could bomb Germany without using escort planes, and when they were prooved wrong in '43, they decided to add deep escort capability to all their main fighter models. However, Mustang got most of the escort jobs.

About the 10 to 1 superiority. Though engagements were usually one LW fighter squad to one Allied bomber box, in visual range the numerical superiority was indeed 10 to 1. Keep in mind that bombers were the reason LW fighters were airborne. Of course that after the LW fighters were low on ammo and got hits from bomber gunners, some got caught by Allied fighter pilots called to support the bombers under attack. Since the bomber stream was enormous, there were big chances that returning LW fighters met several Allied fighter squads until they reached the airfield. This is how 10 to 1 superiority in sorties works: maybe no superiority during first engagement, but the part in inferiority will be engaged several times during the same sortie.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I like how you have suddenly decided to focus on just the Channel Geschwader of JG 2 and JG 26 while ignoring the much more numerically significant Reich Defense Gruppen arrayed in Germany, the primary opponents of the Mustang escorts. Typical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I chose this example because it shows very well how superiority in sorties works. RAF alone managed on D-Day 14,674 sorties in support of the invasion. Opposing LW forces made in the same day and spot 319 sorties. Easy question: did the "local superiority" (as you like to put it) matter?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Alas, no one but yourself buys your simply obtuse assertion that the Mustang was limited to 1600 HP in the ETO. Again, not worth arguing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, really, is not worth it.

horseback
07-10-2004, 11:03 AM
So let me see if I have this straight--Mustangs were only able to shoot down German fighters after the Germans attacked the bomber boxes, run out of ammo and/or had taken some hits; otherwise, the 109s and 190s would have easily defeated or eluded the overweight, underpowered and undergunned P-51s, and their mentally deficient, pathetically trained, gum chewing, overclaiming, Yankee air pirate pilots.

Let's take your last post's claims:

"At that point Mustangs were not used as escorts. They started escorting missions at the beginning of the Spring when enough squads had the Merlin Mustangs operational. And when they appeared in '44, bubble canopy P-47Ds were also capable of deep escort missions, after engineers raised the total fuel capacity to 600 US gal. P-38 were capable too of limited escort into Germany. That Mustang was the only plane capable of escorting planes into Germany is a myth. USAAF planners thought that they could bomb Germany without using escort planes, and when they were prooved wrong in '43, they decided to add deep escort capability to all their main fighter models. However, Mustang got most of the escort jobs."

US planners were desperately trying to add range to all their existing types from day 1 of the bombing campaigns. That they were eventually able to do it is less an indication of inadequacy on the part of the Mustang than an indication of salesmanship on the part of the manufacturers of more expensive competing types.

Group level Mustang sorties over Germany began in early December of 1943, and were limited not by American timidity or German inflicted casualties, but by the weather which severely limited air operations over Europe by both sides that winter.

While there were two P-38 groups starting operations at the same time as the 354th FG, they were beset by operational problems, and rarely able to put the same number of escorts over the target area as the one Mustang group.

When you factor in the fact that the Mustang group was getting significantly more kills than the Lightnings, well...

Only two more Mustang groups were able to be added before March of 1944 because the same weather that limited air operations also affected the transport across the Atlantic of more airframes, and frankly, it took a while for North American to 'ramp up' their production in the Los Angeles area as well as the new plants in Ft Worth and Oklahoma (still a significant distance from the Atlantic coast).

The greater range (and reliability, compared to the P-38) of the Mustang meant that these three groups, comprising less than 150 aircraft total, would be usually be the lone escorts at the farthest end of the escort relay chain. Regardless of how you do your math, they were usually significantly outnumbered by not only the available single engine fighters, but the twin engined zerstorer types, like the Me-410, Me-110G & the Ju 88C types, which also had to be kept from the bombers (if you can count the bombers, I can count the twins).

If I remember one of your earlier posts, the rear gunners on the twin types should have taken a heavy toll of the lightly armored and lightly armed Mustangs. Oddly, they did not. Maybe they failed to use the AI gunners of FB, instead relying on frail humans subject to distractions like extreme cold, fogged or frosted glass, and being thrown around like a rag doll in a wildly maneuvering a/c trying to avoid a light rain of fifty caliber bullets.

