Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vs North American P-51 Mustang

[VikingFjord]

There has been a claim that P51 was the best fighter of the war
so i will make this thread so the other one can live its own life
will post whats said so far (things thats been said will look like a dialog.. and i will reply down below

 

 

P-51

Best fighter of the war

 

 

 

Based on what?

 

 

A combination of:

 

-Performance

-Maneuverability

-Weapons

-Range

-Design

-Generally known ability to kick ass

 

If not the P-51, then what I'd like to know???

 

 

 

Bf109 will out turn and climb way better then P51
but the P51 is some what faster
when it comes to guns..well 20mm and 30mm is larger then 50.cal
so in short summary you have a P51 that is out turned,out climbed and out gunned..but its fast and heavy

These guys know what they talk about they have been flying these beautiful machines

 

 

 

I don't mean best in every category ... but good or very good in most categories and clearly best in escort range. The 109 was an antique by 1944. It wasn't even as good as a Spitfire.

 

its funny you say 109 was antique by 1944..becuse K-4 series production started in August with the new DB 605D powerplant
here is some figures for you..

Bf 109K-4 vs P-51D Mustang


Bf 109K-4 Statistics:



Engine: Daimler Benz DB-605D with MW-50 boost.
Power: 2,000 HP.
Max. Speed: 727 km/h. (452 mph.)
Max. Climb: 1,470 m/min (4,823 ft/min.)
Empty Weight: 2,673 kg. (5,298 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 3,148 kg. (6,940 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 3,373 kg. (7,438 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 9.97 m. (32.7 ft.)
Wing-Area: 16.4 sq.m. (176.6 sq.ft.)
Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) & 1x 30mm cannon (MK 108 )

Bf 109K-4 Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 191.9 kg/sq.m. (39.2 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.06 .
Airfoil: NACA 2R1 14.2 - 2R1 11.35.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.2% Tip= 11.35%.
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.48 . (No slats or flaps deployed)

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 129.69 kg/sq.m. (26.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.57 kg/hp. (3.47 lbs/hp.)

Bf 109K-4 Additional features:

-Automatic-Slats & Flettner-Tabs.
-Inclined seat position for better G-load resistance & Friese ailerons.


P-51D Mustang Statistics:

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.
Power: 1,720 HP.
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Max. Climb: 1,060 m/min. (3,478 ft/min)
Empty Weight: 3,175 kg. (7,000 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,286 kg. (9,449 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 5,487 kg. (12,096 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.)
Wing-Area: 21.83 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.)
Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2).

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 196.33 kg/sq.m. (40.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.28 . (No flaps deployed)

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 153.38 kg/sq.m. (31.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.49 kg/hp. ( 5.49 lbs/hp.)

P-51D Mustang Additional features:

-Laminar wing & Tear-shaped canopy.
-Gyro-Gunsight.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic Facts:

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Wing CL-max - Higher is better.
Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.

Lift-loading - Lower is better.
Power-loading - Lower is better.

Automatic leading edge slats info:
Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Without slats a wing would stall at a certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with a sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall. The automatic-slats work at all speeds, and significantly increase the stall angle and CL-max of the airfoil.
Illustration: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/fig63.jpg

Laminar wing info:
Laminar flow wings lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wing Cl-max were obtained from:

Bf-109: from full scale Windtunnel test in Charlais Meudan.
P-51: from Naca Report 829, Page 26 in the PDF of the Naca Report server.

Link to numbers above: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interceptor-vs-escort-1662.html

Edited June 20, 2014 by VikingFjord

[DD_bongodriver]

Oh goody!! a comparison war.

[Sternjaeger]

...oh not again... 

Devs please give us something to chew on, the forum is starting to languish with a lot of bad, bad ideas atm... 

[Matt]

Why don't you start a PM discussion with Smink instead? Might be a better idea.

[Finkeren]

Yep, this thread is gonnna be a 30-pager, that's if people keep it civil and it doesn't get locked.

 

My vote in this is, that neither of those 2 aircraft are in any position to claim the title of "best" fighter of WW2 - if by "best" we mean most capable of downing contemporary aircraft (primarily other fighters)

 

This discussion is pretty futile TBH. It's gonna be the Luftwhiners vs. the Bronies, and none will have a winning argmuent.

[VikingFjord]

Why don't you start a PM discussion with Smink instead? Might be a better idea.

 

He made the claims publical and anyone that doesn't want to follow this thread don't need to follow..its simple

 

 

Edited June 20, 2014 by VikingFjord

[Sternjaeger]

He made the claims publical and anyone that doesn't want to follow this thread don't need to follow..its simple

 

 

 

no, it's a waste of Internet.

[Finkeren]

Don't get us wrong VikingFjord: I think we all appreciate, that you try to move the discussion away from the original thread.

 

It's just that this discussion is as old as the flight sim community itself (perhaps older) and we've all been down this road before.

[VikingFjord]

Yep, this thread is gonnna be a 30-pager, that's if people keep it civil and it doesn't get locked.

