Warbird Information Exchange

Folks:

I've been reading up on the 109, and what I've read said the 109k could do 450mph w/ 2000 hp DB-605, but many American veteran pilots say the P-51 could outclimb and was faster than the 109. So I'm curious to know which one really was better?

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

I'm sure there are many factors to consider, i.e. speed vs altitude. At what height did the 109K hit 450? And given the problems with sabotage and overall poor workmanship quality from slave labor and other factors (materials shortages etc.), what percentage of those late 109's built could actually perform to the design specifications?

I've often read that the 109 had a steeper (optimum) climb angle than the Mustang, not sure what that has to do with the equation.

In the end a lot would seem to come down to pilot ability, but the 109 was pretty long in the tooth by the end of the war. Of course guys like Hartman and Barkhorn had hundreds and hundreds of hours in the 109, and could really get the most out of them, but there weren't too many of those experienced types left by the end.

greg v.

Hi Greg:

Sounds fair enough, but have you seen some recent video of the 109's at airshows? Good aerobatics, rate of climb, turn,etc. Looks a lot better than a P-40 or P-39, and pretty close to the same in performance as a P-51. It could be they were maligned by their own badly trained pilots which is partially what you alluded to.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

A2C,
pay a visit to All About Warfare II, the World War II section. There are "hundreds" of performance analysis discussions.

Short version of a complex and nuanced discussion:

The late versions of the 109, especially the G-10 and K-4, had a monstrous thumping DB605D capable of churning out over 2000 horsepower strapped to an airframe which weighed around 8000 pounds, give or take. That is a recipe for one godawful fast aircraft... but what good is all that speed when the pilot's only got 20 hours max in a Klemm 35 and Arado 96?

The 109 had reached the absolute limit of it's development with these variants- it still had no cockpit adjustable trim save the elevator incidence, no gyroscopic gunsight, no heated canopy glass (which became a real problem through the winter of 1944, as canopies would ice up during dives), and more importantly, limited fuel with which to fly. They were decent aircraft, to be sure, and deadly opponents in the hands of an experienced pilot- but there were damned few of those left in the Luftwaffe by September/October 1944, when these variants started entering squadron service, while the Mustang pilots of the USAAC had far better training, far better support, and far better morale... and there were far more of them.

I say all this as a student and enthusiast of the Bf 109... it's simply acknowledging reality. Put the same pilot in both aircraft, and you might be able to out-turn the Mustang in the 109, but you won't out-dive it, and you'd be lucky to out-run it even with the additional horsepower thanks to the Mustang's superior aerodynamics.

Lynn

Compared to a Mustang, the late 109's climbed faster and were marginally faster in level flight. Of course, they were outnumbered and the escort fighters had numerous opportunities to attack the Germans during a sortie - on the way up, during the attack on the bombers, and on the return to base. Given that the only meaningful advantage the 109 had was climb rate, the German pilots had a very hard time disengaging from combat. You can only climb until the fuel runs low, which is relatively soon if you're in a 109.

So if a German pilot engaged the escorts, he had to be good to survive the encounter, and even that was no guarantee that he wouldn't get flamed on short final or rollout. Late WWII was not a good time to be a German fighter pilot.

Interesting topic!

From what I've read the '109 suffered from stiffening of flight controls as speed increased, much like (but I don't think as bad) the A6M Zero; did the P-51 suffer from the same condition? AFAIK, the Mustang did not have boosted controls.

greg v.

Everything I've read said the 109 and Mustang both suffered from control stiffening at higher speeds. That is one of the things that supposedly sets apart the Bearcat and SeaFury - they retained excellent control forces throughout their speed range.

you have to factor in 2 points in an unbiased manner, wartime performance with armor / armament differences, war performance built in a shoddy manner via slave labor / sabotage etc, as was previously mentioned, & in comparison top notch construction in the u.s., these are very valid points.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

The 109 had very stiff rudder and ailerons, starting at ~ 250kts and increasing with greater speed. The 51 was stiffer > 300kts but still very managable at high speeds.

The 109G-6, -10 and K climbed faster and steeper than the 51D and marginally better than the 51B - only the 51H could climb with the 109.

An experten could probably out turn a 51 due to slats and lower lift loading at speeds under 250Kts... at high speeds the Mustang gained the edge

51 could out dive it, out roll it, was faster and accelerated better - particularly when 75" boost available w/150 Octane fuel.

The K and the 51B (at 75") had about the same high altitude speed but the 51H was faster than both at 80" w/1650-9 and ran away at 90".

One probably did not want to engage a pilot in a 109 w/equal skill in a P-51D at low to medium altitudes and bleed energy in the fight.

Hi Bill - was waiting for you to chime in on this one!

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

Hey Joe! I was waiting for Soren or Kurfurst!

Let the games begin!

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

Here is a resent artical from Vintage Wings of Canada Rob Erdos. Rob test flew the 109E4 of the Russell group back in 2008.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA

If you have never seen a DB powered 109 before, man you are really missing out. I would compare the sound to a blown top fuel dragster on alcohol.

Not the same but here is a little video of the Russell 109.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Bmw_3U2TU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um8SwI3I9FY

Cheers dave C