Why was the BF109 so slow compared with the P51?

Why is the ME 109G with it's huge engine in a small airframe about 40-60mph slower than the P51 Mustang? In this video we look at the key differnces between the Merlin 1650 and Diamler Benz DB 605 as they relate to power.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
My Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
More on Manifold Pressure: • P51 Mustang Manifold P...
The 109's awesome supercharger drive system: • Messerschmitt BF 109 S...
P51 vs. X turn radius: • P51 Mustang Turn Radiu...

[@pinnedthrottle7690]

“No replacement for displacement” P-51: hold my manifold pressure

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Kilroy gets it.

[@manojkumarpandey5256]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Kilroy was here

[@justforever96]

That quote mstly refers to arguments about engine speeds and valve trains. This was before widespread forced induction on cars, and what forced induction they had was pretty primitive. Basically, it was American large bore big blocks vs smaller V8s like the 327 and European sports car engines like the Jaguar inline six. and of course that quote comes from the world of drag racing, where performance off the line is critical. Displacement is much less crucial in other forms of racing where engines can run in their designed power band at most times, and where smaller displacement can win you races because of fewer pit stops for fueling and better cornering due to reduced weight. A drag racer needs to accelerate from a stop to high speeds so the engine needs to produce a fat torque curve and plenty of power over a wide band, whereas an aircraft engine can be designed to run at a constant speed for optimal power delivery, making it much simpler with fewer compromises (all engines benefit from being designed to run best one one speed, which is one reason petrol/diesel-electric or range-extender hybrids are so much more efficient. And CVTs, for the same reason). An automobile engine needs a lot of compromises to be able to run at many different speeds and power levels. So you are taking that quote out of context, and of course ignoring fuel quality issues. Boost makes a great replacement for displacement, unless you are stuck using barely 87 octane fuel, which cannot support more than marginal boost.

[@MrSnakedHD]

@@justforever96 I’m pretty sure the quote is from Bentley, who used much more powerful engines and heavier cars than his competition, for racing, back in the 20’s. The origin of the quote is not an American thing or linked to drag racing, even if today it’s associated with it.

[@ColeDedhand]

There's no replacement for cfm.

[@FroggyFrog9000]

The disparity in available octane 95 vs up to 150, was all the more reason for the Luftwaffe to forget totally about piston engine power plants and focus solely on jet engines, which can basically burn anything from kerosene, diesel - you name it and octane rating simply doesnt matter at all to a jet engine.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's absolutely true, a Jet engine solves this and many other problems.

[@garyseeseverything8615]

Allies had high a octanes only so to say Germany prop planes were slow is a joke. Germany didn’t have Texas oil folks and very often ran out of fuel that German bombers were grounded in 1944

[@womble321]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles they didn't have the alloys. The story of how the Russians tried to steal samples on a visit to Rolls Royce is hilarious. They even tried sticky shoes to pic up swarf. Rolls Royce actually scattered an inferior alloy on the floor! Rolls Royce was ordered to give Russia the design by a labour Government . Politicians didn't think about the alloys!

[@StalinLovsMsmZioglowfagz]

@@garyseeseverything8615 Prescott Bush (Allen Dulles C.I.A. George “Poppy” - [Heroine? Or Pete Owe?] - Bush’s [Sr. 1st President Bush] Gramps) sure helped all he could. These people, it’s all a game to them. All those lives. Meaningless to these psychopaths and their Ratschild Masters.

[@kenneth9874]

@@garyseeseverything8615 doesn't matter why at this point, slower is slower

[@Spitfireseven]

That was the most technically detailed explanation of fighter plane capacity I've ever heard and likely will ever hear. Thanks.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

See a few videos on my channel... The basics are badly misunderstood everywhere, including the obsession with speed... Speed gets you in front! In WWII combat that is often really bad...

[@guaporeturns9472]

This channel is full of them. Best place on the internet

[@GreenKnight2001]

You've singlehandedly rekindled my interest in WW2 planes. Fantastic level of detail. Well done, sir.