Apparently, all these aircraft expended their ammo and were 'winged' by the bombers, because that was where the majority of the Mustangs's kills were recorded in those early days. Had it not been a success, the AAF would have rethought it's deployment and waited for the longer ranged P-47 bubbletops, which showed up in the same general time period as the bubbletop Mustang (May-June 1944).

The Channel Front Geschwadern were not just out there all alone either; they were used as part of a 'defense in depth', in a conscious mimicry of Dowding's Battle of Britain tactic; wear down the enemy with a constant stream of fighter opposition, however small. Unfortunately, Goerring and Hitler didn't think to allow them to concentrate on the fighter escorts, whittling them down for the welcoming party over Germany proper; instead demanding that they shoot down more bombers made it harder for them to get any kills. The kill rate in the West declined precipitously after the escorted daylight bomber raids began to feature heavily in the summer of 1943.

Even heavily outnumbered and technically inferior, defensive campaigners tend to pile up the numbers quickly. This didn't happen for JG 2 or JG 26, neither of which could boast an ace who scored at the same rate as a Foss, a Tuck, an Unwin, or even for that matter, a Johnson or Gentile who were on offensive operations. Given the recognized skill of the men in these units, the most charitable explanation has to be outside interference.

I mean, it couldn't possibly mean that they or their machines were overmatched, now could it?

I think it's time for a new name, Huck. How about Magister_Looney?

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

lrrp22
07-10-2004, 11:48 AM
Geez Huck, once you get going you just can't stop yourself, can you?

Hilarious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
C'mon Huckebein. It is simply not worth my, or anyone else's time to participate in these discussions if you insist on being so patently disingenuos.

In the interests of clarity, let's see if I have this straight: it is your contention that if the USAAF sortied 100,000 aircraft of all types in a given month and the Luftwaffe only 10,000 times, then it is an inherent truth that everytime the Mustang met Luftwaffe opposition it enjoyed a 10 to 1 numerical superiority. Is this correct? Even when the Mustang escorted bombers deep into Germany at a time (December '43/January '44) when the entire Mustang escort force consisted of the 40 or so P-51B's of the 354th FG?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At that point Mustangs were not used as escorts. They started escorting missions at the beginning of the Spring when enough squads had the Merlin Mustangs operational. And when they appeared in '44, bubble canopy P-47Ds were also capable of deep escort missions, after engineers raised the total fuel capacity to 600 US gal. P-38 were capable too of limited escort into Germany. That Mustang was the only plane capable of escorting planes into Germany is a myth. USAAF planners thought that they could bomb Germany without using escort planes, and when they were prooved wrong in '43, they decided to add deep escort capability to all their main fighter models. However, Mustang got most of the escort jobs.

About the 10 to 1 superiority. Though engagements were usually one LW fighter squad to one Allied bomber box, in visual range the numerical superiority was indeed 10 to 1. Keep in mind that bombers were the reason LW fighters were airborne. Of course that after the LW fighters were low on ammo and got hits from bomber gunners, some got caught by Allied fighter pilots called to support the bombers under attack. Since the bomber stream was enormous, there were big chances that returning LW fighters met several Allied fighter squads until they reached the airfield. This is how 10 to 1 superiority in sorties works: maybe no superiority during first engagement, but the part in inferiority will be engaged several times during the same sortie.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I like how you have suddenly decided to focus on just the Channel Geschwader of JG 2 and JG 26 while ignoring the much more numerically significant Reich Defense Gruppen arrayed in Germany, the primary opponents of the Mustang escorts. Typical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I chose this example because it shows very well how superiority in sorties works. RAF alone managed on D-Day 14,674 sorties in support of the invasion. Opposing LW forces made in the same day and spot 319 sorties. Easy question: did the "local superiority" (as you like to put it) matter?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Alas, no one but yourself buys your simply obtuse assertion that the Mustang was limited to 1600 HP in the ETO. Again, not worth arguing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, really, is not worth it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>