Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vs North American P-51 Mustang

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

This thread still alive?

 

P-51 was long-range escort, optimized for flying long distance and downing sluggish, overgunned interceptors. Nothing less, but nothing more. Against overarmoured, cannon-armed late war Bf-109K - themself optimised to intercept high altitude superfortress  bombers, *not* to engage in dogfights, it shined - the all MG armament was better at hitting fighters and had just adequate firepower, and medicore maneuvrability was not disadvantage against planes themselves built for resilence first. If used as bomber interceptor it would suffer from lack of cannon and armour, if used to intercept IL-2s it would be undergunned, if faced with proper dogfighter like Yak or Spitfire it would be outperformed. Without superfortresses to escort, it would have no targets in it's narrow, preferred enviroment; I see it hunting  Ju-87s and doing ground attack, but that's a job any single-seat fighter could do. What it did, however, it did very well.

 

Quoted for truth.

[JtD]

Quoted for truth.

Hardly. Besides the fact that there were no B-29's to escort in Europe, the post is missing any reference to what the P-51 did for instance in the PTO or in Korea, without bombers nearby. It was an air superiority fighter, not a bomber escort. Folks who dismiss the design as an average fighter often have no understanding of the importance of speed. Take the average speed of a P-51 at max. continuous power between 0 and 30k feet and compare it to the contemporaries. It's a huge advantage.

[Solty]

Hardly. Besides the fact that there were no B-29's to escort in Europe, the post is missing any reference to what the P-51 did for instance in the PTO or in Korea, without bombers nearby. It was an air superiority fighter, not a bomber escort. Folks who dismiss the design as an average fighter often have no understanding of the importance of speed. Take the average speed of a P-51 at max. continuous power between 0 and 30k feet and compare it to the contemporaries. It's a huge advantage.

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.

[CorsairHundo]

I can't find the article right now but the K-4 was blowing head gaskets when the MW50 was used so they were told not to engage it. Also they were having a lot of issues with the guns being jammed. Lot of quality control issues at the end of the war for Germany. The engineering has always been top notch from Germany and that hasn't changed.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Solty]

I can't find the article right now but the K-4 was blowing head gaskets when the MW50 was used so they were told not to engage it. Also they were having a lot of issues with the guns being jammed. Lot of quality control issues at the end of the war for Germany. The engineering has always been top notch from Germany and that hasn't changed.

 

 

 

 

You just insured yourself a rage from thousand 109 fanboys

[361fundahl]

Someone should of torqued the head bolts tighter!

 

Maybe 70% meth next time...

[CorsairHundo]

Especial with no link

 

 

 

You just insured yourself a rage from thousand 109 fanboys

[Leaf]

I can't find the article right now but the K-4 was blowing head gaskets when the MW50 was used so they were told not to engage it. Also they were having a lot of issues with the guns being jammed. Lot of quality control issues at the end of the war for Germany. The engineering has always been top notch from Germany and that hasn't changed.

 

As far as I know there was no issue whatsoever with the MW50 system, pilots were just told not to engage 1.98 ata lest they want their engine replaced. The K4 could fly at 1.8ata with MW50 just fine. 

Gun jamming occasionally occured with the Mk 108 at high G's.

[CorsairHundo]

Most of the time they only used 1.45 due to the lack of 100 octane fuel

 

 

 

 

As far as I know there was no issue whatsoever with the MW50 system, pilots were just told not to engage 1.98 ata lest they want their engine replaced. The K4 could fly at 1.8ata with MW50 just fine. 

Gun jamming occasionally occured with the Mk 108 at high G's.

[CorsairHundo]

http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

 

Good info

[Solty]

It depends on the engine.

 

There were 2 for K4. DB605DB and DB605DC. Now how they work I am not an expert on 109s...

[CorsairHundo]

It's in that article. The 1.98 wasn't used until March of 1945 and then the number of planes were a small amount

 

"AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation."

