# P-51D "Mustang" vs. Fw-190 "Dora"



## pathchampion (Jun 9, 2007)

Which one was the best in airial combat?, one on one, don't care for the number ratio  personaly I'll vote for the Focke-Wulf


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2007)

The FW-190 Dora-9 hands down.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

How does their engines compare to each other?


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

No vote- I do not like the tone of this loaded question.


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2007)

Lucky,

The Jumo 213A-1 had an out-put of 2,100 PS, the Packard Merlin had an out-put of 1,870 HP.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

The 'luck' of the laminar wing was repeatedly copied for a long time, by many aircraft producers. 

Wing Design - CONVENTIONAL AIRFOILS and LAMINAR FLOW AIRFOILS

If the LW had had the Mustang during the BoB, they would have won. 

Instead of a few lousy minutes over the bomber targets, they could have spent many hours there. 

and comparing the Spit with a similarly horse powered engine the Mustang was faster...but less maneuverable, except at high speed..

Very "unlucky" for the LW, they lost the BoB..for the lack of a Mustang type aircraft.. unlucky indeed.. this bad luck continued for them


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

Sorry Jackson,

it wasn't the lack of a Mustang aircraft type!

A drop Tank had done wonders for the ME 109 in the BOB!

Also we had a wonderful in my opinion one of the best aircrafts with the right Engine (two DB 601) since 1937 the FW 187! It was first a single seat heavy Fighter and was then built as two seat "Zerstörer"!

This plane was no prototype, it was fully developed in 1939!

With this plane in service instead of the ME 110, the LW had done a much better performance!

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw187.html

Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This sources shows the FW 187 with with two Jumo 210 engines, but the real engine was a DB 600 from the ME110!

There were 3 or 4 aircraft with the DB engines and a top speed of 635 km/h!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2007)

Why are you bringing the 187 into a discussion about the 190 versus the P-51? Let's keep this on topic.


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

sorry for the OT,

but it was direct answer for Jacksons post.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

not to get off topic, but the issue of German use of drop tanks would be a good separate thread.. another one of the many questions I have about the LW, like not using the Ta152 as a high altitude interceptor..

Galland's opinion of Goering and Hitler as far as strategists is repeatedly proved true..

BTW there were '109 drop tanks


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

martin bowman is presenting his thoughts in P-51 vs the Fw 190 in a new Osprey title this upcoming fall..............it should be crap !

maybe we should change the title to Dora 9 vs RCAF and RAF Spits and Tempests as the first Dora and till wars end were pitted against these Allied tuypes continually. III./JG 54 and JG 26.

Dora 's of JG 2 fought them as well as US types, JG 6 vs the US, JG 301 US and Soviet, JG 51 vs Soviet, JG 4 vs Soviet, JG 3 vs Soviet. JG 300 what there were of them and in fact not sure if they ever flew ops in the new bird

~ ( ? ) ~ and jackson go get a copy of W. Reschkes JG 301/302 from schiffer pubs it will explain the many diversions that took place for the TA 152H. Schiifers pub by Dietmar is so-so as it has gaps but what book hasn't. you and the other may just find out why the Ta did not get it fullfillment at high altitude within 2 years - Geschwader stab had one chance to combat Mustangs and I mean only one the other ops were against the Soviets, and this can be balmed on ground control hierarchy strongly


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

2 years, I thought the aircraft did not enter service until late '44

My opinion on the Dora v Mustang

low - even

mid - Dora

high - Mustang


This must be reconciled with the fact that the Dora optimized for bomber interception with the 20 mm wing guns , was not the same Dora as optimized for high altitude- compare the clipped wing with the long winged Spit

Weren't some Doras produced without the 20 mm wing guns, added fuel tanks and a single fuselage mounted (or wing root? ) 20 mm with more rounds (480) available..

Thus one of the praises of the FW190- (including the F/G) its overall utility, maybe second best only to the P47 as a Jabo and still able to twirl with a Mk IX..


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

I think that I'd go with the D-9. Another thing regarding the engines folks, how would an engine change affect the machines? Merlin in the D-9 and the Junkers Jumo 213A-1 in the Mustang....what would the difference be?

Cheers by the way Soren.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

jackson I re-read my above post.............man the drugs I am taking really psyche my head.

the first Dora missions were by III./JG 54 in September of 44 with regard to try and provide high cover for Nowotny's bungling Me 262 unit.

The Ta 152H-0 was first used in III./JG 301 in late January of 45.

there were several variants of Dora, the 9, the 11 and 12 with different armaments.

just to be different I am voting the P-51D powerhouse over the Dora 9 in case of maneuverability, speed..............


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

Isn't the all famous D-13 Yellow 10 at Champlin Fighter Aces Museum a "pick and mix"? I remember reading somewhere that it's not a real D-13, but something put together by different parts shortly after the war. Or is it just another myth?


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

I'm with Jackson,

low - even

mid - Dora

high - Mustang

but I think it all depends on the Engine!

If the D9 have had the Jumo 213 E with the three-speed two-stage supercharger, the aircraft would be an equal performer at high altitude.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

Jan yes you are right and I did not include that. Gelbe 10 was flown in a mock duel at wars end with an RAF ? , rats cannot remember. I have been all over that great looking hot rod when it was based in the Champlin Museum in southern Arizona, even almost getting into the open cockpit my wife and two kids were laughing their heads off as I was acting like a little kid and no-one was in the museum so naturally I was .............. ~  and yes it is a D-13 through and through, the camo had been repainted in a bogus config and then friend Jerry Crandall went down and continued his long work on getting the camo correct. Yellow 10 is covered in a fine soft-back book from Eagle-editions and I think the booklet is OOP


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

@ Erich

How many D-13 were built? In some books they talk about only two Prototyps!

Is this crap?


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

I know of yellow 10 only but

.......... well Eagle editions will answer that in his volume 2 of the Dora this Christmas or early next year. Their volume 1 will cover the Dora 9 and the units that flew them - much on my cousins JG 301 so I am looking forward to that; should be ready and I am only guessing ........... August/September 07.

go to : Luftwaffe Military Aviation Books World War 2 Aviation History Book

click the P-47 and find what's new and go to the Fw 190D pages covering the insides of both volumes. these will be a must have. not sure of the technical aspects on the craft and variants that could be used to debate the Dora vs the Mustang but will be needed reading.

E ~


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

thank you very much


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

sure Don anytime to help

here ya go guys to make it much easier. when these volumes are out grab em !!

dora book

E


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2007)

I say generally it would be like this:

Low alt = Dora-9
Mid alt = Dora-9
High alt = Mustang

At low altitude you wouldn't want to meet the Dora-9 in the P-51, on top of the Dora-9's advantage in maneuverability and climb performance at this altitude it also has a good 15 -20 km/h advantage in speed over the P-51D.

The Mustang Mk.III would make things about even at SL and an advantage for the Dora at mid alt and an advantage for the Mustang at high alt - the Mustang would still have to deal with the superior agility and climb performance of the Dora-9 however.

The Germans themselves concluded the Dora-9 and Mustang to be very much alike in performance at the altitudes where most of the fighting took place. - You can read that in Dietmar's book. Willi Reschke alos notes in his book that the Dora-9 was causing trouble for the P-51's at higher altitudes.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

well Willi thought the Dora in his Geschwader was doing it to it with the Mustang but the reverse was happening. II. gruppe pilots thought they had an advantage over the Mustang opponents, replacing thier A-9's which was a good idea but they did not have an advantage and the German losses reports for the JG 301 unit provide this......pretty stinking grim, where it excelled was against the Soviets and the Russians never had a chance in my opinion with the Dora 9, but that is not the question here..... ~

this sounds pretty lame from someone who had a relative serve in the unit but JG 301 tactics in 1945 were just plain stupid and awful never putting into practice what the A-9 and D-9 was suited for


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2007)

The Dora-9 was an entirely different beast than the Anton, and the Mustang pilots certainly had their work cut out for them to shoot one down, which is probably what Willi is talking about - he had already seen what happened to Anton's that ventured up high. However the Dora-9's were grossly out-numbered, so nomatter the advantage it had in agility and performance over the Mustang cause in a 1 vs 8 fight it is never gonna end in your favor.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

I do not agree entirely with your post, I feel the Dora 9 lacked in all departments, what the Luftwaffe needed was the replacement and that was the Ta 15H-1 or the Dora 13. well anyway I will wait for volume 1 of the Dora9 by EE. the Grünherz book produced some years ago covering the Dora fits my evaluation the RAF. RCAF shot up and spit out III./JG 54 and JG 26 on a continual basis and that was not being outnumbered 

guess we are looking at two separate and equally needed topics.

1.) what could of been in action

2.) the technical aspects-what-if flown by test pilots before any combat ops and after war to get results such as graphs for comparative purposes


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2007)

My references show FW190D9-take off power=1776HP, Vmax=426mph @ 21650 w/MW50, climb= 3300fpm, service ceiling=32810 ft, range(clean)=520 miles P51D-tke off power=1490 hp, most HP was 1720 hp @6200 ft w/low blower, [email protected], climb=3475ft/m,range(clean)=950 mi, ceiling=41900 ft.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

I will stick with my simple comments, as the Mustang was rated as very good at low altitude.

even

dora

'stang

I was reading the Mustang encounters ...about a guy out of ammo @SL , who had just killed a couple of 190's, getting chased all to hell by a 190.. 

shitting his pants, but living to tell about it.. 

back to the optimized for low altitude (F/G) or the high altitude 190.. the P51 with or without external racks etc.. 

heck even barametric pressure that day or fuel quality could make a difference... even down the the spark plugs used


without splitting hairs


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

For me it is only the Engine!

It is little bit difficult to translate "Volldruckhöhe"!

The Jumo 213 A Engine had no three-speed two-stage supercharger only a two-speed two-stage supercharger and so his best outputperformance was at 6000 meters! With GM1 the engine could perform till 8000 meters. So the D9 was no high altitude performer cause of it`s engine!

Only the 213 E has his best outputperformance at 9000 meters and could perform with GM1 till 12000 meters and was an high altitude engine.

At my knowledge no D9 has had a 213E engine and so this very good aircraft was outperformed at high altitude from Mustangs.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

thanks for that


plus , I guess, I imagine you could move your ignition timing around from the cockpit..

dunno


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

actually the 213A in the Dora 9 is hitting 1776hp max and then with a push of 10 minutes of the MW 50 installed could reach 2240hp emergency, escape from hot rod P-51D's on your tail or vice versa as shown in several US pilot combat reports. January 20, 45 is a notable event which I will cover later. 325th fg boys came up and broke into 40-50 Fw 190A-8, 9's and Dora 9's which in turn left the bombers and went after the 325th fg.- JG 301


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

Sorry for being a tad off topic here gentlemen. But, did the Ta 152H-1 use the 213 E engine?


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

yes some rate it as an E/B 12 cyl. inverted V liquid-cooled


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

Yes Erich that's right, 

but you can only use the MW 50 until the ("Volldruckhöhe") " best outputperformance (Jumo 213a until 6000 meters) then the engine losses horsepower because of the lack of oxygen! Then you must use GM1 because it put oxygen to the engine! Only an other supercharger with an other outputperformance can solve this problem!

The Jumo 213 E can use MW 50 until 9000 meters cause this is the ("Volldruckhöhe") best outputperformance of the three-speed two-stage supercharger. When the aircraft goes higher then 9000 meters it must use GM1 to hold the Performance (horsepower).


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

Don my issue is if the Dora does have the GM-1 installed as with MW 50 injection through the two speed supercharger will only lat so long before the pistons seize solid and the a/c drops out of the sky like a stone besides the cooling flaps will do what they are meant to do.

Ace Oskar Romm while in engagement with Soviet Il-2's at low alt. he and his wingman blew through the Soviet fighters so fast they did not even see nor knew what was happening, Oskar's cooling gills opened up and his oil and coolant temps near blown he banked away and he and his wingman easily out ran the Soviet escorts, flying towards German lines his engine finally shut down leaking lub oil


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

What is the main difference between the D-9's A Ta 152H-1 E engines? Is it the superchargers?


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

@ Erich

first, sorry for my bad english! I will try to explain my issue.

I know that the D-9 has Mw 50 and GM1. And i can absolutely imagine what you have written about Oskar Romm.

He was at low altitude (between 0-6000 meters) so he can use MW 50 because the engine was below it's ("Volldruckhöhe") best outputperformance. The MW 50 Water-Methanol injektion is nothing else than the injektion like the cars in the "fast and the furios". I hope (for my explaination)you know that film. You can only use the MW 50 till the ("Volldruckhöhe) best outputperformance. When you go higher than the best outputperformance (Jumo 213 A 6000 meters) the MW 50 can't help you because the engine lacks oxygen and losses massive horsepowers. So you can use GM1 to give the engine oxygen and it have full horsepowers until 8000 meters.

The ("Volldruckhöhe") best outputperformance only depends on the supercharger or turbolader!


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

@ Lucky13

simply yes!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

You mean where they inject pure oxygen, I think, into the engines? Nitrous Oxide systems ....

Ok, thanks DonL....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 9, 2007)

First time this poll ever came up!

I guess the Americans won the air war by luck, not art.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

I don't think that would be fair to say. Far from it....


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

Don the useage of my notes on the MW 50 injection goes way back for years to the 10th staffel of Jg 300 flying Moskito-jagd against the LSNF of the RAF bombing Berlin in the summer-November 1944. The Bf 109G-6/AS had MW 50 as standard and they used the injection system above 30,000 feet. so did the high flying protection staffels in JG 1, 11 and in I./JG 3 as I know ace Horst Petzschler who used it successfully to take on the P-51B's in April and May of 1944 over Normandie.

another note Don the Fw 190D-9 did not have GM-1 only MW 50 from my notes


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

Yes Erich that's right!

The DB 605 has an other supercharger then the Jumo 213 and so on an other (" Volldruckhöhe") best outputperformance! To my knowledge the best outputperformance for a DB 605 engine was at 7500-8000 meters!

That is something about 25000-26000 feet! That isn't 30000 feet but near on it!

Edit: From my Notes the D9 had a tank in the Wing for GM1! But my Note isn't the best one!


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

yes and the Bf 109G-6/AS pilots seemed to comment that the P-51 was always above them, combats taking place as you mentioned at B-17 heights of 25-28,000 feet normally but certainly lower and down to deck level. But at night 10. N/JG 300 always were above the unsuspecting Mosquito bombers so that tells me they could fly 30,000 and above

pulled out another note that the Fw 190D-9 MW 50 injection could last up to 40 minutes in length


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

Yes. my note says the same.

But you can only perform 10 min with the MW 50 than you must break for 5 minutes to get back to the MW 50.

That's from my notes!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

Too bad that the Jumo 222 was a failure then....


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

@ Lucky

Why?

The Jumo 213 E with the three-speed two-stage supercharger was an excellent Engine! One of the best engines from Germany and the best high altitude engine from Germany (World War II)!

The ("Volldruckhöhe")best outputperformance was at 9000 meters and you can push it to 12000 meters with GM1, so you have an engine that can match with the Merlin and the Pratt and Whitney 2800!


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2007)

Erich said:


> I do not agree entirely with your post, I feel the Dora 9 lacked in all departments,



In all departments ? Erich the Dora-9 was faster at SL and up to around 6km, it climbed faster, turned better, rolled better and featured better high speed maneuverability than the Mustang.

Atleast it ended out having the advantages above.. As we both know the clearence to use MW-50 Erhöhte Ladedrück didn't come before the Dora-9 had already been some time in service, and up untill then Start u. Notleistung 1,750PS/3,250RPM was the max out-put. - Which might also explain the out-come of many engagements with the RAF RCAF.



> what the Luftwaffe needed was the replacement and that was the Ta 15H-1 or the Dora 13.



If the war was to be turned around or significantly dragged out then yes, the Ta-152H-1 and Dora-12/13 were needed in numbers. 



> the Grünherz book produced some years ago covering the Dora fits my evaluation the RAF. RCAF shot up and spit out III./JG 54 and JG 26 on a continual basis and that was not being outnumbered



Are you sure that the Dora's weren't outnumbered by the RCAF Erich ?? Besides you've also got to remember that the quality of LW pilots at that point was pretty low.

After the war the Dora-13 which was heavier than the Dora-9 out-maneuvered a Tempest Mk.V flown by an experienced pilot on the type in a mock dogfight.


*Renrich,*

The climb rate of the Dora-9 at SonderNotleistung 2,[email protected],250RPM is 4,400 ft/min cleanly loaded, with the ETC-504 attached it is around 4,200 ft/min.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

Just though that it would have been a good altitude engine....

Power output:

1,838 kW (2,465 hp) at 3,200 rpm for takeoff 
1,397 kW (1,870 hp) cruise 
Specific power: 39.5 kW/L (0.87 hp/in³) 
Compression ratio: 6.5:1 
Specific fuel consumption: 0.29 kg/(kW·h) (0.477 lb/(hp·h))  
Power-to-weight ratio: 1.69 kW/kg (1.03 hp/lb) 

I'm sure that you know that better than me mate.


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

@ Lucky13

don't forget the best high altitudes engines came from Rolls Royce with the Merlin engine! Than came the Pratt and Whitney 2800 from the P-47 and the Corsair.

And Lucky so far I don't know everything! In the last hour I have read some source about the Jumo 222! 

To my Opinion the Projekt 4 Valve for the Jumo 213 E is much more effective than the "super" engine Jumo 222. The Jumo 222 is a little bit to complicated for 1940-1945!


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials

is this real? Looks like it is supposed to be FW test translated

E-Stelle
Rechlin Flight Performance Fw 190 D-9
with Jumo 213 A. Erpr. Nr.9003
Teilber.2. 

2 March 1945


Summary.
Flight performance of the Fw. 190 D-9 (production version) is given. Speed at altitude was flown with Serial Nr. 006. Various aircraft were checked at 3,000 rpm during continuous testing. Speeds reached 323 to 329 mph (520 to 530 km/h) at sea level and 388 to 395 mph (625 and 635km/h) at 21,325 ft (6.5 km) (about full throttle height, depending on engine adjustment). With 3250 rpm, speeds reached 335 to 342 (540 and 550 km/h) at sea level and 401 to 407 mph (645 and 655 km/h) at 21,653 feet (6.6 km). With 3250 rpm and a take-off weight of 9,480 lbs (4,300 kg), rate of climb was 3,329 ft/min (17.0 m/s) at sea level and 392 ft/min (2.0 m/s) at 33,465 feet (10.2 km). 


only 655 Kph? I have seen 426 MPH elsewhere 357 at Sea Level (common)



Mustang B

I read 367 SL 437 at 25,000 feet..(common)


Official Wright Patterson AFB tests


P-51 Mustang Performance

Maximum speed at critical altitudes. (67" Hg. man. pressure 3000 RPM) 

Low Blower at 16,600 feet 430.0 MPH 
High Blower at 29,400 feet 442.0 MPH 
Maximum speed at sea level (67" Hg. manifold pressure 3000 RPM) 
371.0 MPH 











Was the Mustang really that much faster than the Dora 9?


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

is this real and can anyone read it?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9speed2chart.jpg


540 kph @ SL 335 MPH



Seeems like this FW document shows it was significantly slower at SL than the Mustang..by 36 mph (nearly 60KPH)


But I guess that would depend on the blower


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

FW 190D with boost @ SL 585 kph /362 MPH 


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9speed2chart.jpg

Just a little sloer than the P51 @ SL


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

Lutz Naudet placed these performance trials in their proper context: 

Now lets come to the interpretation as to why both Wk.-Nr. 001 002 generally fall short of calculated values. 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. These issues resulted in the engines producing 60-100PS less than that used in the calculations. The second problem is the engine gap. The drag data for the D9 most likely comes from scale models; those models will not have the engine gap as they are "carved out of one piece of wood". The scale model, therefore, has a smoother surface than the real airplane. The speed increase in the tests, where the gap was sealed, support this assumption. Nevertheless, the tests are representative of performance for operational Fw 190 D9s. As best as can be determined, the engine gap seal was never introduced into serial production due to rubber shortages. It must also be said, however, that operational planes with a good surface finish and an engine running to book values will perform better than both Wk.-Nr. 001 002. This is supported by the few speed runs with the JUMO 213A tested on the bench.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

same page FW 190 D-9 in German

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials

Flugleistungen FW 190 D-9

Flugbericht FW 190 D-9/210001
Nr. 1 S.O.Archiv
Bad Eilsen 


real?


----------



## AV8 (Jun 9, 2007)

The D-9 at the former Champlin Fighter Museum was a complete unit. The only "bits and pieces" part about it was that Champlin's plane had the wings from the one in the Smithsonian and vice versa.

When Champlin sold his museum to the Museum of Flight, they discovered the discrepancey and reunited the correct wings with the correct airframes.

The Champlin is the one restored with the direct help of Kurt Tank, and is VERY complete and could be flown anytime if desired. It starts, runs, and was kept in airworthy shape, but not kept insured for flight or with a current airworthiness certificate.

a VERY nice aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 10, 2007)

I don't have words to say about the pole other than it is an insult to intelligence. The P-51B came out at the end of 1943 and generally out performed the Fw-190A and Me-109G over the entire spectrum. Germany scrambled for a year trying to find a answer for it (the Fw-190D-9 at low to mid level over the P-51D, and the Me-109K at all levels).

The Fw-190D-9 appears superior to the P-51D up to 25k feet. Above that the P-51D has much superior speed and starts having a better climb. 

Now if we take into account the contemporary (44-1 fuel) P-51B, then I would say that it is even with the Fw-190D-9 (in speed and climb, maneuverability is ?) up to 15k ft. Above that, the P-51B has a generally superior rate of climb and a rapidly increasing speed advantage (14 mph speed advantage and 300 ft/min rate of climb advantage at 20k. At 25k, the airspeed advantage is 18 mph and equivalent climb. Above that, there is no comparison).


----------



## DonL (Jun 10, 2007)

@ Jackson,

from all I could see the data sheet from you is right!


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2007)

The tests Jackson provided were however performed with underperforming engines - something Lutz Naudet notes as-well.

Here's the real performance of the FW-190 Dora-9, 612 km/h at SL 702 km/h at 5.7km:


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Now if we take into account the contemporary (44-1 fuel) P-51B, then I would say that it is even with the Fw-190D-9 (in speed and climb, maneuverability is ?) up to 15k ft. Above that, the P-51B has a generally superior rate of climb and a rapidly increasing speed advantage (14 mph speed advantage and 300 ft/min rate of climb advantage at 20k. At 25k, the airspeed advantage is 18 mph and equivalent climb. Above that, there is no comparison).




Errr, running on 150 grade fuel the P-51B aint that fast, the Dora-9 is still faster at SL and some way up, and the Dora-9's climb rate is also still higher. Maneuverability still goes to the Dora-9, although its very close.

Fw-190 Dora-9:
Top speed SL = 612 km/h (382.5 mph)
Top speed FTH = 702 km/h (439 mph)
Max climb rate = 22.5 m/s (4,430 ft/min)

P-51B Mustang:
Top speed SL = 600 km/h (375 mph)
Top speed FTH = 714 km/h (446 mph)
Max climb rate = 22.2 m/s (4,380 ft/min)


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)

Yeah, it seems to me that the Dora and the Mustang at Sea Leavel are really probably dead on about even in speed.

depends on loading, how many 20 mm rounds and how many guns are strapped into his holster and how much fuel both are carrying, with or without bomb / rocket racks 

I mean there are reports of 51D s hitting 600 mph, but they are probably in error - the guages, calibration, a dirty pitot tube, who knows, an extra coat of wax, dumb luck, minor variation from plane to plane, clean spark plugs, the mechanic got laid the night before, or was over worked, etc ..

Of course I don't trust the 500-600 mph stuff..

I am just saying.. at sea level.. eh, D- v -D They are even more or less.

I raced a co worker with an indentical new Ford Mustang 5.0 L , I left him cold at around 80 mph, by about 100 yards meters. I weighed a little less than him and my gas tank was empty- something like that..


Max. speed at Sea Level 75" Hg., 3000 RPM Without Wing Racks 388 mph 

Army Air Forces Material Command 
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio 
15 May 1944 
P-51B-15-NA 43-24777 
(Packard Merlin V-1650-7) 
Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes 
Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 104/150)


P-51 Mustang Performance


>?388?<

My co worker migh have beaten me another day, with different temperatures, barometric pressure etc.. I was reading in a car magazine, one hundred drag runs, one car, over and over, best runs around 78 F, 29.4 on the barometer..

(Ford Mustangs, mid nineteen eighties had a ambient air pressure sensor, to calibrate the engine for differnet altitudes and air pressures, later models went to a "mass air" sensor system) . Later I changed my radiator cooling fan and the car ran 'different' somehow..chalk it up to a 'funny' cowl pressure


I would call it even at SL, splitting "cat" hairs


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)

I think wing racks on the P51 D cost 12 mph


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2007)

anyone of you have the tech volumes on the Dora series by the JaPo firm and Eric Lager author ? you may want to used this as reference gents ......