[@numberpirate]

In case anyone is wondering, 75 inches of mercury is about 38psi(2.6Atm) of boost and 42 inches is about 21psi(1.5Atm). Basically just divide the inches of mercury by two and you get the boost in PSI

[@shaunybonny688]

That’s a lot of boost.

[@jamesbottger5894]

Both of these planes were amazing considering this was during the 1940s. Not only did the P-51 have to make up for a smaller displacement engine as compared to the 109, it also outweighed the 109 by about 4000 lbs, depending on the fuel load at the time the two tangled. That seems like an insurmountable advantage for the 109, but engineers were able to give Mustang pilots the upper hand...

[@theacme3]

the 109 was something like 8 years older then the mustang. In a time of such rapid development like wwIi that's like saying "its amazing that my computer is so much better then the one from 15 years ago" Sure the 109 was updated continuously but there is only so much you can do with an old airframe / old engine

[@truereaper4572]

The Bf109 was about 8 years old at that point, and was limited by a severe lack of rare metals. The German engineers were the real underdogs.

[@mikespencer4922]

Uuuh... no! The British Merlin engine was the difference.

[@GigB_]

​@@mikespencer4922 no one said it wasn't?

[@SA-ks3ex]

@@theacme3beginning of service of mustang - 1942. Bf 109 - 1937. Please stop making things up. E and G models are absolutely different aircrafts just like early and late P-51. I don’t understand why the year of development of first modification should matter anyway.

[@daveverhine1914]

Excellent video. You broke it down just as my powerplants instructor did way back when I started my Naval aviation days. I laughed at, "if there's one thing a superchargers love, it's being fed by another supercharger." Well said, sir.

[@jackjohnsen8506]

I met the head engineer who designed the P51, and he told me That the air scoop, on the bottom of that aircraft actually made the aircraft 5 miles an hour faster, than without it! That was good designing!

[@MartinMcAvoy]

Seems a bit doubtful, because any extra bulk, creates drag. But the performance increase is explained by the Meredith Effect.

[@cannonfodder4376]

So this video appeared on my KZbin Recommendation Front Page today. I reluctantly clicked expecting trash and was rewarded with a superb video with technical and contextual information, without any of the shallow hyperbole and lack of focus of other "documentaries". All this information clearly explained for even a simpleton like me to understand and in a wonderful, clear voice too. I have also watched the rest of the aircraft related videos and liked them too. Very impressive quality increase over the course of less than a year. Subbed and hoping for more, you know your stuff.

[@asiftalpur3758]

@@touristguy87 contrary to your pathetic assumption, Cannon is one of the few respected people in the flight Sim community. See any video related to the subject matter and you will see his comments that adds much more substance then your entire KZbin comments combined.

[@stosh64]

@@touristguy87 Yet another sad case of TDS ignorantly displayed proudly. Asif and Cannon were spot on with there analysis. Seek help tourist.

[@timesthree5757]

I disagree with one regard. If the British refused to provide their engine the US would've invented and made a better engine but the plane would have been late to the war.

[@timesthree5757]

@@touristguy87 Yea, I don't think so. Think we would have innovated something late in the war. But, you go ahead and believe the US is filled with dumb hicks. Also I do watch the speed channels. Anything worth doing is difficult.

[@spatsky]

touristguy87 By the end of WWII, radial engines were much preferred than inline engines. Radial engines were rugged had more range than the inline engines.

[@AirCicilia]

Man, you make a great mechanics instructor, history teacher and technical narrator, all in one. I came across this video after watching an episode of Hogan's Heroes.

[@thevoxofreason8468]

My first thought upon reading the title: short answer, fuel. Now I'll watch and see what you say.

[@manchu9inf]

I agree, the higher octane fuel allowed for higher manifold pressure resulting in more power for the motor. the aftercooler and dual stage supercharger were icing on the cake.

[@thevoxofreason8468]

@@manchu9inf 👍

[@lillpillper]

It seems like the late me 109 variants, the late G and K was quite equal to the P51-D as you mentioned in the end of this video. For a fighter that was of the first generation of monoplane, all metal types that is really mind blowing. To be both the start and the end of monoplane piston engine fighter evolution is almost unthinkable when considering the technological development of warfare between 1930 and 1945.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

The 109 and the German ingenuity used to keep it competitive was very impressive.

