Replies

“...The B-52, even longer lived than the C-130. Maybe the P-51, tho I was surprised to read that a test pilot who had flown both the P-51 and the ME-109 said the Messerschmidt was the better fighter.” [yarddog, post 28]

The B-52 and the C-130 began coming into USAF operational inventory at the same time.

Not surprising to hear of a pilot rating the Me-109 as “better” than the P-51. Aircraft handling qualities are irreducibly subjective; few pilots can agree on why one aircraft might be “better” than another. Goes double and triple for fighter pilots, who are unwarrantedly sure of themselves and disinclined to accept anybody else’s interpretation.

A number of pilot reports on the Me-109 have appeared in popular-press aviation magazines. Some rate it as very difficult to operate, suffering from excessive control forces. Others rate it as the most nimble airplane they ever took aloft.

It’s not possible to rate one aircraft as “better” overall. Designs are very constrained, and an improvement in one attribute necessarily means a decrease in some other attribute - especially in fighters. The P-51 was no faster than later variants of the Me-109, but used a more advanced airfoil and newer construction techniques resulted in smoother surfaces; all this afforded greater aerodynamic efficiency, improving the range.

Range was in fact the critical factor in the success of the P-51: it was the first Allied fighter capable of escorting bombers as far as Berlin. It sacrificed other key performance factors to do so: it was unstable and tricky to handle at heavy gross weights (as it would be, filled with fuel for takeoff); maneuvers had to be strictly avoided until a significant percentage of its fuel was consumed, and tanks had to be drained in very specific sequences to avoid risks of loss of control.

Landing a P-51 was also notoriously tricky: more were lost to landing and ground handling mishaps than to hostile fire.