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

Soren - do you have access to a better comparison of performance between FW190 (and 109G) and 51B than this RAF Report and the USAAF Report in 1946 - on Mike Williams' site? I don't

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

The Post War tests at Wright Patterson was less favorable in comments regarding maneuverability vs P-51, indicating its only noticable outstanding characteristic (implied "better than') was roll and generally less responsive in all other handling than the Fw190A series (BTW - this is in alignment with my fathers subjective evaluation in Sept 1945 at Gablingen). It also states that it is much less comparable to P-51 in turn.

It also noted that while the roll rate was excellent it was less than the P-80 and P-38J.

Having said that, the report does NOT have Turn Radius, Climb or Acceleration Data to back up 'perceptions.

So, what would your head to head performance test basis be for the Fw190D-9 versus any Mustang (any version)?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2007)

to make it much applicable and understandable I suggest you guys interested in the Dora seek advice here and read through this muli linked thread:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D Camouflage Markings - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)

P51 Max. speed at Sea Level 75" Hg., 3000 RPM Without Wing Racks 388 mph



even then Bill, things like how many G's can the pilot take, trim, guns, 

I still feel they were kind of even down low..


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Soren - do you have access to a better comparison of performance between FW190 (and 109G) and 51B than this RAF Report and the USAAF Report in 1946 - on Mike Williams' site? I don't
> 
> Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft



I have the LW conclusions and tactical advice.

The Bf-109 didn't perform well in the RAF tests because the British test pilots didn't go further than the initial deployment of the slats, they almost sh*t themselves as soon as the slats started deploying, emmidiately ceasing the entire maneuver - a problem rookies to this a/c frequently had - Günther Rall for example got scared for life nearly crashing to his death early in the war in an 109 Emil because the one of the slats jammed, causing the a/c to spin. Rall never pushed the 109 that far again, and throughout his career he relied entirely on B&Z tactics. 



> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
> 
> The Post War tests at Wright Patterson was less favorable in comments regarding maneuverability vs P-51, indicating its only noticable outstanding characteristic (implied "better than') was roll and generally less responsive in all other handling than the Fw190A series (BTW - this is in alignment with my fathers subjective evaluation in Sept 1945 at Gablingen). It also states that it is much less comparable to P-51 in turn.



Bill, the tests done at Wright Patterson were conducted with a late production Dora (with mixed parts from other 190's)and at very low power settings - the fuel wasn't even right - the pilot inexperienced. You can't in any way compare them to the RAF tests.

So take the Wright Patterson tests with a big grain of salt, cause its got no comparative value at all. The comparison was not even a serious one, the war was over.



> It also noted that while the roll rate was excellent it was less than the P-80 and P-38J.



Yes again that isn't the case however - unless you'd dare to claim that the P-38J and P-80 had a roll rate of 180 degree's pr. sec ?



> Having said that, the report does NOT have Turn Radius, Climb or Acceleration Data to back up 'perceptions.



The "test", if you can even call it that, was like I said not a serious one and of no importance at all. It was more a matter of showcasing the performance of the new generation fighters, and what better than to compare them to an old a/c with an already great reputation - nomatter it didn't run very well or at full power, that'll only make our new fighter look better.



> So, what would your head to head performance test basis be for the Fw190D-9 versus any Mustang (any version)?



German pilot accounts and the RAF LW tests and conclusions.

--------------

*Jackson,*

The P-51B running on 150 grade fuel did 375 mph at SL, not 388 mph as only a single example did on 44-1 fuel (Which should be about the same).

I got my figure from a several tests involving more than just one P-51 and pilot:
_"Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command Eglin Field, Florida 7 July 1944.
P-51B-15: 43-24755, 43-24757, 43-24775 
(Packard Merlin V-1650-7) 
Service Test of Nominal 104/150 Grade Fuel

Summary:
Performance gains. - Attempts were made throughout the test to determine the average gain in performance due to the increased power rating allowed by the special fuel. Speed runs and climbs were made by approximately twenty-five pilots of all grades of experience. Speed curves shown in Inclosure 3 are average curves drawn from all data obtained from all three airplanes of each type. Data are not reduced to standard conditions, but are plotted against pressure altitude from actual free air temperatures. All flights were made with full military load. 
P-51-B-15 Airplane. 

Increase of power from the standard war emergency rating of sixty-seven inches Hg. to the test rating of seventy-five inches Hg. resulted in an average true air speed increase of fifteen m.p.h. from sea level to the seventy-five inches Hg. low blower critical altitude (about 8000 feet). Speed increase was also approximately fifteen m.p.h. from fourteen thousand feet to the high blower seventy-five inches for critical of about twenty-one thousand feet. No measurable difference was found between airplanes. The aneroid controlling supercharger shifting point was reset at the begining of the test to shift from low to high blower at sixty-two inches Hg. in a war emergency climb. This change resulted in a blower shift altitude of approximately seventy-five hundred feet, so that it was necessary to select low blower manually for cruise at medium altitudes where the desired power was available in low blower. 
Climbs were made to thirty thousand feet at the standard, and at the test war emergency ratings. Climbs at seventy-five inches Hg. required about one minute less than was required when climbing at sixty seven inches Hg. All engine temperatures were normal during climb at the increased power." _



Me and Davparlr actually had this discussion before and came to the same conclusion as me - so back me up here if you will Davparlr.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2007)

Here's a picture of the captured FW-190 G-2 tested against the Mustang Mk.III by the RAF btw:


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

Soren - two written tests describing the Fw190D-9 are better than personal experiences are they not? 

If you choose personal experiences, the Encounter reports of Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots are rich in details of shooting down "Long Nose" Fw's - but the variables are too great to make a judgement about the airplane. 

Ditto my father's own subjective judgement that the two seat trainer Fw190 that he flew 'handled better' the the D-9 he flew - but he only had 20 hours total and who knows what condition the D-9 was in... but still subjective

Where are the comparison tests performed by the LW with captured Mustangs versus any of the Fw190 series? Do you have a link to the RAF test of the D-9?

Is the RAF Tests you referenced (of Spit XIV, Spit XI, 51B, Fw190, Me109G and Tempest) the one concluded December, 1943? I have that one. If not, which one/date?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2007)

not sure if we can use the Fw 190G-2 vs a fighter as accurate and evenly matched opponents. G-2 with leading edge wing armor, canopy and full on belly, engine armor used for ground attack missions

ok so be it


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

B&Z tactics??


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 10, 2007)

Boom and Zoom...


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

Aaah... Cheers Minister!


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2007)

Interesting reading the British comparisons of a/c. The author implies that the Spitfire was a better roller than the Thunderbolt. In Bob Johnson's book "Thunderbolt" he states that in mock dogfights the Spitfire could not roll well at all and rolling the Thunderbolt first one way and then the other was his way of getting a Spitfire off his tail. He then would dive and then zoom climb until he had a good lead, hammerhead stall and there was the Spitfire running out of air speed and luck at the same time.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

Is it a good read, can you still find it?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> Me and Davparlr actually had this discussion before and came to the same conclusion as me - so back me up here if you will Davparlr.



Oh, Great! Now I have to remember something!

Processing.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)

Max. speed at Sea Level 75" Hg., 3000 RPM Without Wing Racks *388*

P-51 Mustang Performance *388*

Army Air Forces Material Command 
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio 
15 May 1944 
P-51B-15-NA 43-24777 
(Packard Merlin V-1650-7) 
Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes 
Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 104/150)

1. Flight tests were started on P-38J, P-47D, and P-51B airplanes at Wright Field on approximately 20 March 1944 in order to measure the performance and note any effect on flight characteristics when flown with 44-1 fuel. Tests on the P-51B have been completed but tests on the P-38J and P-47D have not been completed to date. 
2. All tests were flown with the airplanes loaded to their maximum combat gross weight. The P-38J airplane tested was P-38J-15, AAF No. 43-28392, equipped with Allison V-1710-89 and 91 engines with Curtiss electric three blade propellers. Gross weight at take-off was 17,360 lbs. with the c.g. at 26.72%. The P-47D tested was AAF No. 42-26167 and was equipped with Pratt Whitney R-2800-63 engine and an A-23 turbo regulator. Gross weight at take-off was 13,320 lbs. with the c.g. at 29.5%, gear up. The P-51B tested was the P-51B-15, AAF No. 43-24777 and was equipped with a Packard V-1650-7 engine with a 11 ft. 2 in., four blade constant speed propeller. Gross weight at take-off was approximately 9680 lbs. The weight included 265 gal. of fuel, full oil, and no ammunition (85 gal. in auxiliary tank instead of ballast for ammunition). 

3. There was no noticeable change in handling characteristics of any of the airplanes tested when operating at the higher powers which were obtainable with the 44-1 fuel. Only a slight increase in vibration was noted at the higher powers. On one long range test made with the P-51B, there was no apparent trouble due to the 44-1 fuel. 

4. All performance data obtained on the P-51B is included in the attached curves. It will be noted that all tests were run with the wing racks installed. Speeds would be approximately 12 mph faster with the wing racks removed as shown by the dash line curve on the Speed vs Altitude Curve. Approximately 16 MPH increases in speed below critical altitude and approximately 600 ft. per minute increase in rate of climb below critical altitude was obtained by using the 75” Hg. Manifold pressure allowed by 44-1 fuel. No tests were made on this airplane with standard fuel. 


Level speed performance

With Wing Racks Without Wing Racks 
67" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM 
Max. speed at Sea Level 364 mph *380* mph *388*mph 
Max. speed in MS gear 408 mph at 10400 ft. 411 mph at 7400 ft. 422 mph at 7400 ft. 
Max. speed in FS gear 426 mph at 23900 ft. 431 mph at 20600 ft. 444 mph at 20600 ft. 


Rate of Climb
With Wing Racks, 9,680 Lbs

67" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM 
Max. speed in MS gear 3,920 ft/min at 5,600 ft. 4,380 ft/min at 2,300 ft. 
Max. speed in FS gear 3,170 ft/min at 19,200 ft. 3,700 ft/min at 15,700 ft. 


P-51 Mustang Performance

.*All tests were flown with the airplanes loaded to their maximum combat gross weight. *




_Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to Eighth Air Force fighter airfields commenced in June 1944. 8 9 10 This coincidentally occured about the same time as the introduction of the P-51D into service. Even though the USAAF had cleared the P-51 for 75" Hg., the Eighth Air Force chose 72" Hg as the P-51's War Emergency Rating. 11 12 *Apparently there is more to the story, however, as Encounter Reports demonstrate that 75" Hg was used operationally. 13 14 *

By January 1945, fourteen of the Eighth Air Force's fifteen Fighter Groups were operating Mustangs, the sole holdout being the 56th FG in P-47's. Maintenance difficulties with spark plug fouling led to the decision to convert all fighter groups to 100/150 grade fuel reformulated with increased levels of ethylene dibromide (1.5T). Deliveries of PEP, as the new 100/150 blend was called, began to be issued to all fighter groups in February 1945. The use of PEP, however, cooroded the valve seats of the V-1650 at an unacceptable level. Consequently, the standard 100/150 (1T) grade fuel was reverted to by the end of March 1945. 15 16 The Eighth Air Force also had hoped to supply the 352nd and 361st Fighter Groups based on the continent with 100/150 grade fuel. This was deemed impractical from a logistical viewpoint, although admittedly such difficulties did not prevent the RAF's 2nd TAF from being supplied with 100/150 grade fuel. 17 _


Stock production model, 150 gas full combat load the  same gas as was used in the ETO




There is not much else to say but, at sea level it appears the Mustang was *faster* than the FW190D-9


*388* vs 381

over


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2007)

Johnson's Book is a good read. I imagine it is still available although mine is a pocket book version and more than 20 years old.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)

Soren, so you might have missed my post about the stock Ford Mustang 5.0 L LX notchback (2788 lbs) being launched 100 times down a drag strip..

The number tables were widely scattered, the best being with the air temperature being around 75 F -78 F and 29.4 barometric pressure.

the morning cool and the hottest part of the day slowed the car by more than a second 


0-60 (0-100 kph)

best 5.8 
worst 7.5 

one car, 100 trials, the clutch did not seem to be affected..

commonly discussed as being a 6.1 second car

I imagine Ohio (WP AFB) being more similar to the ETO than Florida (Eglin) environmentally speaking.. 


*The test you mention, I assume that was with the wing bomb / rocket racks installed


that would account for a 8-12 mph difference, as shown in my post above.* 380 v 388



I wonder if the Trop ME 109 shows differnt numbers than the more common variants..


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)




----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill, the tests done at Wright Patterson were conducted with a late production Dora (with mixed parts from other 190's)and at very low power settings - the fuel wasn't even right - the pilot inexperienced. You can't in any way compare them to the RAF tests.
> 
> So take the Wright Patterson tests with a big grain of salt, cause its got no comparative value at all. The comparison was not even a serious one, the war was over.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)

If Germany had Mustangs they could run at 74 hg, they migh not have needed the Me 262- what did that guy say 600 mph at 1000 feet? Isn't that close to 1,000 Kph down near the deck. I forget what is the speed of sound at sea level.

Don't forget to get back to me with the with or without bomb racks info/data on your 35 degree centigrade (Florida in July) flight test.

The we can see how this might relate to the 600 mph report of the November in Germany, P51 Mustang pilot.


----------



## Brain32 (Jun 11, 2007)

That was in a *dive*, NOT level flight, 600MPH=965kmh at sea level Mach1 is 1224kmh, so that would be what, mach number of 0.8? That's nothing special really and could also be attained by German propeller fighters.
Me262 was much faster IN LEVEL FLIGHT than any piston engined aircraft.
What's also very interesting about that report is the fact that P51's were redlined at 505MPH, so this guy either played lottery with his life or made a false readout, in the heat of the battle who could blaim him...


----------



## Erich (Jun 11, 2007)

Brain that is a fact about the dive and almost blowing rivets and tearing the wings off. Remember some 6-7 years ago interviewing at length 352nd fg ace D. Bryan about his trips on Ar 234's until he finally bagged one bombing Remagen bridge, the turns and incredible G forces he took his Stang nearly killed him.

Another 356th fg chap also chasing and downing a Ar 234 also had some trouble keeping up and really took some nasty fast manuevers to bring his .50's to bear


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2007)

I thought it was petty obvious that 600mph in a P-51D was in a dive.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2007)

Brain32 said:


> That was in a *dive*, NOT level flight, 600MPH=965kmh at sea level Mach1 is 1224kmh, so that would be what, mach number of 0.8? That's nothing special really and could also be attained by German propeller fighters.
> Me262 was much faster IN LEVEL FLIGHT than any piston engined aircraft.
> What's also very interesting about that report is the fact that P51's were redlined at 505MPH, so this guy either played lottery with his life or made a false readout, in the heat of the battle who could blaim him...



Correct - the P-51B-J models all had a Machcrit of .76 which was where they hit compressibility and in a dive started the same yaw right pitch down as the elevators were blanked by the wake turbulence and the rudder became less effective.

600mph would be about 521kts which at sea level STP would about .78-.8 Mach? Close enough to your .8 to be beyond Mcrit. IAS would be less at a higher (survivable pull out) altitude

The Mustang book by Gruenhagen recounts .75 obtained in terminal dive w/o prop in specially modified Mustang for tow to altitude with same characteristics (yaw/pitch) as in power on tests - all done to validate 'real' with wind tunnel data.

However, having said that, which German Prop fighters reached .8 Mach and where could I find reference to them?

Interestingly enough the fastest variant of the 51 was the Lightweight prototype XP-51G which hit 495mph/430kts TAS(stripped) at 22,800 which was about ~.64 -.65 Mach in level flight at that altitude. Nosing over in dive would quickly accelerate to Mcrit. 

The P51H followed the G into production with several important changes including restoring the six .50 vs the four in the G and only lost 8mph after all the production changes were incorporated.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Brain32 (Jun 11, 2007)

Well actually I've heard many contradicting things about P51 max.Mach number, the highest I've heard is 0.82M.
Anyway about German planes, I have a document of ME109F with G wings high speed trials where plane in question reached Mach 0.805.
I will make a quick search on the Tech. subforum as I have a feeling I got it from here, if I don't find it I will upload it

EDIT: Here it is: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot.../bf109-high-speed-trials-8371.html#post254817


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2007)

Brain32 said:


> Well actually I've heard many contradicting things about P51 max.Mach number, the highest I've heard is 0.82M.
> Anyway about German planes, I have a document of ME109F with G wings high speed trials where plane in question reached Mach 0.805.
> I will make a quick search on the Tech. subforum as I have a feeling I got it from here, if I don't find it I will upload it
> 
> EDIT: Here it is: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot.../bf109-high-speed-trials-8371.html#post254817



Actually the 51H (and XP-51G) had a thinner wing than both the D (fattest) and the B/C so it is conceivable that they both had higher Mcrit but I'm certain the D was around .76 (compressibility - yes not precisely the same but bad things happened 'back there' when that TAS was exceeded)

Thanks for the reference

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Jackson (Jun 11, 2007)

For fifteen minutes at 74 hg and indicating 600 mph after my prolonged dive I gave chase

A fifteen minute dive at 600 mph? that would put him half way to China (joke) 

What is the top speed of a ME262?? 540 mph ”Neither could gain an inch”

The inertia from that dive couldn’t have lasted forever,


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2007)

Went to air races once in Texas. In the unlimited class there were a number of Mustangs, some highly modified, the only name I can remember was Dago Red, highly modified. Was a LeMans start, semi, exciting watching the pilots sprint to the A/C, start engines and taxi out. Super Corsair was there too. A jet pace plane was used and when he got everyone lined up, he rolled away and over the PA system called "we have a race." All planes were in a dive toward the pylons from perhaps 10000 ft and the announcer said they were doing 500 mph when the passed the first pylon which speed of course immediately began to bleed off. My source says that max permissible dive speed for P51D was 505 IAS below 9000 feet and 539 mph TAS at 35000 ft which was Mach .81. That kind of jibes with the air races.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2007)

Jackson said:


> For fifteen minutes at 74 hg and indicating 600 mph after my prolonged dive I gave chase
> 
> A fifteen minute dive at 600 mph? that would put him half way to China (joke)
> 
> ...



Jackson - as much as I love the 51 I don't think he could see 600mph/521kts IAS unless there was an instrument error. that is REAL close to .8 Mach at sea level and .88 at 30,000 feet. The D wing caused enough flow separation at .73-.76 that the elevators and rudders became much less effective put the 51D into increasing nose down pitch and right hand yaw. And you can't use trim in a terminal dive with a D w/o breaking the bird... must use stick to pull out

At 600mph TAS the IAS at 30K is around 340mph IAS - way up there

I would believe a local compressibility issue with the pitot tube a lot more than a sustained .8-85 Mach in level flight for a 51D... the XP-51G at 5500 pounds empty and the equivalent of the same -9 Merlin as the H was fastest at .65 Mach (495mph at 22,800 feet).. So in level flight, the fastest 51 until Reno Races 40 years later was 50+ mph slower than the 262 and the D was 100mph slower.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 11, 2007)

Jackson said:


> FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials
> 
> is this real? Looks like it is supposed to be FW test translated
> 
> ...



I think it certainly was, at least if we are to believe Mike Williams's usual manipulated set of documentation that is yet again follows the old simple rules. Show only the lowest tests done on German aircraft, preferably never on maximum power. Never cease to repeat every German dataset is 'very optimistic' and the plane was not even half as capable in real life... 

Now the thing is, the Rechlin test results are not for full power on the Dora-9, but 30-min rating (rpms can be deceitul on the Jumo 213 engine because of complex ratings w and w/o MW-50) however, they are very close the FW 190D-9 calculated datasheets results at similiar power.

William's site is very deceitful, it constantly manipulates with filtering the available documentation to serve the agenda of the author. It has been exposed long ago, and I am a bit surpirse anyone is still giving credence to anything that was in any way subjected to William's editorial work. 

The Wright report is interesting in that it seems to claim a D-9 with Jumo 213E engine. That's probably some rebuild, since the 3 speed, 2 stage 213E was not powering any serial production D-9 (which were powered by the 2s/2s Jumo 213A), but the Ta 152H... 

Judging from the report, it must have been some guys from Lockheed writing it hehe.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 11, 2007)

drgondog said:


> However, having said that, which German Prop fighters reached .8 Mach and where could I find reference to them?



Lukas Schmid obtained 0.805 Mach and 906 km/h with a Bf 109F-2 after having it's aileron deflection limited to half as aileron and around ,75 before that. In both cases it was well over the dive limits of the aircraft. I believe that's the highest they actually recorded on an early model, the later ones had reinforced wings so may have reached higher speeds. In other tests they quite regulary hit around .75 without particularly aiming at it.

I don't know of the FW 190. Probably similiar.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 11, 2007)

yeah, I dunno the horsepower at 74 hg on a Merlin, he is lucky the thing did not blow, but they allowed 75 hg..lots of this is kinda funny, they had been flying the P51 for years.

like here

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials


Langenhagen, 16 March 1945 
Gt/Schw. 


Level Speed - Combat Power 3000 rpm 
Jumo 213 A engine W. Nr 2229 Jumo 213 A engine W. Nr 0465 
335 mph @ SL 342 mph @ SL 
404 mph at 19,685 ft. (FTH) 362 mph at 4,922 ft. 


That is *March 1945*, and they are still doing tests on Wk Nr 210002, I gather that #2 is an early production werks. and getting 342 @ SL.. huh

It also looks like they tested #2 in October '44 @367 with boost methanol

when did they get the bugs out of it? sometime in April/ May 1945?

two steps back, one step forward?

Some days things just run better than other days.. that is all it is, temperature, barometer, fresh oil, an extra coat of wax..

That's what makes hose races 



Yeah , I know Dago Red..

Like I pointed out about the Ford 5.0 L, I have one, I doubt I ever hit (was it) 5.8 seconds 0-60 brand new, before I added lots of "bolt ons", and over a period of 20 years of tuning, porting the heads intake, changing injector nozzles, over sized throttle bodies, over sized pipes, I assume they had old fashioned "points" with a shaved cam, MSD ignition (lol) a hot coil, over sized exhaust

motor head junk  for you gear headed folks out there. 

Maybe the P51 mechanic was good, real good.. 

But I would still speculate the Wright Patterson May 44 environment was closer to German conditions than the Florida 44 in July tests. 

Back to the bomb racks question? 8-12 mph


----------



## Jackson (Jun 11, 2007)

Yep, I heard some say the site is biased..

But like you pointed out, the pilots had their planes modified, to increase performance..

so, I have also said @ SL I would call it even "D" Vs Dora

Unless of course you wanna tell me that the Wright Patterson @388 test was a one off anomaly..

Then I will point to the 367 @ SL test for the Dora and say..

get out your digital camera and show me the axel grease under YOUR finger nails- over

The P51 had been around for a while, who knows what kinda things people were doing, have you ever tossed a few "mothballs" in your gas tank?

Try it sometime, but dont go driving around all day at 5500 rpm, unless you fell like spending all weekend doing a rebuild


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 11, 2007)

Jackson said:


> yeah, I dunno the horsepower at 74 hg on a Merlin, he is lucky the thing did not blow, but they allowed 75 hg..lots of this is kinda funny, they had been flying the P51 for years.
> 
> like here
> 
> ...



That's 'combat power' is not the same as in British terms, where it means WEP. Combat power is a direct translation of the German term Kampfleistung, which means power allowed for 30-min (the rpm figure also shows this, the max. was 3250 rpm).

To complicate matter further, the Jumo 213A had several boosting systems, which meant that former WEPs often become one less of a power setting.

Compared to the actual maximum power of the D-9, this test looks like untilizing about continous cruise power or so.

The German docs give around 612 km/h at SL for the D-9 at full power, and if you look up Caldwell's JG 26 diary a pilot says there he was able to reach those speeds with his D-9 (he praised it's factory, Sorau making solidly built birds).



> That is *March 1945*, and they are still doing tests on Wk Nr 210002, I gather that #2 is an early production werks. and getting 342 @ SL.. huh



And...? 



> It also looks like they tested #2 in October '44 @367 with boost methanol
> 
> when did they get the bugs out of it? sometime in April/ May 1945?



What bugs? You need to realize the world wasn't black and white even back then. On that size you'll get a list of tests that were done on some of the early production airframes the factory used as test hacks for all sorts of measurements, plus a test run at Rechlin which did not make use of full power. Which alone proves nothing - especially without seeing the original documentation itself, and what was edited out of it. I've seen that happen on that site.. whole sentences being cut off from documents, that were otherwise badly (willingly?) mistranslated..

Mustang tests are just the same, in fact I recall seeing even greater variations between individual planes and test than with other planes, perhaps it's laminar flow wing was more sensitive to surface treatment (or abuse.. see also GI boots).


----------



## Jackson (Jun 11, 2007)

Yep, all kinds of variations, thats why I said 'even' at sea level early on... depends on who your ground crew was, I raced my Mustang against an identical one brand new, within a week of buying it.. 


Unless sombody whats to tell me as a 'fact' they know the Dora was faster at SL.. Then you will hear..

