Thankyou Gardner for scoop explanation. As for buck & slats, I have read an article that debunked that particular tale, I'll dig it up If I can find it. I also recently read an interview with Tommy hayes where he followed a 109 in a power dive. He said my controls froze & the 109 turned in a different direction & I was not able to follow. Buligen said he could outturn Mustangs in 109 or 190, but pilot skill plays a part in that.

I was giving facts from Capt. Eric Brown RN (world record holder for most types of aircraft flown). Having flown both aircraft extensively, his comments are not to be taken lightly. Additionally, there are test reports from TAIC (USAAF testing) and USN testing of these aircraft. All confirm what I have said. This, however, does not preclude as you point out pilot quality. In the end that is the single most important factor.....

Indeed Browns data is impeccable. However, the Mustang is almost always compared to the G-6, & the G-10 & K-4 could outdive a G-6. I have to wonder if Brown ever flew a K-4. I know he was not a big 109 fan, The K was much lighter & according to Buligen, flew wonderful, A bit of an ambiguos term, but interesting nonetheless.

Also, I would say that I consider Brown the # 1 authority on ww2 aircraft cause no only did he fly all those aircraft, he also flew on channel coast during war. However when it comes to the 109, people like Buligen flew thousands of hours in the 109 from E to K, & I would think Brown flew perhaps a few hours in a G-6. So I would consider Buligen & other 109ers with similiar experience to be the top authority on the flight characteristics of the 109. I know that pilots will be biased towards their respective planes, but also some US stats on german aircraft were not exact & bias can go both ways. The Mustang recieves tons of glory here in US. It was a great plane. & its accomplishements are even more impressive than its performance envelopes. It,(like the 109), was also a not so steady gun platform. As I understand it, the FW 190 had a twin spar wing & the 109 a single spar wing, & this was why the 109 was not a steady gun platform & the 190 was steady. Yeager thought so. Anyway, rambling a bit here. Still waiting to hear back on the leading edge slat article.

OK, here it is; http://virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths. Also I once read a British pilots report on flying a 190 against 2 Mustangs. He said after 3 turns, I found I had little difficulty in getting on the tails of the Mustangs. Now its fairly well known that the 109 had a slight turn advantage over the 190, so with that in mind, theoretically the 109 should outturn the Mustang. One thing to remember is that altitude & speed change turn rates dramatically. a 109 G was test flown in flight journal mag & it reported the 109 could outmaneuver a Mustang at low altitude, but The Mustang should have the advantage at high speed, high altitude. All for now. Hope article is of interest.

a little history for all of you. to counter the increasing threat of the P-51B at higheer altitudes friend Horst Petzschler from JG 51 was brought over to form 2./JG 3 as a high altitude staffel with all blue Bf 109G-6/AS, and in fact the 1st and 3rd staffel were to fly these terrible missions as high escort for single and twin engine German fighters on their way to attack the US bomber stream during April and through May of 44 right before Normandie. The unfortuante thing as Horst so well described as that "we always had to climb to meet the Mustangs", as they were already cruising at 32,000 feet. We always got bounced first........
Speed was not the problem it was the height advantage we did not have. "Lucky we had the MW 50 boost for the short duration."

E ♪

A more "fair" comparison of late war fighters is not comparing the P-51D, P-47D or, a Spitfire XIV those of Germany like the Fw 190D or Me 109G-10 / K.
More realistically, these later aircraft should be compared to their late war modification / models of their Allied counterparts: The P-51H, P-72 or Spitfire 21 / 22. These aircraft are the contemporaries of the 190D and 109K. It was simply the combination of lack of necessity and more thorough testing and design on the part of the Allies that slowed deployment of these aircraft unlike the German developments. Neither the 109 or 190 underwent any extensive flight test program prior to operational deployment. Any problems encountered in their flying characteristics were dealt with 'on the fly' from one production aircraft to the next.
When one looks at the Allied 1944 developments mentioned above one finds aircraft approaching 500 mph in level flight, capable of taking higher G and, in general, being more mechanically efficent.
This isn't to denegrate the German efforts. Their designers did excellently within the limitations of the materials and manufacturing conditions they faced. There is nothing wrong with that what-so-ever. But, compare "apples to apples." The Fw 190D was no match for the P-51H (or P-72 or, Spitfire 21 / 22).

true TA on your last sentance but the Ta 152H in the equation would of been interesting but we will never know.........

Beg to differ. The K-4 came out Oct 44 & Mustang D April 44. Usually its other way round with Mustang D compared to G-6. Was not the G-6 a 43 vintage plane? D-9 was Aug 44, very close to Mustang D's arrival.