[@HappyHermitt]

Agreed. Improvised and improved instead of replacing was smart. The G and K variants could hold their own against the best of the allied planes. I'm a fan of WW2 warbirds and the bravery of the pilots in them. I never fell for the P51 hype. Its great but not my favorite. Id prefer a Hellcat or a jug. 😂 These days, you rarely even see the enemy. Just a radar signature.

[@shiviree]

@@HappyHermitt I prefer the p51 it literrally changed the war

[@sebclot9478]

@@shiviree Not really. It was a great plane, but its importance has been vastly overstated.

[@mrcat5508]

@@shivireeso did all other planes

[@davidfee5929]

Greg, a technically complete whilst still understandable treatment of the topic - Bravo !

[@cristianpopescu78]

This is the way man should learn history! Respect! Amazing Details which made the difference.

[@Pow3llMorgan]

I love your presentation of dry facts combined with the well informed commentary. Some of my favorite YT content!

[@Pow3llMorgan]

@Jay Jay A real Wehraboo in the flesh?! I thought you guys were a myth. It doesn't matter. Your team lost and the world is better for it.

[@McRocket]

Fascinating. I have been studying WW2 for decades. I had no idea whatsoever about the octane differences in the aviation fuel AND the effect this would have on performance. Plus, all the other factors you mentioned were also fascinating and very well explained (imo). Thank you for this video.

[@DannyBoy777777]

@ McRocket Jesus. That's a hell of a confession. Might want to improve the quality of your library.

[@happyduckling]

excellent video. I dont know how youtube ended up recommending it to me, but i came across it. This level of technicality and details is what i was looking for for a long period of time ! Thanks !

[@jamestaylor5976]

Wow, awesome in depth video. Learned a lot of new stuff, even being a history fanatic (especially WW2), I never really knew much of the technical stuff behind the P51. Keep up the good work, your channel deserves more subs.

[@siviter]

Most people are aware of the problems Germany had in maintaining a supply of fuel for their war effort, but until now I had never thought about the quality of it. Incredibly insightful, great video.

[@chrismerkel9604]

Greg's knowledge is very impressive! Great videos. Thanks for your time and effort.

[@spacecadet35]

One of the biggest differences was that the Bf109 first flew in 1935 and the P51 in 1940. And yes, in that era 5 years made that much difference. The time difference between the Hurricane and the Gloster Gladiator was only three years. And the gap between the Hurricane and the Spitfire was only one year and yet they are completely different technologies. The gap between the Gladiator and the Meteor was seven years. So the time gap between the Bf109 and the P51 is half the time between the Gladiator and the Meteor.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

No question the P51 benefited from the passage of time after the 109 was developed. I actually discuss that quite a bit in my video about the 109's short range. However, the point here is to show the technical reasons that the P51 was able to make more power with a smaller engine.

[@spacecadet35]

I'm still amazed that we went from biplane fighters to jets in ten years. You couldn't design and build an aircraft in that time nowadays :)

[@ABC21129]

spacecadet35 he didn't compare the P-51 to the 109 A or its prototype

[@spacecadet35]

Touristguy87. The F16 was made 45 years ago. The USA's latest fighter has finally entered full production, even though it is not really operationally capable. Its programme started in 1992. From clean sheet to full production has only been 26 years. The preceding fighter was first started in 1986, had its first flight in 1997 and became operation in 2005. That only took 19 years. Time alone does not make an aircraft better, but when you are at the edge of technology it makes a big difference.

[@spacecadet35]

What you are talking about are programmes that are at least 40 years ago. That is over two generations of engineers in the past. At the moment, right now, with the current state of US politics, management and engineering, it would be hard for the USA to design and get a bird into production in less than 15-20 years.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

So, I thought I would share some fascinating statistics with you guys regarding likes vs. dislikes of this video. Regarding people who have clicked, 100% of the people in Paraguay Dislike this video. That's fascinating. They have broadband internet in Paraguay... Over in Slovenia, 50% of the people disliked this video. Next we have Finalnd at 40% dislikes. I didn't see that one coming. Malta and Czechia and Serbia are coming in at 33% dislike, and Norway is coming in at 19%. Now, let's look at the Likes, at 100% likes we have France, Austria, Poland, Mexico, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Hungary, Switzerland, and the Philippines. The US rate is 98%, the UK 97% and Germany 86%.

