Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: P51 vs Me 109 G6..why the mustang was faster

  1. #1
    Supporting Member III./ZG76_Saipan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    orange county, california
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    3.0 KB

    P51 vs Me 109 G6..why the mustang was faster

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTD7DqXfRno

    interesting, hope his info is right
    ASUS Z370-A, i5 8600k, CM haf-x, EVGA gtx 1660 Ti SC ACX, Antec HC 850, Samsung 120GB SSD , WD Black 1TB, Corsair GSkill 16GB, Creative SB Recon, Creative G500 5.1, ASUS VS248h-P
    Me-110 Black 17 with Hptmn. Hans "AWAC" Warsteiner
    :
    Trust me , I fly a Bf 110 (C2-->C7)

  2. #2
    Supporting Member Infinity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    9.12 MB

    Re: P51 vs Me 109 G6..why the mustang was faster

    I too discovered Greg's videos recently. Very informative. His one on the Wildcat is especially good.

  3. #3
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    320.64 MB

    Re: P51 vs Me 109 G6..why the mustang was faster

    The commentator in this video makes a lot of valid points... but he also misses a some.

    For one, by excluding the Methanol injected variants of the 109G's, he is missing a lot of common types which were in action vs the P-51D.

    If he is going to use the 109G-6, (i.e. the non methanol injected, non-GM-1 variant) as the basis of the comparison, then he should use the P-51B as the US version. The P-51B did not use 75 inHG to start... it used 67 inHG because the aircraft were still using 100/130 octane fuel. It was only when the 100/150 octane fuel arrived in early summer that the higher boost levels were used.

    A better comparison to the P-51D would be the 109G-10, which was not down as much in speed. Or even the 109K-4.

    Although the commentator is correct in saying the 109G was the type which had to stop the P-51's, (and the P-47's... ...the Thunderbolts by the way were shooting down the greatest number of Germans in the period of Jan. '44 to June '44, which was the decisive point at which the back of the Luftwaffe was broken and the USAAC got air superiority. After that it was all gravy for the Mustangs) But whatever the USAAC opponent, the 109G-6 variants were the aircraft who had to prevent the USAAC from gaining air superiority. And they couldn't do it.

    Another point he kinda misses... just as big a factor in why the 109G's were inferior in speed to the P-51's is the aerodynamic of the Mustang's frame... it just had a much lower drag coefficient and that made a huge difference.

    The G-6's were also inferior in speed to the P-47's... and that was just due to the American technological superiority in Turbo-Supercharging... they were way ahead... the P-47's Turbo-Supercharged engine had an enormous horsepower advantage at higher altitudes... it could maintain its rated hp to just below 30,000 ft.
    Last edited by RAF74_Buzzsaw; Jul-14-2018 at 04:58.

  4. Likes MrSteven, SirAthlon liked this post
  5. #4
    Supporting Member Karaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    155.92 MB

    Re: P51 vs Me 109 G6..why the mustang was faster

    It would make more sense to compare early P-51s to something like a G-6/AS which was optimized to fight at the altitudes usually crowded by American fighter escorts.

    me109g6-glce2-13aug44.jpg

    G-6/AS performance shown in the middle column (no MW-50). It's still slower than the US escorts but puts up a better fight than the vanilla G-6 which starts losing engine power from ~6.5km altitude onwards. The methanol boosted high alt models (G-10, G-14/AS, K-4) of course are in an entirely different league but did not arrive until mid-late 1944. Heinz Knoke in his book states he received a methanol boosted 109 with high-alt engine (probably G-14/AS) in late spring of 1944 which was around the same time GM-1 boosted G-5s and G-6s were modified to take MW-50 instead so definitely possible.

    1943 certainly was a hard year on the Luftwaffe, there was little going on in terms of fighter development and the strategic bomber campaign of the allies was starting to take on critical mass. The Bf109 got heavier and for the first time a new major production model had worse performance than the models before it (G-6). The FW190 was also treading on a spot. It too got heavier and got heavier armament for no increase in performance (A-6). Its BMW engine by design was no good at altitudes in excess of 6km and the 190 would not see a dramatic increase in high alt performance until the introduction of the Dora in late 1944.
    Last edited by Karaya; Jul-14-2018 at 07:03.

  6. Likes MrSteven, SirAthlon, IIJG27Rich liked this post

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •