# Fw-190 vs Spit/P-51/P-47



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2006)

There was an interesting documentary on the N24 a German documentary and news TV channel about the Fw-190. They talked about the development and the Butcher Bird in action. They interviewed several members of the Wilde Sau unit and several other Luftwaffe units. The show is coming back on TV tonight and I will have to watch it again for names of the pilots. They also interviewed several USAAF pilots who flew against the Fw-190.

All of the Luftwaffe pilots had these things to say about the allied aircraft.

They said the Spitfire was a superb aircraft and in straight up one on one fighting they were more scared of the Spitfire than the P-51D. The one they really did not like flying against was the P-47. They said it was a very hard aircraft to take down and a worthy opponent.

One USAAF pilot (name not remembered until I watch the documentary again tonight) who flew all 3 of the mentioned allied aircraft said he really enjoyed flying the Spitfire. He said it was easy and a joy to fly. The P-51D on the other hand he said he did not enjoy very much. He said the only advantage it had over the Fw-190 and even the Bf-109 was its long range, saying it was especially hard to get the upper hand of the Fw-190D-9 with a P-51D.

The one that he preferred to fight the Fw-190 in was the P-47 due to its heavy armament and good armour and robust engine.

He even went as far as saying that the Fw-190D was probably the best fighter overall produced in WW2.

It was an interesting documentary. I will watch it again tonight so that I can get names for the pilots that were interviewed.

What do you guys think of this?


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 16, 2006)

It pretty much mimicks what Ive heard before on the subject....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2006)

It was a really interesting documentary actually, with lots of original footage of Fw-190s including them shooting down bombers, P-51D, Spitfires and P-47s as well as them getting shot down as well by the same aircraft.

After that show was over can an interesting show as well about the B-29 modded to carry the Grand Slams and the Tall Boys. I watched a couple of minutes but it was too late and I had to get up to go to work early so I turned it off and went to bed.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 16, 2006)

Chris,

I have heard many of the same things. 

P-51D only big claim to fame was its range, other than that it was average.

P-47 German pilots feared it a great deal. There was many of them and you can't see them all 100% of the time. You get bounced by a P-47 and you are highly likely to die in a hail of 0.5 cal fire.

Spitfire - Very respected by the Germans though out the war. Very dangerous plane to fight. Nice to fly.

I have seen on several occasions where the German pilots rated their various opponents on ability and who they respected the most for their flying ability. This is how always went:

1) British - Best enemy pilots, very skilled and aggressive.

2) USAF - Very good also, but not as seasoned or aggressive.

3) Russian- Poor pilots (for the most part, but Guard units were very good), lacked skill, aggression or independent thought.

I write this and I hope no one takes offense to it, it was not meant as a insult to USAF or Russian pilots. Its just what I have seen German pilots write several times.

While I also have always heard how good the FW-190 was and heard how it was the best German made prop fighter of the war etc. I have never heard anyone go as far as say it was the best prop fighter of WW2. But then again most programs I see on TV are USA made and are baised towards the P-51 to say the least (no offense meant).

To bad I don't get that TV channel in Canada, I would truely love to watch it. I would love to see that footage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2006)

The channel is not just about WW2 but yesterday and today seem to be WW2 themed stuff.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 16, 2006)

Sweet, now you are just making me jealous.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 16, 2006)

The P-51 was not an average fighter, even without the range. It was an extremely useful and capable machine when operating at low-level in the armed-recon missions. Dawn raids on enemy airfields deep in enemy terrority where no other fighter could sweep were conducted by the P-51. It was fast, it was well armed and it was easy to fly.


----------



## Erich (Aug 16, 2006)

odd I have not heard several of the above statements from Luftwaffe vets, the predominance of Allied escorts is what was feared not any certain individual a/c type. It's all about the theater and the year in the war anyway guys ............ because the P-51 was in such huge numbers in 1945 compared to the groundattack Jug the P-51 is always mentioned. the 8th AF 56th fg was about the only Jug unit performing in an escort role during the latter half of 44 and through 45, the 9th AF specialty was bouncing ground vehicles, crossroads, etc......Also too the statement about the Dora is a bit odd as there were not that many in action especially flown by experienced pilots except for JG 26 on the western front and JG 2, so I am wondering just whom the US pilot was in making the mention that the Dora was the best over all performer. many times the US Stang pilots stated they had shot down a long noser which in reality they had not, BMW equipped A-8 or A-9. Obviously to shoot one of the "new" German craft was something special in their eyes. maybe think about this before you answer ............ as to the Spit yes early war and in the northern part of the ETO only in 45, aka JG 2 and JG 26, the rest of the units defending the Reich were central and southern-Bayern which took on hordes of Mustangs


----------



## plan_D (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm quite interested in the German reaction to the Typhoon and Tempest. Obviously JG 2 and JG 26 would be the main opponents, as they were to the 2nd TAF throughout it's life.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 16, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The P-51 was not an average fighter, even without the range. It was an extremely useful and capable machine when operating at low-level in the armed-recon missions. Dawn raids on enemy airfields deep in enemy terrority where no other fighter could sweep were conducted by the P-51. It was fast, it was well armed and it was easy to fly.



You are right Marc,

Let me explain what I meant alittle more clearly. 

Advantages of the P-51:

-Range big time
-Good rec plane
-Damn raids deep in enemy territory was b/c it had such range and very good speed.
-It was available in large numbers
- Decent armament on it.

Some not so great traits:
- Ok maneuverability only
- Not as tuff as the P-47, admittedly not many planes were.
- I have heard many times from unbiased reports that it could be tricky to handle at times, but over all pretty good.

But over all put all those + facts and very small - facts into one plane and you are right you have a pretty good plane. But if you could ever get that sort of range out of a Spit I would take a Spit over a P-51 anytime. What made the P-51 dangerous was its speed, range and numbers. But it is over rated to a degree. IMHO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2006)

Yes Erich you are correct what I basically got from the show was this.

The German pilots feared the P-47 and the Spit the most when it came to one one one fighting, but not the P-51D they all felt they could handle it with no problem but they all agreed that it did not matter since the allied aircraft and the P-51D were so numerous anyhow.

I do have some disappointing news though. I did not watch the documentary again as it turns out Germany was playing Sweden today (which I might add a was wonderful match from the German side with Germany winning 3-0!) and I happened to watch this great game instead. I am sorry.

The documentary is coming on again tonight but unfortunatly at 3 in the morning and I have to fly tomorrow so I will not be staying up. I have however sent an email to the station asking if the documentary is available on DVD. Hopefully it is and I will buy it then.


