Was the P-51 really that good?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Post Reply
User avatar
PanzerKing
Member
Posts: 1244
Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 03:26
Location: Texas USA

Was the P-51 really that good?

#1

Post by PanzerKing » 14 Oct 2003, 02:00

I think a lot of times Americans are subject to the "our army was the best" idealogy and are fed some facts that aren't always true. For example, the P-51 is always considered a heck of a lot better than the German planes. What about the later Fw 190's and Me 262's? Do you think the only reasons the P-51 was so dominant was the poor Luftwaffe training and shortage of equipment & fuel late in the war, or was the P-51 truly the superior plane in the skies?

I know that the latest versions of the Fw 190 was about 20 mph slower, but is that really a deciding factor in performance? The Me 262 was not a dogfighter, but with it's speed one would think it could creep up on a P-51 or two, attack, and then outrun them?

Anyone have any answers or am I making unfair comparisons? I really don't know much about WW2 aircraft.

Thanks.

MadderCat
Member
Posts: 428
Joined: 10 May 2003, 13:52
Location: Germany

#2

Post by MadderCat » 14 Oct 2003, 09:59

Hi

what do You want to compare???
Horsepower, Armament, Rate of turn, rate of climb, firepower, range,
airtime, production numbers or something else????

the P-51 was good, especially in escort duties, fast & agile,
but if an experienced german pilot flying a Bf109K oder Fw190D
encountered one it was a matter of the pilot to fight it out.
in an combat 1 against 1 it was the pilot who won the battle, not the plane.
but in late war there were more allied planes in the air than axis planes.

with the Me262 it's different, the P-51 was able to make sharp turns,
the 262 wasn't able to do dogfighting like an piston engined plane,
so the 262 made more hit&run and surprise attacks on enemy fighters.
speaking of speed the 262 was faster than anything the allied fielded,
exception was the landing and starting speed of the 262, there they were
protected by Fw190D9.

sorry for my poor english

MadderCat


Vinnie O
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 22:16
Location: Washington, DC, USA

They're about the same

#3

Post by Vinnie O » 14 Oct 2003, 22:36

Some years ago I got tired of the subjective arguing and built a number cruncher to rate airplanes, mostly because I intended to fix the airplanes in "War in Russia".

My number cruncher, which I call AirCALC, says that, yes, a P-51H is objectively better than a Me-262A-2a, which is marginally better than a P-51D.

The best Bf-109 is actually the Franz (Bf-109F-4 or so) because the rate of climb fell off in later models.

The Ta-152H-1 rates very well, much better than any of the official "Focke-Wulfs".

The Fw-190 is generally a step backwards, except it has more firepower than a Bf-109. The firepower of the Me-262 is incredible, perhaps the damaging fighter aircraft of the war.

The simply BEST WW2 fighter is the Spitfire XIVB, and I don't like the English.

I built my number cruncher to separate the data from the rating calculations. And I still ocasionally clean up the data or tweak one of the formulae. But from the beginning planes considered "good" scored well and planes considered "bad" scored poorly so I think my scoring is objective.

I try to evaluate some dozens of actual air battles, with mixed results.

Following Colonel Dupuy's example, I find that the only way to produce anything close to the historical results for most battles is to adjust the raw scores of the airplanes by National Effectiveness ratings.

The Germans get the highest rating and the Japanese are VERY bad. The English and Americans are fixed at "1.0" to base the scale. Getting the score of a A6M Zero DOWN to the point that things like a F4F Widlcat can kill it takes INCREDIBLY bad pilots. (The same is true for Korea, where only REALLY bad Russians and North Koreans could possibly get out-fought in a MiG-15 against an F-86)

User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002, 16:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]
Contact:

Re: They're about the same

#4

Post by Musashi » 15 Oct 2003, 00:04

Vinnie O wrote: The best Bf-109 is actually the Franz (Bf-109F-4 or so) because the rate of climb fell off in later models.
Franz? Didn't F means "Friedrich"?

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#5

Post by varjag » 15 Oct 2003, 13:07

Forget the number-crunching.The P-51's (B & D) were superb. In the hands of well-trained (much better than the LW run-of-the-mill) pilots, well led and in command of superior machines, they chewed the Luftwaffe fighter-arm to shreds in six months in 1944. It was the world's first "air-superiority-fighter" though such etheric terms had not been invented then. It was THE fighter of WW2 - because without it the Luftwaffe would not have been beaten over the homeland. The boys in the Mustangs didn't worry too much about comparative climb rates or the fire-power of the German jets - they went in AGGRESSIVELY, they were looking for trouble and whenever they found it- they waded in boots and all because they knew they had a machine, at least equal and mostly superior the the Germans. History has proven them right.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: They're about the same

#6

Post by redcoat » 15 Oct 2003, 13:28

Vinnie O wrote: My number cruncher, which I call AirCALC, says that, yes, a P-51H is objectively better than a Me-262A-2a, which is marginally better than a P-51D.
Just a minor point.
The P-51H only saw active service in the Pacific theater during WW
2, it entered service too late for use in the European theater.