*The P51 shows 388 mph (625 kph) for a "stock" production plane as tested.*

Here in the US, not many leave their Ford Mustang V-8 5.0 L stock for very long.. I have picked up more than 1 second on mine 0-60, thats 15 % (6 original and under 5 today). 


I suspect the "motor heads" back then were no different, US air bases were firmly established, there was no constant repositioning in retreat. 

The Merlin had been around forever, ok almost 10 years, when did the 213 A finally go into production-1944? Not long enough to work things out, hence the "bugs" comment. The 213 E was still pretty new, these engines being tested in March 1945 were "A" models. 


Still no answer on the 'Wing racks" question..


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2007)

Tweaking an aircraft for better performance was something most mechanics and blackmen did, if they knew what they were doing... 

Towards the end of the War, however, many of the mechanics and technicians that kept the Luftwaffe pilots up in the air were conscipted into the ground forces with little chance for survival, as the Russians were relentless on their approaches through Germany....

Some of u will recall the habit of polishing their 109's and 190's with floor wax to decrease the kites air resistance.... They did alot more than that I can guarantee u....

All this number crunching top speed, which was better in which test bullsh!t has been boring the hell out of me for decades.... Pretty much every single plane that was tested performed differently... My Grandfather recalled the differences in the Corsairs he flew, and they were as obvious as the scar on his forehead.... Each bird had its own characteristics and plus'/minus'...

The way 214 did it, u flew whatever plane u could climb into....

Now, if u think about how one German pilot and one head mechanic were sometimes, in the best scenarios, with each other for months/years... As most of u guys who know what ur talking about already know, just about EVERYONE tweaked their aircraft, sometimes illegally, to the chagrin, and blessing, of the pilot... A faster plane meant a better chance of living through the day...


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 11, 2007)

Nicely said Les every aircraft was different as my father said the best way to increase performance of an aircraft was getting all the dirt and dust out of it was the aircraft painted or clean the list is ad infintium


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I think it certainly was, at least if we are to believe Mike Williams's usual manipulated set of documentation that is yet again follows the old simple rules. Show only the lowest tests done on German aircraft, preferably never on maximum power. Never cease to repeat every German dataset is 'very optimistic' and the plane was not even half as capable in real life...
> 
> Now the thing is, the Rechlin test results are not for full power on the Dora-9, but 30-min rating (rpms can be deceitul on the Jumo 213 engine because of complex ratings w and w/o MW-50) however, they are very close the FW 190D-9 calculated datasheets results at similiar power.
> 
> ...


So, who 'exposed it', what was their agenda, and what replaced Mike's site as the organ of 'pure' truth with respect to real flight test data?

Jes curious,

Bill


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 12, 2007)

Wise words Les....


----------



## Hop (Jun 12, 2007)

> yeah, I dunno the horsepower at 74 hg on a Merlin, he is lucky the thing did not blow, but they allowed 75 hg..



The RAF were running many of their Spitfires and Mustangs at 81" hg, so 74" wasn't pushing it much at all.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 12, 2007)

Hop said:


> The RAF were running many of their Spitfires and Mustangs at 81" hg, so 74" wasn't pushing it much at all.



Well we do know they had non-stop troubles doing so. Engine failures and problems at high boost were reported non-stop at 81" and it seems the cause was never really fixed.

As for the many Squadrons, I believe it was actually 2 Merlin Spitfire Squadrons and 2 Mustang III Squadrons, which consitutes operational trials at best.

Which is probably why the USAAF settled down at a modest boost increase with 71", after all they were doing long escort duty over enemy territory. Clearly they've choosen because anything higher was just not safe. The 75" readins are probably just mis-set engines, small, normal variations in actual boost pressures within tolerances, from which the usual amount of wishful thinking on that site wishes to make more out.

Not that 3" Hg boost would make any difference at all.


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

Sorry Gents

but which boost system do you talk about? I

Is it a boost system like MW50 or GM1 or is it the supercharger system?


----------



## Hop (Jun 12, 2007)

> As for the many Squadrons, I believe it was actually 2 Merlin Spitfire Squadrons and 2 Mustang III Squadrons, which consitutes operational trials at best.



Well, it was actually the whole of the 2nd TAF, about 30 Spitfire squadrons iirc.



> Is it a boost system like MW50 or GM1 or is it the supercharger system?



On the Merlin it was just allowing higher manifold pressure. 18 lbs/ 67" was the limit with 100/130 octane fuel, above that detonation would occur. 100/150 fuel allowed up to 25 lbs / 81" before detonation.


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

ok,

Is it the boost (compression) from the supercharger?


Or is it the compression from the Valves? (that's a very simple description because of my bad english)
This is the same at my car! When I get 92 octan fuel my engine has less more power cause of the compression from the Valve. If I get 95 or 98 octan I have full power.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 12, 2007)

Hop said:


> Well, it was actually the whole of the 2nd TAF, about 30 Spitfire squadrons iirc.



I'd like to see the evidence of 30 Squadrons _actually_converting. 
A proposal was given out in november 1944 for doing so, but it was never actually fully implemented due to re-occuring engine troubles that lead to fatal accidents over and over again after the fuel started being introduced in scale to the RAF in _February 1945_ (the USAAF was using 150 grade fuel from mid-1944 otoh, and they had far more operational experience with it). 

The problems were such they've soon reverted to 130 grade fuel :

_"The incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early feb. pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. "the vast majority of pilots, im sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid." the matter was being dicussed at Wunstorf when, incredibly, a spark at the petrol dump ignited and two petrol bowsers containing almost two thousand gallons of the much-despised fuel burst into flames."_

I would not rule it out pilots sorting out the fuel problem by themselves... 

Not to mention to mention those 30 originally proposed Spitfire Squadron were but a part of the 'whole of the' 2nd TAF which had lots of Typhoons etc. as well that continued to run on 100 octane fuel, and very few Merlin Mustant Squadrons in it.

Few people realize the vast majority of RAF fighters were flying on the same performance as they did in early 1943, whereas the USAAF and Luftwaffe fighters gained several hundred horsepowers due to the introduction of higher grade fuels and water injective boosting systems.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

I have read even in '44 nearly half of the 109's in service were still (E?) F's dispite years of fighting losses. Wha ? this is way off and I am so worng


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Few people realize the vast majority of RAF fighters were flying on the same performance as they did in early 1943, whereas the USAAF and Luftwaffe fighters gained several hundred horsepowers due to the introduction of higher grade fuels and water injective boosting systems.



I always thought that one of the problems the Germans had was the lower grade fuels that they had to use and this would have forced them to use boost systems to catch/keep up. 
I openly admit I could be wrong on this and am happy to take better information than I have at my disposal.

Re the USAAF I was under the impression that most of the water based boost systems were for the radial engines not Merlin powered aircraft. As the RAF didn't use Radials in their fighters it wouldn't have been much of a problem.

As for the RAF they did increase the power of the engines via increased boosts but the biggest increase surely was the introduction of the Griffon for the Merlin iro Spitfires.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 12, 2007)

The only subsitute for cubic inches is more cubic inches, or how the saying goes....


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

n


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2007)

Wow, what a lot posts in the short time I've been gone..


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2007)

Glider said:


> Re the USAAF I was under the impression that most of the water based boost systems were for the radial engines not Merlin powered aircraft. As the RAF didn't use Radials in their fighters it wouldn't have been much of a problem.
> 
> As for the RAF they did increase the power of the engines via increased boosts but the biggest increase surely was the introduction of the Griffon for the Merlin iro Spitfires.



You are correct in that only the -9 and -11 Packard Merlins had water boost and neither saw combat. The P-51H used the -9 and the P-51L was slated for the 2000 HP -11.

I don't recall water boost on any of the Allisons.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## AV8 (Jun 12, 2007)

The Allison V-1710-75 had Water / Alcohol ADI fluid. It made 1425 hp in the P-38K.

The Allison V-1710-89 WER rating of 2300 hp in the P-38H/J with trubosupercharger, 115/145 fuel, and ADI (water / Alcohol).

the -143 Allison made 2250 hp with Bendix fuel injection and ADI in the P-82E/F on 115/145 fuel.

The Bell XP-63H had a turbocompound Allison V-170 of 2980 hp, but never reached production due to the end of the war and the advent of jet engines.

Over 70,000 Allison V-1710s were built and DELIVERED.

The Allison was also one engine used in the Curtiss XP-60. Flight tests showed it to have performance among the best of the piston fighters. Since teh war was winding down, it wasn't produced, but would have given anything in the air using a piston engine a run for its money.

More than 10,000 Allisons used ADI or water/alcohol injection.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 13, 2007)

AV8 said:


> The Allison V-1710-75 had Water / Alcohol ADI fluid. It made 1425 hp in the P-38K.
> 
> The Allison V-1710-89 WER rating of 2300 hp in the P-38H/J with trubosupercharger, 115/145 fuel, and ADI (water / Alcohol).
> 
> ...



You are absolutely right - I should have researched before answering rather than rely on 'memory'


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2007)

Speaking of the difference in individual a/c of the same model. I had a long conversation a number of years ago with a Tomcat driver at an air show in Gunnison. It was an F-14D, the hottest version with the GE engines. The pilot said that the a/c that had been in the Top Gun school invariably came back to the fleet "bent" In other words they had been in so many violent maneuvers that they were racked out of true and did not perform as well as some of the Tomcats that had not been treated as roughly. I am sure that was true of ww2 fighters also. In fact I remember reading about in the BOB the lowtime pilots that joined a squadron always got the old a/c that were out of rig so they had to battle their lack of experience, the Hun and a under performing a/c.


----------



## Erich (Jun 13, 2007)

again as you compare "testing and evaluations", please keep in mind the Dora 9, 11 and 13 will be covered soon by Eagle Editions in two volumes. Both volumes will cover the COMBAT OPERATIONS; volume 1 due out in August hopefully


----------



## Jackson (Jun 14, 2007)

I'm a frickin idiot and know nothing


----------



## Jackson (Jun 14, 2007)

D


----------



## Jackson (Jun 14, 2007)

H


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2007)

Wow to get banned by Erich, you really had to do something bad!


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 14, 2007)

I think he had just posted complete bullsh*t for most of this posts in this thread and Erich (understandably) was pissed off (at least I think that was what was in the posts don't really remember - at least the first couple).


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2007)

Whooops!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2007)

Oh he pissed me off too, with his Hartmann is gay posts dont take me wrong. But it was what he last said that through Erich over the counter.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2007)

I have to say though fellas.... you have an extreme long fuse before you ban someone, which is admirable(?). Thumbs up!


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 14, 2007)

Glider said:


> I always thought that one of the problems the Germans had was the lower grade fuels that they had to use and this would have forced them to use boost systems to catch/keep up.
> I openly admit I could be wrong on this and am happy to take better information than I have at my disposal.



It's a bit more complex than that, I'd say it's better to put it that the Germans kept _also_ using lower grade gasolines through the war, whereas the Allies have gone in around 1941 completely for 100 octane aviation fuels (at least in combat aircraft). 

So here is it, briefly and perhaps a bit simplifying it. At the start of the war, 87 octane gasoline was the norm for all countries in service use. At the same time, countries begun to toy with higher grade gasolines. The US made 100 octane for itself, the Brits pretty much imported it from abroad, primarly from the US, whereas the Germans begun to make 100 octane gasoline synthetically. Their 87 octane avgas was designated 'B-4', the 96 octane synthetic gasoline 'C-3' (and the natural one 'C-2' IIRC). 

And here's another catch : the Allies and Axis used different octane rating methods... to cut the long story short, the German 96 octane is actually lean rating, whereas Allied fuel is usually is quoted at Rich rating. Rich rating is basically important because it limits how much power you can get out from boosted engines without detonation.

IIRC early British '100' octane fuel was 100/100 (lean/rich), later with US import they had 100/130 grade fuel. Later on in 1944 the British started producing 100/150 grade fuel, but it was only available in small quantities which limited it's service use to practically the 8th AAF's fighters, a couple of RAF Squadrons during the V-1 raids, and some use by the 2nd TAF for a 1-2 month period before the war ended.

The early German C-3 was intitially ca 96/130 by Allied standards, ie. better than early Allied 100 octane fuel. In late 1942, the knocking resistance of C-3 was increased, and now it was about 96/143 grade fuel. Moreover, at least according to post-war Allied examination reports found in the Fischer-Tropsch archieves, in the 2nd half of the war the major volume, appx. 2/3s of the total German avgas production was 96 octane C-3, or 96/143 octane by Allied standards. So while at the same time the Germans did possessed an excellent aviation fuel (better than the best Allied fuels at the time in 1943), and produced in large quantities, they also used lower grade fuels at the same time.



> Re the USAAF I was under the impression that most of the water based boost systems were for the radial engines not Merlin powered aircraft. As the RAF didn't use Radials in their fighters it wouldn't have been much of a problem.



IIRC post-war fighter models like the P-51H that just missed the war also used water injection, but you're right, it was atypical with Allied inlines while radials used them a lot in the Hellcat, Corsair or Thunderbolt.. Ironically, in Germany water injection boost were used in inlines (ie DB 605, Jumo 213) but not at all on the main radial type BMW 801 (which used a practically equivalent method of petrol injection).




> As for the RAF they did increase the power of the engines via increased boosts but the biggest increase surely was the introduction of the Griffon for the Merlin iro Spitfires.



Indeed, development paths were rather different. The RAF engines steadily increased supercharging during the war for more power. German engine's output was mainly improved by increasing the volume, increasing the engine rpm, increasing the compression ratio of the engine, and also increasing the supercharging, in that order. A lot of attention was paid for the effiency of powerplant installations.

I always felt that British aero engine development was reminding of the tuning of a race engine (more POWER POWER POWER via boosting, regardless of other factors like consumption and installation effiency), whereas the Germans were steadily developing their engines on multiple 'fronts' with an eye on powerplant effiency as a whole to gain extra aircraft performance.

Both ways can be valid to achieve the same power output, but when one compares the start and the end of the war, it will find the late war Spitfires were carrying 50% more fuel and had 2/3s the range of early war variants, whereas late war 109s were carrying the same amount of fuel and had 50% higher range, while the two aircraft had similiar combat performance (speed etc.).


----------



## timshatz (Jun 14, 2007)

Good post Kurfurst. Very interesting.


----------



## Hop (Jun 14, 2007)

> ok,
> 
> Is it the boost (compression) from the supercharger?



Yes. The supercharger went the same speed with 100/150 fuel, but more of the air it was pushing was allowed into the engine. It effectively increases the capacity of the engine (because more fuel is fed in as well)




> I'd like to see the evidence of 30 Squadrons actuallyconverting.
> A proposal was given out in november 1944 for doing so, but it was never actually fully implemented due to re-occuring engine troubles that lead to fatal accidents over and over again after the fuel started being introduced in scale to the RAF in February 1945



Source?

From the USAAF, dated 5th Feb 1945:



> SHAEF has also evidenced interest in the question by pointing out orally to this division that *the US Air Forces on the Continent are presently using 100/130 Grade aviation fuel and that the RAF on the Continent are using 100/150 fuel* with one- Theory of Ethelene Dibromide and that should the Eighth Air Force's request be granted



(It goes on to say that if the 8th AF fighters based on the continent were to switch to a different type of 100/150 fuel, it would mean a third type of fuel being supplied)



> Not to mention to mention those 30 originally proposed Spitfire Squadron were but a part of the 'whole of the' 2nd TAF which had lots of Typhoons etc. as well that continued to run on 100 octane fuel, and very few Merlin Mustant Squadrons in it.



No, the whole of 2nd TAF went over to 100/150 fuel. The reason was to simplify the supply situation, the last thing they wanted was to have to supply different grades.



> Few people realize the vast majority of RAF fighters were flying on the same performance as they did in early 1943,



You mean the vast majority of Spitfires in early 1943 were LF IXs? Interesting 



> whereas the USAAF and Luftwaffe fighters gained several hundred horsepowers due to the introduction of higher grade fuels and water injective boosting systems.



As of course did the RAF front line units.

The Spitfire IXs went from about 1750 hp to 2050 hp. The Typhoons got power increases of at least 200 hp, and possibly as much as 400+. The Mosquito FB Vis switched from Merlin 23s to Merlin 25s, gaining a few hundred HP in the process. On 150 octane fuel, they gained close to 1,000 hp from their early 1943 figures.

And that doesn't include new types. The Spitfire XIV had over 2000 hp on 100/130 fuel, more than 2,200 on 100/150, and the Tempest was introduced which gave a huge performance increase over the Typhoon.

It's certainly true that in 1944 the Luftwaffe managed to raise their engine powers from the very low levels they had made do with in 1943, for example the DB 605 finally beat the power output the Merlin had been running on in 1942, but by then the Merlin had moved on, to 2000 hp+


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 15, 2007)

Hop said:


> Source?
> 
> From the USAAF, dated 5th Feb 1945:



"the RAF on the Continent are using 100/150 fuel" - well that's technically correct even if only one Squadron is using the fuel.

Problem is, 150 grade fuel was only slowly introduced from February 1945 in the 2nd TAF Spitfire Squadrons, it immidiately resulted in fatal incidents and just as it become a bit more widespread in use amongst Squadrons, the accident rate was seen unacceptable and they reverted to 130 grade fuel which also meant reverting to early 1943 power outputs.



Hop said:


> No, the whole of 2nd TAF went over to 100/150 fuel. The reason was to simplify the supply situation, the last thing they wanted was to have to supply different grades.



That's purely speculation on your part. There's absolutely no written evidence supporting it. The only known hint about the 2nd TAF's planned usage of 150 grade fuel is a note from November 1944, which notes 30 Spitfire Sqns of the 2nd TAF should switch to 150 grade fuel. 

The paper does not note that any of Typhoon, Mustang etc Squadrons should switch to 150 grade fuel, in fact, there were more than 30 Squadrons of Spitfires in the 2nd TAF so it's quite clear not even all Spitfires were planned to get 150 grade fuel.


[/QUOTE]You mean the vast majority of Spitfires in early 1943 were LF IXs? Interesting [/QUOTE]

Nope, I say that the vast majority of Spitfires in 1944 (LF IXs) were running on the outputs authorized for IXLFs in 1943.




> As of course did the RAF front line units. The Spitfire IXs went from about 1750 hp to 2050 hp.



No they didn't for any practical purpose. The only Spitfires going to +25 / 2050 HP were _TWO Squadrons of of Mk IXs_ (out of 60+) doing operational trials with the new engine boost which otoh turned up engine problem after engine problem, and they reverted to +18 in the summer appearantly. The engine rating were not used on with 99% of the frontline units.

The Spitfire IX at the start of 1943 was runnig on +18 lbs boost. The Spitfire IX in 1944 was still running on +18 lbs boost for the same 1690 HP or so, save two troubled IX squadrons who had been given the unpleasant duty of experienting with +25 lbs boost between March and iirc August? 1944.



> The Typhoons got power increases of at least 200 hp, and possibly as much as 400+. The Mosquito FB Vis switched from Merlin 23s to Merlin 25s, gaining a few hundred HP in the process. On 150 octane fuel, they gained close to 1,000 hp from their early 1943 figures.



You sure have a vivid fantasy. :lol



> And that doesn't include new types. The Spitfire XIV had over 2000 hp on 100/130 fuel, more than 2,200 on 100/150, and the Tempest was introduced which gave a huge performance increase over the Typhoon.



Neither was available in significant numbers. For example there were 60 XIVs out of some 1500 Spitfires present in mid-1944. There were about 500 Mk Vs. Insignificant. It's a bit like the Me 262 in mid 1944. Not numerous enough to make any difference.

The Spitfire XIV had very short engine life even on +18, and at +21 there were continual failures even after the war ended. The only time the XIVs were operating at +21 lbs was during the few month they were busy chasing V-1s over Britain in 1944.



> It's certainly true that in 1944 the Luftwaffe managed to raise their engine powers from the very low levels they had made do with in 1943, for example the DB 605 finally beat the power output the Merlin had been running on in 1942, but by then the Merlin had moved on, to 2000 hp+



The only problem is the Merlin did not move to '2000 HP+' until about February 1945 in any numbers, and that for only about two months since almost immidietely engine failures started to occur and the whole bunch again reverted to 130 grade fuel and limited output to about 1690 HP.

Whereas the DB 605 moved to 1800 HP + in around March 1944 and beated the Merlin at all atitudes in output, and by March 1945 they moved to 2000+ HP output, and were planned to go for 2300+ HP output when the war ended.

Jumo 213s were doing 2200+ horsepower in a comparable weight class as the Griffon engines.

You see the difference is the availability. The RAF was_ toying_ with high boosts that were being used only in a handful of Squadrons engaged in operational trials and V-1 hunting through 1944, whereas both the LW and the USAAF managed to boost their engine output in the standard service aircraft and used them in large numbers.

It's the same key as in 1943 : availability. Then the RAF was having a handful of Spitfire IX Squadrons with engines running at +18 lbs, which had higher output than the standard issue DB 605 at the time. This gave the Spitfire IX a small advantage in performance over the 109G. 

Problem was, all of the LW's units were using Bf 109Gs and FW 190As, whereas most of the RAF was still riding the old Mk Vs. It's nice to have a more powerful engine than the other side, but if that engine is around only in insignificant numbers, it's good as if it wasn't there at all.


----------



## Hop (Jun 15, 2007)

> Problem is, 150 grade fuel was only slowly introduced from February 1945 in the 2nd TAF Spitfire Squadrons, it immidiately resulted in fatal incidents and just as it become a bit more widespread in use amongst Squadrons, the accident rate was seen unacceptable and they reverted to 130 grade fuel which also meant reverting to early 1943 power outputs.



Source for these made up facts?



> No, the whole of 2nd TAF went over to 100/150 fuel. The reason was to simplify the supply situation, the last thing they wanted was to have to supply different grades.
> 
> 
> That's purely speculation on your part. There's absolutely no written evidence supporting it.



Of course there is. Apart from SHAEF saying 2nd TAF was using 100/150, (and no mention of any other fuel), here's something from Air 25/616, dated 13th Nov 1944:






Note no mention of _adding_ 100/150 fuel, it quite clearly says they will change the grade of fuel consumed.

I know you are not a native English speaker, but that clearly means changing the whole fuel supply, not adding another type.



> The only known hint about the 2nd TAF's planned usage of 150 grade fuel is a note from November 1944, which notes 30 Spitfire Sqns of the 2nd TAF should switch to 150 grade fuel.



No, the note you are refering to is an instruction that modifications will be 
needed to the aircraft because they will be switching to 100/150 fuel:






So in mid Nov we have something saying the 2nd TAF will switch to 100/150 in December, and that fuel deliveries have already commenced. We have instructions to convert the Spitfires to run on the new fuel. And from the beginning of Feb we have SHAEF telling the USAAF that 2nd TAF are using 100/150.

Against that we have your opinion.



> The paper does not note that any of Typhoon, Mustang etc Squadrons should switch to 150 grade fuel,



It doesn't note any modifications to other aircraft, you mean.

The Mustangs had of course been covered separately:








> there were more than 30 Squadrons of Spitfires in the 2nd TAF so it's quite clear not even all Spitfires were planned to get 150 grade fuel.



Well, they mention 35, which is I believe all of them, except perhaps the PR aircraft, who couldn't make use of the increased boost anyway.



> No they didn't for any practical purpose. The only Spitfires going to +25 / 2050 HP were TWO Squadrons of of Mk IXs (out of 60+) doing operational trials with the new engine boost which otoh turned up engine problem after engine problem, and they reverted to +18 in the summer appearantly. The engine rating were not used on with 99% of the frontline units.



And the 25 - 30 squadrons in 2nd TAF.



> You sure have a vivid fantasy. :lol



Well, I think this thread certainly proves one of us is fantasising, only my fantasies seem to be shared by the RAF and SHAEF. The figures are of course correct.



> The Spitfire XIV had very short engine life even on +18, and at +21 there were continual failures even after the war ended.



Source?



> The only time the XIVs were operating at +21 lbs was during the few month they were busy chasing V-1s over Britain in 1944.



Source?



> The only problem is the Merlin did not move to '2000 HP+' until about February 1945 in any numbers, and that for only about two months since almost immidietely engine failures started to occur and the whole bunch again reverted to 130 grade fuel and limited output to about 1690 HP.



Source?



> Whereas the DB 605 moved to 1800 HP + in around March 1944 and beated the Merlin at all atitudes in output, and by March 1945 they moved to 2000+ HP output,



Source actually showing how many 109s were operating at 1.98 ata?



> Jumo 213s were doing 2200+ horsepower in a comparable weight class as the Griffon engines.



How many Jumos were running at 2,200 hp? 

What we've seen in this thread is a lot of assertions by Kurfurst, few if any backed up by data. Many have been contradicted by original source documents.

Given a choice between believing Kurfurst's claims and SHAEF's assertions, I think I'll trust SHAEF, thanks.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 15, 2007)

I am not particularly feeling wasting time for the usual Hoppian rhetorics, how an _August 1944_ order to convert _45 V-1650 engines_ for use of V-1 is actually _for the ADGB_ is actually_ for the 2nd TAF in 1945_.