----------



## Glider (Aug 16, 2006)

Small observation re the range of the Spitfire. As delivered to the squadrons it had an average range on that we will probably agree. You may be intrested to note that in September 1944 two MkIXc Spitfires (MK210 was one of them) were fitted with two P51 type drop tanks plus internal tanks (retaining their 20mm) at Wright Field Ohio. They then flew the Atlantic, non stop from St Johns Newfoundland to Northern Ireland.

Its been said before that the Spitfire wasn't developed into a long Range Fighter, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been. This would tend to support that view.

Its only fair to note that the P51 tanks were not made operational due to some seperation difficulties. These could have been addressed but the urgency of the requirement was over due to the number of escorts then available.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 16, 2006)

Glider said:


> Its been said before that the Spitfire wasn't developed into a long Range Fighter, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been. This would tend to support that view.
> 
> .


The first Allied fighter type to fly over Berlin, was the Supermarine Spitfire in its Photo-Recon role (March 14. 1941)
8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 16, 2006)

Have to agree with Erich on several points... First off, many more "Long Nose Fw's" were shot down than were ever operational... By the time the Dora was in Staffel usage, the number of combat veterans was very low proportionately to the number of kids out of flight school with no experience whatsoever, with 14 hours of actual stick time...

They were slaughtered on a daily basis, Fw 190D-9 or not.... The real kicker is that so many records were lost, and the names of veterans forgotten, that it makes the actual losses that much more sobering... 

Most of these "Noobs" were in no way shape or form experienced enough to combat a 2 kill [email protected] 2nd Lt. in his shiny new Mustang with 127 hours of stick time, LET ALONE 4 OF EM at one time, and they gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country..

As far as the aircraft gimmick goes, Ive heard every possible thing from vets; The 190D-9 was unreal, the 190-D what??? The Spit at altitudes to 22k, the Jug above that, the Tempest below 12k, this plane was feared, this one wasn't, the Tank ruled everything...........

Everyone has a different story to tell, and everyone has their own opinion... The plane Galland feared the most wasnt even a plane, but the pilot flying it..

But the one constant u hear from 90% of the surviving Luftwaffe Aces is this:

The sheer numbers made it almost impossible to survive the War...

As far as the JG 26 boys and their Doras, they dealt with the British Spits and Tempests just about every day when the weather permitted once they moved in '44... But at the end, it was more about intercepting fighter bombers and ground attack, bouncing from airfield to airfield...

Alot of D-9's disappeared on those GA missions, some to German flak Captains....

As far as MY expert opinion on the P-51D, I think that it is overrated in the "Public Eye", but very well respected by the men who flew in it and against it... It was more dangerous in hoards of 30-40 than in single combat...

Some people actually have the balls to say it was the best performing fighter in all of WW2.... Get a clue...


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 16, 2006)

Good post Dan, 100% with everything you said.


----------



## jakal (Aug 20, 2006)

Hunter368

I read Female Russian Pilots during [email protected] kicked *** with the little training they received!


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2006)

Female Russian pilots were killed by the hundreds.... There were a handful that scored kills...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

_"Advantages of the P-51:

-Range big time
-Good rec plane
-Damn raids deep in enemy territory was b/c it had such range and very good speed.
-It was available in large numbers
- Decent armament on it.

Some not so great traits:
- Ok maneuverability only
- Not as tuff as the P-47, admittedly not many planes were.
- I have heard many times from unbiased reports that it could be tricky to handle at times, but over all pretty good.

But over all put all those + facts and very small - facts into one plane and you are right you have a pretty good plane. But if you could ever get that sort of range out of a Spit I would take a Spit over a P-51 anytime. What made the P-51 dangerous was its speed, range and numbers. But it is over rated to a degree."_

The P-51 at high speeds was no slouch in the turn fight. But that aside, the P-51 achieved a great overall speed (cruise and top speeds both being high), exceptional fighter vs. fighter armament and easily flown. This is what we both agree on. 

Rating the P-51 survivability as a negative point is a little unfair, as you point out it wasn't as tough as the P-47 but nothing much was. Compared to the other inline fighters of the era, the P-51 had no disadvantages worth mentioning. 

If the P-51 didn't have it's legendary range, it would have provided an above average plane for actions down low. The RAF used the Mustang Mk.I and IA extensively over Northern France before deep penertrations were being made by the Allison cousins; Mustang Mk.IIIs started them. Pairs or trios of cannon armed Mk.IAs could provide a nasty surprise for the Luftwaffe when they were training or lining up to intercept a bomber formation early in the morning. The speed of the Mustang let it in and out of Axis Europe quickly, the Luftwaffe had a difficult time intercepting this small incursions. The 2nd TAF Mustangs achieved quite the success flying missions that could have been covered by the Spitfires range. 

The real niché of the P-51 was it's range, we all know that. The 2nd TAF used the Mustang III with great success on early morning raids against enemy airfields in Germany. These were another shock to the Luftwaffe, they never expected to see six Mustangs dive-bombing German bases in Germany before the Allies were on the continent! Nothin' like puttin' on your Lieder-Hosen in the mornin' and hearing six Merlins roaring overhead!  

A lot of people mistake the Mustang for being "relegated" to the armed-recon role by the RAF. But the Mustang was ordered for this role, to free up the Spitfire for the air superiority role. This provided a great partnership between the Spitfire and Mustang that is rarely mentioned. A great, and efficient sight to see, Mustang IIIs escorting "Bombphoons" while Spitfire IXs fly high over them. And these Mustangs weren't in a 10:1 situation against the Luftwaffe, like their USAAF brethren were. 

We don't need to mention the role of the P-51 in the escort duties for the USAAF bomber streams, it's known by everyone.

The role of the Mustang as a war winning weapon is not over-rated. People will say the P-38 could have filled that role, but it didn't. The Mustang carried the bombers on it's shoulders to Berlin and beyond, then home again. The technical ability of the Mustang in a dogfight is the over-rated part, but be careful and don't instantly assume the Mustang was useless in one on one combat - pilots have many a wonderful story to tell! 

That said, if they managed to get Spitfire Mk.IXs with the range of the Mustang while keeping every other ability. I would take the Spitfire Mk.IX everytime - but again, they didn't get anything like that into service.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 20, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Female Russian pilots were killed by the hundreds.... There were a handful that scored kills...



Correct


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 20, 2006)

PlanD,

I have been waiting for you to respond to my post so we could debate. But......I can't debate anything you have said b/c it is 100% correct. I agree with you on every single point 100%. Well done it was like you were reading my mind.


