# P-51 Mustang or F4U Corsair



## elmilitaro (Apr 5, 2006)

Hey guys, which would ypu argue as the better plane in your eyes.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 5, 2006)

Gotta be more specific than that elmil....

But.........

In anything except escort duties, the Corsair is my choice, hands down, no questions asked....


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 5, 2006)

Long range Escort P-51. Anything else F4U-4, the 1D model is about equal in some ways but with less speed, less load capacity and less range.

wmaxt


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 5, 2006)

Is both a good answer? I'd give the mustang the looks award and give the corsair the edge on performance.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2006)

The P51 had better pilot visibility.


----------



## R988 (Apr 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The P51 had better pilot visibility.



F4U could pretty much open the throttle and no care who was behind 

I think I'd take the F4U if it's my butt on the line, they are pretty tough, might be a tad tricky to fly though, landing one on a carrier would be 'interesting' to say the least!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 6, 2006)

Aggie08 said:


> Is both a good answer? I'd give the mustang the looks award and give the corsair the edge on performance.


IMO, the Corsair takes the looks category _and_ performance.
It was a tough mother that was as at home melting out hurt to Japanese ground troops as it was chopping up enemy fighters.



R988 said:


> ...might be a tad tricky to fly though, landing one on a carrier would be 'interesting' to say the least!


In the beginning it was, but this was eventually dealt with. Modifications to the landing gear and British carrier experience with the Corsair helped to ease the difficulty.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 6, 2006)

Hi !!!



R988 said:


> F4U could pretty much open the throttle and no care who was behind
> 
> It is not true.I agree with Syscom3.The pilot visibility during a dogfight has a significant meaning.We should remember that in WW2 fighter attacks were mostly carried out from the Sun and others unexpected directions.Therefore,a pilot who wanted to avoid an enemy attack, should notice it as much as possible using his own eyes.Besides,speed of a nose-diving plane increased, so a target could avoid an attack if it could be faster at once and in significant value.If not,the pilot of a target aircraft had to see in advance that he was attacked.Without a visibility it wasn't possible.


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 6, 2006)

True.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 6, 2006)

So,why the fighter pilots in WW2 could have their collar uniforms opened at the neck ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 6, 2006)

I agree with NS here 100%....


----------



## davparlr (Apr 6, 2006)

Two fine warbirds. My comment of interest which probably, has no significance to the argument, is that the P-51 and the F4U actually fought against each other in combat. In 1969, in the "World Cup War", El Salvador and Honduras used both P-51 (albeit, the Cavalier P-51s with jury rigged gunsights) and F4U in combat. It seems an F4U shot down a P-51, but the same pilot then went on and shot down two F4Us, which tells more about the pilot than the capibility of the aircraft. An F4U was shot down by a T-28, which says,..... what??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Two fine warbirds. My comment of interest which probably, has no significance to the argument, is that the P-51 and the F4U actually fought against each other in combat. In 1969, in the "World Cup War", El Salvador and Honduras used both P-51 (albeit, the Cavalier P-51s with jury rigged gunsights) and F4U in combat. It seems an F4U shot down a P-51, but the same pilot then went on and shot down two F4Us, which tells more about the pilot than the capibility of the aircraft. An F4U was shot down by a T-28, which says,..... what??


 Col. Soto of the HAF got 3 aircraft.

My old neighbor gave him combat training, here's his plane...







Here's a Bio...http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/98bios/soto98.htm


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 6, 2006)

Interesting stuff, Joe.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 6, 2006)

Well at least this isn't the bogus "which one could 'out dogfight' the other?" sillyness I've seen people taking seriously around here. I like both these planes depending on the mood I'm in. I'd certinly defend either as excellent due to their combat histories. And as the Air Force and Navy have laid down the requirements that make sense I'd go with- The P-51 in combat over land masses and the F4U for use over water against any enemy of the era.


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 6, 2006)

Nice point twitch.


----------



## OrionIFT (Apr 6, 2006)

I think the best looking would be a Mustang II in RAF Sea Grey/Green camouflage with a Malcolm hood.

While the F-4U is sweet, the lack of variation in color schemes is a little dull...


----------



## davparlr (Apr 6, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Col. Soto of the HAF got 3 aircraft.
> 
> My old neighbor gave him combat training, here's his plane...
> 
> ...



That's the guy. Quite a pilot. The only person in the world to shoot down a P-51 and an F4U (two).


----------



## davparlr (Apr 6, 2006)

Oops, forgot about the Korean War. Both birds flew there. Highly unlikely one person shot both down in that conflict, though.


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2006)

F4U Corsair all the way.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 6, 2006)

Here is an excellent comparison of the two aircraft.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2006)

Hardly an excellent comparison... 

The F4U-4 Corsair wasn't just a little better than the P-51, it was ALOT better ! And regardless of what that site says, the P-51 experienced severe compressibility problems at very high speeds, something the Corsair didn't.

The only fighter I would feel confident in going up against a F4U-4 Corsair would be the Fw-190 Dora-9, in anything else I'd be pretty nervous !


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 6, 2006)

Lets see some figures for roll rate's


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2006)

OrionIFT said:


> I think the best looking would be a Mustang II in RAF Sea Grey/Green camouflage with a Malcolm hood.
> 
> While the F-4U is sweet, the lack of variation in color schemes is a little dull...



Welcome Orion! An AD2 here, formally with VP-65!


----------



## Camarogenius (Apr 7, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Well at least this isn't the bogus "which one could 'out dogfight' the other?" sillyness I've seen people taking seriously around here. I like both these planes depending on the mood I'm in. I'd certinly defend either as excellent due to their combat histories. And as the Air Force and Navy have laid down the requirements that make sense I'd go with- The P-51 in combat over land masses and the F4U for use over water against any enemy of the era.


I Agree with this for the most part, but I find my self looking at the P-51 and saying to myself," Yes it was a great plane, but so what!"
I don't know why, I admit the Mustang is certainly one of the finest, it just hasn't endeared itself to me. I'll even say that the Mustang prettymuch won the air war over europe. I still don't care for it. I'd much rather shine my enthusiasm on a P-40 or F-4U, or an FW-190, preferably the Anton, but the Dora is equally sweet.
Just my random thoughts.


----------



## Jank (Apr 7, 2006)

"I'll even say that the Mustang prettymuch won the air war over europe."

No way mate. The P-51 happened to come along after the Luftwaffe's back had already broken. Planes like the P-38 and P-47 did the heavy lifting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2006)

i can see what you're saying Camarogenius, i think it's because as a fighter the P-51 wasn't anything special, the most special things about it were it's range and that she was avialable in large numbers, other than that on a level playing feild most late war fighters could atleast match her, fighters like the -190D were better, but wasn't around in as large numbers or did she get all the propaganda the P-51 did.........


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2006)

The P51's speed was always excellent. Range, speed and ceiling plus generally good all around handling makes for a great aircraft.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 8, 2006)

Both Jank and Lanc are right on. Sys, it was a great plane for that time and place.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 8, 2006)

Soren said:


> Hardly an excellent comparison...
> 
> The F4U-4 Corsair wasn't just a little better than the P-51, it was ALOT better ! And regardless of what that site says, the P-51 experienced severe compressibility problems at very high speeds, something the Corsair didn't.
> 
> The only fighter I would feel confident in going up against a F4U-4 Corsair would be the Fw-190 Dora-9, in anything else I'd be pretty nervous !



That site is very close. Your right the P-51 did get out of hand at very high speeds but the F4U sometimes lost wing fabric to. Also that comparison was very fair and accurate to all sides, note also that the P-38L met or exceeded virtually all performance categories.

I would also take a P-38J/L against the F4U-4 and a few Spits.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2006)

Results speak for themselves. As much as the late model Spits looked good in performance figures, they had no impact on the war effort. The P51D brought the fight to the Luftwaffe (not enough P38 groups to have made a big difference) and simply swept the skies.

The P51 was good in so many catagories that is does deserve the honors.

When you start looking at the figures of all of the late model fighters, most of the figures of their performance is quite evenly matched. The only catagory that seperates them all is endurance. And thats where the P51 dominates that catagory.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Results speak for themselves. As much as the late model Spits looked good in performance figures, they had no impact on the war effort. The P51D brought the fight to the Luftwaffe (not enough P38 groups to have made a big difference) and simply swept the skies.
> 
> The P51 was good in so many catagories that is does deserve the honors.
> 
> When you start looking at the figures of all of the late model fighters, most of the figures of their performance is quite evenly matched. The only catagory that seperates them all is endurance. And thats where the P51 dominates that catagory.



The P-38s numbers were only matched by the P-51s in March '43 and remained pretty equal until late May when some of the P-38s were diverted to G/A in preparation for D-Day and D-Day coverage/support. When the P-38s started in Oct. '43 they were always outnumbered by 5:1 or more by the more experienced German pilots, by the time the P-38s were diverted the worst was over and both numbers and experience were now in the Allies hands. There were still some severe battles but the balance had shifted already. The P-38s deserve at least half the credit for that shift from German air dominance to Allied control. There were still two P-38 FGs flying when the Allied control became Allied Dominance. 

The P-51 was a very good escort fighter - it did not do it alone, further it was OK everywhere else. The P-40 was a better G/A fighter sturdier, same armament, and could carry three bombs to two of the P-51. In all but speed and range the P-51 was average, in quantity and with a wingman it was a great escort fighter.

As for endurance, The P-38 even Flew a 2,300mi mission. In the ETO the P-38s were limited to a 165gal drop tank, with 300gal drop tanks a P-38F flew 3,000mi in '42. Both the P-47D and N exceeded 2,000mi range. The P-51 was the First single engine fighter with that kind of range.

I like the P-51, but its abilities and exploits have been blown way out of proportion.

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Apr 8, 2006)

"Both the P-47D and N exceeded 2,000mi range."

I don't think so. The N had a 2,300mi range. The D was nowhere close. Hell, the internal fuel capacity of the N was 200 gallons more than the D.


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Also that comparison was very fair and accurate to all sides,



 You can't be serious ?! I totally disagree.


"_The Americans had the P-47, P-38 and P-51. All of which were very fast and at least a match for the German fighters in maneuverability._"

- Total BS, the Bf-109K-4 and Fw-190D-9 could both out-turn and out-climb any of the aircraft mentioned above.(Although the P-51 was indeed a match up high)

_"Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality."_

- Utterly untrue, laughable infact.



wmaxt said:


> note also that the P-38L met or exceeded virtually all performance categories.



Yeah I did note that the site claimed this, and I think you know what I think about that - Total Hogwash.



wmaxt said:


> I would also take a P-38J/L against the F4U-4 and a few Spits.


A F4U-4 would make mince meat out of a P-38J/L, and so would a Spitfire Mk.XIV. (As-well as virtually all other late-war single engined fighters)

The only two fighters I would rank above the F4U-4 Corsair is the Fw-190 Dora-9 and Spitfire Mk.XIV. But then again when you count in all the extra duties the Corsair could carry out, you start to realise how great that aircraft really was. (But pretty it wasn't though)


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 9, 2006)

F4U for me too.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2006)

The P38 had a tremendous climb rate. Among the fastest of the war. Are you forgetting that its origional role was as an interceptor?

Youre also forgetting one thing that the P38, P47 and P51 could do better than the German fighters, and thats dive out of trouble. Maneuvering also includes the vertical, and the three of those fighters were good at all of them.


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 had a tremendous climb rate. Among the fastest of the war.



Not when compared to the climb rates of the Bf-109K-4 and Fw-190 Dora-9.



syscom3 said:


> Youre also forgetting one thing that the P38, P47 and P51 could do better than the German fighters, and thats dive out of trouble.