User avatar
Eryk
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Aug 2003, 16:04
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: They're about the same

#7

Post by Eryk » 15 Oct 2003, 13:39

Musashi :

Some sources called it "Fritz" (TBiU 174 :lol: )

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#8

Post by Tiwaz » 15 Oct 2003, 13:55

varjag wrote:Forget the number-crunching.The P-51's (B & D) were superb. In the hands of well-trained (much better than the LW run-of-the-mill) pilots, well led and in command of superior machines, they chewed the Luftwaffe fighter-arm to shreds in six months in 1944. It was the world's first "air-superiority-fighter" though such etheric terms had not been invented then. It was THE fighter of WW2 - because without it the Luftwaffe would not have been beaten over the homeland. The boys in the Mustangs didn't worry too much about comparative climb rates or the fire-power of the German jets - they went in AGGRESSIVELY, they were looking for trouble and whenever they found it- they waded in boots and all because they knew they had a machine, at least equal and mostly superior the the Germans. History has proven them right.
In well trained hands anything can be good if you get advantage in training. And if you have advantage in numbers losing is practically impossible.

It tells little about plane itself but more of conditions it had to fight in.

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#9

Post by varjag » 16 Oct 2003, 14:47

Tiwaz wrote:
varjag wrote:Forget the number-crunching.The P-51's (B & D) were superb. In the hands of well-trained (much better than the LW run-of-the-mill) pilots, well led and in command of superior machines, they chewed the Luftwaffe fighter-arm to shreds in six months in 1944. It was the world's first "air-superiority-fighter" though such etheric terms had not been invented then. It was THE fighter of WW2 - because without it the Luftwaffe would not have been beaten over the homeland. The boys in the Mustangs didn't worry too much about comparative climb rates or the fire-power of the German jets - they went in AGGRESSIVELY, they were looking for trouble and whenever they found it- they waded in boots and all because they knew they had a machine, at least equal and mostly superior the the Germans. History has proven them right.
In well trained hands anything can be good if you get advantage in training. And if you have advantage in numbers losing is practically impossible.

It tells little about plane itself but more of conditions it had to fight in.
Well Tiwaz, I think you're both right and wrong. In well trained hands, Brewsters, Curtisses, even Fiat G.50's and Moranni's - did rather well against superior numbers of Lagg-3's, Yak-1's and Mig-3's. The quality of soviet pilots slowly improved and the going got tougher, even with the Me-109's by 1944. What I tried to say - was that the USAAF did have a superior fighter, perhaps not in EVERY respect, at EVERY altitude but one that let every pilot mingle it on at LEAST equal terms with the LW.
The LW were trying 'to choose their terms of combat' -the P-51's didn't let them - they wore them down by choosing battle at any opportunity. I do not recall that the same condition applied to the Soviet fighters, even over the Karelian front in 1944.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#10

Post by Darrin » 16 Oct 2003, 17:45

I was under the impression the P 51 was a great aircraft partly because they had such a great range. They could fly to distant places in ger escorting bombers then drop thier drop thier ext fuel tanks dog fight for a bit even suffer damage and still make it back to england. Before this the other ftr range was to small even with ext fuel and the only option was using planes that weren´t designed to be ftrs. Such as the ger Me110 early in the war.

The bombers were lightly protected on most runs up till early 44 allwoing the ger ftrs to shoot down more planes and the bombers to have diff dropping accuratly. Once the P51 came the ger ftr found escorting ftr in str and suffered large damage while the Us bombers were protected better and were able to drop thier bombs more accurtluly. Return to base less damaged and turn around faster.

One of the other problems with the P51 and most US ac was they relied too much on just HMG. This was geenerally fine when it casme to shooting down ftrs but bombers (ju 52) and even certain ground targets such as tanks they were nearly useless.

User avatar
Punk_Waffen
Member
Posts: 181
Joined: 28 Sep 2002, 22:07
Location: Harmony
Contact:

...

#11

Post by Punk_Waffen » 16 Oct 2003, 17:50

I personally think the P-51D was/is the best and most reliable aircraft of its class and or type. In the hands of a skilled pilot or someone familiar with the machine, i think it was more effective than some of the planes we have today...

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#12

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 19 Oct 2003, 16:24

The P-51 was a dam good airplane. It is most remembered because it was the first good air-superiority fighter that could escort bombers "all the way".

Many people also forget that it was the fastest (piston-single-engine) airplane in WWII. For all I know it may still hold the speed record.

Truly an amazing combination, an American air-frame with a British engine. It looks good and really burns the idea/image of fighter pilots as all-american heros flying really cool bad-ass shiny loud war-machines.

Makes me jealous as I a never had a Chromed tank.l

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#13

Post by Tiwaz » 19 Oct 2003, 17:42

varjag wrote:
Tiwaz wrote:
varjag wrote:Forget the number-crunching.The P-51's (B & D) were superb. In the hands of well-trained (much better than the LW run-of-the-mill) pilots, well led and in command of superior machines, they chewed the Luftwaffe fighter-arm to shreds in six months in 1944. It was the world's first "air-superiority-fighter" though such etheric terms had not been invented then. It was THE fighter of WW2 - because without it the Luftwaffe would not have been beaten over the homeland. The boys in the Mustangs didn't worry too much about comparative climb rates or the fire-power of the German jets - they went in AGGRESSIVELY, they were looking for trouble and whenever they found it- they waded in boots and all because they knew they had a machine, at least equal and mostly superior the the Germans. History has proven them right.
In well trained hands anything can be good if you get advantage in training. And if you have advantage in numbers losing is practically impossible.