We all know Hop and his ways for a long time to bother about that. 

This should prove interesting regarding the 2nd TAF's temporary use of 150 grade fuel in it's Spitfires. A small passage (pg 199) from "Invasion Without Tears", Street/Berger, ISBN#0-394-22277-6 (Random House), from accounts by Monty Berger, Senior Intel Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF
_
"He noted [in his day's (apr 20 '45) operational summary] as well that two pilots had walked away-"more or less"-with only slight injuries from wrecked and flaming aircraft at B 116 [Wunstorf, Germany]. Actually, it was a miracle either man survived. Flying officer F R Dennison of 411(sqn) - a Grizzly Bear from Buffalo, NY-crashed while taking off and broke his back. Later in the day, flt leiutenant E B Mossing of 401(sqd), who also had his engine cut during take off, scrapped his Spitfire's belly tank over an obstacle and came down so hard the impact ripped it's wings off, broke the fuselage at the instrument panel and left what remained of the aircraft a mass of flames - yet Mossing "extricated himself with one bone broken in his leg".

*The incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early February. Pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade.* "the vast majority of pilots, im sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid." the matter was being dicussed at Wunstorf when, incredibly, a spark at the petrol dump ignited and two petrol bowsers containing almost two thousand gallons of the much-despised fuel burst into flames."_

Incredibly. 

Post war RCAF trials in 1946 confirmed the Griffon 65 engine required a regular replacement after a steady 40 hours, even though by then RR had a lot of time to improve the reliability of the Griffon, and it was running on lower power than in wartime.

The second 2 TAF's planning of 'use of 150 grade fuel' clearly mentions 25 Sqns of Spit Mk IX, 5 Sqns of XIVs. They hoped for 5 Sqns of XIVs, but the Packard Merlin 266's problems were even greater than that of the Merlin 66 as British reports show from late 1944.

Up to February 1945, the only use of 150 grade fuel in the RAF totalled in 2 Sqns of Mk IXs performing operational trials until the summer of 1944 since March, reporting various engine troubles. The other scale (emergency) use of 150 grade fuel was by a handful of ADGB Squadrons which were all engaged in V-1 hunting after the launches started. They all reverted to standard 130 grade fuel in September, 1944, after the campaign stopped.

The rest of the entire RAF never seen a drop of 150 grade fuel and was essentially fighting the war typically with Spitfire Vs, but mainly IXs and Typhoons, with the same performance as in 1943.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 17, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Up to February 1945, the only use of 150 grade fuel in the RAF totalled in 2 Sqns of Mk IXs performing operational trials until the summer of 1944 since March, reporting various engine troubles. The other scale (emergency) use of 150 grade fuel was by a handful of ADGB Squadrons which were all engaged in V-1 hunting after the launches started. They all reverted to standard 130 grade fuel in September, 1944, after the campaign stopped.
> 
> The rest of the entire RAF never seen a drop of 150 grade fuel and was essentially fighting the war typically with Spitfire Vs, but mainly IXs and Typhoons, with the same performance as in 1943.




And yet, strangely enough, the RAF consumed 49,000 barrels of 150 octane fuel, or about 6700 tons, in August 1944, 44,000 barrels in October and 88,000 in December. Seems an awful lot for just two squadrons of Spitfires. 

Further more increasing consumption, even with the end of the V1 threat, seems a little odd if the fuel was that loathed.

And the last frontline Mk V squadrons swapped their fighters for Mk IXs in June or July 1944. None seem to have been based on the continent, with most being part of ADGB and hadn't flown offensive sorties for months, operating as reforming units in Groups 12 and 13.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 17, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> And yet, strangely enough, the RAF consumed 49,000 barrels of 150 octane fuel, or about 6700 tons, in August 1944, 44,000 barrels in October and 88,000 in December.



That's an in-credible claim, may I see the source?



> Seems an awful lot for just two squadrons of Spitfires.



You have reading comprehension problems it seems. Two Squadrons of Spitfire IXs were mentioned doing (not very successfull) operational trials. There were a small number of Tempest, Mustang, and Spitfire XIV Squadrons engaging in V-1 busting operations and temporarily allowed to use high octane fuel, regardless of the risks of blowing the engine.

They reverted to 130 grade in September 1944, when the raids ended.



> Further more increasing consumption, even with the end of the V1 threat, seems a little odd if the fuel was that loathed.



Nothing supports the claim consumption would have been increased. In fact, the RAF reverted to 130 grade fuel after the V-1 raids stopped. 150 grade fuel was only produced in Britain in limited quantities in 1944, which limited it's use to gaining a modest increase of power in the USAAF 8th AAF fighters on offensive operations.



> And the last frontline Mk V squadrons swapped their fighters for Mk IXs in June or July 1944.



This very much appears to be wishful thinking.



> None seem to have been based on the continent, with most being part of ADGB and hadn't flown offensive sorties for months, operating as reforming units in Groups 12 and 13.



According to Neil Stirling, there were still over 500 Mk Vs in service in May 1944 (in comparison: 1000 or so Mk IXs); Mk Vs and they very much continued to use them in the MTO.

In any case, the Mk V was an anachronism even in 1943, when most of the RAF Spitfire Squadrons had to use it anyway, not to mention in 1944.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2007)

Excellent pieces of informational facts Kurfurst


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Sep 12, 2009)

i think both fighters were tied. The dora-9 having a better climb and being more maneuverable at medium and low speeds, while the p-51d was faster and was more maneuverable at high speeds. 
But doras like the d12 and d13 were faster than the p-51 (not to mention firepower too)
If the dora came in earlier in the war, maybe around the same time as the p-51, i think it would affected the war becuase the Luftwaffe had the best pilots of the war and any dora-9 in the hands of an ace could easily shoot down a p-51


----------



## Coors9 (Sep 12, 2009)

Easily shoot down any Mustang......lol. It's some hard to get respect if your a P-51. That thing was a real thoroughbred, put a Meyer or Preddy or my fav WW2 pilot GENTILE in one and they were tough 1 on 1. Both great birds, give the edge to the best pilot. I'm a little biased,he..he, But i believe Gentile would win 1 on 1 every time.... in which ever one he was drivin'


----------



## Milosh (Sep 12, 2009)

I am glad this thread has been brought to the top of the list or I would have missed the discussion(??) on 150 fuel.

What I find hilarious is Kurfurst moans, groans and belly aches about 100 and 150 fuel, yet when it comes to 1.98ata boost and C3 fuel, all he can supply is circumstantial evidence, which he would, if it was 100 or 150 fuel, dismiss in no uncertain terms.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 12, 2009)

I don't get the poll title
What do you mean by 'American luck' ?
'Engineering' and 'art' in the same phrase needs some care, too...


----------



## thor (Sep 13, 2009)

well if i had to fly more than 3 hours to complete my mission then it is the pony obviously ...

if not then it would depend on whether my mission required me to fight, if i gotta fight then it is the dora and here is why ...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

as evenly matched as they are this single greatest advantage between the two fighters (that counts after the merge) goes to the dora ...

and in that case all else being = dora wins big imo.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2009)

thor said:


> well if i had to fly more than 3 hours to complete my mission then it is the pony obviously ...
> 
> if not then it would depend on whether my mission required me to fight, if i gotta fight then it is the dora and here is why ...
> 
> ...



The pilot is still the determinant. The dora died in significant numbers from dec 1944 to EOW when fighting Mustangs.


----------



## renrich (Sep 14, 2009)

As Bill says the "Dora" TaDa! died in significant numbers against the Mustang and that was after the Mustang pilot had to fly a number of hours to get to the battlefield which was in the FW's backyard. Pilot fatigue had to play a role and the Mustang still prevailed. I think it is rather amusing how we, in the attempt to overcome "Mustang Hype" which surely does exist, neglect over and over again to take into account the stress and fatigue the Mustang drivers had to endure, not to mention the knowledge that if they were shot down they had little chance to avoid capture or death. Many of those Mustang pilots were not what we would call veterans and yet the Mustang largely ruled the skies. It was a great plane and this comes from a Corsair addict.


----------



## Erich (Sep 14, 2009)

reality check gents, the Dora died more under the 2cm weapons of RAF a/c than US fighters..........

simple fact the JG's armed with the Dora were based in northern Germany/Central Reich. JG 301 lost a few to US a/c though did have combat on low strafe/bombing missions against the Soviets in 45 too -- pretty stupid and worthless. In all probability more losses on the Dora were not due to attrition on combat ops but malfunctions and left lying discarded on the empty fields during the chaos of retreat.

there were so many mis-ID's by Allied pilots thinking they shot down a long nose Dora or Ta 152 during late 44/45


----------



## thor (Sep 14, 2009)

not sure what is unclear about 

"all else being =" 

as far as using kills as "proof" of anything, one has several other factors to consider other than USAAF pilot fatigue ...

over all numerical superiority was 10-1 + in favor of the USAAF RAF VVS. 

it is estimated that 80% or so of kills were not a result of any sort of maneuver fight as the vast majority of pilots that were shot down were never aware of their attackers presence.

overall relative pilot quality due to attrition and it's consequences. 

allied pilots awarded kills for aircraft parked on the ground. 

kills on aircraft in landing patterns to low on fuel to give a good account of themselves.

etc ...

please lets keep focused on the topic instead of being diverted information that has little real bearing on the discussion.


----------



## thor (Sep 15, 2009)

holy crap ...

did i win ????


----------



## drgondog (Sep 15, 2009)

thor said:


> not sure what is unclear about
> 
> "all else being ="
> 
> ...



Works for me.

Erich is correct with respect to mis identification of 'long nose 190's and even confusing 190D with Me 109s because of the long nose/in line engine appearance.

Having said that, the various LW documentation and published works regarding JG 26 in Battle of Bulge through January and JG 301 in same timeframe will pretty clearly point out the the large individual battle losses of Fw 190D-9s were in battles with equal or lesser units of Mustangs and Spits and Jugs (i.e Squadron level or Gruppe level engagements) in the same airspace.

The huge numerical superiority of the Allies meant that the LW had increasing difficulty in finding a weak spot where they could insert a Gruppe or JG level attack and still achieve local numerical superiority.

If you have been covering these threads and looking at the cross documentation of great air battles on March 6, March 8. March 16, March 29, April 13, April 24, September 11, November 26, January 14, etc - all had common characteristics - namely the LW skillfully placed great concentrations of fighters in areas where only one to three Groups were in position to deflect - and died in droves.

The earlier battles deep over Germany were at times when the LW not only had a strong core of Experten and experienced pilots - and the 8th AF in those early days only had 1-4 Groups of Mustangs covering 30-35 Bomb Groups over a 100 mile bomber stream.

Taken simply, if the 109D was flown by Allies, they would whip Mustangs and Spits and Jugs flown by Luftwaffe.


----------



## thor (Sep 15, 2009)

well that was my point about why kill ratios do not mean much in this discussion ...

one thing about your conclusion that the 8th AF in doras being superior over the spits and mustangs and juggs flown by the luftwaffe , i need to point out is that the dora was not designed to, and could not meet the requirements of the deep penetration missions of the 8th AF so 

my point regarding the aircraft themselves is that the only major difference in performance between the two is the roll rates in which the 190 is far superior to the mustang in the vast majority of their respective performance envelopes so if it is a dogfight contest i would go with the dora. "all else being ="

however the mustang was much better suited to it's mission than the dora would have been, there is no contest there.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 15, 2009)

thor said:


> well that was my point about why kill ratios do not mean much in this discussion ...
> 
> one thing about your conclusion that the 8th AF in doras being superior over the spits and mustangs and juggs flown by the luftwaffe , i need to point out is that the dora was not designed to, and could not meet the requirements of the deep penetration missions of the 8th AF so
> 
> ...



The Dora's mission was to better compete with the escorts and the Spits and the Tempests than the Fw 190A at high altitudes, where the BMW 801 didn't have the juice above 20-23K. In this respect it wasn't superior to the 51D for medium fuel supply loads at those escort altitudes. Comparable yes - and pick your fights with a degree of thought to tactical situation.

The better performer against the D-9 was the P-51B-15 with Malcolm Hood or the P-51H which was a contemporary of the D-9, only about three months behind in numerical production cycles, (although it was perhaps 5 months behind in production release.)

The 190D-9 had no advantage in climb, dive or speed or turn over a 51D (and above) when the 150 Octane fuel was used and 75" of boost was available - for normal flight weights half way into the mission. The 150 octane was available in June July before the 190D went into ops.

As to expected weights for combat, The 352nd and 354th for example, were far lighter than the UK based Mustangs following Operation Market Garden, and frequently flew missions without external fuel at all when the targets were say, Misburg, Osnabruck, Kassel, etc. Ditto UK Based Fighter sweeps after the Bulge started through Bodenplatte where the 8th was looking to intercept LW Jabos heading for the battle and not doing the long range stuff.

You have to tie the 51D to a full internal load (dispose of external tanks and have remaining full internal load) and compare against a Fw 190D-9 with only internal fuel load at take off ( and perhaps 1/2 to 1/3 for combat) before you start comparing climb and acceleration and get clearly superior performance for the 190-D.


----------



## thor (Sep 15, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The Mustang out turned the Fw 190D with about the same advantage that the 190D-9 out rolled the Mustang in the middle speed and altitude range.



do you have independent data to back this statement?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 16, 2009)

Yes he does..... Most of us do... U obviously dont...


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Yes he does..... Most of us do... U obviously dont...



LOL - Thor - "what he (Dan) said'.

If you wish you should cruise this forum for all the data you need.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## davparlr (Sep 16, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The 190D-9 had no advantage in climb, dive or speed or turn over a 51D (and above) when the 150 Octane fuel was used and 75" of boost was available - for normal flight weights half way into the mission. The 150 octane was available in June July before the 190D went into ops.



I think that at equivalent loads, the P-51B, D, both with 150 octane fuel, and the Fw-190D-9 were pretty well within the probablility of error, manufacturing tolerance, and maintenance variables, of performance up to 20K. That is, if one were to randomly select one each these aircraft off active flight line in WWII, there was no way to predict which one would outperform the other. Above 20k, the Fw-190D-9 starts to run out of air and has a disadvantage to the P-51s.


----------



## thor (Sep 16, 2009)

drgondog said:


> LOL - Thor - "what he (Dan) said'.
> 
> If you wish you should cruise this forum for all the data you need.
> 
> ...



umm maybe i should have asked to see it ...

could you post it or direct me to the data ...

and please leave out those tired old propaganda laden reports from captured, incorrectly maintained, ground attack versions of the earlier 190s, as that is not what we are discussing here ...

EDIT : he is the one drawing the conclusion from his source, i can not guess which source or how he is making his conclusions from that source. therefore it is up to him to explain his reasoning.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 16, 2009)

Listen, we've been discussing this topic for as long as I can remember, we have a search feature up top, use it.......


----------



## thor (Sep 16, 2009)

i agree. the only performance category that stands out is the roll rate i have previously noted. 

re-the altitude "all else being =" precludes the fight starting with either pilot having a safe gun solution or any other situational advantage on the other. in that case the ensuing "dogfight" will most likely use up a lot of energy as they each maneuver for that gun solution which means that the altitude will very probably decrease making the fight conclusion likely to be determined at a much lower altitude than the thin air where the fight started. 

we must remember "all else being =" and assume that both these aircraft will be flown expertly and mistake free at the limits of their performance envelopes. 



davparlr said:


> I think that at equivalent loads, the P-51B, D, both with 150 octane fuel, and the Fw-190D-9 were pretty well within the probablility of error, manufacturing tolerance, and maintenance variables, of performance up to 20K. That is, if one were to randomly select one each these aircraft off active flight line in WWII, there was no way to predict which one would outperform the other. Above 20k, the Fw-190D-9 starts to run out of air and has a disadvantage to the P-51s.


----------



## thor (Sep 16, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Listen, we've been discussing this topic for as long as I can remember, we have a search feature up top, use it.......



hey look so have i and i have not only never seen a source that supports his statements.
not only that the wing loading/power loading/lift loading/ wing types are all very similar and the advantages slim as they are alternate between the two aircraft. 

i am asking for his source and reasoning, it is his source, don't you think a conclusion would be reached sooner if he posts it rather than me wading through all the data to guess about the source to which he is referring?

he made the statement, he needs to show the source just like i did with my reasoning re the roll rate.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2009)

thor said:


> umm maybe i should have asked to see it ...
> 
> could you post it or direct me to the data ...
> 
> ...




Thor - while your request is reasonable, this isn't my day job and I'm simply going to ask you to 'look around'

As to the 'tired old propaganda', they usually are the ONLY comparisons available.. Nobody ever seems to be able to get to the Rechlin tests in which they test their good birds against our 'tired ones' so we can't even debate an opposing point of view.. 

Additionally the wesites such as Mike Williams and Kurfurst sites have direct manufacturer and flight test results that were not made with 'tired old airplanes'.

Take what you want, look into those sites, look into the Technical section that Paul put together here, Believe what you will and return the rest!

Good day to you sir!


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2009)

thor take some time and go research other Ww 2 crate sites including the old posts/archives on this one . harmanns Dora book is a tech book and would possibly fill you in on those specs you seem to need.

remember research is fun research is fun, and yes exhausting, there are members here including myself that are not getting paid to hand out information on a string, we have worked hard acquired much and spent thousands of dollars, Marks and Euros to acquire what we now have in our databases.

the thread has run it's course and needs to be terminated into the archiv files


----------



## thor (Sep 16, 2009)

yes i have and i have not seen any data that supports his statement, so i asked to see it. i have seen the "tests" and if you look at the whole document you will see the statements that address they types and conditions of the aircraft being tested and those statements usually exclude them as good sources for discussions like the one we are having here. if he has a better source i would very much like to see it. without the properly done comparisons we need to look at the aerodynamic data and that is so close in the factors that determine turn abilities that i see no reason to conclude that one plane had a significant advantage in flat turn over the other. however the roll rate would not only be an advantage in itself but it would also significantly give the FW an advantage in "effective" turn rate and even more in reverse turn rates both of which are usually far more important in the outcome of a well flown dogfight than sustained turn rate would be. again giving the advantage even more to the FW ... 



drgondog said:


> Thor - while your request is reasonable, this isn't my day job and I'm simply going to ask you to 'look around'
> 
> As to the 'tired old propaganda', they usually are the ONLY comparisons available.. Nobody ever seems to be able to get to the Rechlin tests in which they test their good birds against our 'tired ones' so we can't even debate an opposing point of view..
> 
> ...





Erich said:


> thor take some time and go research other Ww 2 crate sites including the old posts/archives on this one . harmanns Dora book is a tech book and would possibly fill you in on those specs you seem to need.
> 
> remember research is fun research is fun, and yes exhausting, there are members here including myself that are not getting paid to hand out information on a string, we have worked hard acquired much and spent thousands of dollars, Marks and Euros to acquire what we now have in our databases.
> 
> the thread has run it's course and needs to be terminated into the archiv files


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2009)

thor said:


> i agree. the only performance category that stands out is the roll rate i have previously noted.
> 
> re-the altitude "all else being =" precludes the fight starting with either pilot having a safe gun solution or any other situational advantage on the other. in that case the ensuing "dogfight" will most likely use up a lot of energy as they each maneuver for that gun solution which means that the altitude will very probably decrease making the fight conclusion likely to be determined at a much lower altitude than the thin air where the fight started.
> 
> ...



Start with ALL ELSE not equal when comparing Cd0 for the two ships, then flail as you will to develop free body diagrams to work toward Energy available, and Energy Manuever diagrams (shades of Boyd) for both if you wish to go there. I will join you with reluctance as time permits.

As noted in the above dialogue between Kurfurst and me on Lednicer's VS Aero report comparing models of P-51B/D and Spit IX and Fw 190D the 51 Cdo (both versions is appreciably below the 190D and well below the Spit. I may have sent it to Paul to insert in the P-51 section. If not I will dig it up and send to him.


----------



## thor (Sep 16, 2009)

hard maneuvers result in loss of altitude, even today where the thrust to weight ratios are somewhat better than in 1944 ...

everyone seems to agree these planes are closely matched i see no reason to assume a swift conclusion in any well flown dogfight. 




drgondog said:


> Start with ALL ELSE not equal when comparing Cd0 for the two ships, then flail as you will to develop free body diagrams to work toward Energy available, and Energy Manuever diagrams (shades of Boyd) for both if you wish to go there. I will join you with reluctance as time permits.
> 
> As noted in the above dialogue between Kurfurst and me on Lednicer's VS Aero report comparing models of P-51B/D and Spit IX and Fw 190D the 51 Cdo (both versions is appreciably below the 190D and well below the Spit. I may have sent it to Paul to insert in the P-51 section. If not I will dig it up and send to him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I think that at equivalent loads, the P-51B, D, both with 150 octane fuel, and the Fw-190D-9 were pretty well within the probablility of error, manufacturing tolerance, and maintenance variables, of performance up to 20K. That is, if one were to randomly select one each these aircraft off active flight line in WWII, there was no way to predict which one would outperform the other. Above 20k, the Fw-190D-9 starts to run out of air and has a disadvantage to the P-51s.



+1


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2009)

thor said:


> hard maneuvers result in loss of altitude, even today where the thrust to weight ratios are somewhat better than in 1944 ...
> 
> everyone seems to agree these planes are closely matched i see no reason to assume a swift conclusion in any well flown dogfight.



Good - I think every person contributing to this "what if" pretty much said "its all about pilot skill and tactical situation. Welcome to reasoned debate


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2009)

thank God now lets talk about first person accts, of Dora/Mustang combat instead of silly graphs which mean nothing in the long run

yeah it's my humble opinion


----------



## thor (Sep 16, 2009)

i guess i was not clear ...

i think it is close and could go either way however i still give an edge to the 190-D because of the roll rate advantage.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2009)

Since P-51D could do anything Fw-190D(-9), and do it half a continent away, P-51D is a clear winner to me.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 18, 2009)

Erich said:


> *thank God now lets talk about first person accts, of Dora/Mustang combat instead of silly graphs which mean nothing in the long run*
> yeah it's my humble opinion




A voice of reason speaks. +1 Erich.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 18, 2009)

thor said:


> i guess i was not clear ...
> 
> i think it is close and could go either way however i still give an edge to the 190-D because of the roll rate advantage.



whatever floats your boat is fine.

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials

Excellent performance testing results with full range of weight, boost and rpm settings, with and without ETC racks, etc. Translation of German tests, and links posted to German language 'originals' at bottom.

If you don't like these or believe they are 'same old thing with worn out birds' - post your own.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf 

Possibly a worn out bird and definitely rigging problems. Pay attention to e. Handling and Control at Various Speeds and h. Manueverability and Aerobatics. This report was written after 6 hours of at best casual testing but interestingly it dovetails to my fathers own (anecdotal) experience with the Fw190D-9 he flew at Gablingen with several other P-51 aces of the 355th FG post war. IIRC he 25 hours in the D-9 between July and October

Next
anecdotal impressions of III/JG54 during December. I repeat - Anecdotal - not proof points!

"Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9’s operational debut in his The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945 (pages 388 – 399): 

17 December: The Second Gruppe pilots returned to the front and their new base at Nördhorn-Clausheide in seventy-four Fw 190D-9s, their numbers bolstered by twenty brand-new pilots. The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new model was intended to correct the Fw 190’s most glaring weakness, its poor high altitude performance. What came out of Kurt Tank’s shop was a compromise. Tank did not like the liquid-cooled Jumo 213A engine, but it was the best choice available. The long in-line engine had to be balanced by a lengthened rear fuselage to maintain the proper center of gravity, making the Fw 190D four feet longer than the Fw 190A. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. It was a bit faster, however, with a maximum speed of 680 km/h (422 mph) at 6600 meters (21,650 feet).Its 2240 horespower with methanol-water injection (MW 50) gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A, and so proved well suited to the dive-and-zoom ambush tactics favored by the Schlageter pilots. Many of the early models were not equipped with tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. At low altitude, the top speed and acceleration of these examples were inferior to those of Allied fighters. Hans Hartigs recalled that only one of the first batch of Dora-9s received by the First Gruppe had methanol-water injection, and the rest had a top speed of only 590 km/h (360 mph). 

18 December: The First Gruppe reported a strength of 52 190As and 28 Fw 190 D-9’s… The Second Gruppe flew its first mission in its Dora-9s, but failed to contact the enemy. 

23 December: The Second Gruppe flew its first Fw 190D-9 mission. 

24 December: The first combat mission for the new Fw 190 D-9s of the First Gruppe was an attempted interception of the heavy bombers. 

25 December: The First Gruppe reported in the morning that only nine of its Focke-Wulfs were serviceable. The Stab and the 2nd and 3rd Staffeln were taken off operations to train in the Fw 190 D-9. 

III/JG 54 returned to the combat zone, still led by Hptm. Robert Weiss, a member of JG 26 back in the glory day on the Kanalfront. […] The unit had been built up to its full strength of sixty-eight FW 190D-9s. 