I wasn't forgetting anything, I was just addressing the comment about the maneuverability. And yes the P-38 and P-47 could both out-dive the German fighters, however the P-51D would find diving pretty useless against a Fw-190D-9.



syscom3 said:


> Maneuvering also includes the vertical, and the three of those fighters were good at all of them.



If the fight starts up high, with enough room for the three american fighters to dive for speed, then yes they would be good in the vertical. But if the fight starts down low, all three american fighters would be in big trouble if faced by the Bf-109K-4 or Fw-190 Dora-9.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 9, 2006)

Your certainly welcome to your opinion Soren.

If the Fw-190D-9 and Bf-109K-4 had the fuel, time and numbers together with pilots that could utilize all their performance, maybe. As it was the American aircraft did fine, even with those that were there.

The P-38 (not even an L) took on a Spit XIV (Griffon engine) and took the match. Go to the Pro Docs page and there is a test of a Spit IX and P-38F.

wmaxt


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 9, 2006)

The only K-4 that had a high climb rate was the one that was boosted to 1.98ata and these only showed in very small numbers from mid March 1945. Of some ~140 onhand in early April, only ~70 were operational. (50%)

At 1.80ata it was slower (RoC) than the 25lb boost Spit IXs and 21lb boost Spit XIVs.

You got data to back up your Dora claim? Not the data for the few 'specials' either.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The P-38 (not even an L) took on a Spit XIV (Griffon engine) and took the match.



I'd like to know where I can see this test, urban myth, or whatever it is. 



wmaxt said:


> Go to the Pro Docs page and there is a test of a Spit IX and P-38F.



I did, and whats so special about it ?

All I see is a very lightly loaded P-38 being slightly behind an early version Spitfire IX in climb.

The weight of the P-38F in question is only 15,000 lbs fully loaded, thats a wing-loading of just 45.8 lbs/sq.ft, now when you add the fowler-flaps at slow speed thats a very low lift-loading for such a big aircraft.
_____________________________

Krazi,

What is it with you ? Are you just looking for a fight or what ? I mean why else would you bring the Spitfire into this discussion ??

But ok, I'll take the bate then... 



KraziKanuK said:


> The only K-4 that had a high climb rate was the one that was boosted to 1.98ata and these only showed in very small numbers from mid March 1945. Of some ~140 onhand in early April, only ~70 were operational. (50%)



142 were on hand, and 79 were serviceable.

Anyway please let us know how many Spit XIV's and IX's were running at 21-25lb boost by comparison then. Or better yet let us know how many Spit XIV's were on hand in total, regardless of what boost they used ?

Also perhaps you have forgotten that the 109K-4 was allowed to run at full boost for 10min at a time, where-as the Spit XIV and IX were only allowed to run at full boost for 5min ?



KraziKanuK said:


> At 1.80ata it was slower (RoC) than the 25lb boost Spit IXs and 21lb boost Spit XIVs.



If you go by Mike Williams figures for an overweight K-4 which is equipped with gun-pods and therefore not only exhibits more drag that usual, but is also alot heavier than usual - then yeah sure, eventhough at 1.8ata it still climbs at 4,400 ft/min with that setup. I'd like to see how a Spit XIV equipped with a 300L drop tank climbs compared to that 

But to give you abit of an Idea of how fast a "clean" Bf-109K-4 would be climbing, please note this:

Bf-109K-4 Power-loading at 1.8ata (1,850 HP): 1.8 kg/hp
Bf-109G-2 Power-loading at 1.3ata (1,475 HP): 2.1 kg/hp

Bf-109G-2 climb rate at 1.3ata - 24 m/sec (4,724 ft/min):





So we can expect a cleanly loaded K-4 flying at 1.8ata boost to be climbing at over 5,000 ft/min, not bad huh ? Makes one wonder how fast it was at 1.98ata doesn't it ? 

Not convinced ? Take a look at the HA-1112-MIL Buchon then, it has a slightly higher wing-loading than the G-2, but its power-loading is pretty low:

Loaded weight: 3,180 kg
Engine power: 1610 HP
----------------------------
Power-loading = 1.9 kg/hp

Max Climb rate: 5,580 ft/min.

*Franz Stigler, German fighter ace:*
_"The K-4 was very much like the 109G, yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. " _



KraziKanuK said:


> You got data to back up your Dora claim?



And what "claim" would that be ?



KraziKanuK said:


> Not the data for the few 'specials' either.



Haha  And what the heck is that supposed to mean, huh ? A moment ago you were talking about 25lb boost Spit IX's and 21lb boost Spit XIV's ! 

But ok I'll explain why a P-38L/J will never out-climb a Fw-190 Dora-9:

Fw-190D-9 normal loaded weight: 4,270 kg (9,414 lbs)
P-38J lowest Gross weight: 7,937 kg (17,500 lbs)
P-38L lowest Gross weight: 7,937 kg (17,500 lbs)

Fw-190D-9 Wing-loading: 233 kg/m2 (47.7 lbs/sq.ft.)
P-38J Wing-loading: 260 kg/m2 (53.4 lbs/sq.ft.)
P-38L Wing-loading: 260 kg/m2 (53.4 lbs/sq.ft.)

Fw-190D-9 Power-loading: 1.9 kg/hp (4.2 lbs/hp)
P-38J Power-loading: 2.48 kg/hp (5.46 lbs/hp)
P-38L Power-loading: 2.48 kg/hp (5.46 lbs/hp)

This is more than enough proof that the P-38 never even approached the climb rate of the Dora-9, but I bet you aint satisfied yet, so I'll continue;

Fw-190 D-9 climb rate using "Sonder-notleistung" (2,100 PS), with ETC-504 rack - 21 m/sec (4,133 ft/min) :
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9339/d9climb8yo.jpg

That ETC-504 belly rack takes away approx. 10-15 km/h of the top speed, so you can pretty much expect it takes about 0.5-1 sec away in climb rate as-well.(I bet thats what that partly erased line reaching 22m/s is supposed to represent) And remember this is only using "Sonder-notleistung" (Special emergency power), with a output of 2,100 PS, but it can do even better than that;

Max level speed and power output using "Sonder-Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmoter" (Special emergency w/ Compressor, C3 and MW50), with ETC-504 rack - output = 2,250 PS, 640 km/h at SL: http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/3160/d9speed2chart2cy.jpg
http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/6613/jumo213a10cn.jpg

Without the ETC-504 rack you can expect a top speed at SL of 650-655 km/h, and the climb rate can be expected to be around 23-23.5 m/s (4,500-4,600 ft/min).

Now about the P-38;

According to the Pilots manual the P-38J/L's climb rate at its lowest gross weight of 17,400 lbs is around 3,200 ft/min at 54" manifold pressure. However according to a test with various american fighters(F4U-4,P-51B,P-38J,F4U-1), the P-38J with a 50% fuel load and running at 60" MP could hit ca.3,775 ft/min. Now thats at the high end of what I would expect from the P-38, but considering the weight of the aircraft it sounds plausible. (The F4U-4 climbed at 4,500ft/min in that test btw, now thats smoken !)

From the P-38L pilots manual: http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1029/p38ltclchart2op.jpg

So there you have it, the P-38 could not follow the Fw-190 Dora-9 in a climb, not even when the Dora-9 was flying at its second best power rating and the P-38 at its highest, it simply didn't have the power or the lift necessary.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 10, 2006)

> So there you have it, the P-38 could not follow the Fw-190 Dora-9 in a climb, not even when the Dora-9 was flying at its second best power rating and the P-38 at its highest, it simply didn't have the power or the lift necessary.


And ur confirming something that I, and many others here, urself included, knew for years...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 10, 2006)

It looks like by 1945, the P38L was at the peak of that airframes development. I'd even venture to say that there was little else the Lockheed wizz kids could have done to improve it without a radical redesign. The P38 climbed quite nicely in 1942, 1943 and 1944. But as the data shows, in 1945 it was left behind.

Now the FW190D was a kick ass plane in 1945, marginally better than the P47D-25 and the P51D. But how would it compare to the P47N, P51H and F4U-4? All three of those fighters were in the pipeline in 1945 and were deployed in that year.

The last variant of the ME109 was interesting but a complete waste of time and effort for the Germans. Its airframe was old and like the P38, was a dead end. Was it dangerous? Yes. Did it make the allied pilots shake in fear? Nope.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 10, 2006)

Soren said:


> Anyway please let us know how many Spit XIV's and IX's were running at 21-25lb boost by comparison then. Or better yet let us know how many Spit XIV's were on hand in total, regardless of what boost they used ?



Spitfire F. XIV/ FR. XIVe Squadrons operational as of March 1945:

No 610 Sqn (January 1944)
No 91 Sqn (March 1944)
No 322 Sqn (March 1944)
No 130 Sqn (August 1944)
No 350 Sqn (August 1944)
No 402 Sqn (August 1944)
No 403 Sqn (August 1944)
No 41 Sqn (September 1944)
No 2 Sqn (January 1945)
No 430 Sqn (November 1944) 


Nos 268 and 414 were in the process of transitioning to FR. XIVes in March, 1945 and were still partially equipped with Mustang IIIs and Spitfire IXs respectively. 66 squadron operated the type for a brief period in the winter of 1944/1945 before transitioning to the Spitfire LF. XVIe

Given wartime RAF establishment strength of 20-22 airframes and 18-20 pilots, that puts around 200-220 XIVs on the books in 1945, with a few others kicking around in in specialised reconnisance, costal, high altitude and metorological flights. Servicabe strength is probably going to be around 75-85% of that figure.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 10, 2006)

The P-38 had the advantage of an extra engine for insurance, but it's thicker wing limited the mach number, so even the "Merlins in a P-38" notion would have limited gains. Put a laminar flow wing on it and some late-war Merlins and she would be moving!


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Spitfire F. XIV/ FR. XIVe Squadrons operational as of March 1945:
> 
> No 610 Sqn (January 1944)
> No 91 Sqn (March 1944)
> ...



Yep, and IIRC only about 100 of those would eventually be running at 21lbs boost. 

By comparison the Germans had over 300 109K-4's on hand by Jan 45, and in April there were 142 K-4's running at 1.98ata on hand, with 79 being serviceable.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 10, 2006)

Would the Spiteful be in play at this time, or was it too late for this particular comparison?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 10, 2006)

> Now the FW190D was a kick ass plane in 1945, marginally better than the P47D-25 and the P51D. But how would it compare to the P47N, P51H and F4U-4? All three of those fighters were in the pipeline in 1945 and were deployed in that year.


And the -109Dora was a stop gap till the Ta-152H came into full production...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 10, 2006)

The development of the jet fighters, plus the wars end was in sight put an end to the allied development of possible piston engined fighters to deal with the Ta-152.

I think we can say that the Ta-152 was probably near the apex of piston engined fighters. Only the late model Corsairs would match its performance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 11, 2006)

I agree 100%...


----------



## Jank (Apr 11, 2006)

Erin:

P-47M climb data.

At combat gross weight of 13,275lbs and 72" HG which could be maintained at 32,000ft. (That's with full internal fuel and 267 rounds per gun)

3,775fpm @ 5,000ft

3,425fpm @ 15,000ft

2,375fpm @ 28,000ft

The P-47N weighs just 576lbs more than a P-47M in empty weight configuration. Fill her up with the exact same ammo and fuel load as a P-47M and the P-47N weighs in at about 620lbs more than a P-47M (the N has an oil capacity that's 12 gallons more).

The P-47N has a 22sq.ft. greater wing area.