[@RamonInNZ]

Why so many dislikes, may be people don't like historical learning stuff!

[@salemengineer2130]

Hmm... Interesting. But I'd be interested to know how many folks viewed this video from each country... Maybe that one guy in Paraguay is just a real cranky SOB. :) Flippancy aside, I do understand why someone might *not* click the like button on a video like this... Maybe it was too technical for that person. But why click the dislike button? It's not like you had some click-bait title that mischaracterized the content.

[@MendTheWorld]

Slovenia?!! Maybe Melania Trump didn’t like it? Anyway, those results are _very_ strange.

[@fredsalfa]

Maybe people with English as their first language show more likes?

[@afenijmeijer9027]

Wow, what a superb series of videos and explanations. Very, very interesting an informative.

[@michaelpattison7712]

I'm very tired of videos/articles which purport to be informative and technical and tell us only what most of us would regard as general knowledge, or know already. Your video was superb. Hugely interesting and instructive. Loved it. More power to your elbow.

[@philheenan8634]

Extremely good Greg, very well done. Superbly researched and well presented. Thank you. You are making a valuable contribution to preserving history.

[@ronjon7942]

Was good to learn the difference between the -3 and -7. I hear some about these versions in today’s warbird circuit, but wasn’t ever able to glean what separates the two.

[@YuraCCC]

Man... What a great find your channel is, a rare kind. Pure drama-free knowledge.

[@cleanlensvideos6087]

A well-described analysis, with just the right (for me) level of detail.

[@antt5112]

Only tripped over this by accident, I got linked to your videos as I was watching a lot of Kermit Weeks videos and was watching his one on the 109 restoration. I subscribed as I really enjoy the technical content and factual nature of the videos.

[@hhoward14]

What a breath of fresh air(deliberate pun) your approach to the subject is. It's detailed and balanced in it's analysis, in a professional and thorough way. I don't miss the synthesizer "music" at all. Many thanks for a good job.... (subd)

[@formerblueberet5621]

Excellent coverage and explanation I have 4500 + hours on my logbook and I always had an interest in warplanes and history anything from Lancaster to B-29 and all the others. I had a privilege to fly with a WW2 Lancaster Pilot ( he did private instruction for Multi IFR and did my multi -instrument rating for me) . Thank you for your post very informative excellent representation !

[@d.b.cooper8379]

Thank you. Great video! My late wife's dad was an MP in the USAAF. I had an uncle on my dad's side who was RAF and flew in a Handley-Page Halifax. He was lost over Germany late in the war. As a boy, I lived in Machinato Heights, Okinawa. When we lived in Germany my BFF's dad had been a German soldier(from Yugoslavia)

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Greg, I 'feel' smarter every time I wrap up listening to you. Thank you for that!

[@yummyzerg]

You sound very professional and seem to know what you're talking about. That's pretty hard to find on KZbin nowadays. Subscribed.

[@12345fowler]

Like you channel, it's like talking at the flying club bar after a meeting with pilots and mechanics. Love of aviation and all that. Great stuff.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Not enough videos on the engineering aspect of these aircrafts! You are doing great work.

[@madgeordie4469]

Excellent explanation of a complex comparison. Clear, articulate and very interesting. Well done! I look foreword to hearing more from you.

[@mrsteel250]

This is excellent! Taught me a lot of new things, earned a new subscriber!

[@craigveurr452]

5:30 you know youre rich when your butler has a butler

[@mikebreaux2491]

This is a great video that goes in-depth but is still completely understandable. Job well done.