I liked how you slipped that point about the 2ND TAF in there, lets see if syscom says anything about it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 20, 2006)

jakal said:


> Hunter368
> 
> I read Female Russian Pilots during [email protected] kicked *** with the little training they received!




Yes......whats your point???? For every one that did well I would guess hundreds were killed.

Thats like saying that its a good retirement plan to buy lottery tickets and when I actually win one, you say I am a genuis. If someone depends on lottery tickets for their retirement....whether they win or not they are still a dumbass. You get my point?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

My history on the 2nd Tactical Air Force has been a great help in learning about tactical strikes, but also about the usage of many aircraft types involved. The Mustang story in the 2nd TAF is completely different from that in the US Eighth Air Force and it still held it's own. Helped me create an unbias opinion on the plane, took a while though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2006)

"Katya" Yekaterina Vasilyevna Budanova (KIA 18jul43) 20 - 11 (6 + 5 OTG?) 
Olga Nikolayevna Yamshikova 17 - 3 (3 + 14 OTG?) 
"Lili" Lidya Vladimirovna Litvyak (KIA 1aug43) 12 (+ 3 sh) (7 + 5 OTG?) 
Klavdiya Yakovlevna Fomicevova (Fomicheva) 11 (all OTG?)

A different List...

Litvjaková, Lidia Vladimirovna 15 [12+3] 
Budanová, Jekatěrina V. 11 [6+5]
Fomičevová, Klavdija Jakovlevna 11 [0+11] 
Pankratová, Klaudie 4 
Beljajeva, Rajsa Vasiljevna 3 [1+3] 
Burdina, Galina Pavlovna 3 [2+1] 
Dolina, Marija Ivanovna 3 [0+3] 
Jamščiková, Olga Nikolajevna 3 
Lebeděva, Antonina Vasiljevna 3 
Surnačevskaja, Raisa Fedorovna 3 [2+1] 

Lidia Vladimirovna Litvjaková is sometimes credited with eleven individual victories and three shared. 
Jekatěrina V. Budanová is sometimes credited with four individual victories and six shared. 
Rajsa Vasiljevna Beljajeva is sometimes credited with four confirmed victories. 
Olga Nikolajevna Jamščiková is sometimes credited with seventeen victories. 
Tamara Ustinovna Pamjatnych and Raisa Fedorovna Surnačevskaja shot down four enemy aircrafts in one combat.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 21, 2006)

PlanD, I agree with your assessment of the Mustang at least to a point. 

The P-51s performance was average at best before the Merlin/long range capabilities to the poiint that production had stopped for several months. The -51s project coordinator for the AAF also had a father in congress who was friends with the White House who helped put a priority on the P-51 for a second production plant (I will have to search for the names but I'll try to get them).

An interesting point I have run across several times: The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status. 

Yes the P-38 could have done it and at least as well as the P-51 - in fact it did for a bit. The truth is that with more factory space and easier construction, the Mustang was available in larger numbers faster. The decision to move the P-38s to other theaters, the idea being to consolidate the aircraft types was right one for the time, place and conditions. Committing both aircraft piecemeal in all places they were needed would have reduced the effectiveness of the AAF.

Its nickname was the Spam Can, and its loss rate was quite a bit higher than the P-47 or the P-38, at least in the 8th AF (the one I have the best info on), that was the price for expediency. 

IMHO: To say the Mustang was the best AAF fighter is not correct, to say it was the premier fighter of WWII is Ludicrous but so is saying it was less than a great fighter plane and amoung the best. It did what it was there to do and did it effectively. Any differences in performance, with other fighters, are a matter of degree not magnitude.

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Aug 21, 2006)

wmaxt said, *"The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status." *

Wore out how? It's engine was quite reliable and didn't required the overhaul schedule of the Merlin powered Mustang. It didn't have the plug fouling problems of the Mustang nor the plethora of engine problems of the pre-J model P-38's.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 22, 2006)

Jank said:


> wmaxt said, *"The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status." *
> 
> Wore out how? It's engine was quite reliable and didn't required the overhaul schedule of the Merlin powered Mustang. It didn't have the plug fouling problems of the Mustang nor the plethora of engine problems of the pre-J model P-38's.



Actually the 2800 though a great engine and very reliable required overhaul in intervals that weren't much different than the in-line engines. Turbo's and there related components are also relatively high maintenance items. The actual causes of the reports is unknown to me though I have seen them from several different sources - I am looking for more info on this and will relate it when I have found it. I don't consider it verified yet that is why I noted "It has been reported".

Average manhours to overhaul the big three's engines
2800 - 288 hours
1710 - 198 hours
1650 - 320 hours

This has nothing to do with run hours between overhauls but might be considered in to war weary status.

The early P-38 engine issues and a few Js to to a very great extent were due to 
1. Fuel, the fuel in Europe was of fairly poor quality to begin with and affected Mustangs too but turbo'd engines are more susceptible to poor fuel. 
2. Intercoolers, early intercoolers were designed for 1,100hp max, worse the long path from the turbo through the wing and back at cold temps separated the TEL from the fuel causing denotation or the lead would cause the valves not to seat thereby melting the valve or causing the piston to hit it.
3. Operating techniques, low turbo pressure let the intake air cool exacerbating the fuel issues plus letting the engine oil and coolant cool to much for proper lubrication.

The same and worse conditions were encountered in the Aleutions with none of these issues. Cockpit heat was also better for the same reasons, a warm engine and exhaust heated the cockpit much more effectively to. Cockpit heat on the P-38 came from a metal jacket around the exhaust pipe between the engine and turbo. The exhaust pipe heated the air as it was drawn through the space between the jacket and the pipe then to the cockpit. At low manifold pressures and very cold outside air it never warmed sufficiently, higher manifold pressures caused the exhaust pipe to be much hotter making the system that much more efficient.

You probably know that already but others may not.

PlanD

We both missed the P-51's best feature, esp for a low time pilot, ease of getting reasonable flying competency for combat. The P-38 was a better performer - for an experienced pilot but significantly harder for a 20hr fighter pilot to get very good results out of.

Thats probably its very best feature.

wmaxt


----------



## Jank (Aug 22, 2006)

Can you share where you saw that "it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status"?

I am interested because I have read an account from a crew chief (I wish I had it to share) that indicated that the R-2800 could go longer between maintenance intervals than the Merlin powered Mustang - I think, in part due to the spark plug problems suffered by the Mustangs but I'm not sure. 

I have also read in The Report on Joint Fighter Conference 1944 that the mechanical maintenance on the P-38 was more complicated and troublesome.