 

 

""Niederschrift Nr 6730 of Daimler Benz dated 24 January 1945 states: Testing of 1.98 boost pressure may be done provisionally at group 2/11, the rest of the tests with appropriate engines already started having failed. Only engines with 1.8 boost may be supplied. Strict punishment is threatened if this instruction is neglected. (Nach Lage der Dinge wird denn festgelegt, dass vorläufig die Erprobung des Ladedruckes 1,98 ata nur bei der Gruppe 2/11 durchgeführt werden darf, und dass im übrigen nur die bereits angelaufenen Erprobungen mit entsprechenden Motoren ausgefallen sind. Der Nachschub für diese Motoren darf dann nur mit Motoren mit Einstellung 1,8 ata Ladedruck erflogen. Bei Nichtbeachtung dieses Befehls wird strenge Bestrafung angedroht.)"

 

 

 

It depends on the engine.

 

There were 2 for K4. DB605DB and DB605DC. Now how they work I am not an expert on 109s...

Edited January 8, 2015 by CorsairHundo

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Hardly. Besides the fact that there were no B-29's to escort in Europe, the post is missing any reference to what the P-51 did for instance in the PTO or in Korea, without bombers nearby. It was an air superiority fighter, not a bomber escort. Folks who dismiss the design as an average fighter often have no understanding of the importance of speed. Take the average speed of a P-51 at max. continuous power between 0 and 30k feet and compare it to the contemporaries. It's a huge advantage.

 

Try to switch roles for the two, and and I think you'd see what I mean.

 

An 109 would be useless in the long escort role. A Mustang would be useless in a heavy bomber interception role. Different planes, different roles.

 

The "short blanket theorem" applies here to. The Mustang was an amazing machine, but what made it amazing was not it's dog-fighter capabilities, which were OK but hardly stellar. What made it amazing was that it was able to fly halfway across a continent (or sea) and still be a competent fighter. No other machine could match that. It sacrificed destruction power and manoeuvrability to achieve that goal, as a short range interceptor I'd put my money of any on the alternative designs mentioned in this thread (109, Spitfire, Yak). They would have had to turn back over Holland had the tried it out in the Mustangs role though. Short blanket again.

 

And no, the Mustang was not an air superiority fighter. That concept did not even exist until well after the Mustang was out of service. It was billeted and used primarily as an escort fighter, and should be judged accordingly.

[JtD]

The P-51 came with 4x20mm cannons, originally, and could have used them again, if necessary. Given equal fuel/endurance, it could climb as well as any 109 in the climb rating, and could match the turn of contemporary 109's without much trouble. (Not that turning capability matters much when it comes to judging fighter capabilities.) The fact that the P-51 was used as it was it not an argument against its qualities for other uses, if it had been desired.

 

It's odd that the P-51 "escorted" something when it hunted down every German or Japanese aircraft they could find, including at enemy airfields with not a single friendly bomber nearby. I disagree with you here.

[Fortis_Leader]

B-26? The A-26 was a fantastic AC that served well into Vietnam and did COIN work in foreign service into the 80's.

 

Well, the engines didn't really give the pilots a stellar SA as far as I recall. Honestly I couldn't think of a USAAF plane with a more glaring flaw than that present from start.

 

 

 

It's odd that the P-51 "escorted" something when it hunted down every German or Japanese aircraft they could find, including at enemy airfields with not a single friendly bomber nearby. I disagree with you here.

 

This. I agree that "air superiority fighter" wasn't a term back then, but "escort fighter" to this day isn't a classification of aircraft. The P-51 was a fighter, as simple as that. That one of its largest impacts was being able to escort heavy bombers over Europe doesn't detract from the fact that it very much did everything contemporary fighters did and undoubtedly excelled doing so.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Palaszewski

[CorsairHundo]

On paper the K-4 is better but it never reached its potential as stated in the above link I provided.

 

I'd put money on an Corsair F4U 4 out performing both.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

 

Well, the engines didn't really give the pilots a stellar SA as far as I recall. Honestly I couldn't think of a USAAF plane with a more glaring flaw than that present from start.

 

 

 

 

 

This. I agree that "air superiority fighter" wasn't a term back then, but "escort fighter" to this day isn't a classification of aircraft. The P-51 was a fighter, as simple as that. That one of its largest impacts was being able to escort heavy bombers over Europe doesn't detract from the fact that it very much did everything contemporary fighters did and undoubtedly excelled doing so.

Regarding the A-26; and yet it had a 40 year ground pounding career well into the jet age. It's hard to argue with experience.