The P-47N would have a climb rate very close to that of the P-47M.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 11, 2006)

I agree too syscom, the Ta-152H was right at the peak of piston engine development.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> It looks like by 1945, the P38L was at the peak of that airframes development. I'd even venture to say that there was little else the Lockheed wizz kids could have done to improve it without a radical redesign. The P38 climbed quite nicely in 1942, 1943 and 1944. But as the data shows, in 1945 it was left behind.



I agree that the P-38 needed modifications (new wing) like the P-51H got to go much further, however like the P-51 to go further ment specialization. The P-51 and others gave a lot up to become faster or whatever that aircrafts specialty was.

Left behind? Soren, is using METO power for Allied aircraft (POH info is always maxed at METO) in his comparisons and the very best in the Fw-190D-9s, The P-38J/L in real life tests of a P-38J #42-67869 picked off the line, achieved 4,000ft/min and 5.37min to 20,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38-67869.html
If Sorens data is correct then only the 190D-9 With all power boosters, 109K-4 With Power boosters, F4U-4 (20,000ft in 5.1 min in combat trim) could beat it and then the Corsair is by a hair. By what I've read on the web Soren's numbers are quite high in comparison, I'd like to see A. confirmnation, these stats don't seem to exist anywhere else. and B. real world tests of planes off the line. That said his data opens the door. I'm also wondering if he is mistakenly using data from the more or less experimental D-12 which his data closely maches.

Published data for the Fw-190D-9 is 426mph at 21,650ft, 19,685ft in 7min 6sec, ceiling 32,810ft. The Bf-109K-4 is 452mph at 19,685, climb to 32,800ft in 6.7 min on C3 fuel. This data is quite consistent from source to source.

This chart shows P-38J/L climb as noted the green curve is a match for the METO climb as posted in the Pilots Operating Handbook. The WEP curve is a close match with the real world test of a P-38J picked off the production line at the site above. The P-51 curve is also a close match for to the P-51 METO climb data from the P-51 POH.



SYSCOM3 said:


> Now the FW190D was a kick ass plane in 1945, marginally better than the P47D-25 and the P51D. But how would it compare to the P47N, P51H and F4U-4? All three of those fighters were in the pipeline in 1945 and were deployed in that year.
> 
> The last variant of the ME109 was interesting but a complete waste of time and effort for the Germans. Its airframe was old and like the P38, was a dead end. Was it dangerous? Yes. Did it make the allied pilots shake in fear? Nope.



I agree the Fw-190 in all its forms was a very good aircraft, again very few of the D-9 ever made it to the field and someone else posted that it was not cleared for the performance Soren claims. I stand on my earlier statement If there were more, if there were top pilots to fly them, if there was the proper fuels available to the planes in the field maybe those performance figures could be expected. It didn't happen.

I agree with you last statement.

If someone, icluding Soren, posts data to back his numbers up I'll accept it, I just want to be sure its not sales data, experimental data, or from a test mule specialy prepared to achieve the absolut max performance!

wmaxt


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 11, 2006)

I guess one reason the Mustang has it over the Corsair is that it served in both the Pacific and European theater while the Corsair served mainly in one. 

And in some ways it was less important than the Mustang with Drop Tanks. The Corsair was a carrier based plane and it had the Hellcat to compete with. 

Both the latter Navy planes did their job well. The Corsair did it better, but in some ways the Hellcat did more.

Bud Anderson say the P-51D could turn on a dime. Is that too much praise because on here I have heard some say it was a bad turner.

How much of an improvement was the P-51H to the P-51D? It was faster, but was it really more manuverable? 

If the war had lasted past 1945, another plane that possibly might have gotten to compete with the TA was the Grumman Bearcat. I wonder how well it was compared to the FW TA.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 11, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I guess one reason the Mustang has it over the Corsair is that it served in both the Pacific and European theater while the Corsair served mainly in one.
> 
> And in some ways it was less important than the Mustang with Drop Tanks. It was a carrier based plane and it had the Hellcat to compete with. Both planes did their job well. The Corsair did it better, but in some ways the Hellcat did more.
> 
> How much of an improvement was the P-51H to the P-51D? I bet it was faster, but was it really more manuverable?



It was much faster. I don't know if it was any more maneuverable though, there were still occasional reports of P-51Ds losing their tail section in violent maneuvering in April, 45 (the pilot James Beattie did not get out) over Japan. I can't imagine the H model is much better after taking several hundred pounds out of the structure. When Korea came along it was D models they sent, if thats any indication.

wmaxt


----------



## davparlr (Apr 12, 2006)

Okay, this has all been really interesting and I am a impressed with the total amount of information contributed by the group. I am not an expert on any plane in specific, however I do have my comments. First, there seems to be an apple to oranges comparison in the aircraft. The F4U-4 is compared to the P-51D. This is an unfair comparison. In late 1944/1945, several aircraft type became available for combat that were effectively a generation past the previous models. These were the F4U-4, F8F, Fw190D-9, Ta152H, P-47M and N, and the P-51H. None of these planes, as far as I know, met one another in battle. Comparing these planes using data is very difficult. One of the previous entries compared the Fw190D-9 to the P-38J/L in climb and acceleration. However the weight comparison was strange. The loaded verses empty weight indicated the P-38 was much heavier loaded than the Fw, even with twice the fuel weight calculated because of the dual engines. Wing loading is a factor, but so is wing efficiency and operational envelope design. Anyway, here is some data I collected on these later planes. I used empty weight since it is fixed and we can assume the air-to-air combat load (fuel/bullets) are similar so relative performance would be similar.

A/C Top Speed (mph) Wing Loading (empty weight) (Lbs/square ft) 
P-51H 487 28.3
P-47N 467 34.2
Ta152H1 469 34.4
Fw190D-9 426 39.1
F4U-4 446 29.3
F8F 421 29.0

I don't know too much about the P-51H (there doesn't seem to be much available). It was more of a contemporary of the F8F and Ta 152, but, just looking at this data, with a lower wing loading (much lower than the Ta) and higher top speed (much higher than the F8F), the plane may have been an overpowering fighter. The plane was only 53 mph slower than the Me-262 (which is about the same speed advantage the P-51H has over the F4U-4).

If you can compare the F4U-4 to the P-51D, you would have to compare the F4U-4 to the P-51H. I suspect the reason the P-51D was used in Korea was that it was a heavier, stronger plane, and since ground support was more important than escort (until the appearance of the Mig 15), it was the superior plane (although the P-51 is not in the same league as the P-47 or F4U in ground support).

During this period, there was almost a quarterly jump in technology. The Germans were typically ahead in this race due to desperation. Had the war lasted another six months, the discussion on fighters would be entirely different.

Both planes were great planes and went on to serve after the war and were employed successfully in other wars.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 12, 2006)

Oops, the chart didn't come out right, but I think you can make out the columns.

Sorry.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

Good points Dav. I was suspecting that we werent doing the correct comparisons.

Now you got me thinking of comparing the F4U-4 to the Seafury.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 13, 2006)

Good points Dave.

The combat weight for the P-38J and L models is 17,400lbs, and included full internal fuel and full ammo load. The Wing was designed to climb well but its also true that it was approaching compressability at 440mph above 30,000ft (a slight dive would be Required at that alt) which would limit higher speeds without a wing redesign. 

At 250mph the maneuver flaps could be deployed. As these were Fowler Flaps they slid out and then down adding 50sf or more to the wing surface and with an eight degree droop increased lift dramatically with only a 5% drag penalty.

The Fw-190D-9 weighs in about 9840lbs combat weight.

Sys, you might be right about the Seafury vrs F4U-4, a good match-up.

One thing though, any aircraft designed after mid '44 was obsolete already - the jet age had already progressed beyond them.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> ........One thing though, any aircraft designed after mid '44 was obsolete already - the jet age had already progressed beyond them.
> 
> wmaxt



Just think of the interesting aircraft we could have seen if the war lasted a year or more and both sides were having problems perfecting the hot core section of the jet engine


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Just think of the interesting aircraft we could have seen if the war lasted a year or more and both sides were having problems perfecting the hot core section of the jet engine



Jet engine and airframe design would have escalated. I am sure that momentum for design had slowed by mid 1945. Had the war continued another year (e.g. Me262s had been developed enough to prevent bombing of Gemany and making D Day difficult, and winning back the air on the Eastern Front), I am sure crash courses would have occured on both sides for jet fighter technology. We would have seen combat ready F-84s in late 45 or early 46 and straight wing F-86s in late 46. Advance German fighters would have also appeared. If the war continued, we would have seen the swept wing F-86s and the German version of the Mig 15 fighting it out three years before Korea.

Of course an additional hundreds of thousands of people would have died in mean time. It is too bad that the greatest of technilogical leaps occur on the blood of so many people.

Hows that for prognosticating the past??


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

I'm talking conjecture. Just suppose that the jet engine was a tough pice of engineering to perfect in the days of slide rules.

Just imagine if it was determined that the metallurgy of that age was still not advanced enough to make a jet engine with enough performance to be usefull.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 16, 2006)

Back to the subject of the discussion, The Fw-190D-9 performance is as follows

Top Speed @ 3250rpm with MW-50 414mph true @ ~20,000.
Sea Level @ 3250rpm with Methanol, 367mph
5,905ft @ 3250rpm with Methanol, 390mph
Climb rate @ SL 3,329ft/min
Climb rate @ 33,465ft 392
Service Ceiling ~34,000ft
The supercharger cannot maintain full boost above ~16,000ft.
The MW-50 is only fully effective at low altitudes then drops off.

As you can see the climb rate is very close to the P-51 but 23+ mph slower and tops out 7,000ft lower than the P-51.
The P-38s average climb to 20,000ft is 3725ft/min and there is an AAF report I do not have that places an L model at 4.91min to 20,000ft! Speed wise the P-38 still has the advantage but the margin may be smaller (at least the Js). And they top out 10,000ft lower than the P-38.

Source Translated Tests, Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H, Langenhagen. These tests were carried out from October 44 to March 2, 45 on production aircraft. By the end of December 44 183 aircraft had been delivered and upgraded to 1,900 hp. Sixty-one more had been delivered with MW-50 injection installed and were ready for operational use. It is unclear if any Methanol reached the flying fields.

These reports can be found at 
www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test

wmaxt


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 18, 2006)

I have some RLM and FockeWulf testing documents for the 190 family that give a slightly different picture of 190D-9 perfromance than the documents at Spitfireperformance.com

Speed at sea level: 612 kph/380 mph w/ MW 50
Speed at 5.7km: 702 kph/ 436 mph w/MW 50

all from a single RLM report dated 1.10.1944, detailing the performance of 10 different FockeWulfe variants.

I have another serise of documents that give the maximum speed of the 190D9 as very similar: 613 kph @sealevel and 703 kph at @ 5.6km. Peak RoC is given as 21 m/sec, which translates to about 4132 feet/sec.

Finally, there is also a FW document dated 3.1.1945 which gives FW-190D-9 performance as 625 kph at sea level at 2.02 ATA/3250 rpm, using B4 fuel.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 18, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> I have some RLM and FockeWulf testing documents for the 190 family that give a slightly different picture of 190D-9 perfromance than the documents at Spitfireperformance.com
> 
> Speed at sea level: 612 kph/380 mph w/ MW 50
> Speed at 5.7km: 702 kph/ 436 mph w/MW 50
> ...



I wonder if theres a way to reconcile them? The tests on spitfire.com are of production aircraft with gaps sealed, one was primed and polished, and several engines were tried. Other experiments were conducted to increase both top speed and climb. Is there a way to post them so we can discern the reasons for the differences?