----------



## Jank (Aug 22, 2006)

Only semi-related but interesting nonetheless.

These are the results of a maintenance study of the use of 150 grade fuel on the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in 1944.

150 Grade Fuel

4. Maintenance difficulties can be summarized as follows: 

a. P-38 (V-1710 Engine). 

Spark plug leading was increased. The extent of this leading was such that plug change was required after approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than leading. 

b. P-47 (R-2800 Engine). 

Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted. 

c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines). 

The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2006)

I think a lot of the fouling problems were due to improper leaning. Many greener pilots had no idea what "peak of lean" meant and would most certainly forget to lean after going W/E during the heat of battle. 

Something else to consider - a V-12, 24 spark plugs fairly accessible; an R-2800, 36 spark plugs a lot less accessible. Although the round engines were more robust, they could be a lot more difficult to work on (I say that from experience).


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2006)

Ive read countless accounts of spark plug fouling in the P-51, on climb out, on cruise and combat conditions.... Sometimes pilots were grounded for days at visiting airfields till more spark plugs could be delivered...

Ive never seen much mention of this problem with the P-47 jocks or their mechanics...

The biggest problem Ive seen concerning maintenance issues for the P-38 was their propellers... Guys in the Propeller Shops got less sleep than just about anyone else.... It wasnt an exact science either, as alot of these mechanics would sit and wait for the birds to come home, praying that no one had prop issues....


----------



## Soren (Aug 22, 2006)

> Although the round engines were more robust, they could be a lot more difficult to work on (I say that from experience).



And I 2nd that ! Having worked on Radial engines before I know it can be a real pain in the *** just having to change the sparkplugs.


----------



## Jank (Aug 22, 2006)

From a poster on THE GREAT PLANES forum:

THE GREAT PLANES Community - P-38 Lightning as Long-Range Escort

Data on flight hours and labor hours on these engines. I have no idea where it came from so take it with a grain of salt.

1945 1st quarter

V-1650
flying hours: 302
labor hours: 251

V-1710 
flying hours: 362
labor hours: 134

R-2800
flying hours: 580
labor hours: 147


1945 2nd quarter

V-1650
flying hours: 200
labor hours: 259

V-1710 
flying hours: 387
labor hours: 153

R-2800
flying hours: 500
labor hours: 241


----------



## Jank (Aug 22, 2006)

P-38J tests with 44-1 fuel:

P-38J Performance Test

VII CONCLUSIONS

c. The maintenance difficulties experienced throughout the tests were considerable. These consisted mainly of induction, exhaust system, and spark plug failure. However, these difficulties could not be attributed directly to any action of the 44-1 fuel. 

VIII RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Because of the mechanical and maintenance characteristics of the engine and the P-38J installation this rating should be limited to a very short time. Periods between overhaul should be shortened for the engines using this power.


----------



## Jank (Aug 22, 2006)

P-47D tests with 44-1 fuel:

P 47D Performance Test

The issues with the P-38J do not appear present and there is no mention of shorter intervals between overhauls.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 23, 2006)

Back to the original topic, I just want to add my 2 cents of common sense:

Spit IX vs P51: they shared the same engine (actually we could take the Spit XVI that was basically a IX with a Packard-Merlin), but the Spit was about 1400 pounds (empty) or 5000 pounds (full load) lighter.

It seems very unlikely that the P51 could have delivered the same performances of the IX, even if we assume that the aerodynamic design of the P51 was MUCH better than the Spit (that is, at least, a very bold assumption)
In general, we can say that the wing design allowed the Mustang a higher cruise and top speed, but at further expense of lift and other positive parameters.

From the RAF report (source: Spitfire, Alfred Price) the comparison between a Spit IX and a Fw190 (I think was the same A3 or A4 previously compared with the Spit V) revealed a substantial tie between the 2 aircrafts, the main differences being the tight turn (advantage for the Spit), the roll rate (for the Fw190) and the zoom dive (Fw190).

This test was made up to 25000 ft, above that height we know that the drop in power of the BMW801 was impacting the 190A performances

Since during production there were thousands of micro-changes, on-going improvements etc., it is impossible to rationally say or deny that 'a certain version of XX was a bit better than a certain subtype of YY' but in terms of 
'macro differences' (and a weight difference of 25% in the best case is a macro difference) the above considerations should be a fair assessment of the relative performances of the 3 aircrafts.

Another 'general common sense' consideration: if the Fw 'A' pilots were experiencing a serious lack of performances in dogfight, they had an easy way to improve handling and performances, that is to remove the outer Mg151 saving about 3-400 pounds and retaining enough firepower to shoot down any enemy fighter. 
I am not aware that there was an official 'U' or 'R' specific configuration of this kind, and considering the appassionate love of the Germans for classification I think it is safe to assume that this change was not felt as necessary by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Soren (Aug 23, 2006)

Parmigiano, the Fw190 tested by the British suffered severe engine troubles as-well as aileron adjustment-difficulties which significantly influenced the test-flight-results with this particular a/c - A decrease in power seriously affects both turn and climb performance, and obviously it also affects speed quite dramaticly. The improper adjustment of the ailerones affected turn rate dramaticly, causing premature departures in tight turns. 

Also Spitfire IX pilots, despite the availability of increased performance, certainly didn't speak to positively about their own chances when faced by FW190's over the channel.(Despite what some test report might tell you) And according to FW190 pilots, they frequently accepted turn-fights with the Spitfire and came out on top - ofcourse the Spitfire did have a tighter turn radius, but for the first 1/3 of a 360 degree turn the FW190 actually turned abit faster, and combined with its superior energy retention this made the FW190 a truly nasty opponent for the Spitfire in a dogfight.


----------



## Jank (Aug 23, 2006)

Soren, while your point is well taken, I do not believe it is accurate to characterize the engine problems as "severe."


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 23, 2006)

Soren and Jank,

to summarize the story:
if my 'common sense' is correct we should have 
1 - Spit IX and Fw190 
3 - P51

if your comments are correct we should have
1 - Fw190A
2 - Spit IX
3 - P51
at least up to 25000 ft

... quite a strong statement !


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 23, 2006)

Jank said:


> Can you share where you saw that "it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status"?
> 
> I am interested because I have read an account from a crew chief (I wish I had it to share) that indicated that the R-2800 could go longer between maintenance intervals than the Merlin powered Mustang - I think, in part due to the spark plug problems suffered by the Mustangs but I'm not sure.
> 
> I have also read in The Report on Joint Fighter Conference 1944 that the mechanical maintenance on the P-38 was more complicated and troublesome.