[Solty]

 

Well, the engines didn't really give the pilots a stellar SA as far as I recall. Honestly I couldn't think of a USAAF plane with a more glaring flaw than that present from start.

 

 

 

 

 

This. I agree that "air superiority fighter" wasn't a term back then, but "escort fighter" to this day isn't a classification of aircraft. The P-51 was a fighter, as simple as that. That one of its largest impacts was being able to escort heavy bombers over Europe doesn't detract from the fact that it very much did everything contemporary fighters did and undoubtedly excelled doing so.

 

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.

Edited January 20, 2018 by =LD=Solty

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

"escort fighter" to this day isn't a classification of aircraft. The P-51 was a fighter, as simple as that. That one of its largest impacts was being able to escort heavy bombers over Europe doesn't detract from the fact that it very much did everything contemporary fighters did and undoubtedly excelled doing so.

 

 

You are right about the terminology, but I can't agree with you it did everything contemporary fighters did. Temporary Allied fighters perhaps, but it was never put to heavy bomber interception like their Axis counterparts. Had it been, I'm sure it had been found lacking in the armament department very quickly.

[Solty]

You are right about the terminology, but I can't agree with you it did everything contemporary fighters did. Temporary Allied fighters perhaps, but it was never put to heavy bomber interception like their Axis counterparts. Had it been, I'm sure it had been found lacking in the armament department very quickly.

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.

[Fortis_Leader]

You are right about the terminology, but I can't agree with you it did everything contemporary fighters did. Temporary Allied fighters perhaps, but it was never put to heavy bomber interception like their Axis counterparts. Had it been, I'm sure it had been found lacking in the armament department very quickly.

 

You hairsplitter you

 

I agree with Solty though, though lacking cannons I've got a good feeling that the combined effect of half a dozen .50 cals would more than make up for that. It'd definitely cause wreak carnage on the crew, and with the much larger number of incendiary rounds it'd probably stand an equal if not better chance of setting fire to the fuel than 109s and 190s had.

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

The "short blanket theorem" applies here to. The Mustang was an amazing machine, but what made it amazing was not it's dog-fighter capabilities, which were OK but hardly stellar. What made it amazing was that it was able to fly halfway across a continent (or sea) and still be a competent fighter. No other machine could match that. It sacrificed destruction power and manoeuvrability to achieve that goal, as a short range interceptor I'd put my money of any on the alternative designs mentioned in this thread (109, Spitfire, Yak). 

There was another plane that could fly very far and still be a competent fighter - Zero. And 4 years earlier at that.

[JtD]

You are right about the terminology, but I can't agree with you it did everything contemporary fighters did. Temporary Allied fighters perhaps, but it was never put to heavy bomber interception like their Axis counterparts. Had it been, I'm sure it had been found lacking in the armament department very quickly.

6x.50 is certainly not worse than 1x20+2x13. And while the Bf109 needed gondolas before it got the 20mm cannon replaced with a 30mm one late in the war, the P-51 was used with and fit for 4x20mm internally right from the start.

 

There was another plane that could fly very far and still be a competent fighter - Zero. And 4 years earlier at that.

The A6M of 1941 was near 100km/h slower than the contemporary European land based fighter aircraft. It had no protection for anything. It wasn't nearly as competitive as the P-51 was in 1944.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

There was another plane that could fly very far and still be a competent fighter - Zero. And 4 years earlier at that.

 

Good point! The Zero was an amazing design, but again we see the short blanket theory in action. It only achieved what it did by sacrificing armour, self sealing tanks and a strong airframe.

 

 

6x.50 is certainly not worse than 1x20+2x13. And while the Bf109 needed gondolas before it got the 20mm cannon replaced with a 30mm one late in the war, the P-51 was used with and fit for 4x20mm internally right from the start.

 

I believe the armament for the Bf 109 F was either two 7,92mm MGs or two 15 mm HMGs in addition to the cannon, but apart from that you are of course right. If we use Williams & Gustin as a reference, the two 15mm HMGs and one 20mm cannon give a gun power of around 112, while 6 Browning HMGs give 360. The HMG/motorcannon combination was too light even against fighters for all but the best shooters, so it was upgraded.