Another thing is that there were also excerpts from a book about the 190D9. One of those excerpts mentioned that the production aircraft did not make the performance that was expected, in particular the supercharger was producing 60-100PS less than expected. I suspect a lot of data out there is from preproduction estimates. Another thing is they made a point of mentioning that Methanol was rarely available even to the testing facilities. Other fuels C3, and B4 were also rare at the airfields.

On the average the normal figures that are available are probably representative 426mph and 7.2min to 20,000ft. Thats still very close to the P-51/P-47P-38s it was primarily fighting and quite respectful.

No doubt the Fw-190D9 was a great plane and competitive.

wmaxt


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 18, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Another thing is that there were also excerpts from a book about the 190D9. One of those excerpts mentioned that the production aircraft did not make the performance that was expected, in particular the supercharger was producing 60-100PS less than expected. I suspect a lot of data out there is from preproduction estimates. Another thing is they made a point of mentioning that Methanol was rarely available even to the testing facilities. Other fuels C3, and B4 were also rare at the airfields.



B4 was the standard German figher fuel for the war from early on in the war. It may of been rare in the late periods of the war because of fuel shortages, but it was by far the most common aviation spirit that the LuftWaffe had available.

C3 was certainly rarer as it was more difficult to produce from synthetic oils.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 18, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> B4 was the standard German figher fuel for the war from early on in the war. It may of been rare in the late periods of the war because of fuel shortages, but it was by far the most common aviation spirit that the LuftWaffe had available.
> 
> C3 was certainly rarer as it was more difficult to produce from synthetic oils.



I'm sure your right I may have the B4 mixed up with something else.

One other consideration here, is that the P-38J-L level of performance (4,000ft/min @SL and ~5min to 20,000ft) was available in 6,000 aircraft from late '43 to the end of the war. The P-51/P-47 level of performance (I'm including range here) from Feb, '44. There were, by the sources I have, 667 Fw-190D models of all sub types and of the MW-50 equipped Fw-190D9s only 61 were just ready for operational use in late December '44. Many of the MW-50 aircraft were flown as water injected aircraft ("Oldenburg System") with 1,900hp because of Methanol deliveries. 

I feel that the Fw-190D9 was a very good, competitive fighter just not a super fighter. The D9 was to few to late and to little to make a real difference.

wmaxt


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 21, 2006)

The P-51 still wasn't a bad dog fighter. In one huge battle with Luffwafe they did pretty well, destroying half the enemy force. It doesn't say how superior their numbers were to the germans though. Maybe there were 500 Mustangs or something. 

I realize like Maxt has said that the P-38 pilots did not receive as much training as the P-51 pilots might have.

 http://www.shaw.af.mil/history/group.asp


Transition to the P-51 (in Less a Week) 

By 22 July 1944, the 20th had completely transitioned to the new North American P-51 Mustang. Lieutenant Colonel Wilson equated the P-38 to flying an 'airborne ice wagon,' when compared to a P-51. With their extended range and horsepower, this aircraft helped to sweep the last remnants of the Nazi Luftwaffe from the air. Indeed, from mid-1944, many missions were flown unopposed by Axis aircraft. 


During the first month of P-51 operations, pilots of the 20th Pursuit Group demonstrated the increased air superiority of the Mustang by destroying 70 enemy aircraft Their own losses numbered only 14 over the same period--a far better kill-to-loss ratio than they had achieved with the P-38. The increased range of the P-51 enabled group pilots to extend their coverage of European operations by two to three hours flying time. Standard flying time for a P-38 ran approximately four hours. Missions of six or seven hours were not uncommon for the P-51. 

By November 1944, Allied air superiority had been so firmly established that the Luftwaffe attempted only two more full-scale interdiction missions against Allied bombers before the end of the war. On 2 November 1944, a German force of about 250 fighter aircraft intercepted 1,121 Eighth Air Force bombers and their fighter escort en route to the synthetic oil plants in Merseburg, Germany. In the ferocious air battle that followed, Eighth Air Force fighters destroyed 148 German planes, more than half the attacking force. Aircrews of the 20th Group contributed to the elimination of 33 enemy aircraft on that day. Lieutenant Colonel Robert P. Montgomery, led the 20th assault, destroyed three aircraft himself and was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his performance. 

Bomber escort missions by the 20th Pursuit Group for the remaining eight weeks of 1944 met little German resistance. Weather conditions, mostly fog, limited the group's participation in the Battle of the Bulge. Nevertheless, Eighth Air Force (including the 20th Group) bombing and ground strafing of German road and railway lines of communication effectively strangled the enemy to death, and by 10 January the German army had begun its retreat to the Rhine. 


The Luftwaffe's Last Push 

Germany launched her final major air defense operation on 19 January 1945. This last full-scale attack against allied bombers lasted approximately 20 minutes. In those 20 minutes, over the German homeland, aircraft of the Eighth Air Force downed a total of 121 out of 2l4 attacking aircraft without the single loss of a fighter aircraft. Only nine B-17s,two percent of the total force,were lost. 

The late introduction of Luftwaffe jet aircraft, far superior to the P-51 mainstay of the Allied fighter force in both speed and high altitude performance, came too late to alter the course of the air struggle over Europe. The ME-262 twin jet and ME-163 single rocket engine aircraft, first appeared in small numbers at the end of 1944. Though not a great threat in air-to air combat, (they lacked maneuverability), these aircraft proved almost impossible to stop when they attacked the heavy bombers. 

The balance of the war featured little German resistance to Allied air power. Bombers of the Eighth Air Force saturated the German homeland almost at will. Strafing attacks by Allied fighters, including the 20th, paralyzed German communications, transportation, and airfields. During February 1945, pilots of the 20th Pursuit Group expended approximately 165,500 rounds of ammunition, more than 16 percent of its wartime total expenditures The 20th led all Eighth Air Force fighter groups in the destruction of enemy aircraft during that month. 

In the last month of the war, aircrews of the 20th downed their first ME-262s. On 10 April 1945, during airfield attacks around Potsdam and Brandenburg, 20th pilots destroyed five ME-262s in individual encounters, while the group as a whole eliminated a total of 55 German fighters (mostly on the ground) without a single loss to its own numbers.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 21, 2006)

Here is another acount of what happened on November 2. 
http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/2nov44.htm

The germans were pretty outnumbered. Still, 16 fighters isn't too hard on the Mustang reputation. 

2 November 1944: Sturmjäger Slip Through

On 2 November 1944, US 8th Air Force dispatched 1100 effective heavy bomber sorties against mainly oil targets in Germany, with focus on the Merseburg plant. Escort was provided by 873 effective fighter sorties.

The Luftwaffe rose in force - 490 fighters were scrambled in the first major effort to oppose the 8th Air Force since early September 1944. The Bf 109s of JG 27, climbing to reach the heavy bombers, ran straight into the more than 209 Mustangs of the 20th, 352nd, 359th and 364th Fighter groups which escorted the 1st Bombardment Division. 

In their classical chronicle of JG 27, German historians Hans Ring and Werner Girbig describe the ensuing combat as a "turkey shoot". The dispersed German fighters then were pursued as they sought to escape, and many were shot down as they landed. 20th Fighter Group's 1/Lt Ernest C. Fiebelkorn caught four Bf 109s in a landing pattern and destroyed two of them, giving him three for the day and a total of 11 destroyed. Only small parts of JG 27 managed to break through to the bombers. Among those was Hauptmann Heinz Dudeck, IV./JG 27's commander, who got himself shot down by the bomber gunners' defensive fire.

When JG 27 finally had landed, 27 pilots were missing. Another 11 were wounded. No less than 53 of its Bf 109s had been shot down. In return, JG 27 claimed only eight victories, all against Mustangs.

II./JG 3 was no more successful. Its Bf 109s ran into the same Mustangs. 352nd FG ace Major George Preddy called his Group C.O., Col. Joe Mason: "Hello Topsy, this is Ditto Black Leader. Fifty plus bandits headed for the big friends!" In total, the 352nd FG was credited with 39 victories against only two own losses. II./JG 3 lost 23 Bf 109s and claimed only three Mustangs and a B-17 shot down.

However, while the 200 Mustangs slaughtered JG 27 and II./JG 3, the Fw 190s of the Sturmgruppe IV./JG 3 managed to slip through to the bombers. Carrying out a slow attack from the astern, the Sturmjäger claimed to have shot down 21 B-17s in just three minutes. Indeed it was a heavy strike, and the 1st BD actually lost 27 bombers out of 210 committed - a fearsome 13 % loss rate which testifies to the effectivity of the heavily armoured Sturmjäger.

But above all, the effectivity of the US fighters was displayed this day. When the Fw 190s broke off following the initial onslaught on the bombers, they became targeted by Mustangs from all directions. When the battle was over, 22 Fw 190s had been shot down. It is not known how many of these fell prey to the US fighters. Oblt. Werner Gerth, one of the most daring "four-engine killers" in IV./JG 3, perished as he rammed a B-17.

On 2 November 1944, I. Jagdkorps sent 490 fighters into the air against 1,973 US aircraft. A total of 305 German fighters managed to engage the enemy, and of these, no less than 133 were lost - in other words over 40 %! A total of 73 German fighter pilots were killed and 32 sustained injuries.

US losses were not light - 58 aircraft, 42 bombers and 16 fighters, were lost. But the US fighters had given proof of a vast superiority by bringing home 102 aerial victories.



Even though BF wasn't superior to the Mustang and so the battle was even more one sided, the P-51's didn't do too badly agains't the FW's either.

No wonder many of the Muslims were allies of the germans. Those pilots had grit and the will to commit suicide for their country. What that german pilot Gerth did using his fighter as a flying bomb would have made Osama Bin Laden proud. 

I wonder what happened to that B-17.



Does anyone have an account of the last big german attack that happened on January, 19 1945? I can't seem to find one on the internet.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Apr 21, 2006)

Hi Guys,
You all sure know a lot about German airplanes.
I don't know all that much, but I know that a Mustang will cruise a lot faster than a Corsair for the same HP. That is because of drag. There isn't a single lower drag airfoil out of any WWII design, even those fancy German airplanes.

The neat thing about a Mustang (the only WWII fighter I have ever flown) is how it just keeps accelerating when you level it off in cruise, and after you pull the power back and slow the prop down to cruise power, it just keeps going. At 10,000 feet it will indicate 250 mph at 36 inches hg and 2450 rpm. I think that is 800hp. 

Now according to my buddies that have flown the Corsair, the neat thing is that it has so much HP that if you leave it at TO power, it'll go 350 kts indicated down low. That is really fast. Almost as fast is the oil temperature rise, etc, and that pretty much goes for all of these airplanes. 

I think that between the two, Corsair and Mustang, you have a dead heat. One goes faster at altitude, one goes just as fast at low level, one dives like a bat, and has a great speed brake, the other will go so fast you must be carefull. The Corsair climbs well at low speed, the Mustang climbs well a little faster. The Mustang has high control pressures the faster you go, and I have heard the Corsair is better in that regard. 

All of these late model jobs were good because they were built at a time when all of the latest of science was included, great gunsights, armament was reliable and able, engines were run on 115/145 octane gas so the detonation problems at high power were nil, high altitude ignition problems were licked, so two late model airplanes, a P-51D-25 and an F4U-4 with a couple of hot dog young combat guys and a head-on pass for a dog fight start would pretty much go on until they were out of gas, by my estimation.