[@piloto2412]

Loved this video. Im finishing up A&P school and i love WW2 planes. Now i can understand everything about your videos. Keep them coming pls

[@matshagglund3550]

WW2 was battle of oil. Even Operation Barbarossa was targeting mostly Russian oil fields because Venezuela was not in Europe. The lack of oil explained the Luftwaffe disasters, the lack of motorized units in German army, lack of mobility, lack of strategic air power. And it was same with Japanese problems. When thinking about WW2 never forget the oil.

[@ElementalOctopus]

Can't forget manpower either. All the fully fueled King Tigers and Me-262's in the world aren't any use with nobody to crew them

[@hakeemzahardi9207]

That's why US is hunting for oil up to this day

[@willcline7992]

Yes, oil was a critical resource, but remember that Germany had not mastered mass production techniques which explained a number of their problems. Each tank had many handcrafted parts and to repair them in the field required custom fitting. The US was really the world expert in mass production and sent a number of experts to Russian to help them learn the techniques. The Germans could not even mass produce simpler equipment like trucks. The US outproduced the combined output of all other combatants, including Allies and Axis countries in WW 2. Also, the British and the Americans developed much of the leading technologies that provided them with major advantages. Some are well known like Radar and some are less famous such as the proximity fuse for anti-aircraft cannons that gave the US and Allies a huge advantage over the Japanese. The proximity fuse increased the anti-aircraft effectiveness by a matter of factors not simply percentages, it was also a top-secret weapon and its use was initially limited to ships so none of the unexploded technology could be recovered. Finally, the US industrial output was begun to be limited in 1944 because they had created enough surplus that the industrial output was beginning to be shifted back to consumer goods. The Kaiser team actually produced a Liberty ship in less than five days as mostly a publicity stunt and a bet with another manufacturer.

[@pigfarmer9946]

If Hitler allowed his Generals to run the Eastern front, it would have been totally different. The delay towards Moscow after Smolensk due to Hitler re-directing many divisions to other theaters doomed the Germans. The delay allowed the Russians to bring in new divisions and build up defenses. Also, Guderian wanted to use paratroopers earlier in the Eastern war but was over ruled by Hitler.

[@petarmiletic997]

@@pigfarmer9946 Even if they managed to take Moscow what difference would it make ? The Soviets certainly would not surrende justr because of that

[@jindlespog8045]

Damn, that's the best video I've seen on KZbin so far this year. Thanks!

[@brucetucker4847]

These videos are fantastic, thanks so much for providing them!

[@georgesaunders5897]

Great addition to the history records of these and other famous aircraft. I have never heard these issues discussed, before, You have answered a lot and I hope to find more of your videos.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks George, I have a lot of videos, I hope you like the others too.

[@leomarkaable1]

This is a great video series.... Fascinating, methodical in explanatory strength.

[@seanburke424]

That cutaway of the DB109 V-12 shows knife-and-fork con rods, just like a Harley!

[@Bobsunfire]

Man oh man, I must say that I learned a lot from your video. Far more than I ever expected. Superb science contained in your work. THANK YOU.

[@cornfedtuber]

Good video. No nonsense, informative, clearly and concisely given. Thank you.

[@richardtooley3488]

Everything was so clear - even my wife watched your videos (3) with me :) Thanks. Melbourne. Australia.

[@rev.andyh.1082]

After this video you are now the number one man I’d like to have a beer with.

[@rb30athorn]

Very informative, extreme depth of knowledge yet easy to understand. Thank you just subscribed.

[@Checkererbse285]

amazing comparison and very detailed and professional insights! love it

[@markfryer9880]

Greg, that was a very good explanation of a very interesting but technically complex topic.. I thought that I had a pretty good handle on the P-51 and the Bf-109, well it seems that I still have a lot to learn. You have obviously put in a lot of deep research for this and other videos and you definitely deserve more views, thumbs up and subscribers, so I have done my part to boost those numbers.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Mark. I appreciate that comment.

[@etiennedupreez4681]

Mark Frye

[@michaelfitzgerald9012]

Mark Fryer I

[@russg1801]

Bf109 was among the first of the mono-wing fighter aircraft. Look at what the US was building around that time such as the Curtiss P-36 Hawk, or the Brit's, too. Hawker Hurricane still had a fuselage made partially of fabric-covered wood framing. Long after that bombers still had fabric-covered control surfaces. There was incremental advance in performance until everything changed with the jet engine.