I don't know where it originated, where did I read it? I can't tell you that, either, I didn't note the source at the time because I didn't put any credence to it until I had seen it several times, sorry. Since I don't know the source I consider it a possibility only at this time. If anyone else has info on this we'd like to hear about it. 

The P-38 was very closely packed and could be very tough to work on. Someone here posted a cutaway drawing, on this forum, of the P-38 and its quite an eye opener.

As for the Joint Fighter Conference report, I don't know the mix or the conditions. Was there an experienced P-38 crew and pilot there, that could make a huge difference in the perception of the aircraft. How about proper facilities, spares etc.? I've seen Navy comparisons where the AAF aircraft were flown and compared with Navy aircraft using METO power settings against 70" in the Corsair. To add insult to injury the Corsair had its stores pylons removed and faired over while the P-38s are fixed (even the show plane Yippee has its pylons, they weren't removable). Maintenance wise I've heard both sides of the same coin. Typically the newer mechanics found the P-38 very daunting and difficult it was so densely packed and a lot of the systems were fairly new in the war years. For instance it was the first with hydraulic ailerons. Once the systems and proper techniques were worked out it wasn't much different than anything else. Art Heiden flew his P-38 320 combat hours on the same engines and didn't miss any mission time due to maintenance. Given proper maintenance and treatment the P-38 was as good as they got in WWII. On the other hand jam the throttles forward before the mixture was richened and your going to have a dead stick landing so you better start pumping the landing gear down  ! 

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Aug 23, 2006)

Jank said:


> Soren, while your point is well taken, I do not believe it is accurate to characterize the engine problems as "severe."



They were quite severe for the outcome of the test-flights, as available power was well under the normal output.


----------



## Jank (Aug 23, 2006)

Parmagiono said, "*Soren and Jank ... if your comments are correct we should have
1 - Fw190A
2 - Spit IX
3 - P51
at least up to 25000 ft*"

My comments do not lead to that conclusion. All I said was that I thought Soren's characterization of "severe" engine problems was excessive. I have read that test and there were engine problems. No, they were not "severe." I was not passing judgement on your common sense judgement. 

Bottom line - if you are conducting a flight test and experience "severe" engine problems, you immediately land. If you continue on with the test, that is definitive evidence that the problems did not rise to the level of "severe."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)

Jank said:


> Bottom line - if you are conducting a flight test and experience "severe" engine problems, you immediately land. If you continue on with the test, that is definitive evidence that the problems did not rise to the level of "severe."



That is correct....


----------



## Soren (Aug 23, 2006)

I apologize for not making myself clear enough Jank, what I meant, as I wrote in my last post, is that the engine troubles proved severe for the outcome of the test - I admit calling the actual engine troubles "severe" (although they were serious for the testing), is rather excessive indeed, I hope you accept my apology.

From the British report:
_There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be carried out by the RAH and more definite information will then be available._

_Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability._


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 24, 2006)

Jank, sorry for having misunderstood your comment, my perception was that you were meaning 'that 190 was not in optimal condition although not to the extent implied by Soren'

Rather than establishing an order, I am more interested about the 'common sense statement', I think it is the interesting part of the discussion, so I try to rephrase it :

Is it possible that an aircraft who is (in the best possible case) 25% or 1400 pounds heavier than another aircraft - who is widely recognized as one of the best performing of the era - and share the same engine can have overall equal or better performances?

We are not talking about tactics, sheer numbers, easiness of construction, we are talking about flight performances.

Based on rational thinking, I would say 'no way' for every machine, aircraft, GP motorbike or F1 racing car. 
I can accept that a more refined airframe design can cope with a 5-10% weight handicap, not with a difference of this magnitude.

I would like to have this concept challenged with rational reasons, pilot reports are too often biased, even if in 'bona fide'. 

For instance, I rationally accept that the heavier craft can be faster because of a different wing airfoil, but I also rationally assume that (since in physics nothing is free of charge) that airfoil optimized for low drag is paying fee in terms of lift and other parameters, further enhancing the gap vs the lighter machine in performances like climb and turn.

I.e. rational reasons could be:

- the assumption is wrong because the real weight data are different and the real difference is only 200 pounds
- The propeller of the P51 was much more efficient than the Spit, so the P51 was more efficient in trasforming power in thrust.
- Weight is not really an important parameter for flight performances (but in this case why? this would be a revolutionary concept) 
- The Packard-Merlin was in reality a substantial improvement vs the RR Merlin 

Sorry for bothering, but I am really curious...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2006)

Soren said:


> And I 2nd that ! Having worked on Radial engines before I know it can be a real pain in the *** just having to change the sparkplugs.


 I bet you and I have the same scars on our knuckles!


----------



## Hop (Aug 24, 2006)

> Parmigiano, the Fw190 tested by the British suffered severe engine troubles



It certainly did later on, and indeed the tests had to be abandoned because the 190 was running so poorly.

However, when you look at the climb performance the RAF thought they achieved, it's much better than even FW claimed for the aircraft.



> as-well as aileron adjustment-difficulties which significantly influenced the test-flight-results with this particular a/c



Have you any source for the aileron adjustment difficulties? I've seen it claimed for some other RAF captured 190s, but not for the aircraft in this test (which was Faber's that landed by mistake in Pembrey)



> A decrease in power seriously affects both turn and climb performance, and obviously it also affects speed quite dramaticly.



And yet the test results show climb performance better than the German tests.

The AFDU, for example, claimed a better climb rate than the Spitfire V, and equal to the Spitfire IX, yet German results were much worse than indepndent British tests of Spitfire Vs and IXs.



> Also Spitfire IX pilots, despite the availability of increased performance, certainly didn't speak to positively about their own chances when faced by FW190's over the channel.(Despite what some test report might tell you)



On the contrary, British pilots felt extrememly confident facing 190s in Spitfire IXs, especially the more powerfull LF IXs which came into service in Spring 1943.



> From the British report:
> There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be carried out by the RAH and more definite information will then be available.
> 
> Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability.



It's certainly true that the engine of Faber's plane was running roughly, the fact the British took a derated engine (limited to 2450 rpm, 1.35 for 3 minutes) and ran it at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm for 3 mins, and 2450 rpm, 1.35 ata for 30 minutes probably has something to do with that.