For another thing, about those fancy german fighters, that K-4 was cool. Fast, but it wasn't doing anything unless you just used the fuse arms cause it is too heavy other wise. The wing is too small. 
And that D-9 FW, neatest looking thing. I always wanted Doug Champlain to fly his. He never will though. We have to wait for the Flug Werks guys. 
But that TA-152 with that long wing? That was NOT going to manuever like a fighter at high indicated airspeeds because that narrow chord wing with high control deflection would twist so that it would cancel the control and possibly get the reverse of what the pilot wanted. The B-47 did a similar thing. The TA seemed to me it was a U-2.

Great fantasizing with all of you. (I'd like to see the Pilot's Handbook figures on the Mustang and Corsair like that fellow with all of the German data did, mine are in storage.)

Chris...


----------



## Udet (Apr 21, 2006)

"Germany launched her final major air defense operation on 19 January 1945. This last full-scale attack against allied bombers lasted approximately 20 minutes. In those 20 minutes, over the German homeland, aircraft of the Eighth Air Force downed a total of 121 out of 2l4 attacking aircraft without the single loss of a fighter aircraft. Only nine B-17s,two percent of the total force,were lost. "

20 minutes= 121 German fighters shot down? On January 19, 1945?

Weren´t those USAAF pilots one of the ultimate wonders of the world? I am sure such a deed must be included on the Guiness book of world records.

Now, was there any sort of "final" operation of the Luftwaffe on such day? That should have been Unternehmen Bodenplatte if i recall correctly, launched on January 1st, 1945.

In my view, it´s quite easy to understand why is it you are unable to find any further information on such a "final" battle, but I´ll leave this as a lovely riddle for you to solve.

That webpage is the perfect example of that allied style of telling history that fascinates me...it is humorous.

Super allied pilots in their super mounts having to fear absolutely nothing from the enemy. Chumping on chips and pop corn in the cockpits while shooting down enemy planes at will. It couldn´t have been easier!

100% casualty free melees. Not the slightest scratch. )

Mr. Welch: your comment on expert Werner Gerth came out just wide of the mark. To illustrate how wrong the website of that FG is, Gerth did not die in such a manner. Want to know who he died? Ask Erich, if he´s in the mood, he might help enlighting a bit further on how Gerth died.

Good evening for you all gentlemen,

Cheers


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 22, 2006)

Sorry Mr. Gerth. I guess it's likely it didn't happen that way. Uh, the place that had the part about the plane ramming wasn't the 20th FG website. It was Bergstrom Books that had an excerpt about the US and German Air War. I guess they got the sources wrong about his death.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gerth.html
Werner Gerth was born on 10 May 1923 at Pforzheim. Gerth was serving with JG 53, based in Italy, in late summer 1943. Leutnant Gerth was assigned to 7./JG 53. He sustained wounds in a RAF bombing attack on the airfield at Ciampino on 17 September 1943. In January 1944, Gerth volunteered to join Sturmstaffel 1 under the command of Major Hans-Günter von Kornatzski. He shot down his first four-engine bomber on 22 February 1944. On 6 March, he shot down two USAAF B-17 four-engine bombers and, on 11 April, two USAAF B-24 four-engine bombers. On 20 April 1944, Gerth was appointed Staffelkapitän of 11.(Sturm)/JG 3, but still served with Sturmstaffel 1. Later, Sturmstaffel 1 members joined his 11th Staffel, which was then renamed the 14th Staffel, on 10 August 1944. Sturmstaffel 1 attacked a force of about 40 B-17s on 29 April 1944 and, during a 30-minute battle, shot down almost half of the American bombers. Gerth shot down one B-17 and recorded a B-17 Herauschuss in this action for his 7th and 8th victories. On 7 July, he again shot down two B-24s (13-14). By the end of July 44, Gerth had amassed a score of 20 four-engine bombers shot down, including multiple victories on at least three occasions. He was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 29 October 1944 after 26 victories. On 2 November 1944, Gerth was hit by return fire while in the process of shooting down a B-17 over Halle. According to some sources he then rammed it and baled out, but his parachute did not open. He was flying a Fw 190A-8/R-2 Sturmbock (W.Nr. 682 057). There is little evidence to support Gerth’s ramming of the bomber on the day of his death. His wingman, Feldwebel Oscar Bösch (18 victories) cannot confirm that Gerth died after ramming a bomber but indicates Gerth was shot down by fighters. Gerth was posthumously promoted to the rank of Hauptmann and awarded the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. 
Werner Gerth was credited with 27 victories. All his victories were recorded over the Western front, including 22 four-engine bombers. He was shot down twelve times himself.

Sturmstaffel 1 might deserve to be called a Wonder of the Air World. 20 bombers in 30 minutes? Thats some shooting.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 22, 2006)

Well here is a pilot recounting what happened during the Germans Operation Bodenplatte. 

Maybe recounting it doesn't have much to do with the Corsair, but it does show the dog fighting abilities of the Mustang again'st greater odds and how it could handle low alltitude, turn and burn combat without much of the "Energy" or "Bounce" or "Boom and Zoom" or "Suprise" or "Allied Superior Numbers" factor to gain kills. I'm sorry to be nit picky, but those are the factors which aviation fans say gave the Mustang it's undeserved reputation and not dogfighting. Sure, but it could take one-on-one as well. Maybe the Corsair could have performed better? 

 http://www.looksmartusa.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200502/ai_n9477885/pg_5?pi=obc
NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION

by 1st Lt Alden P. Rigby, 487th FS 352nd FG

None of us in the 352nd Fighter Group attempted to have a New Year's Eve celebration at our base in Belgium (called Y-29). It was so dreary, and the living conditions were so bad that it was a struggle to maintain our sanity and keep warm. Living on a forward air base only miles from the frontlines with big artillery barrages going off almost around the clock was excitement enough. But some alcohol would have helped, if we had had any!

When I awoke at 7 a.m. on January 1, 1945, typical European winter weather greeted me-gray clouds and lots of fog. I should have gone back to bed because I knew there wouldn't be a mission for us that day. Instead, I trudged over to the mess hall-not because the food was good, but because it was the only damn place that was warm! After breakfast, I wandered over to the operations tent, and it looked as if Lt. Col. J.C. Meyer was attempting to put a mission together.

Meyer was trying to get permission from 9th Air Force Command for a bunch of us to fly around the Bulge area and look for targets of opportunity. After some strong-arming and promises that would never be fulfilled, he got the go-ahead to have 12 of us go up on a short combat hop. At a briefing, we found out that we'd be going for a ride to look for anything German that moved; this would help the guys on the ground in the Bastogne area. We soon learned that we weren't the only ones who needed help!

I walked back out into the miserable cold through mud, snow and ice and made my way to the P-51Ds parked nearby. The fog still hung around, and I wondered how long we would be stuck on the ground waiting for it to lift. As I neared my plane, the unmistakable sound of many Merlin engines got my juices flowing. I had my own bird and named it "Eleen and Jerry" after my wife and daughter.

My crew had scraped the ice off the Mustang's wings and canopy and had it idling when I arrived. I felt the warmth from the North American heater as I strapped myself in. It was very pleasant inside the cockpit, and it looked as though I had a comfortable ride ahead. Boy, was I wrong!

Our fuselage and wing tanks were completely full of gas and our gun bays loaded with ammo as the 12 of us made it through the mud and fell in line to taxi. I was number four in "White Flight," which was to be the first flight off. Lt. Col. Meyer was "White One," and his wingman was "White Two." "White Three" was my element lead, 1st Lt. Raymond Litige. We had been sitting in our Mustangs for almost half an hour, just burning fuel from the fuselage tank and waiting for the fog to lift. At around 9 a.m. some 9th Air Force P-47s loaded with bombs and drop tanks took off ahead of us to look for German armor. Then it was our turn, and we taxied into position on the runway and waited for clearance from the tower. No one in the tower looked at us: all eyes were turned toward the east where a flak barrage was exploding over the end of the runway because of our defense perimeter guns.

"What the hell is going on?" I thought. "Those guys never shoot at anything." I heard Meyer call the tower and ask the same question. The tower had no idea either. I had enough presence of mind to turn on my gun heater and gun camera, just in case this was real. I looked up and ahead, and the sky was filled with birds-all German!


I picked them out about a mile northeast of the field. They were spread out low and flying fast. The scary thing about it was that, from all my combat experience, I knew they would take out the aircraft on the runway first, and I was in the front row! My row began to move as Meyer poured the coal to his Merlin.

We weren't about to wait for any green light from the tower, and we began to roll as Littge and I fought to control our Mustangs in Meyer's tremendous propwash in front of us. As I stayed glued to Littge's wing, I didn't even notice the 109s and 190s firing at us. We stayed on the runway longer than usual to get some extra airspeed and waited for Meyer to lift off. When we broke ground, I snapped up my wheels, and at 200 feet, an Fw 190 was waiting for us. He got between our flight and was on Littge's tail.

"Littge, break left!" I screamed over the radio transmitter. The 190 followed him in a hard turn, and my gunsight was now filled with German airplane; I pulled the trigger and raked it from the tail through its nose. The 190 poured black smoke from its engine, rolled over and went in from about 500 feet. It was every man for himself as our flight broke up and went on the defensive. I quickly found another Fw 190 below me and latched onto him.

By the time I had dropped the few hundred feet to get behind him, he had put some distance between us. I fired at him using my gunsight, and the darn bulb that illuminated my gunsight burned out! As I closed on the 190, I walked my hits forward and eventually shredded the 190 and brought it down, too. I used way too much ammo on that guy and I began to draw tracers.

I knew how my guns were loaded, and when I saw tracers, it meant that less than 300 rounds were left in my six guns. Every shot had to count if I was going to survive. I quickly decided to head back to the field, which was only 10 miles away, and to land, reload and get back into the fight. I was in deep trouble: no gunsight, high on fuel and low on ammo, and I had only been airborne less than seven minutes. My next problem was dead ahead and in my way-friendly flak bursts.

At 1,000 feet over our field, our antiaircraft gunners couldn't tell the difference between a blue-nose P-51 Mustang and a gray Fw 190, and whatever flew over or nearby was fair game. As flak flew all around me, I dived away and saw a Jug below me in a scrape with a Bf 109. They were in a Lufbury going 'round and 'round, and I watched them for a little while as the P-47 began to get some hits on the 109.

I was a little concerned about that P-47 because he still had his belly tank strapped on, and at 700 feet above the ground, tight turning was not the Jug's forte. I was also worried about jumping in with my own limited ammo supply. My selfish thoughts quickly faded away when the P-47 mushed through a turn and lost the advantage. I had no choice but to help this guy as much as I could.

I zoomed up from beneath and between them and pushed my throttle forward. The 109 was only 50 yards ahead of me and I opened up with a short burst. I saw hits on the left wing and around the engine area, and coolant began to stream from it. At this close range, it was hard to miss with six .50s. I didn't think I had any ammo left, and if I got jumped, I would be down to hand-to-hand combat!

After the 109 crashed below, I became an innocent bystander, just burning off fuel and watching the other fights around me. Slightly southeast of the field I saw one helluva fight between two Mustangs and a Bf 109. This German was good-I mean really good! He was doing split-S's at less than 800 feet off the ground-tight turns, and he even got off some shots at the fellow P-51s who were trying to box him in. I watched this duel for about five minutes until they headed toward me.


It was a running battle as the two Mustangs chased him broadside and into me. When he was 30 yards in front of me, I pulled hard left, pointed my nose at him and squeezed off what was left in my guns. The 109's cockpit completely shattered as he flew through my hail of bullets. Not quite a hail because I didn't think I had that many left! The 109 nosed over and dived straight in. This had been the longest 25 minutes of my life; my trigger finger was sore, and I just hoped I would land safely back at Y-29!