[@leerogers6423]

On the contrary . It is a very stupid question. Anyone who knows their aircraft history will tell you that you are not comparing apples with apples.

[@eviloverlordsean]

After you walk through the giant entry hall at the Imperial War Museum and get to the exhibits on the 2nd Floor, the first thing you see is a Rolls Merlin mounted on a stand, and it's simply beautiful...

[@stephanM5]

this is a very comprehensive compilation of interesting facts showcasing the attributes of each plane engine operating at different altitudes. I thoroughly enjoyed viewing this video.

[@allanhamm5825]

I always enjoy your videos as they are so well narrated and described. Thanks!

[@panzerkfw]

This is the best explanation of the interactions of supercharger drives/staging and charge cooling and the interaction of supercharging/boost/octane and the supplements water/methanol and nitrous oxide I have found on you tube. This is a MOST complex and difficult subject to find information on and to understand. Very well done sir. Subscribed and liked !

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Roy, I really appreciate your kind remarks.

[@cb3609]

p47 do the job , destroying tanks bridges railroads trucks boats …………..everythings !!! , with or without p51 a flight of 1000 flying fortress can't be stopped by 100 bf109/fw190 or 50 me262 …...

[@rmhutchins7]

I enjoyed your video. It was very interesting. Thank you!

[@mskellyrlv]

A wonderful engineering history commentary! I'm hooked!

[@blackdeath4eternity]

thanks for the interesting breakdown of the many different factors in this comparison.

[@insolentstickleback3266]

You popped up in my recommended videos. I do occasionally go on benders watching aircraft videos. Enjoyed your video, thank you!

[@jamesyoungblood555]

Looks like we all can learn a little more about what we thought we knew. Outstanding information on our history. Shalom

[@HistoryonYouTube]

Very informative. For someone like myself who does not know the technical details but understands the economic supply chain, this makes things much clearer! Thanks for posting!

[@gvc76]

Amazing narration, both in terms of technical detail, and flow.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I am curious how people are finding this video. Generally speaking, this channel gets very few view, and in the last 24 hours, it's been pretty busy. How are you guys coming across this?

[@llv34jequ]

Came here from recommended on the front page. I fly the A2A Simulations P-51 in Prepar3D and have read the P-51 manuals front to back couple times. Great video, good info. I didn't find any errors =)

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks!

[@xriz00]

It was on my recommended list on the first page . I do watch other wwii videos.

[@warp65]

I was looking at Napier Aero engines and you popped up.I've Subscribed, well thought out and presented, plus some interesting comments from other viewers. Cheers

[@tecnaman9097]

Recommended on my home page topic list. I watch a lot of WW2 era vids, particularly aviation ones. Cheers Greg

[@HyenaJag]

Absolutely fascinating video!!!

[@habbybud]

Superb video that's very informative with good explanation. Every video of yours that I've watched is analytical, informative and interesting. Thank you again.

[@twombley96]

This was incredibly interesting! A couple questions arise in my mind from this: say the Luftwaffe had come up w/ a supply of 130 or 150 octane fuel: could the -109 G1 & -109 G6 safely run it & achieve higher manifold pressures? Or was the DB605 simply not capable? The next question is just how close a match was the -109 G14 & -109 K? How many of them made it to the Luftwaffe before war’s end?

[@honkhonkler7732]

There's no reason the engine wouldn't have been capable. Fuel availability was the primary limiting factor. The US had an abundance of quality oil and refineries at home, well out of reach of enemy bombers while Germany did not.