----------



## Soren (Aug 24, 2006)

Thats absurd Hop, the Fw-190A3 actually achieved better results in German tests:

*Climb rate at SL running at Steig u. Kampfleistung - [email protected],400rpm = 16.8 m/s*






I don't see where the British ever claimed reaching 403mph at 1.32ata with Fabers A-3 ! In fact the actual speed achieved in the British trials (390mph) was achieved running at 1.42ata ! At that setting the A-3 achieved up to 680km/h (422.5mph) in German trials. 

And about the ailerons, its certainly no claim, all Antons suffered this problem until the arrival of the A-6, with even the LW mech's having a hard time constantly correcting the problem in the field up until then - So I think its safe to assume that there's no chance in **** RAF mech's were ever going to get it right on Faber's machine which had already seen its fair share of flight time. 

And finally regarding your claim as to the confidence of Spitfire IX pilots when facing FW190's over the channel, well you're wrong again, just take a look at the records from that period 42-43.


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2006)

Re the confidence that British pilots had in the Spit IX when facing Fw190, I have never read or heard about any lack of confidence in the RAF. Quite the reverse. After what was a very difficult period in the Spit V which was at a clear disadvantage, they couldn't wait to take on the 190 in a plane as capable as the 190. I cannot remember anyone saying it was better than the 190 but definately as good as the 190.

Have you got any examples as its an interesting view?

I have read the same from American pilots who flew the Spit IX. The Best I read was an American Pilot who had flown Spit V's and been transferred to the USAF and was flying one of the first P47's. He went back to his old squadron who were on Spit IX and couldn't help compare the two. His view was both woulld be good enough to take on the Fw190 but what he really wanted, was a plane that combined the best of the two. The speed, roll and dive of the P47 with the climb, ightness of the controls and agility of the Spit. That would be game over.


----------



## Hop (Aug 24, 2006)

> Thats absurd Hop, the Fw-190A3 actually achieved better results in German tests:



The RAE tested the 190 and got figures of about 16 m/s up to 1,200m. That's very similar to the results FW got. 

However, the RAE claimed the climb rate actually went up to about 17 m/s up to 5,000m. Compare that to the FW results at 5,000m. The RAE results are about 4.5 m/s better.

The RAE tested after the AFDU did. The AFDU claimed the climb rate was similar to the Spitfire IX up to 22,000 ft. You can see the Spitfire results at Mike Williams site, Spitfire F Mk IX Test BF274

The "normal rating" test is the relevant one, as the AFDU were testing at what they thought was climb rating. 

The Spitfire F IX did have a similar climb rate to the 190A3 at sea level, just over 16.2 m/s, but in FW tests the 190 only maintained that to about 1km, as your graph shows. The Spitfire F IX maintained just over 16 m/s up to over 4,000m. Between 1 and 4km altitude, the Spitfire IX would have up to a 3.5 m/s advantage over the A3 from the FW tests.

The AFDU said the climb rates were similar to 22,000 ft (about 6500m). But at 6,500m, the 190 had a climb rate of about 9.5 m/s, according to the chart you've posted. The Spitfire F IX was still doing 13 m/s at that altitude.

In short, whilst there are a few points at which the Fw 190 has a similar climb rate at 1.35 ata to the Spitfire IX at climb power, for most of the altitude range the Spitfire IX climbs considerably better, yet the AFDU didn't find that at all.



> I don't see where the British ever claimed reaching 403mph at 1.32ata with Fabers A-3 !



No. It's noticeable that the British tests showed a better climb rate than the 190 actually had, and a worse speed. The speed is partially accounted for by the fact that the level speed runs were only carried out for 2 mins, so maximum speed wasn't obtained. The RAE also found a very low critical altitude, of only about 19,000 ft iirc, so the maximum speeds above 20,000 are a moot point.



> And finally regarding your claim as to the confidence of Spitfire IX pilots when facing FW190's over the channel, well you're wrong again, just take a look at the records from that period 42-43.



OK. Looking at Tony Wood's claims and casualty lists for the RAF, January 1943 saw Spitfire IXs (the much less capable F IX model) claiming 23 German aircraft over the channel front for the loss of 11 to all causes.

September resulted in 59 claims by Spitfire IXs for 16 losses.

Granted the claims aren't going to be completely accurate, not even in 1943 (although they were much better than the 1941/42 period), but it's clear the RAF thought the Spitfire IX squadrons were having the better of the fighting.


----------



## Soren (Aug 25, 2006)

It should be quite obvious to you that the engine didn't perform nearly as well as it should have Hop, and this is backed up by the report itself as well as German pilot testimonies - The engine's reliability was never ever questioned by the LW pilots who flew the bird, and it was described as a very nicely running engine which is backed up by a great reliability record. Obviously something went wrong in the translation of the climb rate tests performed by the RAE, cause those figures are just completely unreal, esp. when compared to the speeds achieved - which btw is the only area where they had an accurate reading to go by.

In any case you're better off asking Crumpp about this, as I'm simply not in the mood for a long discussion regarding your assumptions on this subject.

And about the Spit IX pilots confidence when facing the FW190, remember by 42-43 the A-4, A-5 A-6 were serving with the LW, and these gave the RAF fighters a serious beating over the channel. So its of no use comparing the Spit IX with the A-3, as newer and more powerful 190's had been introduced by the time of the Spit IX's introduction.

During the period of February to July 1942, the JG 2 26 shot down atleast 335 enemy a/c to the loss of just 85 FW-190 BF-109's. And on August 19th 1942, the day of the British operation "Jubilee", JG 2 26 despite being heavily outnumbered claimed 96 aerial victories while losing just 21 fighters themselves - the RAF admitted the loss of 103 a/c that day, 88 of which were Spitfires. 

Info taken from "JG26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald Caldwell, ISBN: 0804110506.


----------



## Glider (Aug 25, 2006)

As I understand it for operation Jubilee the British had 46 squadrons of spitfires, but only 4 of those had the Spit IX. The others were Mk V which we all admit was at a significant disadvantage over the Fw190.

Throw in the fact that the Germans were over their own land i.e. the reverse of the BOB and it would be suprising if the British didn't lose a lot more aircraft.

I am with Hop on this and firmly believe that the MkIX was every bit as good as the Fw190 and the pilots believed that as well.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 25, 2006)

Soren said:


> And on August 19th 1942, the day of the British operation "Jubilee", JG 2 26 despite being heavily outnumbered claimed 96 aerial victories while losing just 21 fighters themselves - the RAF admitted the loss of 103 a/c that day, 88 of which were Spitfires.
> 
> Info taken from "JG26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald Caldwell, ISBN: 0804110506.