 

The armament on the Mustang can be blames on the US Department of Ordinance and wasn't really a result of any shortcoming on the Mustangs part. If the Mustang had been given, let's say 4 upgraded, short barrel Mk.V Hispanos, it would be on par with the Tempest gun-wise, with a gun power of 1000. It would ad some weight on the other hand, and the Mustang wasn't too manoeuvrable to begin with. In an interceptor role it wouldn't have needed full tanks though, perhaps the two would balance out. As it was though, the 6 Browning HMGs would have been woefully adequate against heavy bombers, and marginal against medium ones.

 

Now, theoretical considerations are all fine and dandy, but ideally we'd like to test it. I suggest firing up old IL21946 an try it out. It's a sim and not real life, but I think we can assume it is, if not correct, at least in the right ballpark. Edit one of the German interception missions and substitute a P-51 for one of those heavily armed 109/190s. If you don't like shooting down B-17s, put in Condors in stead, perhaps throw in a couple of Bf 109 Gs as escort. I believe you will find taking down any bombers very frustrating.

[CorsairHundo]

The Zero was ahead of the game, with experienced pilots. It's shortcomings was the 317 top speed and the inability to turn well above 180 mph. As soon as the allies figured out their weakness, it was simple, never fight a Zero below 200 mph.

 

 

 

Good point! The Zero was an amazing design, but again we see the short blanket theory in action. It only achieved what it did by sacrificing armour, self sealing tanks and a strong airframe.

 

 

 

 

I believe the armament for the Bf 109 F was either two 7,92mm MGs or two 15 mm HMGs in addition to the cannon, but apart from that you are of course right. If we use Williams & Gustin as a reference, the two 15mm HMGs and one 20mm cannon give a gun power of around 112, while 6 Browning HMGs give 360. The HMG/motorcannon combination was too light even against fighters for all but the best shooters, so it was upgraded.

 

The armament on the Mustang can be blames on the US Department of Ordinance and wasn't really a result of any shortcoming on the Mustangs part. If the Mustang had been given, let's say 4 upgraded, short barrel Mk.V Hispanos, it would be on par with the Tempest gun-wise, with a gun power of 1000. It would ad some weight on the other hand, and the Mustang wasn't too manoeuvrable to begin with. In an interceptor role it wouldn't have needed full tanks though, perhaps the two would balance out. As it was though, the 6 Browning HMGs would have been woefully adequate against heavy bombers, and marginal against medium ones.

 

Now, theoretical considerations are all fine and dandy, but ideally we'd like to test it. I suggest firing up old IL21946 an try it out. It's a sim and not real life, but I think we can assume it is, if not correct, at least in the right ballpark. Edit one of the German interception missions and substitute a P-51 for one of those heavily armed 109/190s. If you don't like shooting down B-17s, put in Condors in stead, perhaps throw in a couple of Bf 109 Gs as escort. I believe you will find taking down any bombers very frustrating.

Edited January 9, 2015 by CorsairHundo

[JG4_Nemesis]

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

 

 

Interestingly enough, he states that he was never frightened if he met one single mustang 1vs1, neither in the 109 nor in the 190....the worst thing was they were 10 or 20 vs one german fighter.

 

I personally know a german fighter pilot, name Walter Erb, who said he could out-turn a P51 in a Fw190 at low level turning, and stated that this was far more dangerous to the P51 pilot because of electric controlls...the ability to get feedback on a upcoming stall situation was far less in the P51, so they stalled into the ground.

 

A P51 Mustang being low and slow in a tight turn fight vs a 109 or 190 is dead meat. A P51 Mustang with E advantage and high speed is in a very favorable situation and when numerous advantage comes additional to that, you were lucky to get away as a single german pilot.

[CorsairHundo]

 

It's called situational awareness. If you were dumb enough to encounter your enemy at their strength and your weakness your fate would be doomed. I bet theres plenty of stories of the top notch pilots dueling each other to the point where they never got a shot off at each other and left to fight another day. Look at the Zero, a 317mph plane that kicked butt in the early stages of the war. They could turn on a dime under 180mph but junk above that. The allies learned and adapted

 

 

Interestingly enough, he states that he was never frightened if he met one single mustang 1vs1, neither in the 109 nor in the 190....the worst thing was they were 10 or 20 vs one german fighter.