26 December: The biggest news the returning pilots had for their comrades was the Mustang’s superiority in speed and acceleration to their Dora 9s. "

P-51 Mustang Performance

Note 51D performance comparisons with 150 octane fuel (available in quantity after June 1944) - just a little off the P-51B-15 - both greater than 440mph at 22K+ and all versions greater than 420mp from 7K up.

Anecdotal discussion say 190D-9 roll rate less than Fw 190A, Test comparisons say slower than 51D (when each compared equivalently with respect to racks, internal fuel and ammo max load =even when 2.02 ata given but noted that 2.02 ata may neverhave been achieved in combat, one with MW50 the other with 150 octane and 75" boost)

These are SOME of the easy things you could have found with a casual search of this forum..

Now - So your thesis is the 190D-9 had superior roll performance? 

Prove it.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Sep 19, 2009)

Caldwell's book is very suspicious, his opinion on th D-9 goes completely against that of the pilots who actually flew the a/c, including the results of a direct comparison done at Rechlin.

The conclusion at Rechlin was that the Dora-9 was found to turn climb much better than the Anton, and straight line speed was higher as-well. Roll rate was the same. And this is supported by veteran accounts as-well as basic physics.

Caldwell is the ONLY person to claim that the Dora turned worse than the Anton, real life pilots vets plus aerodynamic evidence all make it abundantly clear that the Dora turned better than the Anton.

Also let us please not use Mike Williams site as reference for performance on German a/c, he is a very selective person. I've got plenty of documents which prove a top SL speed of 615 km/h and high alt speed of 702 km/h with use of MW50. His translations of the some of the documents are also dubious.


----------



## Soren (Sep 19, 2009)

That having been said, based on the evidence available my opinion is that the FW190 Dora-9 was superior to the P-51D from SL and up to around 15,000 ft and equal up to 20,000 ft. Higher than 20,000 ft and the P-51D takes the lead, and important to note is the fact that the bombers usually flew at a height well over 20,000 ft.

The Dora-9 additionally had the advantage of a 10 min safe boost window, where'as the Mustang could onl run on WEP for a max of 5 min.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 19, 2009)

Is it me or is there just a touch of deja vu here? I'm sure I've read all this stuff before....


----------



## Soren (Sep 19, 2009)

You have, cause this discussion has been had many times before.

Let's just agree that these two a/c were close matches.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Caldwell's book is very suspicious, his opinion on th D-9 goes completely against that of the pilots who actually flew the a/c, including the results of a direct comparison done at Rechlin.
> 
> The conclusion at Rechlin was that the Dora-9 was found to turn climb much better than the Anton, and straight line speed was higher as-well. Roll rate was the same. And this is supported by veteran accounts as-well as basic physics.
> 
> ...



Soren - first, last and alwaays there are no written conclusions ever presented as "Rechlin conclusion". Nobody, including you has ever presented any such document on this forum at least.

Second, the 190D-9 was heavier, longer than the Anton - but same wing.. Why would we conclude that it had a better roll or turn rate. Physics has left the building.

Caldwell presents his 'mixed reviews' via personal interviews, according to JG26 War Diary Volume Two. The Interviewees included (pg 555 Chapter 7 Defense of the German Border) Crump, Glunz, Hartig, Krupinski, Gerkhe, Ossencamp, Polster, Stumpf, Schmidt plus others... so he wasn't conveying his (Caldwell's) personal opinion, and all by fighter pilots with the Most Fw 190D experience?.

Next, it would be hard to find a shred of evidence that Caldwell is an apologist for 8th AF at expense of LW.

As to Mike Williams - the LW Fw 190D test reports for climb and speed are ALL LW Rechlin reports with no opinion based observations, but their are zero comparative tests anywhere. 

So back to our eternal battleground.

Sources to demonstrate any and all claims of an Fw 190D-9 being tested faster than the tested speeds of the 51B and D w/150 octane fuel, roll rates and/or turn same or better than Fw 190A7-9?


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 19, 2009)

drgondog said:


> So back to our eternal battleground.



Ad Nauseum by the look of it.

Virtually all of this thread is subjective circular argument, based on documents which can be interpreted in any way the poster sees fit to suit his premise.

If Priller returns from the grave, joins this forum and gives his opinion on the Fw 190 D I'd be prepared to listen. Until then this thread should be consigned to oblivion.


----------



## thor (Sep 19, 2009)

i already posted the roll rate comparison chart you show me where the pony did anything 30-100% better than the dora that mattered in a dogfight at dogfight speeds. 

oh and to dispute the chart, *you* prove the dora rolled significantly worse or the anton, or that the pony d rolled significantly better than the pony b. 

otherwise like i have said i am going with the fighter with the edge "all else being ="



drgondog said:


> whatever floats your boat is fine.
> 
> FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill,

Physics hasn't left the building at all, come on now. You know as well as I that turn performance is a function of power available to power required. Thrust is just as important to turn performance as is lift, and the Dora featured A LOT more thrust than the Anton. (I can show you the FW AG prop efficiency charts again if you wish?) And the weight was again the same, 4270 kg for the D-9 and 4300 kg for the A-8. So as you can see physics fully supports the fact that the Dora-9 was a better turn fighter than the Anton.

As for Caldwell, sorry but I just don't trust his claim that what he wrote on this matter is from any interview, esp. when direct quotes from pilots who actually flew the plane are in total contradiction with what he writes in his book. Caldwell is an oddball in my opinion and I don't take his work very seriously.

As for Mike Williams he relies on tests done with aircraft which had recieved an underperforming batch of engines and he also mistranslates the charts, I have the charts in their entirety and he leaves out valuable input.

As for my sources on the Dora's performance, I've posted it on here before many times with plenty of documents and the like. In Dietmars book are quotes from LW squadrons opinion on the Dora vs the Anton, and the entire squadron feels that the Dora is a big improvement over the Anton in terms of turn performance, climb rate and all out speed.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> Ad Nauseum by the look of it.
> 
> Virtually all of this thread is subjective circular argument, based on documents which can be interpreted in any way the poster sees fit to suit his premise.
> 
> If Priller returns from the grave, joins this forum and gives his opinion on the Fw 190 D I'd be prepared to listen. Until then this thread should be consigned to oblivion.



That IS the problem with the anecdotal references... and most of them are obviously survivors.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2009)

thor said:


> i already posted the roll rate comparison chart you show me where the pony did anything 30-100% better than the dora that mattered in a dogfight at dogfight speeds.
> 
> *Show me a quote from me where I said any such thing..
> 
> ...



You can 'go anywhere you wish' but you can't prove "all else being =' .. you need to start there?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Physics hasn't left the building at all, come on now. You know as well as I that turn performance is a function of power available to power required. Thrust is just as important to turn performance as is lift, and the Dora featured A LOT more thrust than the Anton. (I can show you the FW AG prop efficiency charts again if you wish?) And the weight was again the same, 4270 kg for the D-9 and 4300 kg for the A-8. So as you can see physics fully supports the fact that the Dora-9 was a better turn fighter than the Anton.
> 
> ...



Soren, Dietmar Hermann is a fairly well respected researcher of the 190D as you noted above. You seem to respect his opinion. The performance charts on the Fw 190D's are his (Dietmar's) translations and the German versions are posted in the link below the sequence of flight tests. 

*In other words they are tests perfromed by Germans on brand new Fw 190D's, translated by the same author you cite as an expert.*.

What other performance data do you have in hand - other than speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude to refute opinions of both quoted JG 26 pilots and the USAAF flight test personnel regarding Fw 190D vs 190A roll rates?


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> That IS the problem with the anecdotal references... and most of them are obviously survivors.



I concur Bill, I've seen your posts on other forums and have been impressed by their depth and impartiality. The problem remains that any opinion stated in this thread is completely subjective, no one commenting here (to my knowledge) has flown a P 51, let alone a Fw 190 D. I'm not saying we don't have a few pilots among us, but even so any comment for or against would still be conjecture.

It would be the equivalent of me saying Ferrari make better cars than Maserati because, I know, I drive a Fiat.

I certainly agree with your comments vis-a-vis Dietmar Hermann, a respected researcher indeed.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> I concur Bill, I've seen your posts on other forums and have been impressed by their depth and impartiality. The problem remains that any opinion stated in this thread is completely subjective, no one commenting here (to my knowledge) has flown a P 51, let alone a Fw 190 D. I'm not saying we don't have a few pilots among us, but even so any comment for or against would still be conjecture.
> 
> It would be the equivalent of me saying Ferrari make better cars than Maserati because, I know, I drive a Fiat.
> 
> I certainly agree with your comments vis-a-vis Dietmar Hermann, a respected researcher indeed.



Actually I have 56+ hours solo in a 51D but have no reference to flying one in combat or even a rat race. My opinions (anecdotal) about the Mustang would be handling characteristics.

My father's recollection of his 190D and 109 time post war were anecdotal and his rat races were with 51 aces from the 355th post war. One has no frame of reference to engine, rigging, fuel, etc for the 190D and he is no longer available for consultation.

It is interesting to contemplate that perhaps ONLY Rechlin was in a position to compare against the 51D and B against LW types - but the condition of their captured birds would be equally suspect and they had no access to 150 octane fuel - and no one has produced any test data of any kind for 'stated opionions' of such flights at Rechlin. ALL tests in hand are post WWII Allied tests.


----------



## renrich (Sep 20, 2009)

. I have followed thse arguments for years on this site and not being an engineer I am not qualified to say much about either aircraft. If anyone is qualified to talk about the Mustang on this forum, it is Bill. For the life of me, when talking about about best aircraft, I don't understand why more emphasis is not placed on the Mustang's range superiority over the FW.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Actually I have 56+ hours solo in a 51D but have no reference to flying one in combat or even a rat race. My opinions (anecdotal) about the Mustang would be handling characteristics.
> 
> My father's recollection of his 190D and 109 time post war were anecdotal and his rat races were with 51 aces from the 355th post war. One has no frame of reference to engine, rigging, fuel, etc for the 190D and he is no longer available for consultation.
> 
> It is interesting to contemplate that perhaps ONLY Rechlin was in a position to compare against the 51D and B against LW types - but the condition of their captured birds would be equally suspect and they had no access to 150 octane fuel - and no one has produced any test data of any kind for 'stated opionions' of such flights at Rechlin. ALL tests in hand are post WWII Allied tests.




Nice one Bill. It would be good to find one or more combats between P51's and Fw 190 D's on roughly numerical terms as a historical precedent.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> rate of turn and the radius of the turn is a function of drag, wing loading, and speed



- and thrust. 

A high amount of thrust will allow an a/c to simply power through its' turn. But to get back to the Dora again, like you said yourself drag is an important factor here as-well, and the Dora is also A LOT less draggy than the Anton. So now you've got two physical reasons why the Dora clearly turns better than the Anton.

To put it simply: Considering that the Dora weighed the same as the Anton but at the same time featured a lot more thrust and a lot less drag, then the original squadron opinions posted in Hermann's book, about the Dora being a clear improvement over the Anton in terms of turn performance, climb rate and speed, are fully and clearly justified. The pilots say that the Dora turns better than the Anton and so does physics. 

Crumpp actually also did a very nice little comparison between the Dora and Anton on this forum with charts and all, and the Dora performed a lot better in turn rate and minimum turn radius than the Anton.

At any rate I am more than willing to cooperate in making an accurate aerodynamic comparison between the two a/c, I've got all the FW aerodynamic property figures so I could hand them over to you and you could make an analytical comparison between the two a/c out from these figures ? I am certain you'll come to exactly the same conclusion as me though.



> *In other words they are tests perfromed by Germans on brand new Fw 190D's, translated by the same author you cite as an expert.*.



And Dietmar also makes it clear that these examples suffered from malfunctioning engines not performing as they should, which was also clearly demonstrated in another series of tests done at Rechlin with a different batch of engines which improved performance a lot. 



> What other performance data do you have in hand - other than speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude to refute opinions of both quoted JG 26 pilots and the USAAF flight test personnel regarding Fw 190D vs 190A roll rates?



I've got the FW AG performance data which hasn't once been proven inaccurate yet, they are infact usually extremely conservative as Gene (Crumpp) has pointed out many times before.

Also I never said that the roll rate was better, why would it be ? The wing is the same on both a/c so. The opinion of pilots was also that it was the same or maybe slightly worse in the Dora because of the extra torque of the engine.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> Nice one Bill. It would be good to find one or more combats between P51's and Fw 190 D's on roughly numerical terms as a historical precedent.



The Jan 14 battles One between JG26 and 78FG near Koblenz was essentially a 'one to one' in terms of fighters that engaged with each other - in ~ squadron level combat. On the same day the 355th had one short squadron (12 a/c) engage from west of Dummer lake and s of Meppen just north of this fight.

IIRC the clash with JG26 was all 190D's with 11 shot down for loss of 1 Mustang. 

The 355th engaged with a mixed bag of ~15 aircraft and were awarded (3) 109G, (7) Fw 190D and(1) Fw 190A-8 or 9. The latter could also have been a 'long nosed 190" . The 355th shot down 11 for no losses. The top scorer for the 355th was Mills with three downed with a P-51B. Graham and Beeler each got two 190D's.

The biggest battle IIRC was between JG300 and 357FG around Belin on the same day. Erich could tell you how many of the total losses were 190D's. The final award total was 57 for the loss of 3 Mustangs.

Point is, at that time, perhaps only JG 26 had any real time in combat with the 190D's and the pilot skills were diminished. All good examples of numerical relevance but not skills equality.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> - and thrust.
> 
> *Thrust was given for the first set - namely excess power, but yes thrust is crucial as well as drag at all points in the model*
> 
> ...



*If you slip back a couple of years you might be able to post Gene's plots. I think I am right about max sustainable G plot versus high and low speeds. I have his spread sheet and know he uses only one value fo Thrust (SL) and one value for Cd0 (calculated from top speed)*


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 20, 2009)

IMHO the only way to ever truly answer this is to create a computer model of both planes, thus removing the age of parts and more importantly to ensure the skill of the pilots are equal.


----------



## thor (Sep 20, 2009)

all else being = ...

= level of pilot skill, experience, and experience in type = 1 vs. 1 = both planes in perfect order = no advantage in altitude, position, or energy at the merge = fuel loads loads (split the difference between percentage and gallons i guess to be fair) or whatever you choose as long as it is = . 

as far as the chart goes, there is the NACA evaluation of similar types. you can try and evade the obvious correlations to the types being discussed and the types charted but that would be evasive as there is no reason to believe that the relative abilities changed very much.

combat speeds in IAS are as you stated between 200 and 300 knots, we are talking a dogfight here as "close match-up" causes us to conclude if you want to put forward the idea that these two aircraft are going to be engaged for long and still be above 400kts what ever is going on probably is not looking much like a "dogfight" or it is rapidly descending.

point being that yes anything could happen to off set a balanced situation. however the 190 is the only one with an undisputed advantage over the other aircraft. ergo imo it is the obvious choice ...

"all else being =" 

p.s. for those who were paying attention i brought up range in my first post.





drgondog said:


> You can 'go anywhere you wish' but you can't prove "all else being =' .. you need to start there?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2009)

thor said:


> all else being = ...
> 
> = level of pilot skill, experience, and experience in type = 1 vs. 1 = both planes in perfect order = no advantage in altitude, position, or energy at the merge = fuel loads loads (split the difference between percentage and gallons i guess to be fair) or whatever you choose as long as it is = .
> 
> ...



And your point is?


----------



## thor (Sep 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> And your point is?



why do you reply in other peoples quotes ??? very annoying ...

what didn't you understand about "at the merge ???"

the naca roll rate chart i posted pages ago, you know the one you keep avoiding commenting on ...

what is the roll rate advantage in that chart at 350kts 30% ??? 
(pretty fast for a 20k dogfight btw )

any idea how much many degrees that kind of advantage would translate to in say a scissor ???

what is that a reversal in 3 or 4 turns ???


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

thor said:


> why do you reply in other peoples quotes ??? very annoying ...
> 
> *So Solly. It is easier for me to comment directly to your specific statement.
> 
> ...



Yes. 

So, you feel comfortable using a chart from NACA delineating roll rates of different WWII fighters with 50 pound stick forces, but you haven't commented on the various Fw 190D charts Ditemar translated for Mike Williams on the same website? Or compared them to the USAAF and RAF Test reports on 51B-D?

In the *comparative regions *where the Fw 190D may have been slightly faster or climbed slightly faster how much is 2-5Kts/hr top speed, or 100-200 fpm? Ditto the Mustang advantages at altitude? 

As an aside, the 109G had significantly better climb rates than either the 51 or the 190 and it was shot down in greater numbers than the 190A (approximately 1.5X over 190). According to Soren, referencing Rechlin test data the 109G also out turned the Fw 190. We haven't seen the documents yet but willing to hold that thought as there is no written evidence yet that the 109 out turned the 51B-D, particularly at high medium to high speeds.

Let's summarize. 
a.) Zero points on the speed and climb charts where the Fw 190D has a significant advantage in a knife fight until the speed range is below 300kts - AND THAT ONLY IF THE JG Pilots reports to Caldwell are incorrect (remember they said that they were disappointed in Fw 190D roll and turn compared to Fw 190A). There are multiple points where the 51 has an advantage at bomber altitudes.

Having said that I believe that while the roll advantage of the D may be less than the A over the Mustang, that it should still outroll the 51 at low medium to high medium speeds.

b.) the 190D in the real world had significant operational problems due to fuel shortages, shortage of MW50 kits and lower boost capability, than presented or implied in the tests that were published and explained by Dietmar.

c.) there is anecdotal evidence that the 190D had a slower roll rate and turn rate than the Anton. There is no corresponding anecdotal evidence (presented here - yet) that this is not true. The sources for those comments are JG 26 War Diary, the USAAF flight test post war and, indirectly, whisky talk among four 355th FG aces that flew the damn thing against each other post war Gablingen. (Elder, Fortier, Hovde and Marshall) 

Discount the last (c.) - but trot out your written sources to refute. Otherwise we might suspect you are being 'emotional'.

d.) last but most important. For the mission the Fw 190D had, namely be a Mustang killer - it first had to accomplish that role at altitudes where Mustangs were found - namely 20-30,000 feet. For the 'mythical all else being =' it is presumed that both see each other at the same altitude and have time to throttle to max boost. At that level the 51 will enter the knifefight with more energy and in a ship with the lowest drag of the two, pretty equal wing loading, higher rate of climb and a superior roll rate. Usually one of those will work for you, two will work (all else being=). 

IF the Mustang had a better turn rate, which is reasonable based on comparisons with Fw 190A, it is not a good situation for the 190D driver - but that is not a fact entered into evidence. Soren is correct that the 190D with a fully functioning engine at max boost probably has better acceleration (than a 51D at 75"/3000 rpm) from a lower speed. What is not clear is whether the thrust available to drag forces, when comparing the two ships, is significant enough to make any difference

The superirority (Mustang) at 20K+) might denigrate if the fight stays in the horizontal, depending on the real facts regarding turn performance. The dependencies will be if the Mustang slows down to reef it in for a deflection shot and the 190is able to out roll and reverse . 

Last point as I have reached a state of total boredom on this subject.

A performance model to generate some reasonable metrics requires reliable drag polars for both ships and assuming that THEY are NOT proportionately affected in asymmetric flight loading for turning manuever.

You got some? 

Otherwise revel in your opinion and experience true glee that you have forcefully stated it.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Point is, at that time, perhaps only JG 26 had any real time in combat with the 190D's and the pilot skills were diminished. All good examples of numerical relevance but not skills equality.



Indeed. Factoring in pilot skill and combat experience is difficult, numerical equality being only part of the equation. I wonder if with a little research (or possibly a lot) we could find a clash between two pilots of roughly the same experience? Albeit that one incident on its own proves little, it would be an interesting exercise nonetheless.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> Indeed. Factoring in pilot skill and combat experience is difficult, numerical equality being only part of the equation. I wonder if with a little research (or possibly a lot) we could find a clash between two pilots of roughly the same experience? Albeit that one incident on its own proves little, it would be an interesting exercise nonetheless.



My opinion is that given equal pilot skill - the one that enters the fray with a tactical advantage is gonna win most of the time. The over riding issues in this dialogue are multifold. Luftwaffe skills had eroded greatly and even the experten were confronted not only with a lot more opponents with close to same skills or equal, but the experienced LW pilots were often trying to protect a wingman in harms way. Additionally the fuel situation wire dire, the winter weather often forced the 109D pilots to take off and climb through heavy cloud cover and weather to attempt to reach combat altitudes.

In other words - a lot of tactical, built in, disadvantages, at that time in the war.

Simply stated it was a great airplane but not a difference maker for the P-51B or D other than bringing it to parity.

In all fairness the P-51H could have started deployment in late March and is more of a generational comparison to the 190D, than the 190D to 51D, which didn't enter combat ops until the 51D was fighting for 6 months... and arguably the P-51B was a more dangerous opponent, and entered combat ops a full year earlier.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 21, 2009)

^^

A logical and reasoned deduction. I would certainly agree to the points made.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2009)

when time permits I will include a rather small portion of ii>/JG 301's pilots thoughts on the Dora. in a word they loved the machine though were shot up pretty badly by the 8th AF Mustangs.

for Bills posting above JG 300 on 14 January had NO Doras on their roster they were using A-8's and A-9's and though successful in ripping a bomber formation apart were creamed in the insuing battle with the P-51's.
now I must include though; 4 kills for the Jg only and it was slaughtered in part due when it was reaching for B-17 pulks it was still climbing for altitude when hit from all directions from P-51's which already had the height advantage. Geschwader stab had some Doras on hand, and Black 2 from the Stab was hit and shot down by a P-51.

6th staffel lost 4 Doras as the other staffeln of II. gruppe had not become fully equipped whether in part or in whole of the Dora quite yet. 6th staffel by the way was the first staffel in JG 301 to become soley equipped in December 44 at it's end.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 21, 2009)

Thanks for the clarification Erich.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Erich said:


> when time permits I will include a rather small portion of ii>/JG 301's pilots thoughts on the Dora. in a word they loved the machine though were shot up pretty badly by the 8th AF Mustangs.
> 
> for Bills posting above JG 300 on 14 January had NO Doras on their roster they were using A-8's and A-9's and though successful in ripping a bomber formation apart were creamed in the insuing battle with the P-51's.
> now I must include though; 4 kills for the Jg only and it was slaughtered in part due when it was reaching for B-17 pulks it was still climbing for altitude when hit from all directions from P-51's which already had the height advantage. Geschwader stab had some Doras on hand, and Black 2 from the Stab was hit and shot down by a P-51.
> ...



Good catch Erich - I wasn't sure whether JG 300 had D9's in that fight or not, but was pretty sure you could comment correctly.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2009)

just a short teaser but when 6./JG 301 handed over it's A-9's and given the Dora it was noted that their presence gave the pilots a bit more confidence in the higher ranges to engage the P-=51D, the pilots were more confident even if losing in greater numbers in the skies over Germany, the performance was greater than the Anton and sadly it does not mention quickness in flat but does say the climbing was superior to the A variants on hand, dive was equal but usually with the Mustang and if the LW pilot was not an experienced old hand (very few left), he was most probably going to lose in an air battle with escorts. it was found that the Doras indeed were ordered up nearly a 1000 feet higher than the heavy III. gruppe equipped with the Fw 190A-8 and R2 versions for seeking out the bombers.

There must be made mention of the fact that only 6th staffel was first equipped at December 44's end right through the month of January and finally near February 45's middle that the two other stafafles the 5th and 7th were partially equipped. 8th staffle never received the Dora and of course the question beckons .........why not ? have not received that info.............yet.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Erich said:


> just a short teaser but when 6./JG 301 handed over it's A-9's and given the Dora it was noted that their presence gave the pilots a bit more confidence in the higher ranges to engage the P-=51D, the pilots were more confident even if losing in greater numbers in the skies over Germany, the performance was greater than the Anton and sadly it does not mention quickness in flat but does say the climbing was superior to the A variants on hand, dive was equal but usually with the Mustang and if the LW pilot was not an experienced old hand (very few left), he was most probably going to lose in an air battle with escorts. it was found that the Doras indeed were ordered up nearly a 1000 feet higher than the heavy III. gruppe equipped with the Fw 190A-8 and R2 versions for seeking out the bombers.
> 
> There must be made mention of the fact that only 6th staffel was first equipped at December 44's end right through the month of January and finally near February 45's middle that the two other stafafles the 5th and 7th were partially equipped. 8th staffle never received the Dora and of course the question beckons .........why not ? have not received that info.............yet.



One could speculate that the 262 had overwhelming weighted priority and also specualte that the Ta 152 was competeing for resources at Focke Wulf plants.

From a first hand anecdotal perspective it is pretty clear that Bill Lyons did indeed shoot down a 190D in his last battle, thinking it was a "109 (in line engine) with inboard wing cannons). 

We can't know for sure but we do know it wasn't a 109. He was impressed with it. His initial advantage was turning inside to shoot at it (firing at his wingman) then catching it in a dive when it rolled and split ess after lyons got his advantage. Simply the a/c were too closely matched for a dive to work when that close to each other. 