The British lost 119 aircraft that day, against 45 Luftwaffe losses.
The number of Spitfires lost was 64.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2006)

Glider said:


> I am with Hop on this and firmly believe that the MkIX was every bit as good as the Fw190 and the pilots believed that as well.




I agree on that completely with the 190D-9 having a slight edge.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 26, 2006)

The significance of the P-51 was the range and capability combined. There were planes that could out manuever it and planes that could fly further, but there were very few (probably none) that could combine both features to the extent that the P-51 could. The fact that the P-51D could fly 400+ miles and then fight more or less nose-to-nose with any fighters it met, and give its pilot a fighting chance, was and is its claim to fame. The Fw-190D was a better dogfighter and the Ta-152 was clearly superior.

It must be noted here that when the P-51B arrived in May of 1943 it was similar in performance to the contemporary Spitfire IX in ceiling and rate of climb but was almost 40 mph faster and it was clearly superior to the Fw190-A6 and Bf109G-6 in speed, time to climb, and ceiling. In fact, flight test results indicate it was more on par with the Fw-190D, with similar top speed (442(P-51B) to 440), ceiling (42k to 39k), but with apparently (there were some contradictory data) did not have the Fw's time to climb (one source said the Fw could reach 32k in 7.1 minutes whereas the P-51B would only make 25k in that time, another source indicates the Fw could reach 19,680 ft in 7.1 minutes and the P-51B could do that in around 5 minutes).


----------



## Glider (Aug 26, 2006)

I admit that I thought that the P51B didn't climb quite as well as the figures your quote but they were close and could have been down to a number of reasons temperature, fuel ect. The one area where the FW did have an advantage was in its guns, where it had far more firepower than the P51B and the reliability of those guns. The P51 tended to have jamming problems due to the guns being mounted at an angle and the ammo runs having a bend in them. 
The other advantage was the P51 being 'fragile' compared to the Fw190. It took less damage.

That said the P51 did have the range to impose itself on the Germans and escort the bombers to and from the target, a priceless advantage in the air war generally.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 26, 2006)

I agree with you comments. P-51B climb data was obtained from charts associated with this site P-51 Mustang Performance

Aircraft serial number is identified.


----------



## Soren (Aug 26, 2006)

davparlr said:


> It must be noted here that when the P-51B arrived in May of 1943 it was similar in performance to the contemporary Spitfire IX in ceiling and rate of climb but was almost 40 mph faster and it was clearly superior to the Fw190-A6 and Bf109G-6 in speed, time to climb, and ceiling. In fact, flight test results indicate it was more on par with the Fw-190D, with similar top speed (442(P-51B) to 440), ceiling (42k to 39k), but with apparently (there were some contradictory data) did not have the Fw's time to climb (one source said the Fw could reach 32k in 7.1 minutes whereas the P-51B would only make 25k in that time, another source indicates the Fw could reach 19,680 ft in 7.1 minutes and the P-51B could do that in around 5 minutes).



Davparlr, at just Steig u. Kampfleistung the Fw-190A-3 would climb at 3,346 ft/min and reach 19,685 ft in 7.1min, now try with Start u. Notleistung and you can add allot of ft/min and subtract allot of time to climb. - Also a top speed at SL of 567 km/h in 41 aint bad at all, heck it aint bad even in 44.

Now the A-5 which was more powerful and therefore a good deal faster (on average 13-15 km/h faster than the A-3 A-4), could climb at over 4,100 ft/min and reach a speed of 580 km/h at SL. The A-6 was pretty much the same as the A-5 in terms of performance, however it could and usually did carry more equipment. 

And about the Dora-9 and its time to climb performance: 

Time to climb with ETC-504 rack:
2km (6,561 ft) = 1.8 min
4km (13,123 ft) = 3.2 min
6km (19,685 ft) = 5.5 min
8km (26,246 ft) = 8.1 min
10km (32,808 ft)= 13.4 min - 12.5 min without ETC-504

Climb rate at full throttle height 4.8km (15,748 ft) with ETC-504 = 17.4 m/s (3,425 ft/min)
Climb rate at full throttle height 4.8km (15,748 ft) without ETC-504 = 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min)

I don't see where the P-51 ever approaches these performance figures... 

Even at 9,335 lbs and running at 75" MP it takes the P-51B-15 on average an extra minute to reach the same alt as the Dora-9.


----------



## Glider (Aug 27, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I agree with you comments. P-51B climb data was obtained from charts associated with this site P-51 Mustang Performance
> 
> Aircraft serial number is identified.



Good site and I appreciate the link. Theres a lot in there, thanks again


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 27, 2006)

I believe that P51D is by far the best 'escort fighter' due to the mix of performances, reliability and endurance.

Still I can't explain myself how it could be roughly on par with Spit IX-XVI in performances, being 1400 pounds heavier with the same engine (= same power, torque, power distribution vs height etc.)

As I said, I can understand the airfoil give her a better top speed, although at cost of lift; so looking at the performance data declared for the P51D, I asked the question: something is not reconciling!
I can't understand how (all other conditions like fuel type and load, temp, wheater etc. being equal) it could be 'on par' in climb, roll, turn, acceleration (except in the dive) with that huge handicap, would be great to find a technical answer. 

I think the P51B was a bit lighter, at least 300 pounds less in the wings (2 mg + ammo) should allow a better performance vs the D


----------



## davparlr (Aug 27, 2006)

Soren said:


> And about the Dora-9 and its time to climb performance:
> 
> Time to climb with ETC-504 rack:
> 2km (6,561 ft) = 1.8 min
> ...



I did not get the same P-51B performance numbers you did. From a flight test chart for Tail Number 43-24777, tested 3-31-44, at 75" Hg, 9680 lbs and wing racks (see my referenced site in previous message) I interpreted the following time to climb data.
6,561 ft 1.8 min
13,123 3.2
19,685 5.2
26,246 8.0
32,808 12.5

Also, from the same chart, climb rate at 15,748 ft. was 3700 ft/min. All of these numbers are subject to interpretation errors but should be pretty close(unless I really screwed up, but double checked). 

I read somewhere that the Fw-190D could generate significant more power than the P-51B which would indicate either the numbers of the P-51B (which seems solid) or the Fw-190D are suspect. Your numbers may have come from a P-51B with a -3 engine. Also, the flight test numbers on the P-51B were not the same as some other numbers on a P-51C with the same engine (-7) so, there is some question.



Parmigiano said:


> Still I can't explain myself how it could be roughly on par with Spit IX-XVI in performances, being 1400 pounds heavier with the same engine (= same power, torque, power distribution vs height etc.)