I called the tower for permission to land and was told to follow the P-51 on a three-mile final. I watched him as he neared the runway, and instead of the usual 360-degree overhead break, this guy pulled up over the runway and did a victory roll. The antiaircraft gunners were still on edge, and they opened up on him and followed him right down the runway. Thank God, they missed!

I landed at last, and as I taxied up, my crew chief was waiting for me. He felt badly about the burned-out bulb, but I couldn't have done any better if the gunsight had worked. We checked the gun bays and didn't find any rounds anywhere. All 2,700 rounds had fired. This was truly a miracle at Y-29. Our squadron score was 24 to none-not bad for just a "short hop" over the Belgian countryside with the "Blue-nosed Bastards of Bodney!"

Author's note: the 487th FS was awarded the Distinguished Unit Citation, and individual decorations were presented to Lt. Col. John C. Meyer, DSC; Capt. William T. Whisner, DSC; Lt. Sanford Moats, DSC; Lt. Alden Rigby, Silver Star; Lt. Col. William Y. Halton, Silver Star; Lt. Raymond Litige, Silver Star; and Capt. Henry M. Stewart, Silver Star.

Copyright Air Age Publishing Feb 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 22, 2006)

Soundbreaker said:


> 20 bombers in 30 minutes? Thats some shooting.


More like bad defensive firing to me....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 22, 2006)

Maybe so. In their greatest days the Germans may have been able to do a lot better.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 22, 2006)

I've just dived into the official USAAF kill claims list for WW2 and would like to add some information.

The official record actually shows no claims for 19th February, 1945 in the ETO. Yes, zero, nada, zilch.

John Wood's "Fighter Command War Diaries" lists 5 USAAF fighter losses on the 19th of February: 4 P-47s and 1 P-38. 

So either SoundBreaker Welch's article has a typo/is worng or the official record needs to be adjusted.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 22, 2006)

I'm not seeing any discussions on the variant of the planes, the Goodyear FG-2 being my noob preference. I would have to say that both planes were exceptional, since they lasted firmly into the Korean War on front-line duty.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 23, 2006)

I don't think I had a typo? I just cut and pasted from the web sites.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 23, 2006)

I didn't mean you had a typo, just that the article you posted wasn't factually correct, which is half of the problem with sourcing things from the internet, which very rarely has any form of independent editorial review.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Apr 24, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> I'm not seeing any discussions on the variant of the planes, the Goodyear FG-2 being my noob preference. I would have to say that both planes were exceptional, since they lasted firmly into the Korean War on front-line duty.



Interestingly, 
The Mustang wasn't the first choice for the Korean operation for the Air Force. The Thunderbolt was the airplane the Air Force wanted, but it's spares and numbers weren't up to the necessary levels.
NAA was worried that the Merlin spares wouldn't hold up either, and they drew up engineering drawings for the airplane to be re-engined with Pratt&Whitney R-2800's.

I can't remember who told me personally about the Thunderbolt choice, but it was either General Doolittle or Bob Hoover. I was a teen at the time and my head would swoon in such company.

An air racing friend had drawn some working drawings of a Mustang with an R-2800 CB-17 for a proposed racer and an old NAA engineer heard of it and provided some NAA original drawings. It was a pretty good looking airplane with the radial, too.

Tempest's (originally Sabre) and Sea Fury's (originally Griffon) were good lookers with radials, so not an unheard of switch.

Anyone find any good performance data on the Mustang and Corsair yet? The German/American thing is way off topic.

Chris...


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 24, 2006)

Thanks for that Chris. Very interesting on the AF wanting the Jug. I only wish I was able to rub shoulders with either of the two characters you mentioned...

Do you have any of the drawings of the Mustang with a radial? I know the 109 with the annular cowling wasn't very pretty, and that's the look I keep seeing in my mind's eye on the Mustang.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Apr 25, 2006)

No I don't, but as I remember it the 2800 isn't all that wide and didn't make for a huge look to the nose. 

It had a big spinner and afterbody for the intake like most racers, and a fixed area ramp on either side for the cooling air exhaust and the engines exhaust stack outlets arranged at the exit point for jet-pump like augmentation of it's escape.

The Mustang fuse is pretty deep and there was no difference in the side profile until the taper towards the leading edge of the cowling. The radiator scoop was of course deleted so it was a very clean profile. The oil cooling was done with a 0 drag boil-off system, and the wings were clipped at the production break at the second aileron hinge as is typical for all but two Mustang racers.

The hot rodded 2800 would produce about 3200 hp at 90 in hg and 3200 rpm and at the time would've been super competitive in the racing scene. Maybe it still would, as the Dwight Thorne Merlins put out the @ same hp but have the radiator drag. It would depend on the amount of detail to cooling drag, as it always is.

As for the military version, I never saw the NAA drawings. The ones my racer friends had were detail for the motor mount and such. I just saw the racer outlines and some cowling sketchs.

I was very lucky to have met a lot of the pioneers. Amazing that so many were involved in air racing, or is it?

Chris...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

Ive seen pics of the F-51 and F-47 in national guard squadrons well into the mid 50's.

Both aircraft were well designed.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2006)

*Sigh*

Why do I even bother... 

wmaxt, had you ever bothered actually reading my last post you would have realized I wasn't listing METO power figures, I was infact listing 60" Hg boost figures which was the highest boost pressure allowed for the P-38 in the ETO. You on the other hand either post figures for underloaded P-38's running at 60" MP or normally loaded P-38's running at 70" MP, exaggerating the P-38's performance on both accounts.

Also you talk of lacking evidence concerning the Dora-9's performance figures (which is weird cause I posted the original doc's in the very same post), yet you never present any evidence to back up your dubious claim's about the P-38 yourself, how is that ? You desperately cling on to your precious game-chart believing it to be true, yet it has no credibility because you cannot provide an original and because it contains rather weird error's. (But I guess the "Data courtesy of lockheed-martin corp." phrase must be the deciding factor for you, Im not impressed though) 

And about the figures on the Spitfireperformance site, wmaxt you really need to read it all, not just small excerpts of what you'd like to hear from the site... 

Note the following written on the site:

_Flight Test Engineering Branch 
Memo Report No. Eng-47-1771-A 
5 July 1944  _

- _All tests were flown at a gross weight at take-off of 17,363 lbs._

- _At sea level a maximum rate of climb of 4040 ft/min was attained at 70" Hg. manifold pressure and a rate of climb of 3570 ft/min at 60" Hg. manifold pressure and 3000 RPM._

And for comparison here's the test with the P-38J I was talking about: 






As you can see this is running at 60" MP(1600 BHP) at a weight of just 16,415 lbs, which means a 50% fuel load - Max climb rate: 3,750 ft/min. 

At a gross weight of 17,500 lbs that is probably 3,500 ft/min, and at 70" MP it is likely to be around 4,000 ft/min. (Now what do ya know! thats the same as what is written on the Spit-performance site! )

And at 54" MP it is 3,200 ft/min:
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1029/p38ltclchart2op.jpg

And now wmaxt, Im not going to discuss this anymore as its become tiring and uninteresting to me, cause you obviously refuse to listen to anything I have to say and frankly I've had enough of it. So now, having made my case clear(for the 2nd time), I'm going to leave this discussion. 

Oh and btw, in your post following my last one, thanks for talking as if I werent there in it, that was very kind of you wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 30, 2006)

Soren said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Why do I even bother...



Thats fine, you are entitled to your opinions. You've stated that you already know all you need to, OK, I know where you stand. I've presented a lot of valid data from multiple sources which you have just dismissed out of hand and has absolutely nothing to do with any game.

The Spitfire.com test is of a J-15/10 model the weight was correct for that model and it showed 4,000ft/Min SL and 5.37min to 20,000ft @ 60" and 1.600hp.

Your right about the AAF - 60" limit, however both Allison and Lockheed approved 64", L model (and were in the field adjusting the aircraft) and various pilots reported using "over 60", accept it or not I don't care. 

You still insist on using METO as in your last post, I have tried to use the same power settings for comparisons, I'm sorry you don't approve.

The Spitfire.com Fw-190D9 data is, just like the P-38J data, production aircraft right off the line, and tested by the Germans with an eye to improving performance, so any comparisons should be valid. The testers made a point of stating gap seal problems as well as lack of expected power output affecting performance.

I to, have had enough.

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Apr 30, 2006)

Soren, am I reading that chart correctly?

It appears that the F4U-1 will climb to 20,000ft in about 13.5 minutes and can climb at a rate of about 3,100fpm at sea level, 2.950fpm at 10,000ft and about 1,650fpm at 20,000ft.

Is that at WEP? It looks like the F4U-4 climbs to 20,000ft in about 9 minutes at 70".


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 30, 2006)

When you look at the figures, no single aircraft dominates the other.

Big deal if one aircraft can get to 30,000 ft 15 seconds faster than its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft is 10 mph fater then its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft can turn faster than its competitor when that style of dogfighting is going to be avoided.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2006)

Jank said:


> Soren, am I reading that chart correctly?
> 
> It appears that the F4U-1 will climb to 20,000ft in about 13.5 minutes and can climb at a rate of about 3,100fpm at sea level, 2.950fpm at 10,000ft and about 1,650fpm at 20,000ft.
> 
> Is that at WEP? It looks like the F4U-4 climbs to 20,000ft in about 9 minutes at 70".



No Jank, you're not reading it correctly. According to that chart the F4U-1 reaches 20,000ft in about 7.5min, where'as the F4U-4 reaches it in just 5min. 

And as you can see the F4U-4 has a max climb rate of about 4,400ft/min at sea-level, which is pretty darn fast.


----------



## Jank (May 1, 2006)

Soren, is that 7.5 min figure on the F4U-1 climb to 20,000ft the maximum or WEP?


----------



## Twitch (May 1, 2006)

"When you look at the figures, no single aircraft dominates the other.

Big deal if one aircraft can get to 30,000 ft 15 seconds faster than its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft is 10 mph fater then its contender.

Big deal if one aircraft can turn faster than its competitor when that style of dogfighting is going to be avoided."

Syscom3- exactly!! Wahahahahahaha! That's what makes these "comaprisons" absurd. Anyone that knows combat knows minor, sometimes even major, differences in performance are meaningless to the outcome. The flight simulator mentality of comparing/contrasting 2 planes from the same country as combatants is equally juvenille.


----------



## syscom3 (May 1, 2006)

The late model fighters of all the combatants were all evenly matched. The advantage of one was offset by the advantage of another.

Speeds at any given altitude were similar, accelerations were similar, rate of climbs were similar, firepower similar, blah, blah, blah. 

There was only one parameter though, that really stood out on them, and that was range. The US fighters had such a tremendous range advantage, it could not be ignored.

I think it was FLYBOYJ who mentioned that there are so many factors to analyze, its almost an impossible task for us mear mortals to do it.

That said, I would say that it was the P51D that was the best fighter of WW2. *It was good enough in most catagories *PLUS it had a range that couldnt be ignored. And for the Spitfire fans, I ask you one simple thing: From Dec 1943 to July 1944, how many sorties did the Spitfire fly over Berlin? Like I said, if you cant bring your aircraft to the party, you sure arent going to prove anything.


----------



## wmaxt (May 1, 2006)

One thing about that chart, the P-38 and the P-51 are at METO power settings while the F4U-4 is at 70" or WEP. I think the F4U-1 is at METO to but I'm not sure.

wmaxt


----------



## davparlr (May 1, 2006)

These are all excellent aircraft and any pilot would feel comfortable taking one into combat. If we did an engineering test by running experienced WWII pilots through various senerios in each aircraft and measured the results, I suspect the following would occur. The best pilot would be the best in each plane, average pilots would be average in each plane, the worst pilot would be the worst in each plane. Each would find the weakness and strength and use this to his best advantage. When asked to create a perfect aircraft, the consensus would have some performance characteristic of each plane. And, when asked which one was the best, he would reply "the one I flew in the war". The final objective analysis would probably fall within probability of error.