Last thought on test flying captured aircraft. A finnish pilot said its important to remember when testing an E/A, if it was not built well, especially the airframe, it will not turn or perform well in general. The LF had labor & material probs. So quite often 2 different factories would build the same plane, but one would invariably be better than the other. This problem was even present in 42 in north africa. So if the allies got a bad one & gave it a test flight, the report would be correspondingly bad. So to get a realistic view, one would really do well to fly several of the same mark. When can we expect that book Eric? did anyone else have difficulty in acessing the virtual pilot article?

yes the G-6 was in action in 1943, but the AS version did not see into the units till April of 44 first with the heavily involved II./JG 11, the a gruppe in JG 1, I./JG 3 and so on. the G-6/AS was the fastest production model of it's time till the G-10 came available and some sources mention this was actually faster than the K-4 model which was only in limited numbers to the still existing 109 gruppen. Again keep in mind the Fw 190Dora was only a stop gap until production of the Ta 152 could be raised, but it wasn't.......

Let's see:
P-51 B/C w/ Merlin V-1650-3 or -7 engine: Flight testing began Sept 42, operational Dec 43
P-51 D Began to see squadron service April 44. It was virtually identical except for the cut down fuselage and new canopy with the B/C models using the same V-1650-7 engines, etc.
P-51 H Design begins early 44 first flight Feb 45. This plane is only about 20 - 30% common with previous models. It had a entirely new wing, many major fuselage changes and new landing gear etc.

P-72A 2 Prototypes flying June 44
P-47M 3 prototypes early 44 in service Aug 44.
P-47N Sept 44. Production Dec 44. Has totally new wing design on P-47M fuselage.


Me 109G6 Prototypes Jan 42 operational fall of 42.
Me 109 G-10 June/July 44 production starts. Operational Nov 44.
Me 109 G-14 Mar/ Apr 44 production starts. Operational Aug 44.
Me 109 K-1 -4 Sept pre-production. Jan 45 operational.

Fw 190 D-9 Prototypes summer 44, operational Oct 44.
Ta 152C Prototypes Mar 45 never produced.
Ta 152H Prototypes June / july 44, production starts Nov 44
both Ta 152's have a high commonality with the 190D in terms of parts. The Ta 152H is a stretched 190D fuselage with new outer wing panels attached to the same inner wing.

As you can see the P-51 H and P-47 M /N and P-72 are contemporaries with the 109 G-10, K and 190D / Ta 152 more so than the P-51B - D or P-47D which are more readily paired with the G-6.

Actually several Ta 152C proto's were taken over by JG 301 before the factory was over-run by the Soviets

I believe 674 K-4's were delivered, & it came out just ahead of G-10. Another thing to remember regarding Gardners argument is that the Mustang had the benefit of studying the Spit & 109 designs, the P-40 & P39 as well. The 109 was a 1934 design, So the Mustang could employ the better ideas of these planes & avoid the mistakes. A huge advantage not enjoyed by the Messerschmitt team. So with that in mind, I think it very "fair" to compare a K-4 to a Mustang D.

Also The D-9 was 2yrs in testing & developing, 42-44, So the above argument doesn't really fly with the D-9.

The K-4 was operational Oct 44, not Jan 45. The allies had 2 big technological advantages, # 1 they had 100 octane gas, & the Germans had 87 octane. Also the Germans did not have high grade steel, & their motors had a shorter shelf life. One prototype D series aircraft hit 450 at 30.000 ft with a turbosupercharger, but it would melt because they didn't have the right steel. They tried ceramics, but it didn't work. So with that in mind, it is amazing what they were able to achieve in performance in 44-45.

Eric, The G-6 AS as you mentioned had similiar performance to the K. Probably more manueverable with lower wing loading. What do ya think? Also I read that the last dogfight of ww2 was between a Tempest & a 152. The 152 outturned the Tempest with ease. My question is what about a Spit? 152 vs Spit in the turn, low or high altitude. Let me know what you think. Also the new Warbirds mag has a cool D-13 article with good photos.

wouldnt the last dogfight of ww2 be in the Far East???

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Funny you should mention that because

Seafires(the naval version of the Spitfire) of No. 894 Squadron, FAA, and IJNAF A6Ms fought the last mass fighter-against-fighter combat of WW2, over Odaki Bay, minutes before the cease-fire was ordered on August 15. Eight Zeros were shot down for the loss of one Seafire, and the war actually ended before some of the Seafires got back to HMS Indefatigable.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Do we know who shot down the last plane of WW2???

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

It was a Consolidated B-32 Dominator. After the cease-fire, B-32s flew photo-reconnaissance missions over Japan to assess the amount of damage. Most of those missions were unopposed, but on a mission over Tokyo on August 18, two B-32s were attacked by Japanese fighters (unknown type). Two Japanese fighters were shot down, but both of the B-32s made it back to base, although one of them had one crewman killed and two injured.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Cool,

Thanxs redcoat! A very speedy response!

And in the Western Hemisphere???

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Correction, I meant Europe. A painting was made of this fight, which did actually take place & was labelled the last dogfight in Europe. Have no way of verifying if it was in fact "the" last, but it was presented as such. So any ideas on 152 vs Spit in turn? Or G-6 AS vs K-4?