It was not an 'equal opportunity' fight in that the 190D was faster intially diving on his wingman, and slowed to get a good firing position, giving Lyons time to spool up and turn inside.. so can't learn anything from this.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2009)

Bill what was the date again of Lyons victory and in what area please, my stuff is buried.

the Ta was suppose to go back and re-equip all of III./JG 301 obviously it did not happen as well as Geschwader stab. I would not doubt and of course it is unknown due to time restrictions but all of JG 301 most likely would have had the TA on hand, then we could of compared performance records, surely the Anton would of been phased out with the Dora as well and Iv. th gruppe with the Bf 109G-10 would of been no more though it was blanked on on 2 march 45 and enver regained its self so was not even a help for the poor Jg in the closing weeks of thewar.


----------



## thor (Sep 21, 2009)

i did read the chart actually but i did miss reviewing things when you you changing the speeds i stated 200-300kts to 350 kts the relationship does change. however i am as you may have guessed that a dogfight would sustain altitude and 350kts or be quick in conclusion with two expert pilots in their aircraft. 

as the fight gets slower and lower the advantage switches to the 190 ...

(yes an assumption but no more of one where you express an advantage for the mustang at the initial merge as your statements assume and your historic fights were)

i am taking this as a plane vs. plane as the original poster intended. you have throughout this discussion refused to discuss this on those terms.

plane vs. plane you have done little to convince me. 

however i must agree that the actual historic circumstances are very much in the p51s favor, but that is not the topic is it ?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Erich said:


> Bill what was the date again of Lyons victory and in what area please, my stuff is buried.
> 
> the Ta was suppose to go back and re-equip all of III./JG 301 obviously it did not happen as well as Geschwader stab. I would not doubt and of course it is unknown due to time restrictions but all of JG 301 most likely would have had the TA on hand, then we could of compared performance records, surely the Anton would of been phased out with the Dora as well and Iv. th gruppe with the Bf 109G-10 would of been no more though it was blanked on on 2 march 45 and enver regained its self so was not even a help for the poor Jg in the closing weeks of thewar.




Lyons and Ludeke each were awarded 190D's (1 each) on 9 Feb 1945 near Grieben /Stendahl area ..I think you tentatively thought JG 300 or 301.

Hard to know if the Anton would have been phased out or not as a lot were on hand until the great strafing attacks in April... and heavier armament making Jabo missions potentially more effective. Seems the logical first replacement by Ta 152 (and D-9's) as you suggested would be all 109G-10's 

The deployment issue for the Ta 152 could have been pilot/ground crew training as well as a reasonable stream of spares. IIRC the production 190D-9 first arrived in late October to JG 26 but didn't go operational until late November/early December? And even then not all were equipped with MW50?

Had the war looked like it was going to last months longer, squadron level deployment of 51H's conceivably could have been started in ETO in early April/May, but the more interesting Ta 152 adversary in May/June would have been the P-80... at least one full group could have possibly been formed if they were deemed 'needed'. 

In May/June/July the fighter-fighter battles of most interest would have been P-80/Meteor/Me 262/He 162?


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2009)

guess we will never know about that post may 45 outcome Bill, yes the P-80 vs the Me 262 with longer range fuel cells already being worked on. JG 300 was to be fully equipped had the war ranged longer and for what though they did not have to go far to meet us escorts whether the future P-51H or the P-80. can't even consider the meteor or the He 162 which was a dismal failure in it's own right. the TA would of been high protection for the Me 262 units, would of made air combat interesting, we can only imagine it's high alt performance which would of been great but only operating at medium to low ranges it even excelled in this reagrd, now I am not saying this was a gift-all for the Lw but it appears it was much better than the Anton and Dora at all alt.'s, but heck as we have said over a hundred times on the forums no-one will ever know.

what did occur operationally is that the Soviets had nothing they could put up with the Dora it outdid everything it battled against in the Soviet arsenal in 45. must do another mention of the very short term and suicidal dive bomber ops by II./JG 301 on the Ost front with their Doras , the crate were shot down too many times by Soviet AA proving the futility in using a higher alt a/c for something it was never intended for.......

2 Fw A-9's and 1 Dora from 6./JG 301, red 5 were lost on the 9th. Jg 300 and 301 were quite active this date, many of the op records of JG 301 have been lost to ? causes, some things were just not recorded. The Dora 9 was lost over Grieben Bill and in fact the pilot survived and actually made a forced landing in his smashed up crate, the pilot wounded. I have a pic of his mount.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

thor said:


> i did read the chart actually but i did miss reviewing things when you you changing the speeds i stated 200-300kts to 350 kts the relationship does change. however i am as you may have guessed that a dogfight would sustain altitude and 350kts or be quick in conclusion with two expert pilots in their aircraft.
> 
> *I didn't 'change speeds' on you. I simply rejected your assumption that a high percentage of such fights would start at that speed and go down to even lower speeds. Most Mustang pilots had a reasonable sense of 'good' vs 'bad' performance envelopes. If you are a pilot you know this. If you are an IL-2 game expert you may have to work harder to gain the insight.
> 
> ...



As I stated I am bored with the circles..

You can't (haven't) gather Fw 190D-9 performance statistics to refute the ones I cited. So far the 51D with 75"hg/150 Octane fuel seems to be as fast or faster from SL to Ceiling based on the published performance tests on new airplanes by Dietmar.

You overlooked the rolling performance issues I cited for the Anton at high speeds, haven't researched and produced either anecdotal or factual data regarding the 190D-9 rolling or turn performance vs either a Fw 190A or a Mustang. Opinions vary, facts scarce

You babble about your likely merge at 200-300kts when the likely merge for these two to even enter in combat is well above 20,000 feet where a shallow dive puts both into near compressibility speeds very quickly. Would you still consider 300kts as 'stretching it' for likely speed of intitial engagement - or suggest that the fight quickly below 250kts? If so, why?

Bored to Death...

Soren - where the hell are you?


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2009)

instead of the same B.S. graphs and staing things that never happened or what-if's........a huge one why not take the time and go research the operations of both sides and flying against one another. you might all be quite surprised what is already in print and will be soon enough.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Erich said:


> what did occur operationally is that the Soviets had nothing they could put up with the Dora it outdid everything it battled against in the Soviet arsenal in 45. must do another mention of the very short term and suicidal dive bomber ops by II./JG 301 on the Ost front with their Doras , the crate were shot down too many times by Soviet AA proving the futility in using a higher alt a/c for something it was never intended for.......
> 
> *Sounds like the Dora and the 51D had the same experience with Sov/NK flak. Thoroughbreds pulling beer wagons so to speak.*
> 
> 2 Fw A-9's and 1 Dora from 6./JG 301, red 5 were lost on the 9th. Jg 300 and 301 were quite active this date, many of the op records of JG 301 have been lost to ? causes, some things were just not recorded. The Dora 9 was lost over Grieben Bill and in fact the pilot survived and actually made a forced landing in his smashed up crate, the pilot wounded. I have a pic of his mount.



Erich - Iknow if you sent the pic to Lyons you would make his day. 

Ditto if i could put in new 355th FG/TFW/FW book but I'd settle for Tiger seeing it after 64 years!


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Erich said:


> instead of the same B.S. graphs and staing things that never happened or what-if's........a huge one why not take the time and go research the operations of both sides and flying against one another. you might all be quite surprised what is already in print and will be soon enough.



Erich - Good advice but always (mostly) subjective and written by survivors. 

Additionally IMHO, the track record of the D-9 is below potential simply becaiuse it rarely EVER had tactical equivalency against the 51 at that stage of the war - not situational equivalency or pilot skill equivalency. Few (to zero)Experten vs Ace starting at each other's 12.

As to the graphs and charts - only a handful of the forum contributors (maybe two hands) qualify with weights and config, fuel and boost which also creates a morass of bovine fecal matter streaming from the wikipedia clowns.

Looking forward to seeing your tome. I will definitely buy it. How are you doing health wise?

Maybe I will grace you with a draft of my epic work. Just about done and looking at either Schiffer, one UK firm, or self publishing. The issue is 100, 500 or 2000 photos?


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2009)

I'll dig it out again and try and post here for convenience and for the guys to ooogle over. you can then copy and past off to Bill so he can get a kick out of it. Whomever shot him down, the LW pilot made it through the war with 2 victories, do not see any though while flying the Dora.

yes graphics/schematics must be tempered with op reports, pics and first person accts the latter of course not always available. we get to carried away with using the net as prime focus in our discussion too many do not heed the use of written references except to point out faults....sad

Bill doing better still not settled with Dads accts but we are managing. Hey I just need to get off my fellow buttocks and drive the little car to your abode, will give fair warning to keep the hairy kids off of me as I approach your doorstep. would rather not be licked to death before I can even grace you homestead.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Erich said:


> I'll dig it out again and try and post here for convenience and for the guys to ooogle over. you can then copy and past off to Bill so he can get a kick out of it. Whomever shot him down, the LW pilot made it through the war with 2 victories, do not see any though while flying the Dora.
> 
> yes graphics/schematics must be tempered with op reports, pics and first person accts the latter of course not always available. we get to carried away with using the net as prime focus in our discussion too many do not heed the use of written references except to point out faults....sad
> 
> Bill doing better still not settled with Dads accts but we are managing. Hey I just need to get off my fellow buttocks and drive the little car to your abode, will give fair warning to keep the hairy kids off of me as I approach your doorstep. would rather not be licked to death before I can even grace you homestead.



Would you like another alternative to a lick attack? LoL.

when surrounded by them usually one will lean hard enough, begging for an ear massage, to just roll you up - then 'let the torture begin' with the new plaything on the deck!

Chicken strips are the usual toll fee.


----------



## 20317 (Sep 26, 2009)

just to throw my 2c into the fray, i always baulk at Best Fighter! comparisons as just so much staggeringly relevant variables come into play.

at a glance, i consider the following directly produce a result:

fuel consumption, in all scenarios including range, meaning time in and between combat. More is obviously better. Not too many fighter gliders out there.

climb rate at relevant altitudes. More is obviously better.

reversal of roll / change of direction. I understand this is vital to anything calling itself a fighter.

Width of flight envelope. No sense flying a razor blade thats completely blunt until you stumble on the bleeding edge that suddenly kills everything around it including you? Easy to fly means by sheer numbers youre going to have a fighter thats better in the hands of more people than margin dwellers.

Punch. How many of what its got means the fastest coup de grace.

Ease of maintenance. Intelligent build means quicker produced from less resources and more time between sorties.

Ive probably left a few out but generally thats the point. I hope this approach means each plane can be based on its merit not the thousands of mustangs vs the dozens of Fw somehow producing a valid result.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2009)

All this comparing is tiresome... Ive read countless reports from both sides concerning both crates.... 

Doras turned inside Mustangs, Mustangs turned inside Doras, Mustangs outdove Doras and Doras outdove Mustangs...

It doesnt really make a bit of difference how a plane can perform at optimum conditions but how it did in combat...

While sitting in the shitter last night reading out of the Dora-9 book, there are many accounts of combat, from both sides.... It all comes down to who had the upper hand at the intialization of combat....

This whole nonsense about going head to head at the same speed to see who wins is horseshit...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 26, 2009)

Head on head attacks is like playing chicken with planes! 

Could happen, but a lot of times it was the bounces that got a plane. 

I think in a head on head attack, I would be a bit scared of the FW 190's cannons. But if the pilot aimed the six fifties on the Mustang better than the pilot in the Dora aimed his cannons, he could still win.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 3, 2009)

pathchampion said:


> Which one was the best in airial combat?, one on one, don't care for the number ratio  personaly I'll vote for the Focke-Wulf



FW-190 was slow and unreliable, look at WWII Aircraft Performance


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 3, 2009)

why does everyone have such a high regard for german technology? you guys constantly compare the german prototypes to the allied airplaners in service, the spit, 51 and 47 (especially at high altitude) did much more than hold their own. I have read over and over about the TA-152H, check out WWII Aircraft Performance for actual side by side flight test comparing the airplanes in service, and read what wickapedia says:

Operational history
By fall 1944, the war was going badly for Germany, and the RLM pushed Focke-Wulf to quickly get the Ta 152 into production. As a result, several Ta 152 prototypes crashed early into the test program. It was found that critical systems were lacking sufficient quality control. Issues arose with superchargers, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system was unreliable at best due in part to unreliable oil temperature monitoring, and in several instances the landing gear failed to properly retract. A total of up to 20 pre-production Ta 152 H-0s were delivered from November 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 to service test the airplane. It was reported that test pilots were able to conduct a mere 31 hours of flight tests before full production started. By the end of January 1945, only 50 hours or so had been completed. The Ta 152 was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152C remained operational when Germany surrendered.[citation needed]

go here to read whole article: Focke-Wulf Ta 152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## renrich (Oct 3, 2009)

mike, very perceptive post. You just said, very well, what I have been thinking. Another point to be considered is that German or Japanese AC near the end of the war could be deployed almost directly from the manufacturer with all the expert ground support readily available. The US aircraft had to be shipped across the Atlantic or Pacific, assembled and then put into service with only a few manufacturer's reps available to help solve problems.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> FW-190 was slow and unreliable, look at WWII Aircraft Performance



Mike - you have to be a little careful when selecting one source for a blanket reference concering the 190D. It had gestation problems, but most were due to the early application of MW50.

By same token the 1946 USAAF Test of the P-51H was less than 100% because the 1650-9 engine delivered had some problems with Water Injection - but that wasn't true for 'all' P-51H series.

The post war Allied tests of LW weren't too particularly interested in testing to show 'superior' performance. The Me 262 may have been the exception to that rule, however.

My father flew the 190D-9 post war for about 25 hours at Gablingen but had to rely on a former LW crew chief's judgement and scrounged parts that the a/c was properly rigged and engine performing to spec. 

His judgment was that the 190D was an 'excellent' fighter and comparable to the Mustang...each of four different aces flew the 190D against each other's Mustangs in simulated rat races but not in any planned and formal test methodology.

As no comparative tests were performed in any rigorous fashion it is impossible to judge fairly what the 190D would have been able to do with a comparable force of experienced pilots and tactical numbers.

This is one reason why I don't get too excited about this particular debate.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 3, 2009)

Wikipedia as a source? The internet is always correct... phoo..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> FW-190 was slow and unreliable, look at WWII Aircraft Performance



Slow and unreliable, that is a pretty odd statement. Was it the best? No, probably not, but to say it was slow and unreliable is wrong. Why try and degrade aircraft?

While we are at it though, please provide facts that prove the Fw 190D was "slow".





drgondog said:


> Mike - you have to be a little careful when selecting one source for a blanket reference concering the 190D. It had gestation problems, but most were due to the early application of MW50.
> 
> By same token the 1946 USAAF Test of the P-51H was less than 100% because the 1650-9 engine delivered had some problems with Water Injection - but that wasn't true for 'all' P-51H series.
> 
> ...



Nice info and summary. I think it is a very unbiased account of the Fw 190D, based off of some first hand accounts. I think that is something that lacks in a lot of peoples arguments.



mike526mp said:


> why does everyone have such a high regard for german technology? you guys constantly compare the german prototypes to the allied airplaners in service, the spit, 51 and 47 (especially at high altitude) did much more than hold their own. I have read over and over about the TA-152H, check out WWII Aircraft Performance for actual side by side flight test comparing the airplanes in service, and read what wickapedia says:



The Germans were in some ways ahead of the Allies in technology and in some ways were behind the Allies in technology. Both sides had their areas of strength and weakness. I don't see what your point is. 

Besides to make a true comparison of the aircraft you have to use more than just sheets of paper. Each aircraft (both German and Allied) has its optimal area of operation. An Fw 190D will beat out a P-51D in certain flight characteristics and certain altitudes and conditions, vice versa for the P-51D over the Fw 190D.



mike526mp said:


> Operational history
> By fall 1944, the war was going badly for Germany, and the RLM pushed Focke-Wulf to quickly get the Ta 152 into production. As a result, several Ta 152 prototypes crashed early into the test program. It was found that critical systems were lacking sufficient quality control. Issues arose with superchargers, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system was unreliable at best due in part to unreliable oil temperature monitoring, and in several instances the landing gear failed to properly retract. A total of up to 20 pre-production Ta 152 H-0s were delivered from November 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 to service test the airplane. It was reported that test pilots were able to conduct a mere 31 hours of flight tests before full production started. By the end of January 1945, only 50 hours or so had been completed. The Ta 152 was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152C remained operational when Germany surrendered.[citation needed]
> 
> go here to read whole article: Focke-Wulf Ta 152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I hope you do not use wikipedia as your primary source...


----------



## Altea (Oct 7, 2009)

drgondog said:


> My father flew the 190D-9 post war for about 25 hours at Gablingen but had to rely on a former LW crew chief's judgement and scrounged parts that the a/c was properly rigged and engine performing to spec.
> 
> His judgment was that the 190D was an 'excellent' fighter and comparable to the Mustang...each of four different aces flew the 190D against each other's Mustangs in simulated rat races but not in any planned and formal test methodology.
> 
> As no comparative tests were performed in any rigorous fashion it is impossible to judge fairly what the 190D would have been able to do with a comparable force of experienced pilots and tactical numbers.




And did your father used the MW-50? I'm asking that question because *all *soviet FW-190D used at LII, NII and regular Baltic Fleet VVS squadron after the war didn'have that device from the mainstream (no serial fitted). 
Moroever J Lasserre from Turboméca used to work on water injection systems with Shidlowsky from 1945-46, said that it (the chemical supergarer) provides some *big disparity* in results, unlike the classical mecanical one with 100/150 grade fuel with *stable* results. So it was certainly giving increase at power, but varying a lot from an engine to another.He even called it "Lorenzien" phenomenom, from E Lorenz the meteorologist that worked on the "Chaos Theory" for fluids.

May a Dora win a fight on a Mustang in a flight show, might be...Show winners are not always winners on a streetfighting or in real life situation.

That to say in operational condition had no advantage over the Mustang.

At escort flight, it was always higher than the 190D, and was alble to convert hight to speed. Even without that at 4300 kg the wingload of the Mustang was only 198 kg/m² against 230, so it's turn radius was better considering also better power to weight ratios at height 2.75 vs 3.1 kg/ hp at 5000 m.
Moroever in Boom-Zoom fights Mustang was able to keep it's energy margin better than the others WWII planes, due to a better glide ratio.

On a concrete situation, the Mustang was _in fine _always better.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2009)

Altea said:


> And did your father used the MW-50? I'm asking that question because *all *soviet FW-190D used at LII, NII and regular Baltic Fleet VVS squadron after the war didn'have that device from the mainstream (no serial fitted).
> 
> *I just don't know. There were no comments in the logbook and the memories of the conversations are 55+ years and all the pilots involved (Fortier, Elder, Hovde and my father) are gone. I suspect the former LW crew chief was proud of his 190D and would further suspect he would want it to perform well - but I don't have any facts one way or the other*
> 
> ...



You make good points. 

The wildcard in these discussions are the drag comparisons (you mention L/D) but equally important is the comparisons of parasite drag and its effect on the rate of change in momentum in high energy manuevers.


----------



## vanir (Oct 8, 2009)

The test data I have for (werk number?) 210002 is for a D-9 in October 1944 which returns 1.72atm at 2100 metres without the use of MW50 and this should translate to around 1900PS. MW50 use on the same a/c provides 1.81atm at 1800 metres (in excess of 2000PS rated).
The initial climb rates at this height are given as 17m/s without MW50 use and 19.5m/s with use of MW50 (20.5m/s at 1500 metres with MW50 and 20m/s at 1800 metres).

Given that the combat setting (kampfleistung) of ~1.72atm is used for most of the time during engagements (sondernotleistung is listed as used for emergencies only, for short periods and require a long cooldown afterwards).
Most postwar flight testing of captured German a/c did not use MW50 during testing due to concerns about engine damage. In at least one report made at Wright Field (Wright-Patterson AFB) it is noted that speculators were unsure if the Focke Wulf guidelines related for "special boost settings" even related to a specific blower gear (it did not, but at first they thought it was for use in the low blower gear only).
It turns out in particular that Focke Wulf a/c were capable of using "special boost" with MW50 or some other injection (laderdruck) for extended periods of up to 10mins without necessarily causing engine damage, which actually exceeds the typical Allied WEP rating of the 5min maximum all out setting using water injection. But at the time the Dora was evaluated as having inconsistent build quality and whilst high performance by any measure, and contemporary with Allied models of the period, it is written up as being relatively unrefined and subject to the industrial state of Germany and intentional sabotage during construction (one example shipped to the US had to be partially rebuilt before being declared airworthy and featured several examples of minor, but potentially dangerous sabotage performed during its initial construction).
All things considered the celebration of the Dora is quite high both among German and Allied postwar piloting, and a lot of this is without the use of MW50.

So it is a matter of where/how you're going to be pitting a Mustang against your Dora. In the low blower around 2000 metres is good, or in the high around 5000 metres. For the Mustang it would be better at something like 4000 metres and 7000 metres. In any case the Dora is doing pretty good to have an instant 1900PS for 30min straight at around 2000 metres without MW50, that significantly trumps the best power the 'Stang can produce in the low blower for only 5mins.
That and a good armament, good armour and equipment, good pilot setup, great controls (electrical boosted, kommandogerat electromechanical flight computer for one touch flying).

The Mustang is great, I love it, especially in one interesting light. Think of RAF pilot evaluation of the Griffon Spits compared to the Merlin Spits, many say the older 60/70-series Merlin powered MkIX's were much nicer to fly but were losing speed compared to other late war contemporaries. Well the Mustang combines the best of both worlds, a really sweet engine and an airframe which returned contemporary late war performance to it.

But still, the popular consensus among all those who flew the Dora in the West, Axis or Allied is that it was competitive come what may. Doesn't matter the restrictions, the settings, the circumstances, maybe poorer fuel batch one day, maybe the plugs aren't so good another day, all these things. No MW50, mounting the MW50 in a different place (some versions mounted it in the supercharger exhaust, other ones in the supercharger intake). A nice cool afternoon and everything is running superbly. Hot dusty winds and it wants to overheat. And there were many different variations and experiments tried with the Dora during production, the Jumo 213 wasn't particularly reliable and its performance was below expectations. Yet that it was competitive with a/c like the Mustang as a conclusive evaluation, generally made for a late war production example (1945 production) without the use of MW50.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 8, 2009)

Great post vanir, and from what I know, pretty much on the money...


----------



## Soren (Oct 9, 2009)

With proper performing engines the max climb rate of the Dora-9 was 22.5 m/s at SonderNotleistung m. MW50 (2,100 PS @ 3,250 RPM), and at SL, the a/c in the test on Mike's site suffered from a faulty batch of engines and gear issues, something which is noted in the documents. 

Climb rate without ETC-504 rack, 22.5 m/s:






Climb rate with ETC-504 rack, 21 m/s:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> the a/c in the test on Mike's site suffered from a faulty batch of engines and gear issues, something which is noted in the documents.


How were they faulty?


----------



## Juha (Oct 9, 2009)

hello Soren
gives the book indications are the info based on calculations or test flights. At least the first one is IMHO calculated, IIRC no Ta-154C-3s ever flew.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Oct 9, 2009)

I have a tendency to not discount calculated performance when the primary difference is related to one variable (i.e potential change in speed due to horsepower boost, or possible all same except new wing).

Performance calcs on a new airframe, however, is a 'hopeful' until flight test results validate/refute the dream.


----------



## vanir (Oct 9, 2009)

Plus the initial climb rate at sea level is a little different to initial climb at 2000 metres, the best performance height of the Dora in the low gear (1800m with use of MW50 is best).
My output ratings are estimates, given ratings for early tests of the Jumo 213A at sea level (again from actual flight testing of early production Doras) at 1.68atm return ~1780PS no MW50 (which was not fitted back then), and for use of low pressure MW50 (mounted in the supercharger intake) at 1.76atm for 1900PS. For the use of high pressure MW50 tested in early 1945 (mounted in the supercharger exhaust) the Jumo is rated for 2000PS at 1800m.

My estimate of 1900PS at 2000m and 1.72atm is probably therefore a little generous, it is most likely let's say 1850PS, although the supercharger performance at this height is from actual flight tests conducted in Oct44 of werk number 210002, and it still has a good 250hp over the Mustang flat out at this height before even touching the MW50 switch. Of course against a Mustang you need that


----------



## piet (Oct 10, 2009)

Sad to say but its the p-51


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2009)

piet said:


> Sad to say but its the p-51



And your reasoning behind your conclusion. Not saying you are wrong, but you might want to tell people why you came to that conclusion.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 12, 2009)

What was the power output of the Mustang when using 150PN fuel?

The only data I have is for the RM14SM
WEP, 150PN: 2080hp @ 3000rpm @ 80"hg (25lb boost); 1850hp @ 22,500'


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2009)

Milosh said:


> What was the power output of the Mustang when using 150PN fuel?
> 
> The only data I have is for the RM14SM
> WEP, 150PN: 2080hp @ 3000rpm @ 80"hg (25lb boost); 1850hp @ 22,500'



This engine was identical to the 1650-9 except it used a Skinner Fuel Injection system but the 1650-9 was equivalent in rating to the RM16SM.. we are talking about XP-51J and P-51H now as the -9 had more power than the -7.