Also, I don't think anybody will change their mind. Me, although I like them all, I still perfer the P-51. Many of my previous opinions, however, have changed.


----------



## wmaxt (May 2, 2006)

davparlr said:


> These are all excellent aircraft and any pilot would feel comfortable taking one into combat. If we did an engineering test by running experienced WWII pilots through various senerios in each aircraft and measured the results, I suspect the following would occur. The best pilot would be the best in each plane, average pilots would be average in each plane, the worst pilot would be the worst in each plane. Each would find the weakness and strength and use this to his best advantage. When asked to create a perfect aircraft, the consensus would have some performance characteristic of each plane. And, when asked which one was the best, he would reply "the one I flew in the war". The final objective analysis would probably fall within probability of error.
> 
> Also, I don't think anybody will change their mind. Me, although I like them all, I still perfer the P-51. Many of my previous opinions, however, have changed.



I think your pretty much right there, if a pilot feels comfortable and has success in an aircraft that will probably be his favorite plane from that time on.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2006)

Sorry but I just can't let such a comment float around without responding...



wmaxt said:


> The Spitfire.com Fw-190D9 data is, just like the P-38J data, production aircraft right off the line, and tested by the Germans with an eye to improving performance, so any comparisons should be valid. The testers made a point of stating gap seal problems as well as lack of expected power output affecting performance.



wmaxt, again you completely ignore the important parts....

The Fw190 D-9 Nr. 210001 and 210002 were both fitted with under-performing engines, severely impacting their performance in the tests.

- _The first problem with all flight trials of Wk.-Nr. 001 002 is that they were done with the initial batch of production engines, which have well documented problems with supercharger performance._

Despite these engine troubles the 002 still managed to reach 595km/h at SL using MW-50, without the ETC-504 and with a puttied and polished surface. And in a later test where a gap between the engine and wing was covered with rubber, the 002 managed 608km/h at SL using MW50.

Fw-190 D-9 Nr. 001 however, with the standard factory surface finish, reached the same speeds as 002. This is something which had FW puzzled, cause why didn't the higher quality surface finish of Nr. 002 show in better performance ? So they were keen to investigate that issue further, and the conclusion was that with engines performing to their published figures and with good factory finish a serial production Dora-9 will reach the previously calculated performance figures - ~625 Km/h at SL using MW50.

And it turns out they were right, cause the next batch of aircraft to leave the production line performed much better...

Running at Start u. Notleistung (1,[email protected],250rpm), Fw-190 D-9 Nr. 210006 reached 550 km/h at SL and climbed at 17 m/s (3,329 ft/min), and this is with a standard factory finish as-well as with a ETC-504 attached. - The same as in the chart I posted earlier; 
Climb rate at Start u. Notleistung w/ETC-504 at a weight of 4,270 kg = 17.3 m/s:
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9339/d9climb8yo.jpg

Compared to 002 which had a puttied and polished surface, and no ETC-504 attached, 006 reached the same speeds but with a standard factory surface finish, a ETC-504 attached and with no main wheel doors (And even at a higher weight as-well) - just because the engine now ran properly.

Detailed information on Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210006:

_General information._ 

_Airplane model: Fw 190 D-9 Wk. –Nr.210006 
Aerodynamic Wing Area: F = 18,3 m2 
Wing span: b = 31,32 ft (10,46 m) 
Wing aspect ratio: R = 6,0 
Engine: Jumo 213 A (B-4 fuel) 
Engine power permissible for 30 min: 3250 rpm 
Engine power for continuous operation: 3000 rpm 
Air Intake: external scoop without filter 
Exhaust system: plain blow back stacks 
Pitot tube installation: Bruhn 5 d 
Propeller: Heine, 3 blades, compensating core, D = 3,5m, t/D = 11,5% 

Aircraft condition: 
Standard version with ETC 504 (without wheel cover). 

Engine: without gap gasket 
Surface: standard, primed and sprayed 
Armament: 2 mg 131 in the fuselage with 475 rounds and 2 mg 151 in the wing with 250 rounds. 
Antennas: for Fu G 16 “ Fu G 25 “ equipment and directional loop cover. 
Take-off weight: 9,590 lbs (G = 4350kg) (after n.J.190.213-045 v,31.7.45) 
Fuel contents: 141 gallons (640 liter), of which 25 gallons (115 liter) is in the supplementary fuselage tank. 10,229 lbs. (4640 kg), if flown with 300 liter drop tank._ 

Note also that Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr. 210001 with a metal gap seal at the engine in the wing/fuselage transition area(Not rubber or in every gap like on 002), running at Kampfleistung(1,[email protected],000rpm), reaches the same speed as Wk.-Nr. 210002 running at Start u. Notleistung! Thats a speed increase of 18 km/h (11mph), with a gap seal, still with the underperforming engine! (Not bad!) With a proper working engine that would mean a top speed at SL of around 612-615 km/h using MW50. 

Also remember metal wasn't in shortage like rubber was, so there's no reason to believe this modification wasn't implemented on future aircraft.

And lastly, although I know manufacturing quality had decreased in most factories producing the FW fighters by 44-45(Some of FW's own factories were still turning out good quality a/c), I do not believe it had decreased to an extent where the Fw-190A-5 from 43 at 1,[email protected],700rpm would be running at a 27 km/h higher speed at SL than the Dora-9 running at 1,[email protected],250rpm - since not even the BMW801F of the A-9 could produce the same amount of thrust at 2,[email protected],700rpm as the Jumo-213A could at 1,[email protected],250rpm, not to mention that the Anton series a/c produce alot more drag than the Dora series ! Overall manufacturing quality simply couldn't have fallen that much.

At 2,[email protected],700rpm the Fw-190A-9 had a top speed at SL of 590 km/h (366 mph), btw.


----------



## syscom3 (May 3, 2006)

The mission profile also counts for a lot. 

If the fighter is escorting or intercepting bombers at 30,000 then its high altitude performance is what counts.

If its down on the deck, then high altitude performance is irrelevent.


----------



## Twitch (May 3, 2006)

And those 25-30,000 foot planes could hold their own on the deck too. There are many accounts of Thunderbolts and Mustangs scrambling around with 109s and 190s at tree-top level and emerging victorious. 

The P-47D could hit 363 MPH and the P-51D 395 MPH at 5,000 feet and under. Not slow by any means.


----------



## wmaxt (May 3, 2006)

Soren said:


> Sorry but I just can't let such a comment float around without responding...



Actually you made my points for me, I mentioned the underperforming engines as well as the ~3300ft/min climb which was always my point, even the P-38F climb was more than 3600ft/min at its maximum.

You are assuming engine output was corrected. According to the two German sources including Dietmar Hermann as published in his book "Focke-Wulf Fw-190 "Long Nose"" used in the Spitfireperformance page the MW-50 fuel was not available in quantity and the engine performance was not at the expected level. An interim solution of increasing output to 1,900hp was implemented as well as conversion of many MW-50 systems to water/methanol only, called the "oldenberg system".

Again your assuming gap seals etc were corrected - there is no evidence that it was. 

My contention all along is that the P-38 belongs with the top fighters including the Fw-190, Spitfire, and F4U-4. I still believe this is true, its performance gives little if anything to the others (except maybe top speed which is between 420mph and 443mph dep. on source). I also accept the fact that the K version would be the best the P-38 could do without a major design effort and that would also mean specialization for a specific performance goal. With jets arriving a redesign of the P-38 would be unreasonable.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2006)

wmaxt, either you only read the first couple of lines in a post and ignore the rest, or you desperately need glasses ! Which one is it ?

Please note the following:

Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210001:  

Condition:* Factory standard, w/ main wheel doors.*

Achieved speed at Start u. Notleistung: 550 km/h at SL (341 mph)

Later on 001 achieved an even higher speed at SL using only Kampfleistung ([email protected],000rpm), because of a metal gap seal in the wing/fuselage transition area.

Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210002: 

Condition:* Surface primed with a high gloss polish, w/ main wheel doors.*

Achieved speed at Start u. Notleistung: 555 km/h at SL (345 mph)

Fw-190 D-9 Wk.-Nr.210006:

Condition: *Factory standard, w/ ETC-504 and without main wheel doors.* 

Achieved speeds at Start u. Notleistung: 552 km/h at SL (342 mph)

So you see I aint assuming anything, engine performance DID improve on later production models !

Also 006 achieved its climb rate of 3,329 ft/min at a weight of 4,350 kg, carrying a ETC-504 rack and with a standard surface finish, running at only Start u. Notleistung - [email protected],250rpm. (Not at maximum power!)

Oh and what do you think the letters "MW" in the designation "MW-50" stands for ? "Methanole Wasser" !!!! There is no "special MW-50 fuel" !  

And guess what, the performance figures of 540 km/h at 1.5ata 585 km/h at 1.76 ata at SL were all ESTIMATED before the MW-50 system even entered testing in October 1944 ! Infact it was estimated before September that year even ! Do I need to remind you that 002 reached 608 km/h at SL in October 24. 1944 ? 

Check this, from January 3. 1945 - 621 km/h at SL !:
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1345/fw190vergleich32yi.jpg

And the climb chart I posted earlier is from March 23. 1945, btw !

Are you beginning to get the picture now ? 


And about the P-38's performance; I'm not even gonna go there anymore, if you ask me you've already been proven wrong in that discussion more than once wmaxt, so there's no need starting all over again.


----------



## wmaxt (May 4, 2006)

Soren, I think your high on some really good stuff.

My opinion is that you are extremely biased, and your proof many times is just your personal disbelief of the data. You are very skillful in a debate mode, to the point that you goaded me into using the Hoof turn data, which is invalid in this context. That attitude does not mean you are correct.

I disagree with you on both the P-38 performance and the relevance of the production tests of the Fw-190D9 (which was last tested on 6 March '45 and at that time neither the engine, special fuel for the MW-50 system, or effective gap seals were corrected or available even at the flight test sites). You are welcome to your beliefs.

I'm not going to respond to you on this subject again.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2006)

Me biased ?! Says you ?! Well excuse me Mr.P-38 guy, but I haven't really seen you praise anything but your precious P-38, ever.. But unlike you wmaxt, I'm not going to start blindly accusing you of anything, cause I consider myself a bit more respectful than such. (Although I must admit my respect towards you has faded since your last post) 

But what can I say, its human nature to spew out accusations like that when in a tough spot. So I guess your excused wmaxt..


----------



## R988 (May 12, 2006)

A note on the P-38, I was recently reading a pilot account of a Med theatre P-38 pilot who was regularly flying 6-7hour missions over Italy from North Africa. Funny thing was when he went to Britain to pick up a new aircraft and chatted with the P-38 pilots over there, he was suprised to find out they only flew 4 hour missions because they flew at a faster speed or less economical cruise settings, I forget which. I assume they flew long missions in the pacific as well. 
Amazing really, 7 hours in a single seater.


----------



## wmaxt (May 12, 2006)

R988 said:


> A note on the P-38, I was recently reading a pilot account of a Med theatre P-38 pilot who was regularly flying 6-7hour missions over Italy from North Africa. Funny thing was when he went to Britain to pick up a new aircraft and chatted with the P-38 pilots over there, he was suprised to find out they only flew 4 hour missions because they flew at a faster speed or less economical cruise settings, I forget which. I assume they flew long missions in the pacific as well.
> Amazing really, 7 hours in a single seater.