 

My vote in this is, that neither of those 2 aircraft are in any position to claim the title of "best" fighter of WW2 - if by "best" we mean most capable of downing contemporary aircraft (primarily other fighters)

 

This discussion is pretty futile TBH. It's gonna be the Luftwhiners vs. the Bronies, and none will have a winning argmuent.

in no part of this thread have i used "the best fighter of the war" when speaking of the 109

109 is simply better then P51..but i would never claim it to be best..good yes very..but best i don't know enough about other planes or even enough  about every German plane to say

and yes i hope people keep this civil

[Finkeren]

in no part of this thread have i used "the best fighter of the war" when speaking of the 109

109 is simply better then P51..but i would never claim it to be best..good yes very..but best i don't know enough about other planes or even enough  about every German plane to say

and yes i hope people keep this civil

 

I hope for civility as well, but it's gonna be an apples vs. oranges discussion no matter what. You're comparing planes with very different roles and applications.

[VikingFjord]

Don't get us wrong VikingFjord: I think we all appreciate, that you try to move the discussion away from the original thread.

 

It's just that this discussion is as old as the flight sim community itself (perhaps older) and we've all been down this road before.

Thank you

i just showed him some thing better then what he claimed to be the best fighter of the war

he haven't even given a single factual reason for why the P51 is the best fighter of the war

i simply gave him something better and i'm not saying 109 is the best fighter of the war

to say that is to discard every option out there and i don't know enough about it

 

btw: i'm a Dora man

You're comparing planes with very different roles and applications.

yes i know p51 is a escort and the 109 is a interceptor

 

in that alone..speaks for 109 to be better

but the P51 was one **** of a escort

[Finkeren]

There have always been the crowd of Bronies, who say things like "the P-51 won the war" with a straight face.

 

Then again, there have also been a 109-crowd, who claim, that because the Bf 109 was the most succesful fighter in history (which is true beyond any doubt) it must therefore also be "the best".

 

In the end, it will always come down to personal preference and weighing one trait of an aircraft higher than another. 

[Mastermariner]

Hey! Where is the .50 vs Tiger tank argument?

 

No real life input here for sure.

 

Master

[Dakpilot]

I don't understand the logic, if a topic has been discussed before in many other forums, is it wrong that new people are allowed to?

 

It is in its own thread in a tucked away place....if not interested, just mark as read..and ignore... live and let live

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

I don't think anyone here is asking for the thread to be closed or anything. I think we're all simply just a bit bored waiting for the DD announcement.

 

It's just hard to refrain from pointing out, that this is a topic with a history, and that VikingFjord shouldn't expect any resolution of the issue.

[DD_bongodriver]

I don't understand the logic, if a topic has been discussed before in many other forums, is it wrong that new people are allowed to?

 

It is in its own thread in a tucked away place....if not interested, just mark as read..and ignore... live and let live

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

In principle you are quite right, but many of those old historical argum....err......discussions always end badly in true flight sim forum fashion, lots of people feeling their points not made etc etc......new threads are a magnet for them to put their views across an re ignite the whole affair, and all because some people make a bigger deal of the 109 than it really was.

[FlatSpinMan]

This won't end well, but I guess the above point is valid. Just because the flight-sim tragics have discussed it doesn't automatically rule it out for newer members.

 

That said, it's a pointless comparison unless you just want to compare performance specs, like climb, roll, whatever.

 

They were really different planes operating in very different circumstances with different design priorities and constraints.

[Finkeren]

... and all because some people make a bigger deal of the 109 than it really was.

 

And some people make a bigger deal of the P-51 than it really was.

 

It goes both ways.

 

Why can't we all just agree, that the La-7 was the best fighter of the war, indeed of all time, and get on with our lives?

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

And some people make a bigger deal of the P-51 than it really was.

 

It goes both ways.

 

Why can't we all just agree, that the La-7 was the best fighter of the war, indeed of all time, and get on with our lives?

 

+1

[Volkoff]

The Bf-109 is better than the P-51? Not according to Gunther Rall. I recall in one interview he called the P-51 one of the best fighters and in another interview stated that it was the best, when compared to all the fighters Rall had the opportunity to fly. He flew 109s extensively and he trained pilots to fight the P-51, while flying a captured example. Rall might know better.  MJ

Edited June 20, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[DD_bongodriver]

And some people make a bigger deal of the P-51 than it really was.

 

It goes both ways.

 

Why can't we all just agree, that the La-7 was the best fighter of the war, indeed of all time, and get on with our lives?

 

Mainly the Americans, or more specifically a certain type of Americans.....you know, the same kind that think Jesus was an American

 

No......the Yak9......my beautiful baby, is the greatest fighter of all time, none of that LaLa-7 namby pamby nonsense.

[Finkeren]

.....you know, the same kind that think Jesus was an American

 

You mean like this guy:

 

 

Oh sorry, he just believes that Jesus landed in America on his way home to dad.

[Feathered_IV]

This is just so 2004.

[Matt]

You mean like this guy:

 

 

Oh sorry, he just believes that Jesus landed in America on his way home to dad.

