Jump to content


Mustang versus Bf109

#engine #historical

  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

apartclassic #1 Posted 30 March 2020 - 12:00 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 23094 battles
  • 922
  • [UNIC] UNIC
  • Member since:
    01-21-2014

A little non-standard view on the differences in performance of the two planes. Technical and mechanical, but very convincing. I hope you'll enjoy it:

 

 

Just a sidenote (or maybe two). Games tend to mis-represent the performance of both planes, and WoWP is certainly guilty of that too, to some degree. In the current state of the game I feel like Mustangs are slightly underperforming on high altitude, where - according to this video, and according to historical data - they were really shining. Misconception number two is more of a general myth concerning the Mustang, namely that it was a very good 'dogfighter'. Not quite. The main assets of P-51 was the operational range and high-altitude performance; it was a typical BnZ plane, and it was very good at it. Many late war designs (like high-altitude variants of Spitfire) were significantly more maneuverable than Mustangs at comparable altitudes, including near the maximum of the their ceiling, but had drawbacks that excluded them from performing the task the Mustang was designed for. Which was escorting strategic bombers on high altitude, not going dogfighting (Mustang was an escort fighter through and through).


You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

https://i.imgur.com/SdxyYWh.jpg


zen_monk_ #2 Posted 30 March 2020 - 08:20 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 9492 battles
  • 3,276
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
The Stang was a muscle fighter, the same way a Mustang car, or a Dodge Challenger or Viper are.

stats were invented by Satan himself to suck the carefree fun out of gaming                            





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users