The Smithsonian P-38 site sets the mission that was the longest was a mission by P-38s that was 2,300mi, plus combat at the target, that could be a ~10hr mission.

In the ETO there were two conditions that limited range for the P-38s: 1. only 165gal drop tanks were used (up to 300gal tanks were used everywhere else). 2. Cruise procedures were high rpm, ~2300rpm and low MAP about 28", while everybody else used ~1,800rpm and 32"-34" MAP which gave better fuel economy and more cockpit heat (not much but it helped).

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2006)

"....In early 1945, Lightning pilots of the 12th Fighter Squadron, 18th Fighter Group, flew a mission that lasted 10 ½ hours and covered more than 3,220 km (2,000 miles). In August, P-38 pilots established the world's long-distance record for a World War II combat fighter when they flew from the Philippines to the Netherlands East Indies, a distance of 3,703 km (2,300 miles)....."

This had to be the mission to Singapore from bases in the PI.

Heres an interesting account of another similar mission.

http://timurileng.blogspot.com/2006_03_12_timurileng_archive.html

"Friday, March 17, 2006
Mission over Singapore 

........

A Lightning photo reconnaissance aircraft was sent to Singapore Harbor in July 1945 to take photographs. However, the aircraft never returned. A second aircraft was sent out in early August but returned with combat damage and crashed on our runway at Palawan, killing the pilot. Some of the film was saved from the fire and it revealed 125 Japanese fighters on the four concrete runways at Singapore.

We were, at that time, attacking all Japanese shipping and facilities within our 850-900 mile range. Singapore had been too far to reach and had remained almost untouched through the war. The Australians, however, had landed at Labuan, North Borneo, in June and repaired the runway at that location. Using Labuan's runway as a staging base, several fighter sweeps were flown to Singapore from Palawan by flights of P-38s from the 347th Fighter Group, of which our 68th Fighter Squadron was part. The 68th had not been involved in these previous strikes.........

Two cruisers and a number of other ships along with 125 Japanese fighters were defending the most heavily fortified harbor in the world. The 68th was to send eight P-38s and pick up 16 Royal Australian Air Force de Havilland Mosquitos at Labuan en route to the target. Our pilots questioned that only eight Lightnings were scheduled into a target with so many enemy fighters ... and some of the squadron members had already celebrated the end of the war!

........

We arose several hours before daylight on 13 August to brief. Our target was the ships. The intelligence officer believed we would be intercepted by the 125 Japanese fighters. The two cruisers and other Naval vessels would be covering the shipping in the harbor.

We took off and I circled so all planes could get into formation. Then we were on course in the dark. We had no navigational aids in our P-38s so we just flew a compass heading and figured the time and distance based upon our cruising speed. This worked fine in clear weather but was dangerous when rain and clouds prevented us from seeing anything. When we were out on a maximum range mission, there was no fuel reserve and no alternative runway.

In daylight, we reached Labuan. The runway looked smooth hut had water puddles here and there. It was soft and several of our P-38s got stuck in the mud. It took a lot of power for them to get unstuck hut finally we were parked for refueling. We were carrying two 165-gal wing tanks on each P-38.

During refueling, I briefed our pilots as well as the Australians. Our call sign was Scamper. I was Scamper Red Leader. Steve Stevenson was my wingman was Red 2. Joe Salonimer was Red 3 and Johnny Massart was Red 4.

The second P-38 flight was Scamper White with "Chink" Taylor, Jack Childers, Charley Smith, and "Tib" Tibbets. Taylor was flight lead and was the alternate group leader if something happened to me. Four flights of four RAAF Mosquitos would follow as the second squadron. This made a total of 24 aircraft for the mission.

We would start engines at 0625 and take off at 0630. It was 850 miles to Singapore Harbor. To conserve fuel, we would use maximum range cruise control as taught to us by Charles Lindbergh. Without his expert advice, we couldn't have reached this long-range target. We would climb and cruise throttle way back. Our climb power would be 1900-rpm and 32-in of manifold pressure. For long-range causing, we would use 1600-rpm and 30-in of manifold pressure.

........

Pilots returned to their aircraft at about 0620. A quick look at our planes and we were ready to go. It was start engine time and the crew chief folded the ladder up into the nacelle. At 0625, I hand signaled engine start up and all propellers began turning.

At 0630, I released the brakes and started to roll - using 3000-rpm and 60in MP for takeoff. As soon as I was off the ground, I retracted the gear and held my left hand on the throttles as the P-38 quickly reached 125-mph - its single engine control speed. At 125-mph, I knew 1 had enough rudder control to continue takeoff on one engine should the other quit.

......

Flying at 10,000-ft, the weather became progressively worse and at about 400-mi out the 16 Mosquitos were forced to turn back. Light rain became very heavy rain. We had to fly in very close formation to stay together. I figured the weather might be in our favor this time. If the weather was low and it was raining over the target area, maybe it would keep the Jap fighters on the ground.

As we came in toward Singapore, we were flying at 100-ft above the ocean in light rain. About 2-mi from the target, a small ship appeared dead ahead. During the flight, we had used one wing tank at a time and dropped the empty to reduce drag. I was now using my second tank and it was nearly empty. I dropped it on the deck of the ship with an estimated 15-gal of fuel still in it. The second flight made an S-turn and strafed the deck and set the ship on fire. We didn't circle hut kept on course.

We went down to 50-ft above the water then in order to keep the ocean in sight and hoped the ship hadn't had time to reveal our arrival. A short time later, still flying 50-ft altitude, we entered the target area.

We came out of the clouds. Less than a mile ahead, between a small island on the left and another on the right, were two ships being loaded with drums of gasoline from some dozen loading barges tied alongside. Men were rolling drums across the docks and walking around.

No one saw or heard us - P-38s were very quiet on approach due to the turbo superchargers. Surprise, however, was the only thing in our favor, for otherwise we had two problems: We were still in close formation just out of the clouds and we were also at slow cruising speed.

Throttles forwards, Steve and I stayed together to attack the biggest ship - a freighter of about 10,000-tons. We were lined up right down the length of the ship and Steve opened fire at about 1500-ft out. The smaller ship, a 5000-ton merchant vessel, was anchored to the right and slightly closer to us at 90-degrees to the big ship and about 100-ft away from it, facing it.

I saw a gunner running for a gun at the bow of the merchant ship. Steve fired into the deck and hold of the freighter and set it on fire. I was almost too far in but tried a quick right turn to line up on the gunner on the merchant ship. I nearly ran into the vessel and the water beyond it, but my bullets caught the gunner. I went below the level of the decks and between the two ships as I flew out.

About that time everybody was shooting at us. The dreaded words, "Red 2, I'm hit," came over the radio. It was my wingman, Steve, and I knew from the sound of his voice that he himself was hit. He was flying to my left and above me at about 100ft of altitude.

I called and said, "Red 2, turn toward home and I'll join you." He didn't turn so I figured he was confused and didn't know the homeward heading. I called him again and told him I would join up and take him home. He never answered. Both engines were running fine but Steve was slumped over the controls. His plane was losing altitude and in a steep left turn. His plane exploded as the wingtip touched the water.

The other pilots were strafing some barges behind me. I strafed two barges that were traveling away from the burning ships. The 10,000-ton freighter was burning fiercely along the entire length of the deck. Steve's bullets had splattered the 55gal drums of gasoline on the deck and in the hold. Our tracer bullets had set everything on fire. The 5000-ton merchant ship had a small fire forward and I counted eleven barges burning.

I signaled join up by rocking my wings and six P-38s joined up with me. We had been flying in a small clear area in clouds over the target area. I set the throttles for long-range climb and we climbed into the clouds.

At 10,000-ft we flew into heavy clouds once more. We had about a ten-minute fuel reserve. It was two hours before the weather started getting better. 1 thought I was one tough guy, but I shed some tears on the trip home. This had been Steve's 50th mission. I was glad it was a volunteer mission, yet, if I had scheduled the pilots as usual, Steve would have stayed safely at home base. I thought about the war being near its end and about my mother. It was her birthday. I'd been away from "home, sweet home" for three years now, except for two days on what turned out to be a shortened leave.

As we approached the coast of Borneo, the weather was looking better and by the time we neared Labuan, the weather was clear ahead. At the field, our crew chiefs noticed that one plane was missing and each worried that it might be his plane and pilot.

...........

The next morning, 14 August 1945, we completed the mission by flying back home to Palawan. When we had landed, we had logged the 13th Air Force's last combat mission of WWII. Total flying time was eleven hours and 35 minutes. We'd traveled 2300 miles."


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2006)

Nice story....


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2006)

I liked the part where the Mosquito's had too turn back because they couldnt handle the weather.

Imagine that...... single pilot fighters that were better than twin manned light bombers


----------



## wmaxt (May 12, 2006)

Great story, I never had the details. 11 1/2 hours sitting on a dingy ouch!

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (May 12, 2006)

Great story syscom!


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 17, 2006)

From any angle, viewpoint, or perspective 'Sair vs Pony....  

I offer the following:
Both went on to serve the US in Korea... Only 1 was still being used as a 'front-line-fighter', now as night fighter/intruder, the 'Sair. So although present in far fewer number, the 'sair was/is credited with a Mig Kill; although promptly shot down by her prey's wingman, she joins the Sea Fury as the only prop job to down the 'MIG' during the Korean conflict. Fact is Corsairs did better than any other US Navy night fighter, except one, the Skynight, even though thier were others...

With 281 WW2 aces, how do ya knock the Pony. Like your favorite running shoes, she fit the European Theater's long range high altitude fighter escort roll better than ever her 'creators' imagined. So legendary was her contributions, so in 'love' with her accoplishment, the USAF just had to use her, instead of the numerous 'Jugs' about, even though it was evident that the 'Jug' would have served them better in Korea.

So back to personal 'taste'... F4U Corsair for any 'mission tasks' that keeps us to 25,000 Ft. Above that; I'll take a Pony please...

PS >> Wonderful story Sys


----------



## Gemhorse (Nov 22, 2006)

Been away for months but return to find Sys still has a burr under his saddle about Mosquitoes...I thought this was about Mustangs vs Corsairs ?.....

- P38's Corsairs' element was the Pacific....Mosquitoes Mustangs' element was the ETO, where the Merlins' made these two aircraft Legends....forever....Handle it, Sys


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 22, 2006)

Gemhorse said:


> Been away for months but return to find Sys still has a burr under his saddle about Mosquitoes...I thought this was about Mustangs vs Corsairs ?.....
> 
> - P38's Corsairs' element was the Pacific....Mosquitoes Mustangs' element was the ETO, where the Merlins' made these two aircraft Legends....forever....Handle it, Sys



I find it ironic that a single seat fighter pushed through the weather while a twin seater didnt.

- P38's Corsairs' element was the Pacific....Mosquitoes Mustangs' element was the ETO, where the Merlins' made these two aircraft Legends....forever....Handle it, Gem


----------



## mkloby (Nov 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I find it ironic that a single seat fighter pushed through the weather while a twin seater didnt.



You'd be surprised the workload a single pilot is capable of handling...


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 25, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I liked the part where the Mosquito's had too turn back because they couldnt handle the weather.
> 
> Imagine that...... single pilot fighters that were better than twin manned light bombers



Sorry to drag up an old arse thread BUT after looking into the ORB of No. 1 sqn RAAF, the only RAAF Mosquito squadron at Labuan, it is clear that they did NOT even take part in this raid. In fact the squadron only flew 4 seaward recce sorties on the date of this raid.
Either that story posted by Sys is bogus or 1 sqn completely forgot that they had 16 a/c and 32 airmen in the air that day!
Hmmm...


----------