He looks very convincing. I'm tempted to believe him.

[Finkeren]

He looks very convincing. I'm tempted to believe him.

   

 

What does he say about the P-51 vs. Bf 109 issue?

[SKG51_robtek]

so what? retro is hip again!

[Matt]

   

 

What does he say about the P-51 vs. Bf 109 issue?

What's his phone number? Does he work on weekends?

Edited June 20, 2014 by Matt

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

Unless there is more than one of them I'm never been defeated by a P-51 in my 109 they are pretty easy to out fly and they are large so they are easy to hit if they have a height advantage they pose a challenge

[JtD]

Back on topic, you'll have to look closely which versions you compare to which. For instance, at the introduction of the P-51 in Europe in late 1943, the contemporary Bf 109 were Bf 109 G-6, without methanol injection, equipped with a DB605A. These were simply outclassed by the P-51, in particular as many of those were fitted with gondolas for bomber interception. However, later Bf109 models with the DB605ASM and later engines had a significantly improved performance, which makes performance comparisons interesting, but they only appeared in numbers in the last 3 months of 1944 - and still were tasked with shooting down bombers. Oddly enough, it's always the best performing K-4 which is supposed to prove the superiority over the worst performing D, which will then show how much better the 109 was than the 51, in general.

 

One should also look at the performances of the aircraft in other theatres of operation, say the Eastern front for the 109 or the Pacific for the P-51, or in other roles, say fighter bomber. Add to that production costs, maintenance, logistics, durability, production quality, ... and you may be able to compare the two at a meaningful level.

 

Personally, as a fighter pilot, I'd always prefer the aircraft built by sufficiently skilled labour for a service life in excess of several hundred hours over the aircraft built by unskilled, sabotaging forced labour for a service life of a few dozen hours, even if the latter aircraft offered some performance advantages in some areas.

[FlatSpinMan]

JTD said:

"Personally, as a fighter pilot, I'd always prefer the aircraft built by sufficiently skilled labour for a service life in excess of several hundred hours over the aircraft built by unskilled, sabotaging forced labour for a service life of a few dozen hours, even if the latter aircraft offered some performance advantages in some areas. "

 

Pshaw! You're just a fussy Princess, JTD.

 

   

[VikingFjord]

personally i think its impossible to decide or conclude what fighter was the best
different fighters would preform with different pilots 
one plane might suit one guy and another plane another pilot
even though i love German aviation i also like to learn from others and i gladly admit that P51 is a good plane
and everyone have their preferences on whats better
thanks to this game i started to take some interest in Russian planes as well
i learn all the time about planes and i fly different planes all the time..i can love German planes
and nothing really change that but i also like flying planes from different countries because i just simply love flying the most
so if a person only wanna fly German,American or Russian only they are missing out on something great
no matter what you like and no matter the difference in preference we all share the love of flying
i would love to take a Dora and fly along side another Warbird just to cruise for fun

[VikingFjord]

The Bf-109 is better than the P-51? Not according to Gunther Rall. I recall in one interview he called the P-51 one of the best fighters and in another interview stated that it was the best, when compared to all the fighters Rall had the opportunity to fly. He flew 109s extensively and he trained pilots to fight the P-51, while flying a captured example. Rall might know better.  MJ

Gunther Rall is a awesome pilot but he alone don't decide over facts whats best it is simply his own preference

in the same way as Skip holm thinks the Bf 109 is better

Edited June 20, 2014 by VikingFjord

[Brano]

Where is a pic with red and green lines?

[Gambit21]

WINNER - VikingfFord!

Most redundant, pointless and unnecessary thread of the year award.

[DD_bongodriver]

We're only half way through the year, there will be plenty more candidates.

[MiloMorai]

JTD said:

"Personally, as a fighter pilot, I'd always prefer the aircraft built by sufficiently skilled labour for a service life in excess of several hundred hours over the aircraft built by unskilled, sabotaging forced labour for a service life of a few dozen hours, even if the latter aircraft offered some performance advantages in some areas. "

 

So true JtD.

 

The uber 1.98ata K-4 only had a 50% serviceable rate of those on hand.

[sallee]

It's a pointless argument.

 

Defiant won the war.

[Volkoff]

Gunther Rall is a awesome pilot but he alone don't decide over facts whats best it is simply his own preference

in the same way as Skip holm thinks the Bf 109 is better

If we are discussing the same Skip Holm, his experience, though utterly impressive, does not compare to Rall. Rall actually flew BF-109s in combat and trained pilots to fight the P-51 in actual combat. Holm would be one of my go to guys for F4 Phantom  vs Mig-17 comparisons, though. 

Edited June 20, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[DD_fruitbat]

Pointless thread, as the Spitfire was better than both......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That should add another 10 pages or so to the thread, lol.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

This subject might actually be interesting for those new to flight sims, like people coming from WT with no other background on sims. And there are quite a few members here that can provide valid arguments/information about subject.

 

My personal view is that JtD got basics right already. Do we compare P-51B/C to G-6 or P-51D to G-10 or K-4?