-9 had 1930 Hp at 80" w/150 octane and WEP at 10,000 ft. IIRC, at 90" it was 2200 with WI at WEP

I'm going to look up the -7 for 75" at WEP for 150 octane.


----------



## Mike Williams (Oct 12, 2009)

Milosh said:


> What was the power output of the Mustang when using 150PN fuel?



Here's what I have readily at hand:

1868 BHP at 7400’ operating at 75” MP and 3000 RPM.

P-51B-15 AIRPLANE, AAF NO. 43-24777 USING 44-1 FUEL 






2,000+ BHP operating at +25 lbs (80”), 3,000 RPM.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 13, 2009)

Thanks Mike.

The reason I asked was because I believe 150PN fuel was in wide spread use by the Mustangs of the 8th AF. This would negate the 250hp difference stated by vanir.


----------



## vanir (Oct 14, 2009)

I spent ages going over the various documentation and discussion regarding 150 octane at Mike William's site and you know what I came up with? Everybody was still using 130 grade. But I'll tell you what Milosh, I'll stipulate that all Mustangs in the 8th run at 80" Hg if you'll stipulate that all Doras in Luftflotte Reich use high pressure MW50 reliably.

Fair's fair. But this still brings us right to where we started, where I said the Dora was a competitive contemporary despite its shortcomings according to both the data and the reports.


----------



## piet (Oct 14, 2009)

The P-51 shot down more germanfighters.....than germanfighters shot down P-51 , so it was better in my Opinion.....its all about the kill ratio.

Allthe best,
piet


----------



## Milosh (Oct 14, 2009)

vanir said:


> I spent ages going over the various documentation and discussion regarding 150 octane at Mike William's site and you know what I came up with? Everybody was still using 130 grade.



150 Grade Fuel Consumption by Theater (Tons)
Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel by Theater (Tons)

Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels
Consumption 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels

Did you somehow miss this vanir?

That is almost 74 million gal. of 150PN fuel consumed. (1bbl=35Imp gal)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2009)

vanir said:


> I spent ages going over the various documentation and discussion regarding 150 octane at Mike William's site and you know what I came up with? Everybody was still using 130 grade. But I'll tell you what Milosh, I'll stipulate that all Mustangs in the 8th run at 80" Hg if you'll stipulate that all Doras in Luftflotte Reich use high pressure MW50 reliably.
> 
> Fair's fair. But this still brings us right to where we started, where I said the Dora was a competitive contemporary despite its shortcomings according to both the data and the reports.



Vanir - I thought the same as you - that 130 was used into September - then 150 thereafter.

At our 355th FG reunion last month I cornered the crew chiefs. All recall 150 used from June-July till end of War as well as 1/2 time to run on same plugs w/o replacing them.

150 was in full supply throughout 8th FC by end of July for sure.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Oct 14, 2009)

"_The P-51 shot down more germanfighters.....than germanfighters shot down P-51 , so it was better in my Opinion.....its all about the kill ratio_."

Keep in mind that the Germans were tasked with stopping the bombers too. The Americans were tasked solely with stopping the German fighters.

I suspect that this additional and often primary focus on the part of the Germans accounted for some of the lopsided kill ratio. The Germans would often engage in such a way that American fighters were setting upon them first.


----------



## Demetrious (Oct 14, 2009)

This post was worth the whole thread, for me, because it gave me some insight into the dynamics of speed as they effected dogfights between these contemporary foes. Roll rate is generally considered the most important axis of manuverability (and for good reason,) and the peak roll rate of 190 degrees of roll/second that old NACA chart shows is _absolutely mind bogglingly amazing_ performance for any fighter of the war. 

However, I never considered that 50lbs of stick force might be difficult or even impossible to input at higher speeds, making the peak possible roll rate unavailable in higher-speed engagements. That further solidifies the nature of the fight dynamic between the 190 and the P-51- one wanting to keep the fight fast and high, and the other wanting to slow it down and drag it to lower altitudes. 

If there's one thing I have learned by studying WWII aircraft, is that these engineers generally knew what they were doing. Even the "horrible" planes that history has called "unmanuverable" (the F4F, F6F, F4U and P-40, for starters,) or even flat out hopeless (the Buffalo and the I-16) were far more capable then popular knowledge gives them credit for. If even those aircraft had impressive enough performance to put up a good fight, then you can imagine how narrow the margins are between two of the finest fighters produced in the entire war- the P-51D and the FW-190-D. Simply put, the performance margins are far narrower then the skill margins of the pilots.

What shaped the actual battles had more to do with strategy then tactics- i.e, the altitude and situations these fighters were forced to engage at, and which one was on it's "home turf."


----------



## vanir (Oct 15, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Vanir - I thought the same as you - that 130 was used into September - then 150 thereafter.
> 
> At our 355th FG reunion last month I cornered the crew chiefs. All recall 150 used from June-July till end of War as well as 1/2 time to run on same plugs w/o replacing them.
> 
> 150 was in full supply throughout 8th FC by end of July for sure.



Cheers. Fair enough. Now that I think about it I was actually looking up RAF deployment of increased boost related to 150 octane fuel and iirc found out it was only about three squadrons of MkIX using it towards the end of 1944 where someone was supposing widespread use of +25lbs in MkIX Spits in 44-45. Not relevant and I'm sorry for the confusion.


Indeed Milosh, comparing say JG26 Doras to 8th AF Mustangs should account for +25-28lbs being used on the Mustangs, which returns around 1900hp at about 2000m WEP or roughly equivalent output in a cleaner airframe. I would still stipulate that the official sondernotleistung rating for the 213A however was ten minutes use without trouble, which is much different to the Me109 sondernotleistung rating during 1944 varying from 1-5min tops before damaging the engine, and the Merlin was rated for 5min WEP normally at +18lbs I'd imagine this wouldn't significantly increase by actually raising manifold pressure.

I still don't see where we should say the Mustang can use +25lbs for comparison but the Dora may only use start u-notleistung with no MW50 when the high pressure system was reliable and in common use during 1945. Initial deliveries Oct-Nov 1944 were a bit different, some with low pressure MW50 or others with the fuel pump operated erhönte notleistung but these definitely aren't in the majority and perhaps it's a bit like me forcing you to compare the Allison P-51 against the 1945 Dora because that was the initial deliveries of the Mustang design.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 15, 2009)

The 5 min restriction of the Merlin was the recommended time limit but not because it would have a catastrophic failure after 5 min. I can't think of any British or American engine that had more than a 5 min restriction on WEP. To many people read to much into this 5 min restriction.

I am sure drgondog can give you examples of 25lb Mustangs using WEP for much longer than 5 min. I have read about Spitfires using WEP for much longer than 5 min.

Who is comparing 25lb Mustangs to start u-notleistung with no MW50 Doras?

If the Doras were around when the Allison Mustangs were introduced, a comparison could be made but they weren't.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2009)

The use of WEP boost excessively resulted in documented engine failures early in the Mustang cycle but they were pretty rare. On the other hand I'm sure pilots exceeded the 5 minutes but I have not read of any documented and accurately recorded upper limits.

I suspect they became rarer simply becuase pilots were warned that you could blow an engine in a place you didn't want to be and you only used it when it a.) might enable you to quickly close on a firing solution, or b) give you enough edge to escape someone else's firing solution.

The 'real' upper limit was probably closer to 7-10 minutes with 5 given as a safety margin - but sure wasn't much above that. At the end of the day how many individual fights lasted more than 5 minutes at full throttle?

My father respected it (the manual) enough to put a hard stop on 67" (fo take off) on his 51 (peace time bird in late 59-61) to make sure I didn't do anything dumb. On the other hand (it has been way too long ago) I think we used 110 in the 1960 era.

Independent of all that MW 50 is necessary to keep the speeds comparable between the 51D with 150 octane and using 72" boost.

I will still remain convinced that tactical situation and pilot skill are far more important than the low % differences between these two ships in equivalent mechanical and fuel purity state.


----------



## NeilStirling (Oct 15, 2009)

8th Airforce and RAF 150 Grade fuel use here

150 Grade Fuel

Neil.


----------



## vanir (Oct 15, 2009)

Altea said:


> And did your father used the MW-50? I'm asking that question because *all *soviet FW-190D used at LII, NII and regular Baltic Fleet VVS squadron after the war didn'have that device from the mainstream (no serial fitted).
> Moroever J Lasserre from Turboméca used to work on water injection systems with Shidlowsky from 1945-46, said that it (the chemical supergarer) provides some *big disparity* in results, unlike the classical mecanical one with 100/150 grade fuel with *stable* results. So it was certainly giving increase at power, but varying a lot from an engine to another.He even called it "Lorenzien" phenomenom, from E Lorenz the meteorologist that worked on the "Chaos Theory" for fluids.
> 
> May a Dora win a fight on a Mustang in a flight show, might be...Show winners are not always winners on a streetfighting or in real life situation.
> ...



My original posting to example that the Dora's performance was still comparable to the Mustang for most of a streetfight at the regular combat and climb settings for both aircraft, and was in response to this post. I had chosen to be illustrative comparing the start u-notleistung setting for ~1.72atm without MW50 as still competitive with the Mustang at 66" Hg at 2000 metres which is the preferred combat altitude in the low gear.

Your posts Milosh just happened to enter proceedings right there, addressing my comparative description of Jumo 213A performance versus the Merlin 68/70 which was for start u-notleistung with no MW50, the comparison you introduced 8th AF Mustangs using 150 octane.

I'm not sure if you're following me here. This is the reason for my stipulation that a comparative view with relation to your posts need be taken of the 1945 production Dora with high pressure MW50, which again has comparable performance to the Mustang, but at different best performance heights.

Altea was stating the Mustang was clearly superior to the Dora under service conditions. This was what I was challenging, that it was contemporary according to the data and the reports. No more, and I'm certainly not trying to say the Dora was superior or even equal in terms of overall refinement and finish quality. Just they're both good and I wouldn't like to be in either when jumped by a competent pilot in the other.
It sort of got all confused when you jumped in.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 15, 2009)

What Mustangs used Merlin 70 engines? The 68 is the V-1650-3 and the 69 is the V-1650-7

The thread is P-51vs Dora and if you want that you have to use the 25lb Mustangs.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2009)

Milosh said:


> What Mustangs used Merlin 70 engines? The 68 is the V-1650-3 and the 69 is the V-1650-7
> 
> The thread is P-51vs Dora and if you want that you have to use the 25lb Mustangs.



The P-51B-7 and above (including corresponding P-51C) were equipped at factory for the 1650-7). All P-51D and K models had the 1650-7. The P-51H had the -9 capable of 90" at WEP/WI.

The P-51B-7 and -15 IMHO were the best performing Mustangs until the P-51H but had issues with slanted guns jamming and wheel door uplocks until the modifications reached ETO in June 1944.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 23, 2009)

FW-190 was slow and unreliable, check out aircarft performance, test at wright patterson. read the test of the FW-190, time and time again they would have to replace the engines to get any numbers.

WWII Aircraft Performance

just a few lines, but read them yourself, over and over replacing engines, problems after problems, then read the other aircraft tested.

Flight Report FW 190 D-9/210001
Nr. 1 S.O.Archiv
Bad Eilsen 


Condition: 

Engine Jumo 213 A/1021521415 to 8.9 
Engine Jumo 213 A/1021520539 to 28.9 
Engine Jumo 213 C/1001580035 
D-9 series condition, normal surface without special treatment. 
Armament: 2 MG 131, 2 MG 151. 
Propeller: 41276.16 V. 
Main wheel doors.1 
Long range fuselage tank. 
Radiator flap in front of the air intake fixed in flush position. 
Lenghtened air intake 20.9 to 28.9. 
Radiator flap control governor attached to propeller pressure circuit. Rücköl vom VDM – Regler fliesst zum (Sauganschluss) des Luftschraubenreglers zurück. 

Program: 

1. Test flights.2 

2. Level speeds. 

3. Investigations for improvement in climb. 

4. Checking the governing action of the radiator flaps. 

Results: 

1. The test flights determined the airspeed indicator error for an Eltron and a Bruhn pitot tube with equal dimensions. In contrast to the Bruhn pitot tube, the compressibility error of the Eltron tube, as deliverd with 3 d slot distance, is considered very large, particularly with level speeds. 

A Bruhn tube is consequently more appropriate for test flights. 

2. The airplane was measured for speed using combat and take-off power. The following speeds were obtained without ETC and with main (operable) wheel doors: 398 mph (641 km/h) at combat power with a full throttle height of 19,357 feet (5900 m) and 413 mph (665 km/h) at take-off power with a full throttle height of 20,177 feet (6150 m). The radiator flaps were set on flush postion (Strakstellung) during these flights. Only a small reduction in full throttle height (~100 m) occurs by completely opening all radiator flaps up to the non-powered flap, in front of the air intake in flush position setting, while the level speed is reduced by approximately 32 mph (50 km/h). 

Speeds increase 9 to 10 mph (15 to 16 km/h) below and 17 to 18 mph (28 to 29 km/h) above full throttle height, with the change from combat to take-off power. 

The first engine failed from supercharger damage after a short period of operation. The lattice filter built into the air intake broke and parts of it dropped into the supercharger. 

The second engine also suffered supercharger damage. The cause here is unknown. The C-engine, Serial Nr. 1001580035, from the failed V-53 and measured on the Jumo altitude test bed, was inserted as a replacement. 

3. Climb FTH (Abfallhöhe)3 could be increased over ~ 700 m with this machine by a fixed setting of the non-powered radiator flap in front of the air intake. Like the further trials, e.g. Durchsteigen of the full throttle height with completely closed flaps (bezw.), extension of the air intake up to the point of the radiator flap swivel axis position (according to photo NR. 20027) showed a further improvement is not possible and the above-mentioned change is sufficient for performance improvement. 

Details of these trials are to be taken from a special report 

4. Except for the first inexplicable difference of 5° in the lubricant temperature gradients, no change of the engine temperatures was found in combat power climb due to air intake flap setting. 

For the condition "all radiator flaps up", the following values resulted at the height where temperatures peaked (Temperaturumkehrhöhe): 

Coolant temp. Radiator entrance tKE = 104° (teina + 26°) 

Lubricant temp. Engine entrance töME = 129° (teina + 21°) 

In comparison, the values for the condition before air intake flap setting: 
tKE = 104° (teina + 26°) 
töME = 124° (teina + 21°) 

These temperatures so far are large relative to 213 A. 

5. On suggestion of the company Jumo, the back oil attached at the propeller pressure circuit of the radiator flap automatic controller was supplied like that to the suction connection propeller pressure circuit. No objections showed up in the propeller and radiator flap control during the last flights, which were led through this condition of the installation. One control is still pending, whether the flaps also remain in their end positions in the dive. (no mesh filter before VDM automatic controllers anschl.)


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 23, 2009)

more to read from Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test

ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM 
REPORT SERIAL NO. ENG-47-1743-A 
26 May 1944 
PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING 
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE 
AAF NO. EB-104


I. Introduction 

Performance and handling tests have been conducted at Wright Field on the Focke-Wulf 190, German fighter type airplane, AAF No. EB-104. These tests were made to obtain a quick check on the high speed, maximum rate of climb, and handling characteristics of this airplane. From 25 March 1944 to 15 April 1944 approximately 15 hours were flown on this airplane by Major G. E. Lundquist. Handling tests were also made by several other Flight Section pilots. 

II Summary 

The German Focke-Wulf 190, EB-104 is a single place, low wing all metal monoplane, powered with a 1750 bhp BMW 801-D fourteen cylinder two row radial engine equipped with a two speed internal supercharger. Tests were conducted at a take-off gross weight of 8535 pounds. The airplane is well armed and has provision for carrying heavy armament. It compares favorably with standard AAF fighter types in maneuverability, speed and climb at low and medium altitudes, but is definitely weaker in performance at altitudes over 28,000 ft. Stability was satisfactory at the weight and c.g. at which the airplane was tested and the controls are excellent at all speeds up to 400 MPH indicated airspeed where the elevator tends to become quite heavy and noticeable buffeting and vibration of the airplane occurs. 

The airplane is easy to taxi but vision is somewhat restricted. Brakes operate by toe pressure and are readily applied for all positions of the rudder. The tail wheel is freely pivoting but can be locked by holding the control column back as on the P-51B. 



H. Maneuverability and Aerobatics 

The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is it extremely high rate of roll. The radius of turn, however, is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the maneuvering flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning. Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control. 

The airplane responds to the controls satisfactory in performing rolls, loops, Immelmanns and other aerobatics. 

 I. Change in Trim when Operating Landing Gear, Flaps, etc. 

Changes in trim resulting from the operation of landing gear, flaps, etc., are slight and can be readily corrected by use of controls or elevator trim control. 

J. Noise and Vibration 

Engine operation appeared a little rough during the entire flight causing a slight vibration at all times in the entire airplane. The noise level in the cockpit is very low. 

Vibration and buffeting of the airplane noticeably increases in high speed dives over 400 MPH indicated airspeed. 


a. Power plant and Associated Equipment 

The airplane is powered with a BMW 801-D engine, fourteen cylinder, twin row radial engine equipped with a two speed internal supercharger. Propeller pitch and fuel mixture are automatically controlled by the throttle setting and require no attention from the pilot. 140 grade fuel was used for all tests since this grade fuel corresponds to the fuel used by the Germans; 140 grade fuel is superior to standard 100 octane (130 grade) fuel. 

VI Performance Tests 

A. The airspeed calibration and location of the airspeed head is given in Figure 1. 

B. High speed vs altitude curves are given in Figure 2. The maximum speed was 415 MPH at high blower critical altitude of 22,000 ft. at 2700 RPM and 41.1” Hg. manifold pressure (military power). High speed at rated pwer of 2400 RPM and 38” was 395 MPH at 20,000 ft. critical altitude in high blower. 

C. Climb data is given in Figure 3. The maximum rate of climb is 4000 ft/min. at military power of 2700 RPM and 41.1” Hg. manifold pressure. Minimum time to climb to 20,000 ft. is 7.3 minutes. 

D. Power data corresponding to speed and climb data given in Figure 2 and Figure 3 is given in Figure 4. BHP values given are estimated from curves obtained from the British and from the Power Plant Laboratory. 


VIII Conclusions 

1. The FW-190, AAF No. EB-104, is a well armored fighter airplane with provisions for carrying heavy armament and it compares favorably with standard AAF types of the same date in maneuverability, speed, and climb at low and medium altitudes. However, the performance is definitely weaker than standard AAF fighters at altitudes above 28,000 feet.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 23, 2009)

Not to repeat but here is the conclusions form tests at WPAFB in 1944

VIII Conclusions 

1. The FW-190, AAF No. EB-104, is a well armored fighter airplane with provisions for carrying heavy armament and it compares favorably with standard AAF types of the same date in maneuverability, speed, and climb at low and medium altitudes. However, the performance is definitely weaker than standard AAF fighters at altitudes above 28,000 feet. 

H. Maneuverability and Aerobatics 

The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is it extremely high rate of roll. The radius of turn, however, is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the maneuvering flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning. Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> FW-190 was slow and unreliable,


----------



## riacrato (Oct 23, 2009)

1. I think everyone knows that page by now, no need to copy paste the entire content here.
2. Never use foreign equipment test (esp. during WW2) as your one and only source to go by
3. Why do you even post a report of a G-3 here3?


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 27, 2009)

if you would take the time to read it you will come to the same conclusion, i won't bore you with the facts anymore


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 27, 2009)

Captured equipment maintained by unqualified mechanics and test flown by the "winners" is not a solid base for conclusions....

Actually, its rather silly....


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 27, 2009)

yea right, the facts are the FW-190 in any shape or form, from test (on captured equipment that is very relevant), encounter reports show the FW-190 inferior to just about anything we had, and far less reliable. Not sure whether you think we are tramping on your ancestry or what your problem is, but get over it, it was inferior. The good old USA did a damn good job of producing military aircraft then and now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2009)

The Fw 190 was like all of the other top aircraft of the war. At certain altitudes it was superior and at certain altitudes it was inferior. Do some more research...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> yea right, the facts are the FW-190 in any shape or form, from test (on captured equipment that is very relevant), encounter reports show the FW-190 inferior to just about anything we had, and far less reliable. Not sure whether you think we are tramping on your ancestry or what your problem is, but get over it, it was inferior. The good old USA did a damn good job of producing military aircraft then and now.



The only thing lacking here is your total understanding of axis aircraft and how some of the post war performance data was actually gathered. But with that said your comment about "tramping on your ancestry" is not welcomed nor will it be tolerated so I'd advise you to govern yourself accordingly or your stay here will be very short.

BTW I am American and agree that we could build "damn good aircraft." I am also open minded enough to know that there have been others who could produce something a little better at times.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW I am American and agree that we could build "damn good aircraft." I am also open minded enough to know that there have been others who could produce something a little better at times.....



The funny thing is, his comment was made to two Americans as well...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The funny thing is, his comment was made to two Americans as well...



Took the words right out of my mouth!


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> if you would take the time to read it you will come to the same conclusion, i won't bore you with the facts anymore



My father flew it for ~25 hours in some serious low to medium altitude rat races with three other aces in his group flying well maintained 51's when the 355th moved to Gablingen. Liked it, said he would have been ok with flying and fighting with it..his conclusion was the same as Fortier's, Hovde and Elder... 

With a/c of this type and late model versions you pretty well had to say that pilots and tactical position were keys - as well as knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the a/c.

The D-9 was a tweener between the P-51D/K and the P-51H and a damned fine airplane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> My father flew it for ~25 hours in some serious low to medium altitude rat races with three other aces in his group flying well maintained 51's when the 355th moved to Gablingen. Liked it, said he would have been ok with flying and fighting with it..his conclusion was the same as Fortier's, Hovde and Elder...
> 
> With a/c of this type and late model versions you pretty well had to say that pilots and tactical position were keys - as well as knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the a/c.
> 
> The D-9 was a tweener between the P-51D/K and the P-51H and a damned fine airplane.



Do you have any pics of your father with captured German aircraft? If so, I would love to see them.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Do you have any pics of your father with captured German aircraft? If so, I would love to see them.



Chris I have pics of the two seat 190 and 109 but the one 190D I have I can't vouch was the one he flew. It was in his collection but no notes or handwriting to 'personalize it'.

I have posted the 190 and 109 pics several times but will post them again if you wish.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I have posted the 190 and 109 pics several times but will post them again if you wish.



Do you remember what thread they were in? I am sure I saw them, I just don't remember them...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2009)

here are a couple of them


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2009)

Very cool thanks.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 27, 2009)

> Not sure whether you think we are tramping on your ancestry or what your problem is, but get over it, it was inferior.


I dont know who the fu*k u think ur talking to pal, but u had better check urself immediately or I will drop the fuc*kin hammer on u....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Oct 27, 2009)

Abbreviated report on the first captured intact Fw 190A-3 from flight trials conducted by the RAF at Farnborough in July 1942 as reported in the book "Fw 190 at War" by Dr. Alfred Price:

"Tactical Trials
General

The FW 190 is considered an excellent low and medium altitude fighter. It is fast, well armed and very manoevrable. The figting qualitities have been compared with a Spitfire VB, Spitfire IX, Mustang 1A, Lockheed P-38F, Typhoon and the prototype Griffon engined Spitfire........

*Fw 190 vs Spitfire VB*
The Fw was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron for speed and all around manoevrablity at heights up to 25,000 ft. The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights.........
_Climb_
The climb of the Fw 190 is uperior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.......Under maximum continous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450/min better up to 25,000f. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catchng it.....
The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected.....

*Fw 190 vs Spitfire IX*
"The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior in speed to the Fw 190....When the Spitfire IX was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw 190 a reasonable chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed anthe Fw 190 was 'bounced' by the Spitfire IX......
The general impression gained by pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favourably with the Fw 190 and that provided the Spitfire has the initiative, it has undoubtably a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down.

*Fw 190 vs Musang 1A*
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Mustang at all heights.......Against the Fw 190, the worst heights for the Mustang 1A were above 20,000ft and below 3,000ft where the Fw 190 is slightly superior in speed......

*Fw 190 vs P-38F*
The climb of the P-38F is not as good as that of the Fw 190 up to 15,000ft. Above this height, the climb of the -38F improves rapidly until at 20,000ft it becomes superior.....Comparitive dives betwen the two aircraft proved the Fw 190 to be better.....

*Conclusions*
The Fw 190 is undoubttedly a formidable low and medium altutude fighter....The comparitive fighting qualities of the Fw 190 have been compared with the Spitfire VB, Spitfire I, Mustang 1A, P-38F, Typhoon and prototype Griffon pitfire. The main conclusion gained from the tactical trials is that our fighter aircraft must fly at a high speed when in an area where the Fw 190 is likely to be met.


Theres much more Mike but I suggest getting the report or buying the book.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2009)

That pretty much states what anyone with at least a lil bit of knowledge of aircraft knows. The key words were at certain altitudes. Each aircraft has its optimum arena where it will work best at. I guess Mike missed that part...