[@chriswinter2400]

Yes the German engines were much more powerful and better built with good fuel they could have and did with proper fuel produce ton more power they were higher compression and quality engines it was mass production that helped us win

[@83j049733rfe4]

It was German. A look at pre-war achievements by Mercedes & Auto Union, BMW, etc, should prove that this meant something. BMW took the Isle of Man from Norton, Grand Prix racing was dominated by Silver (Duestche) cars. There was a lot of reason why the NSDAP were quick to fund, quick to associate themselves with, and ultimately appropriate the expertise of men who deserved better leaders. Any engine, or machine, is the sum of it's components. And this video goes to show that it really starts at fuel. Germany became so desperate, Anne Frank wrote of bicycles riding on wood in place of tires. Because rubber had been confiscated along with other oil-based goods for the production of synthetic gasoline / diesel, which also used coal. Allied Bombing of what oil Hitler controlled demanded this, and would've been a factor in his invasion of the USSR for it's Baku oil fields. It wasn't just the Carriers that Japan failed to attack on December 7. It was also all of Honolulu's oil reserves for the Pacific fleet. Fuel decided WWII as much as the Atomic Bomb or Industrial Power. A predominant reason for Hitler's fetish for dive bombers was Economy: The Luftwaffe could not afford the large scale, inaccurate bombing RAF & USAAF achieved with large formations of strategic bombers. Smaller, cheaper planes, able to drop sub-sequentially smaller payloads, but with greater accuracy, were his only tenable options to project air-to-ground power. In short, The Nazis made war when they could not afford to. Thankfully. But all that said, The Messers & Fockes were as good as their opposition. It's the fuel that failed them.

[@kenneth9874]

@@honkhonkler7732 lol

[@kenneth9874]

@@honkhonkler7732 not to mention it was the US who developed the high octane fuel thanks to the foresight and insistence of Jimmy Doolittle at shell oil

[@m0ther_bra1ned12]

Really facinating stuff! Thanks for sharing.

[@weather4]

Very nice history on the P-51D and the BF-109!

[@jeffvanover8426]

That was very well explaned. Love the 51, and adding to my knowledge base is always a plus. You know your stuff!!

[@normanfeinberg9968]

on the 4360s used on the C-97,we had wet and dry take-off modes.Wet was a direct injection of alcohol and water into each of the 28 cylinders for cooling at max take-off power with a subsequent increase in manifold pressure and .power without detination.Thank's for the video as it brought back memories 50 years old.

[@macnutz4206]

Thank you, I did learn a lot from this.

[@PATRIK67KALLBACK]

Thank you for a great video! Just a comment of the DB605 engine at 18:30 in the video... This engine was license built close to Eskilstuna in Sweden, with an order of total 800 engines. The DB605 was used in the fighter SAAB J21 and in the bomber SAAB B18 during WWII.

[@stevenhebert6117]

Your knowledge of these engines and their specifications is very impressive. Well done.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thank you.

[@timsullivan4566]

Very informative with conscientious distinction made between hard facts and educated guesses. Though fairly technical by KZbin standards (and mine), enough general context supplied to follow along. Bravo

[@LJSpit]

Fascinating, Well explained. I like the Myth busting. Cheers

[@thomaselvins5569]

What an interesting comparison with both aircraft. It is good to look deeper into capability with both of these dueling for the skies aircraft. The documentaries and movies always portray the P51 the clear winner and although it was a better design there are definitely merits for both aircraft. Thank you.

[@Bassjunkie_1]

Just today i was wondering what the air scoop was doing back there on the P51 mustang. Here i got my answer, thank you!

[@juddpeterson9100]

Interesting and informative. My father was Major Richard 'Pete' Peterson of the 357th FG. He flew several P-51Bs and P-51D's. He got into a Lufberry chase counterclockwise at tree top altitude with an Me109. I'm not sure which type P-51 or Me109, but he said he was at full throttle, banking as tight as he could, on the edge of a stall. He and the 109 maintained equal speed around the circle, and he could spot him on the opposite side of the circle through the top of his canopy. He dropped his flaps 10 degrees, got more lift, was able to cut a tighter radius circle, and slowly gained on the 109. He continued to pass over him on the inside of the Lufberry circle, slowly gaining a position slightly forward of and 'above' the 109. He said when he could look out the right side of his cockpit and frame the top of the 109 in the corner between his right wing and the fuselage, he began firing his guns. Due to the high speed, tight circle, the shells appeared to fly under his P-51 and spattered into the top of the 109 (each of the shells were actually flying straight out and the 109 was flying into them). He said his bullet stream looked like water out of a garden hose. He wiggled his rudder back and forth, and the shells crisscrossed through the canopy. The 109 snap-rolled and blew up in a ball of fire in the tree tops. I tell you this story because he felt the dogfight was a fairly even match for speed at the treetop altitude. He had another story where he chased an Me262 jet in a full throttle dive at high altitude in his P-51D. He hit compressibility with his air speed indicator at 700mph on the last peg of the gauge at approximately 20,000 to 22,000 feet. He lost control of his stick which flopped loose in the cockpit with no effect. To regain control, he threw the prop pitch in low (coarse), which over-revved the engine beyond the redline, but it broke up the air and he regained control. He pulled out of the high-speed dive with his trim tabs to avoid tearing off the wings. Thought you might appreciate his other aerobatics at speed.