 

I personally know a german fighter pilot, name Walter Erb, who said he could out-turn a P51 in a Fw190 at low level turning, and stated that this was far more dangerous to the P51 pilot because of electric controlls...the ability to get feedback on a upcoming stall situation was far less in the P51, so they stalled into the ground.

 

A P51 Mustang being low and slow in a tight turn fight vs a 109 or 190 is dead meat. A P51 Mustang with E advantage and high speed is in a very favorable situation and when numerous advantage comes additional to that, you were lucky to get away as a single german pilot.

[Solty]

Interestingly enough, he states that he was never frightened if he met one single mustang 1vs1, neither in the 109 nor in the 190....the worst thing was they were 10 or 20 vs one german fighter.

 

I personally know a german fighter pilot, name Walter Erb, who said he could out-turn a P51 in a Fw190 at low level turning, and stated that this was far more dangerous to the P51 pilot because of electric controlls...the ability to get feedback on a upcoming stall situation was far less in the P51, so they stalled into the ground.

 

A P51 Mustang being low and slow in a tight turn fight vs a 109 or 190 is dead meat. A P51 Mustang with E advantage and high speed is in a very favorable situation and when numerous advantage comes additional to that, you were lucky to get away as a single german pilot.

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?

Edited January 11, 2015 by =LD=Solty

[Fortis_Leader]

Could I get away with labeling this thread an eternity machine?

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

A P51 Mustang with E advantage and high speed is in a very favorable situation and when numerous advantage comes additional to that, you were lucky to get away as a single german pilot.

 

Then again, a gaggle of 109s or even cannon armed Hurricanes with energy advantage and hight speed are dangerous opponents.

[CorsairHundo]

Then again, a gaggle of 109s or even cannon armed Hurricanes with energy advantage and hight speed are dangerous opponents.

You are pretty consistent on hating on the P-51. Is it because it stole the Thunder of your spitfire ?

[Kurfurst]

It depends on the engine.

 

There were 2 for K4. DB605DB and DB605DC. Now how they work I am not an expert on 109s...

 

Actually the same engine, DB 605DB/DC. Just different settings, which show in the second letter (DC meant the engine was set up to take full advantage of high octane 96/145 grade C-3 German synthethic aviation fuel). The DC setup had about 150-200 PS extra power below 5-6000 meter compared to the DB setup. At higher altitudes where the USAAF bomber went, that is 6000+ meters, both engine setups had practically the same output so it didn't matter.

 

In any case, by the time it arrived to problem was neither to be found in the engine nor in the fuel tank, but rather in between, in the cocpit..

Edited February 25, 2015 by VO101Kurfurst

[Crump]

 

 

I can show you a whole page of Allied pilots that say things like this

 

And there are just as many quotes from the other side with the exact same sentiments.

 

 

 

In any case, by the time it arrived to problem was neither to be found in the engine nor in the fuel tank, but rather in between, in the cocpit..

 

The problem in the cockpit is why you see so many conflicting anecdotes! 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Interestingly enough, he states that he was never frightened if he met one single mustang 1vs1, neither in the 109 nor in the 190....the worst thing was they were 10 or 20 vs one german fighter.

That may have been the case near the end of the war, but for most of the war the P51 escorts were out number by the Lw

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

It's in that article. The 1.98 wasn't used until March of 1945 and then the number of planes were a small amount

Bingo!

 

Ill bet more K4s fly in Hyperlobby IL2 1946 in one weekend than all the K4s in WWII

 

Sad part is DCS does this one-z two-z K4 over the more prevalent G6, and at the same time does not do a 150oct P51

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I just spotted this topic (how could I miss it ), no idea what is the policy in replying a month old posts but will give it a try.

 

 

The A6M of 1941 was near 100km/h slower than the contemporary European land based fighter aircraft. It had no protection for anything. It wasn't nearly as competitive as the P-51 was in 1944.

A6M was a 1940 machine. First models were delivered to the units in June 1940, that was A6M2 Model 11. The first unit that was equipped with them was 12th Kaigun Kokutai which since mid-July was moved to China.  First wave of 6 planes left on mid-July led by Lieutenant Yokoyama, second wave of 6 planes left on July 26 led by Lieutenant Shindo, and third wave of 7 planes left Japan on August 13th. 

