Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Solty

  1. Well... it is hard to change whole outfit of fighters on a carrier when it is not in Japan. It is a hard logistical operation, and US was bringing new carriers with new plane outfits. Also, you can't realy compare P-51 or P-38 with A6M and not take into consideration their role. Of course they are both fighters... but Army planes and Navy planes of the time had very different needs. I agree that P-38 or P-51 would eat most A6Ms if flown correctly. But that doesn't mean A6M was not competetive. If you want comparison that would make sense, which is between two main fighters of the Pacific war, you need to talk about F4F vs A6M2 and later F6F+ vs A6M3+. All publications I've read point out the lack of good teamwork and tactics of IJN Airforce units, which was probably the main issue why Zero was so "bad". Hurricane was also worse than Bf109, and yet it was the Hurricane that has shot down majority of German airplanes during BoB. Comparision with Japanese planes is always hard, because not much data is left about them. So comparison between Ki84 vs P-51D is going to be hard if not impossible.
  2. For one. He was a fighter pilot and an ace, so he is not going to say that he was afraid of P-51. Every pilot was surely afraid, but how you cope with that fear and how you overcome it makes you good at beeing a combat pilot. Secondly, 109 is a tighter turner at low speeds, but 190A8 is quite similar to the P-51 and D9 is worse than a P-51 in turn. But this marginal, and it depends on who is flying the plane. Turn doesn't matter all that much when you have better E, you can turn into somebody regardless of their better sustained turn rate. Walter Erb must have just been better than this P-51 pilot. I can show you a whole page of Allied pilots that say things like this Ill never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides. or "It was easy to turn with them. In 180 degress of turn I caught the last Me 109. Opened up at about 300 yards; got good strikes; he burned and smoked." http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html It depends on the pilot, energy and many other factors IRL. P-51 surely is not able to stand against 109F4 in a turn, but against a Bf109G6 I guess it is quite possible to be done. Also P-51 electric controls what? What do you mean by that?
  3. Just axis never had strategic bombers and even 8x 7,7MGs were capable of inflicting big damage on the He111 and Ju88 during BOB. So I guess, 6xM2 .50cals would be still good enough for those.
  4. Well technically the P-51 was an interceptor But that is just because of the terminology. P stands for Pursuit which means interceptor for USAAF, Navy used F which is Fighter but they were just names . Well, P-51 was made as a replacement for P-40 for the British and USAAF was like "meh". And P-40 was never anything else than a typical interceptor plane that can be classified as fighter/bomber (everything that can have a bomb can though). First P-51s didn't have such a long range, although they still got good enough range to be fitted into recon missions, and were fast only low and at medium alts. They were like Fw190A. They were better than P40 as having the same engine and beeing heavier than P40, the P-51 was still faster and had better roll rate and had very good handling. But they weren't anything super special. When high alt performance got improved by Merlin V1650-3, the true "escort fighter" was born.
  5. It depends on the engine. There were 2 for K4. DB605DB and DB605DC. Now how they work I am not an expert on 109s...
  6. You just insured yourself a rage from thousand 109 fanboys
  7. Yeah but in this case the 109K4 is going to be faster, turn better in sustained turn, climbs better, accelerates better at low to medium speeds and has more powerful armament (although not too good at hiting small targers Mk108 has quite bad trajectory). The P-51 has better dive, better roll, better instantaneous turn and better overall high speed handling. Against G6 it can stay out of its reach just by beeing faster. K4 is going to catch the P-51 everytime at every altitude if the pilot is presistant. There is nowhere to run. The only way to win 1v1 scenario with K4 is to drag it fast and force an overshoot, but even if you do that, 109 driver can just put MW50 ON and 1.8ata and pull up. P-51 is unable to follow for long.
  8. You wrote right under my post without quoting to whom you are talking to. So I guess you talk to me. And I have not said that 109K4 is inherently inferior, but Climb rate and speed alone are not the only valuable aspects of a plane. Roll rate at speed, elevator authority are also very important and K4 was not able to fly so fast without 1.95 ata with MW50 which is just WEP, it is not it's military power and only with C3 type of fuel. Mostly they used B4 fuel and 1.8 ata boost on K4. So read before you reply, as it is clear you have not read the whole thing. Mustang P-51D is older than K4, so no wonders the 109 in this version can be faster. Allies didn't needed to be worried anymore because they had dominated Germans earlier. P-51B, C, D did most of their work way before K4 was even introduced. Luftwaffe at that point was crumbling, sometimes not even coming to meet the bombers and letting them bomb cities. US didn't have the need to get better planes. If you want to compare most common planes of both nations at that time of war, you have to compare: P-51D to Bf109G6.
  9. US demands were different. They needed not interceptors but long range fighters and fighter/bombers. Due to distances on the pacific front and that they had to fight over europe flying from British bases. Although, US had such constructions earlier on. Check P-40, P-39 line and P-36 which were the USAAF interceptor planes. @OP You did one thing wrong. You took the Bf109K4 which was not supplied in big numbers and many of those planes had been built with worse materials yet on paper still looked amazing. The primary enemy of the P-51 since B to D was Bf109G6 and later G14.(both these versions were produced even when K4 came out and until the end of the war) K4 was late 1944 and mustang was long before that in the air. If you want to compare the best versions (both from 1944) You should take the P-51H. 500 of them were built, never saw combat but was deployed on the pacific. You know why? Because Germany was already finished and even though they could produce planes like Me262 and K4, Ta152, they were. unable to make them in quantity. So when 20 Mustangs were vs 1 Ta152 even a superior plane cannot do much in that situation. Thus US forces didn't needed a new plane with better abilities on the front as P-51D was enough to counter the German airforce. The 109 is a good aircraft but, it needs strenght to be flown well at high speeds, so even though K4 was faster than the mustang, the pilot needed both hands on the stick to manuver.(control stiffened badly at speeds above 550kph) That required strenght and pilot of the 109 was already tired after few high speed maneuvers when P-51 pilot was piloting his plane with 1 hand. German pilots have respected the Mustang. So should you
  10. I would say P-40. The poor man's P-51 ;P Nah but realy it is an awesome plane that would also be great for other fronts (if they are to come)
  11. I hope the expasion to other areas of the war time would become available at some point. I wish for 1944 with this baby
  • Create New...