[@bryanjansen1456]

wow... so much interesting information! glad I found this your channel

[@kentowens2179]

Great video! Very interesting, and well explained.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thank you Kent.

[@lesly9101]

You are lecturing on an incredible level! Both in terms of learned and practical Expertise and in educative Storytelling! You’re providing an involving, powerful and passionate kind of Engineers’ Poetry…!

[@adityasanyal4222]

Lovingly meticulous analysis.....totally scrumptious!!! Loved it👍🤩

[@lengazz]

keep up the good work, enjoy your stuff!!!

[@gcarlson]

5:46 Finally, the answer to the age old question regarding superchargers!

[@johntomasik1555]

Great vid, especially since you answered my question what was picking up the air coming through the P-51 air scoop. I googled it, but they only said there was a radiator back there. Huge difference that it was an aftercooler!

[@gerrycoogan6544]

So much to learn! This is a great channel.

[@good_king_guitarman1334]

Greg your videos are just fantastic! I wish such easy access to this sort of information was available when i wore a younger mans clothes! Thanks for your efforts, i look forward to any future content you make for us.

[@jurekogorek6715]

Great video presentation. Clear easy to understand voice. I watched it kill some time, and found it very enjoyable. Why do people still watch TV when there's stuff like this online? Thanks. Thumbs up and subscribed!

[@tomnekuda3818]

I found this upload to be fantastically informative as to the why's in the comparison of speed/power of the Mustang/109's in the European theatre during WWII. I'm a guy that hot-rods everything he gets his hands on and I found the octane ratings, supercharger setups, water/alcohol injection, nitrous oxide, etc extremely valuable. I set up a hopped up Ford 460 25 years ago to tow a camper and used high compression, recurved timing, free-flowing intake/exhaust, spot-on carb tuning, water/alcohol injection, and gearing to produce an engine that developed very good horsepower and made 11-12 mpg fully loaded Ford van pulling a big camper at 70 mph. When driving just the van with wife, 4 kids and tent-camping equipment, it would make 19-21 mpg at 70+ mph. No one would believe it but I keep very exacting records of everything(anal engineer). I also used a tight converter to limit driveline loss. I considered nitrous oxide injection but it was not cost effective for what I was doing. I had forged pistons and magnafluxed rods, as well as open-chamber heads so the engine would have tolerated it but I had enough power as it was. Thanks for the upload.

[@jrhamilton4448]

Superb video, exceptionally informative! Bravo!

[@pedrogonzales9202]

Holy crap! How did you ever learn all of this? I love this old planes and it was an amazing listen. Now I have to go find a vid with a good Merlín sound to round out this experience! Thank you!

[@ohger1]

Books most likely. There have been books printed about all WWII aircraft from the day the war ended until today. Just takes a lot of reading and combining sources.

[@bobtpapa]

Amazing research! Thanks.

[@paulkoscheka4434]

Great video and explanation of engine differences - thank you!

[@williamscott3444]

Excellent info on my two favorite warbirds of WWII. Thanks👍

[@scottjohnson9096]

Excellent video , as a gear head . I find it very interesting .

[@sunnyray7819]

Your videos are always great... Greetings from the Space Coast!

[@jimmyz8788]

Very interesting information ,I love military history and found it fascinating thank you.

[@BikerJim74]

This was amazing. Subscribed.