On 19th August 1940 a first chance to meet the enemy appeared when twelve A6M2 Zeros led by  Lieutenant Tamotsu Yokoyama took part in their attack on the Chungking, when they escorted 50 bombers, but did not meet any opposition in the air.

 

That was at the same time as Battle of Britain events  

 

 

The speed of the Zero model 11 and model 21 is still a matter of review. The maximum continuous (combat cruising) speed was 510 km/h according to the manual. However the maximum combat or emergency speed is put between 533 and 550 km/h -> http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm

 

Is that much slower than fighters at that time ? The highest figure I saw for Spitfire MK I was 364 mph at 18,600 feet (585 km/h), for Bf-109 E-3 I saw was 570 km/h at 5000 meters. The difference exists and at the top of the things its 50 km/h, that is quite a bit. But that is still a comparison of inline engine land based interceptors with radial engine carrier based escort fighter. Compare it to F4F or Fairey Fulmar.

 

It had no protection because the experience from a 10 months of combat in China did not indicate such need. In a 1941  Imperial Japanese Naval units were withdrawn from China in preparations for the upcoming war with the United States; until then all units equipped with A6M2 Zeros shot down over 100 Chinese machines for the loss of only two of their own fighters, both shot down by the Anti-Aircraft fire.

 

AFAIK, A6M2 had a single protective feature, a fire-extinguisher placed in engine compartment in case of engine fire. 

 

 

Good point! The Zero was an amazing design, but again we see the short blanket theory in action. It only achieved what it did by sacrificing armour, self sealing tanks and a strong airframe.

 

There was no such sacrifice. It was simply designed not to have the armor. And in fact at the time it was designed few machines had the protective features. At the outbreak of the war on the Pacific from all the US fighters ONLY P-40E in which a single Pursuit Squadron on Philippine was equipped had such, none of the Tomahawks or Wildcats had the self sealing fuel tanks. In 1940 the British eventually introduced something known as Linatex, which was a thin layer of rubber, unsatisfactory against German fighters firepower.

In fact first to provide protection for their machines were Russians who in mid-1930s equipped their I-15s with armored plate behind pilots head and introduced a system which took some of the exhaust fumes and filled with them the fuel tanks. Germans were also one of the first nations to introduce various protective features.

As said above, Japanese Navy saw no need to introduce such seeing huge effectiveness of a new fighter.  

 

Airframe was strong in fact, just not capable of withstand a lot of damage, though there are quite a few examples of Zeros returning with battle damage and than flying combat again after field repairs. Zero was made of special Duralumin, produced by Sumitomo Metals it was called "Super Ultra Duralumin" or "Extra Super Duralumin", and was a zinc aluminium alloy equivalent to modern day 7075 material. It's strength properties were significantly higher than those of the normally used copper aluminum alloys, while its unit weight was almost the same. 

 

Lt. Col. J. M. Hayward, chief of foreign development projects at Wright Field stated in Air Force magazine in January 1943: “Claims that German and Japanese airplanes were poorly constructed of unsatisfactionary materials have not been substantiated by fact.” Hayward’s and other Allied reports noted that the Japanese had expended considerable effort in lightening aircraft structures but at the expense of basic safety and structural integrity. An intelligence report on the Zero recovered in Alaska reported it was well constructed and debunked that it was “flimsy.”

[MiloMorai]

Design analysis of the A6M

 

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/zeke32.htm

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yep, that one is good but is rather for enthusiasts as focuses on technical description. From my perspective far more interesting is the Jiro Horikoshi book "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter".

[JtD]

...A6M was a 1940 machine...

I was referring to the A6M of 1941, but you're not wrong in that there also were A6M's in 1940. It's just not what I was talking about.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I was referring to the A6M of 1941, but you're not wrong in that there also were A6M's in 1940. It's just not what I was talking about.

But they do not differ substantially. A6M2 model 11 and A6M2b model 21 are different in a few things like new shape of air intake, mechanism of folding wingtips and few other features, overall weight of the modifications did not exceed 100 kilograms. Performance wise they are almost the same.