It tells little about plane itself but more of conditions it had to fight in.
Well Tiwaz, I think you're both right and wrong. In well trained hands, Brewsters, Curtisses, even Fiat G.50's and Moranni's - did rather well against superior numbers of Lagg-3's, Yak-1's and Mig-3's. The quality of soviet pilots slowly improved and the going got tougher, even with the Me-109's by 1944. What I tried to say - was that the USAAF did have a superior fighter, perhaps not in EVERY respect, at EVERY altitude but one that let every pilot mingle it on at LEAST equal terms with the LW.
The LW were trying 'to choose their terms of combat' -the P-51's didn't let them - they wore them down by choosing battle at any opportunity. I do not recall that the same condition applied to the Soviet fighters, even over the Karelian front in 1944.
USAAF also had huge numbers. Odds LW had to face were simply staggering, P-51 was good plane but I have small feeling of much of their fame from coming from fighting battles in advantageous position. Trained pilots in great numbers against less and less trained pilots with dwindling numbers.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#14

Post by Darrin » 19 Oct 2003, 18:41

[quote="TiwazUSAAF also had huge numbers. Odds LW had to face were simply staggering, P-51 was good plane but I have small feeling of much of their fame from coming from fighting battles in advantageous position. Trained pilots in great numbers against less and less trained pilots with dwindling numbers.[/quote]


The odds were relly large in favor of west in numbers of planes in total as well as operation sorties I am sure. But these odds incliúded many planes which would never make it to germany in mid 44. Over normandy the allies enjoyed huge air sup and the ger had withdrawn most of thier ftrs esp to deal with the bombers. The skys over ger were far more close in terms of numbers of ger ftrs and P51s. The odds only get worse when you remeber that each ger ftr wasn´t trying to kill US ftrs but US bombers. What the P51 was desigend for was to prevent the ger ftrs from attacking the bombers.

Thier were certain other adv the allies had over the ger latter in the war in the bomber war esp but numbers of escorting ftr is much less than you might imagine. The bombers flew at such a high altitude they were difficult for any ftr to reach. The ger ftr which might reach this altitude and attack large bombers easily did poorly with the P51. The P51 was much better high altiude performance than the ger ftrs of its time. Probably due to its bomber derived engine and use of high octane fuel. The ger fuel was in too short supply to increse its octance any more was considered impractical.

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003, 11:45
Location: Australia

#15

Post by alf » 20 Oct 2003, 03:21

The P-51 was simply a superb airplane, probably the overall best single engined fighter aircraft of the war.

Here is a quote from John Terraine' history of the Royal Air Force in the European War - World War 2. The Right of the Line (1984) : Page 555
............The story of the P-51 is familiar: the initial RAF order in April 1940, which lead to the first underpowered and unimpressive version, the extraordinary transformation, in May 1942 when Rolls Royce Merlin 61 engines were fitted; and finally the evolution of the P-51B in June 1943. This was an aircraft outstandingly superior to any existing German Fighter; without drop tanks.

..........it could outpace a FW190 by nearly 50mph up to 28,000 feet and by about 70mph above that height. It was superior in speed at all heights to the ME 109G. It could outdive both the FW190 and the ME109G. It could easily outturn the ME109G and slightly outturn the FW190. It had a similar rate of roll to the ME109G, but in this respect was slightly inferior to FW190...............

Most important of all, in the crisis of POINTBLANK, was the range of this astonishing machine: with two 75 gallon drop tanks, it could operate 600 miles from base. A further 85-gallon tank gave it a round range of 1474 miles; even when carrying two drop tanks, it could achieve speeds of 400m.p.h and more.
Another serious British historian Max Hastings in his book Bomber Command (1979) wrote .............."The two great achievements of the Allied strategic Air Offensive must be conceded to the Americans: the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the Mustang escort fighter, and the inception of the deadly oil offensive"...... (page 350)

Note I have used only British quotes about the Mustang, as the Mustang is as every bit as good as what the Americans say it is. What German single engined fighter could have taken off in Germany, and been able to dogfight over London against the best allied fighters and then return to its base? The answer is none. Thats the perspective the Mustang has to be viewed against

The problems faced by the Luftwaffe in early 1944 (Jan-Mar) were no different to those faced by the RAF during the Battle of Britian, except the Luftwaffe in 1944 had the significant tactical advantage of greater response time through radar to position their fighters to attack. As losses mounted and the pool of skilled pilots were killed, new problems did emerge, but war is never fair. The Luftwaffe pilots with 10-20 hours flying time sent up to fight are no different to the RAF pilots of 1940 sent up to fight with the same hours flying time against the Luftwaffe "experten" . The fate of both groups to often was simply to become kill markings on the other sides aces machines.

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”