----------



## Njaco (Oct 27, 2009)

Yup That was my point. Was better at times and inferior at other. Of course theres one factor not mentioned - the pilot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Yup That was my point. Was better at times and inferior at other. Of course theres one factor not mentioned - the pilot.



Agreed. When it comes to the top fighters of the war, that really was the greatest factor. In that area the Allies were certainly leading in the later years of the war.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

Yes I do concede when introduced (a very short time), the FW-190 was superior, but after the P-51 and later model Spitfires were introduced, the FW-190 was inferior.

Someone compared the FW-190 to the Spitfire V, a very early model Spitfire. Had the small Merlin 50 engine, with the Single stage supercharger, not the two-stage superchargers, the Merlin used an SU manufactured Carburetor, not fuel injected. and really quite poor performance (top speed at any altitude was 350 mph, 336 at 20,000 feet), compared to the later model Spitfires, as I remember it is the 3rd or 4th model of 24 models of Spitfire. But soon it was another story.

Spitfire Mk. XII 
The Mk. XII was the first Spitfire powered by a Griffon engine to go into service. The first production models started appearing in October 1942 and in total two RAF squadrons were equipped with the model. The Griffon engine gave the aircraft superb low and medium level performance. In fact at low altitude it was one of the fastest aircraft in the world; in one speed trial a prototype Mk. XII raced ahead of a Hawker Typhoon and a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 to the amazement of the dignitaries present. However pilots found it difficult to exploit this advantage in combat as German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet. 

I wonder why German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet? Was it because they had a better fighter? Of course not.


Here are a few quotes from P-51 Ace, in regard to the FW-190
C.E. "Bud" Anderson

1.	Why did you name your P-51 the "Old Crow?" 
I tell my Baptist friends that it is named after the smartest bird that flies in the sky, the Crow, but my drinking buddies all know that it was named after that good old Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey of the same name. Now, my wife Ellie, of 54 plus years likes to kid around at times and will say "Most guys name their plane after their wife or sweet heart, what must people thinks is going on here?"
2. Which aircraft, the ME109 or the FW190 was the most formidable in combat? 
In aerial combat it did not matter to me which type of enemy fighter I encountered. I felt that the Mustang could out perform both the ME109 and the FW190 and treated them pretty much the same. The FW190 had an air cooled radial engine and could probably take a little more damage than the liquid cooled ME109. I never encountered any of the twin engine fighters such as the ME110 ME 410 but it appeared to me that the guy that got there first shot down the most of them.
8. What kind of aircraft did you shoot down?
Aerial victories: FW190 - 9 destroyed (2 probably destroyed and 1 damaged)
ME109 - 7 destroyed (1 damaged)
HE111 - 1/4 (shared with three other flight members)
Total 16.1/4(air)
Ground victories: ME109 - 1 destroyed

He certainly didn’t have any problem with FW-190’s.

A good book that goes into detail including statistics (and says just what I have said)
P-51 Mustang Vs Fw 190: Europe 1943-45 By Martin Bowman

You can buy it at amazon for $13.46, free shipping
Amazon.com: P-51 Mustang vs Fw 190: Europe 1943-45 (Duel) (9781846031892): Martin Bowman: Books

Conclusion P-51 was better than FW-190.

Add to that the P-51 could escort bombers deep into Germany (something either the FW-190 or ME-109 couldn't do) great distances and was still superior to either the FW-190 or ME-109. The P-51 was the only aircraft I know of at that time that could escort the bombers that distance, it surely had to be a better fighter than the FW-190 in it's time, but not the only one better.

The writer really gives the FW-190 poor marks at altitude against the P-51, where most combat occurred (protecting bombers). His conclusion supports mine.

Add to it that the FW-190 had such a poor turning radius (and stall characteristics), probably one of the most important attributes to dog fighting. Speed wise the FW-190 no longer had a speed advantage. My father encountered at least one FW-190, he expressed to me how it was clear to him the 51 was a better fighter.

Add the fact the unreliability of the engines used in the FW-190.

Someone commented that “That pretty much states what anyone with at least a lil bit of knowledge of aircraft knows. The key words were at certain altitudes. Each aircraft has its optimum arena where it will work best at. I guess Mike missed that part...”

I am an active commercial pilot, Flight instructor single engine land, multi engine land flight instructor, instrument flight instructor with a glider license. Crop dusted in the past. I think I have “lil bit of knowledge of aircraft”. I was asking the same question of some of you?

I stand 100% behind what I said, as do the statistics, pilot reports and facts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> Someone commented that “That pretty much states what anyone with at least a lil bit of knowledge of aircraft knows. The key words were at certain altitudes. Each aircraft has its optimum arena where it will work best at. I guess Mike missed that part...”
> 
> I am an active commercial pilot, Flight instructor single engine land, multi engine land flight instructor, instrument flight instructor with a glider license. Crop dusted in the past. I think I have “lil bit of knowledge of aircraft”. I was asking the same question of some of you?
> 
> I stand 100% behind what I said, as do the statistics, pilot reports and facts.



That was me that stated that, and I stand 100% behind what I said. 

1. The Fw 190 was nothing close to being a piece of **** aircraft as you make it out to be.
2. The Fw 190 was a very good aircraft that was not slow or unreliable. 
3. There are plenty of reports that will say the opposite of what you have chosen to post.
4. At certain altitudes the Fw 190 was inferior and others it was superior. That goes for all of the top aircaft.

Keep believing what you wish though. It makes no difference to me. I will continue to take accounts from both sides and make a real educated opinion, instead of picking and choosing only certain ones.

Oh and by the way, I am an American. Don't try pulling that weak nationality argument that you tried to pull up there.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2009)

Just a info first mission spit XII april '43, first mission merlin mustang december '43, first mission spit IX august '42, first mission Fw 190 A september '41


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

i never said or implied that as you say ". The Fw 190 was nothing close to being a piece of **** aircraft as you make it out to be." 

If it were a beauty contest I would have to choose the 190.

why are you taking this so personal? not meant to be personal.

for years from being around people who flew 51's and 47's and what i heard/read, sure seemed obvious to me what were the better fighters. 

Something i would like to point out is germany was preparing for war, the usa or UK weren't (at least like they should have), which explains why we were behind.

I am proud of what the usa and UK produced, shows we can compete with anyone.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> Conclusion P-51 was better than FW-190.
> 
> Add to that the P-51 could escort bombers deep into Germany (something either the Fw190 or Bf109 couldn't do) great distances and was still superior to either the Fw190 or Bf109. The P-51 was the only aircraft I know of at that time that could escort the bombers that distance, it surely had to be a better fighter than the Fw190 in it's time, but not the only one better.
> 
> The writer really gives the Fw190 poor marks at altitude against the P-51, where most combat occurred (protecting bombers). His conclusion supports mine


We'll forget this 'unreliability' issue that you seem to be having with the Focke-wulf

Most of us are aware of the P-51's trump card thank you, it evolved into the Second World War's premier long-range escort fighter, so convince us that that aspect of its performance alone makes it a better fighter than the Fw190 (or Bf109) and not that it simply meant it had a greater range. 

If its range made it a better fighter, then why didn't the Bf110's range advantage not make it a decisive weapon fighter vs fighter? _Because range gets you to the fight, it won't win it for you_.

The problem with awarding marks for altitude performance in this particular instance is that the Allies by this stage of the war were holding just about all of the initiative; the bomber streams came in at high altitude, the P-51s (eventually) escorted them in at that altitude. The Luftwaffe, rising to the defence had little choice but to engage the USAAF at the P-51's best altitude. 
Couple this with the fact that on their way up, the Luftwaffe were highly liable to being bounced by the P-51 before it even got to altitude. The P-51 could then zoom climb back to his perch and wait for the next Luftwaffe bird to show up. Hundreds of Luftwaffe fighters were splashed in this manner before they'd even fired a shot.

I think your conclusions are superficial, based on your superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> i never said or implied that as you say ". The Fw 190 was nothing close to being a piece of **** aircraft as you make it out to be."
> 
> If it were a beauty contest I would have to choose the 190.
> 
> why are you taking this so personal? not meant to be personal.



I am not taking it personal, trust me...

What I did not like is the attitude that you brought into the discussion, as well as making claims that are not true. 



mike526mp said:


> for years from being around people who flew 51's and 47's and what i heard/read, sure seemed obvious to me what were the better fighters.



No on is saying the P-51 and P-47 are inferior, however the Fw 190 was not inferior either. All 3 aircraft had their optimum areas. The P-51D just happened to excel where it was needed most for the allies. The P-51 was by far the best escort fighter of the war. The Fw 190 however was competitive right to the end. It was highly maneuverable, certainly was not slow and was not unreliable as you say.

If you were to conduct some research you would see that at certain altitudes the Fw 190 would have the edge, at certain altitudes they would be about equal and at other altitudes the P-51D would have the edge.

In the end pilot skill is what really gave the most advantage. 

Read through the full pages, there is some very good actual test comparisons that have been posted between the two aircraft. The Fw 190 was never found to be a slow or a push over in any of them...



mike526mp said:


> I am proud of what the usa and UK produced, shows we can compete with anyone.



That has never been an argument. You are the only one making a big deal about that. I guess most of just care to learn about the aircraft instead of pushing who built them...


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

you mean to tell me with the huge formations of b-17's they could not get to the same altitude or higher altitude before they attack? ever see the movie "12 o'clock high"? They could fly with less fuel. lower weight becasue they didn't have to return to england (a huge combat advantage), everything was in their favor, except in my opinion they airplane they flew. 

I thouht the question was which was the best over all fighter? why do you discount the range? I think that alone is huge (especially for the b-17 crews). that and given the fact the 51's were at least an equal even with the additional fuel to return makes it clear to me. bet with same time of fuel be even more obvious.

then read some of the spitfire XII pilot reports here, reads to me like the 190's were easy targets at this stage

Spitfire Mk XII Performance Testing

On top of that i put a huge amount of credence on the people who flew them.

the book i gave link in previous post, he explains it much better than I. it has statistics, looks at all angles.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

Why do you discount what our pilots had to say? As for a P-51 only having range, I doubt any FW-190 pilot would say the same thing Bud Anderson would say about the ME110 and 410.

C.E. "Bud" Anderson

2. Which aircraft, the ME109 or the FW190 was the most formidable in combat? 
In aerial combat it did not matter to me which type of enemy fighter I encountered. I felt that the Mustang could out perform both the ME109 and the FW190 and treated them pretty much the same. The FW190 had an air cooled radial engine and could probably take a little more damage than the liquid cooled ME109. I never encountered any of the twin engine fighters such as the ME110 ME 410 but it appeared to me that the guy that got there first shot down the most of them.

this has nothing to do with who made it, the question I am answering is which is the best fighter.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> 1. you mean to tell me with the huge formations of b-17's they could not get to the same altitude or higher altitude before they attack?
> 
> 2. ever see the movie "12 o'clock high"?
> 
> ...


1. That's not what I said at all
Is this a research issue with you or just a lack of comprehension? They DID get to altitude and engage the bombers but hundreds (over the course of the campaign) never made it - the Allied fighters thinned them out a bit.

2. Is this your source? 

3. Aha, maybe you don't have a comprehension issue after all, the theme of the thread is indeed which was the best overall fighter. Oh dear, there's your comprehension issue again - I'm not discounting range, I'm lauding it as a valuable asset that will get a given fighter to the start line but I'm also saying that it will, in itself, be insufficient to win the merge.

4. 'at this stage' - what do you suppose that means? The Luftwaffe were overwhelmed by Allied numbers and Experten were thinning out whilst the Allies were getting more experienced.

5. Pointless comment in here, my friend...

6. then can I suggest you look at 'all the angles' that this book of yours presents, they will widen your argument

The Fw190 and Bf109 were being punished by the P-51 because the P-51 (the Allies) were holding all the best cards, they attacked German strategic targets of their choosing at a time of their choosing, they cruised in at their best altitude, killing several Luftwaffe fighters before they got to altitude and several more during the ensuing melee. 

If the conditions had been different, the Germans taking bombers over London between 15,000 and 20,000ft it probably would have been a different story. Without taking ANY credit from the P-51, it held alot of tactical advantages over its Luftwaffe contemporaries at the point of the merge.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

Let me try to comprehend this, please type slow for me. You say it is pointless the views of Bud Anderson and other pilots who actually participated in the combat, the air combat between the 2 aircraft we are discussing, at the time it happened, in the aircraft of the era? And Colin, you state, "I think your conclusions are superficial, based on your superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle.” Then I guess you are saying Bud Anderson and other pilots also had a superficial understanding of air battle, but you somehow know it all? Where do you get your expertise Colin? The book you make fun of has figures, facts statistics. The book is written by someone who has studied it all, and by reading parts of it I imagine is smarter than you and of course me (remember my lack of comprehension so type slow for me Colin, I think you said that 5 times, I think I have caught on now) but then again it is all marginalized by your “understanding of that aspect of the air battle” that no one else seems to have but you. Let’s not let facts stand in your way Colin! And then you come to the discussion with “What I did not like is the attitude that you brought into the discussion, as well as making claims that are not true.”
Let me make it simple for you Colin, for your “lack of comprehension”. Take a P-51, a FW-190 of the same era, 2 equal pilots, equal amount of fuel (duration), any altitude (and tested at all altitudes), both see each other, object is to destroy the other, same altitude, both at high speed, neither at a tactical advantage, I would bet the P-51 wins 90-100 out of 100.
I think it is clear what you never liked is my conclusion. You have no facts other than early reports and figures, nothing of any value after 1943. Just your condescending attitude and your "non superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle.”
You sure convinced me Colin! You win Ace!


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 29, 2009)

I read through that and it seems on MOST not all, MOST that the 190 was being chased and due to bad or inexperienced pilots climbing after attacking head on (Exposing the belly) or diving when being chased and making for an easy target. Nothing to do with the aircraft.....


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

With the hazards associated with attacking the enemy from the tail position firmly in mind, Luftwaffe pilots logically shifted their focus to the lesser defended front of the formation. Upon interception, fighters would loiter outside of gunnery range, either abeam or behind, to estimate the speed and altitude of the bomber stream.

The German would then accelerate his aircraft to a point two miles ahead of the enemy and 1000 yards above before turning back towards his foe. With closing speeds approaching 500 mph, there was but a few scant seconds to line up a shot, squeeze off a short burst and break away to avoid a collision. A successful frontal attack required superior flying ability, skilled marksmanship and an iron will on the part of the Luftwaffe pilot.

Aside from the benefit of confronting fewer guns, the nose approach afforded an opportunity to fire directly in the bomber cockpits. A few well placed cannon rounds could at least disable, if not kill, an American flight crew. Later versions of both the B-17 and B-24 featured powered nose turrets to counter this threat.

The tail attack was not totally abandoned. Small numbers of less maneuverable, more rugged twin-engined aircraft such as the Messerschmitt Bf-110 and Junkers Ju-88 were fitted with a 37, 50 or even 75 mm cannon to permit engagement from outside the range of the heavy bombers tail guns. A single round from these weapons was capable of downing any Allied bomber. The appearance of Allied escort fighters later in the campaign chased these plodding aircraft from the skies.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> 1. Let me try to comprehend this, please type slow for me.
> 
> 2. You say it is pointless the views of Bud Anderson and other pilots who actually participated in the combat, the air combat between the 2 aircraft we are discussing, at the time it happened, in the aircraft of the era?
> 
> ...


1. I stand corrected, it's not a comprehension issue - you're an ignorant a$$hole
when you're reduced to typing sarcastic garbage like this, you're all out of argument

2. Where exactly did I say that the views of Bud Anderson were pointless? He may have written this book but that certainly doesn't mean that you've understood it.

3. Where did I say the same pilot's views were superficial?

4. Alot of reputable books contain figures and statistics - try cross-referencing

5. Look around you, it's not just my view

6. I'll think you'll find that someone else said that

7. You would bet?! Man, that's a great set of research tools you've got there: 12 o'clock high and a casino.
While you have our rapt attention, could you validate your 90-100 times out of 100 with hard data? Oh, of course, it's a bet - let me know the odds on that one, I might just have a flutter...

8. No, what is clear (but not to you) is that I DID NOT AGREE with your conclusion but tell me, wrt to this argument, what exactly was it that was going on _before_ 1943?


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

Attacking Bombers with Fighter Escort
With American fighter aircraft now providing round trip protection for the bomber formations, German interception tactics were once again modified.

Recalling prior experiences with the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain, Luftwaffe fighters were deployed in "Big Wings" to engage the enemy en masse. Modified Fw -190's with additional frontal and cockpit armor joined standard Bf-109's in formations of up to 100 aircraft, referred to as Sturmgruppen. The lighter, more agile Bf-109's would occupy the American escorts as waves of Fw-190's, in tightly spaced vee's of a dozen or more, assaulted the bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> Why do you discount what our pilots had to say? As for a P-51 only having range, I doubt any FW-190 pilot would say the same thing Bud Anderson would say about the ME110 and 410.
> 
> C.E. "Bud" Anderson
> 
> ...



Who discredited anything that US pilots said? No one, but you chose not use anything but allied reports and accounts.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

No colin you are ignorant, you no nothing, just a bag of wind with no experience and no common sense, but a big ego and chip on your shoulder. you probablyhave no life, no friends. grow up little boy, oh, by the way, I also know this is your web site, I could see from the demerit you gave me, how childish, ydo ou also go by DerAdlerIstGelandet?


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

the someone else is you colin!


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

i am done posting colin, i do wish you well, honestly


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> No colin you are ignorant, you no nothing, just a bag of wind with no experience and no common sense, but a big ego and chip on your shoulder. you probablyhave no life, no friends. grow up little boy, oh, by the way, I also know this is your web site, I could see from the demerit you gave me, how childish, ydo ou also go by DerAdlerIstGelandet?


Don't let the door catch your ass on the way out...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> And then you come to the discussion with “What I did not like is the attitude that you brought into the discussion, as well as making claims that are not true.”



Actually I said that. Not Colin...



mike526mp said:


> Take a P-51, a FW-190 of the same era, 2 equal pilots, equal amount of fuel (duration), any altitude (and tested at all altitudes), both see each other, object is to destroy the other, same altitude, both at high speed, neither at a tactical advantage, I would bet the P-51 wins 90-100 out of 100.



It is not that simple. You are again excluding to many factors. This is not the microsoft simulator video game here...



mike526 said:


> Just your condescending attitude and your "non superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle.”
> You sure convinced me Colin! You win Ace!



So who are you talking to here? Me or Colin...



mike526mp said:


> No colin you are ignorant, you no nothing, just a bag of wind with no experience and no common sense, but a big ego and chip on your shoulder. you probablyhave no life, no friends. grow up little boy, oh, by the way, I also know this is your web site, I could see from the demerit you gave me, how childish, ydo ou also go by DerAdlerIstGelandet?



Actually me and Colin are two different people. 

I am however a moderator here. 

This is rather funny. You think we are the same people! 

Now having said that:

1. You know nothing about my experience or knowledge.
2. I have no ego or chip on my shoulder.
3. I share quite a good life with my friends and wife, funny you should bring that into the argument? Very childish I say.
4. I am a grown ass man, not a lil boy.
5. I do not own this site, I just happen to be a moderator in it.
6. I like to study these aircraft from many different points of view and aspects, not just those that prove that my point. You should try it sometime.
*7. I am not Colin!*


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> the someone else is you colin!


did the voices tell you to say that?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually me and Colin are two different people.
> 
> I am however a moderator here


...and I'm the new site owner


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> With the hazards associated with attacking the enemy from the tail position firmly in mind, Luftwaffe pilots logically shifted their focus to the lesser defended front of the formation. Upon interception, fighters would loiter outside of gunnery range, either abeam or behind, to estimate the speed and altitude of the bomber stream.
> 
> The German would then accelerate his aircraft to a point two miles ahead of the enemy and 1000 yards above before turning back towards his foe. With closing speeds approaching 500 mph, there was but a few scant seconds to line up a shot, squeeze off a short burst and break away to avoid a collision. A successful frontal attack required superior flying ability, skilled marksmanship and an iron will on the part of the Luftwaffe pilot.
> 
> ...



Was that from an Osprey book or the back label of the latest flight sim game?


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

put away your flight sim flyboy (colin), it was

Luftwaffe Day Interception Tactics
German Fighter Pilot Methods for Attacking USAAF Strategic Bombers
by Andrew C. Rappold 

but with your keen understanding of air warfare, i am sure you knew that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2009)

This is really getting funny!

Now you think that FlyboyJ, Colin1 and DerAdlerIstGelandet are the same people?


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

something it did say, and notice the lighter more agile me-109?

Recalling prior experiences with the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain, Luftwaffe fighters were deployed in "Big Wings" to engage the enemy en masse. Modified Fw -190's with additional frontal and cockpit armor joined standard Bf-109's in formations of up to 100 aircraft, referred to as Sturmgruppen. The lighter, more agile Bf-109's would occupy the American escorts as waves of Fw-190's, in tightly spaced vee's of a dozen or more, assaulted the bombers.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> put away your flight sim flyboy (colin), it was
> 
> Luftwaffe Day Interception Tactics
> German Fighter Pilot Methods for Attacking USAAF Strategic Bombers
> ...


OK
so I'm DerAdlerIstGelandert AND FlyboyJ now? Oh, and the site owner of course...
Boy I get around - and you're a fruit-loop.

Did you say you flew airliners? Full of people?


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 29, 2009)

heck for all i know your all holding hands


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> Let me try to comprehend this, please type slow for me. You say it is pointless the views of Bud Anderson and other pilots who actually participated in the combat, the air combat between the 2 aircraft we are discussing, at the time it happened, in the aircraft of the era?
> 
> *Mike - Colin didn't say that.
> 
> ...



It is interesting to note, at least to me, that more ETO fighter pilots respected the Fw 190 at middle to low altitudes than the 109 and in the 8th AF approximately 2500 Me 109s were credited in contrast to the 1900+ Fw 190 - and remember a lot of the 190s that went down air to air were the 190A-8's which were at a huge disadvantage at 25,000 feet. Only two Mustang groups were credited with more Fws than Me 109s - the 339th and 364th and those by small margins.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2009)

mike526mp said:


> put away your flight sim flyboy (colin), it was
> 
> Luftwaffe Day Interception Tactics
> German Fighter Pilot Methods for Attacking USAAF Strategic Bombers
> ...



I've served in the military and have flown military aircraft (as a civilian). You're spouting off things I've learned 40 years ago. Understand that you are not talking to a bunch of pudknockers and we've probably forgotten more than you could ever read. And I speak more for some of our members than I do myself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2009)

I would not argue with Bill on this topic. In my opinion is the one with most knowledge. Anytime himself or Erich start talking, I just shut up and listen...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2009)

guys - you may have pulled the trigger a little too soon - it really was getting pretty funny! You can't watch monkeys screw for a qurater and this was for free! Er, quarter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2009)

He was not banned...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He was not banned...



I see now I jumped to conclusions on the X-ray of Homer as current avatar - used to seeing that one on recently departed..

Mike may have deserved that one.. hopefully he will man up and listen an learn a little bit from Colin..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2009)

No he will not. He sent me a nice PM about how we are all full of ****. How we are all discrediting the US pilots and we are discrediting his father who shot down 2 Bf 109s. That we have an agenda here to discredit the great things that the US pilots and aircraft did. 

I don't see how we have ever done that. In fact I think we do the exact opposite here on this forum...

Of course I explained to him that your father is an ace who flew P-51D's in WW2 and that you know what you are talking about. Of coures according to him, you do not know what you are talking about. 

Oh well, someday...


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> ...hopefully he will man up and listen an learn a little bit from Colin..


Compliment indeed Bill
was just holding the fort till you got here...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No he will not. He sent me a nice PM about how we are all full of ****. How we are all discrediting the US pilots and we are discrediting his father who shot down 2 Bf 109s. That we have an agenda here to discredit the great things that the US pilots and aircraft did.
> 
> I don't see how we have ever done that. In fact I think we do the exact opposite here on this forum...
> 
> ...



Interesting that he would make that leap when many of us, including myself, rated the Mustang D over the D-9 in 1945 in more profiles but not all ... I guess I'll have to respect his opinion that I (we) have no clue. 

He obviously got emotional and saw only what he wanted to see - not the totality of what is being said.

For the record Mike - we all respect your father.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 30, 2009)

Mmmm, I have long suspected a level of schizophrenia on this site. I am beginning to think that this site is really composed of only one very sick person arguing with himself ad infinitum. But... that would make me....oooh nooo!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2009)




----------



## Njaco (Oct 30, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Mmmm, I have long suspected a level of schizophrenia on this site. I am beginning to think that this site is really composed of only one very sick person arguing with himself ad infinitum. But... that would make me....oooh nooo!



By claiming Colin, Adler and Flyboy were all the same, that may have been the point he was making!


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 30, 2009)

Njaco said:


> By claiming Colin, Adler and Flyboy were all the same, that may have been the point he was making!


...don't forget the site owner


----------