I think the Spit IX would be lighter on it feet than the P-51B and is probably a better dogfighter as is the Fw-190D. And I am sure both were better armed.


----------



## Soren (Aug 28, 2006)

Davparlr, I was looking at one from Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command 
Eglin Field in Florida dated 7th July 1944, where tail nr. 43-24755, 43-24757 and 43-24775 were tested at 75" MP. - The engines being V-1650-7's using 44-1 fuel.




davparlr said:


> I read somewhere that the Fw-190D could generate significant more power than the P-51B which would indicate either the numbers of the P-51B (which seems solid) or the Fw-190D are suspect.



They are not suspect, the way the testing was carried out was just different. IIRC the German way of measuring Time to Climb was starting the clock already at the start of the take off roll, where'as the US and British way was to start the clock from the point of take off.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 28, 2006)

Soren said:


> Davparlr, I was looking at one from Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command
> Eglin Field in Florida dated 7th July 1944, where tail nr. 43-24755, 43-24757 and 43-24775 were tested at 75" MP. - The engines being V-1650-7's using 44-1 fuel.



That is the same configuration as the chart I was using. Yours data seems more believable, but the chart I used certainly looks authentic.




> They are not suspect, the way the testing was carried out was just different. IIRC the German way of measuring Time to Climb was starting the clock already at the start of the take off roll, where'as the US and British way was to start the clock from the point of take off.



This certainly clarifies some confusion, thanks.


----------



## Hop (Aug 28, 2006)

> It should be quite obvious to you that the engine didn't perform nearly as well as it should have Hop, and this is backed up by the report itself as well as German pilot testimonies



But at what point did the engine not perform as well as it should have? Before the test, during the test, or after the test? If it's the first, all the figures from the test are wrong. If the second, it might have been performing properly (or even better than normal) before failing, if the last it might have been performing better than normal throughout.

From reading the tests, it's clearly not the last. From looking at the climb performance figurres, its not the first either.

All we know for sure from the assesment of Faber's plane is that the RAF ran it at above the recommended power settings, and the engine didn't run properly for some of the time.



> The engine's reliability was never ever questioned by the LW pilots who flew the bird, and it was described as a very nicely running engine which is backed up by a great reliability record.



As late as December 1941 the Luftwaffe was recommending that the 190 not be flown over water because of engine reliability.



> bviously something went wrong in the translation of the climb rate tests performed by the RAE, cause those figures are just completely unreal, esp. when compared to the speeds achieved



Exactly. Combined with the very low FTH, I suspect there was a problem with the automatic control. The high climb rates at high altitude could only have been achieved by an increase in RPM, or by a mistake in readings. 

All in all, the tests of Faber's plane, which were conducted in a hurry on a totally unknown aircraft, don't tell us that much about the real performance. If the speed was too low, and the climb rate too high, what stock can be set in the results of the evaluations?



> In any case you're better off asking Crumpp about this, as I'm simply not in the mood for a long discussion regarding your assumptions on this subject.



Soren, we had a discussion some time ago about the performance of the 109K4 at 1.98 ata. Months after you had registered at Butch's forum, I'm still waiting for your response.



> And about the Spit IX pilots confidence when facing the FW190, remember by 42-43 the A-4, A-5 A-6 were serving with the LW, and these gave the RAF fighters a serious beating over the channel.



No, they didn't. By 1943 the RAF very much had the upper hand.



> So its of no use comparing the Spit IX with the A-3, as newer and more powerful 190's had been introduced by the time of the Spit IX's introduction.



And newer Spitfire IXs, too. The test against Faber's plane was conducted by a Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61, limited to 18 lbs boost. The Merlin 63, 66 and 70 increased the boost to 18 lbs, adding a few hundred hp, and increased the climb rate at lower levels by up to 1,000 ft/min, and speed by about 20 mph at lower levels.



> uring the period of February to July 1942, the JG 2 26 shot down atleast 335 enemy a/c to the loss of just 85 FW-190 BF-109's.



Which was of course before the introduction of the Spitfire IX. 

And the casualty figure looks a bit low. Caldwell lists at least 40 JG 26 pilots killed during the period. considering pilots usually die half as often as their planes, that would make JG 2 very quiet.



> And on August 19th 1942, the day of the British operation "Jubilee", JG 2 26 despite being heavily outnumbered claimed 96 aerial victories while losing just 21 fighters themselves - the RAF admitted the loss of 103 a/c that day, 88 of which were Spitfires.



About 60 Spitfires lost, according to Tony Wood's lists.



> As I understand it for operation Jubilee the British had 46 squadrons of spitfires, but only 4 of those had the Spit IX. The others were Mk V which we all admit was at a significant disadvantage over the Fw190.



The Spitfire IXs were only partially committed to Dieppe, the 8th AF was flying their first major bombing sortie that day, and the Spitfire IXs were tasked with escort for them.



> t must be noted here that when the P-51B arrived in May of 1943 it was similar in performance to the contemporary Spitfire IX in ceiling and rate of climb



Well, climb rate was far lower on the P-51 and the ceiling was about 2,000ft lower for similar altitude versions. But more importantly, the first production P-51B flew in May 43, they didn't actually get into action until December 43.



> I did not get the same P-51B performance numbers you did. From a flight test chart for Tail Number 43-24777, tested 3-31-44, at 75" Hg, 9680 lbs and wing racks (see my referenced site in previous message) I interpreted the following time to climb data.
> 6,561 ft 1.8 min
> 13,123 3.2
> 19,685 5.2
> ...



Bear in mind maximum power on the Merlin was developed at 67" MAP on 100/130 octane fuel. The figures for 75" required 100/150 octane fuel, which didn't enter service until the summer of 1944. Even then, in service the 8th AF only used 72", although the RAF used up to 81" in their Merlin engined aircraft (Spitfire IXs mainly, but also Mustangs, Mosquitos)

In short, look at the performance figures for the P-51B at 67" to represent P-51Bs from Dec 1943 to summer 1944, and performance figures at 72" after that.



> I read somewhere that the Fw-190D could generate significant more power than the P-51B which would indicate either the numbers of the P-51B (which seems solid) or the Fw-190D are suspect.



At 67" MAP the Merlin developed about 1750 hp peak, which is considerably less than the Jumo 213 (1900ps was common, over 2000 possible in some configurations). However, at 81" the Merlin put out over 2000hp, so 75" would be somewhere around 1900hp.



> I think the Spit IX would be lighter on it feet than the P-51B and is probably a better dogfighter as is the Fw-190D.



Yes. The P-51B on 67" climbed at a peak rate of 3,450 ft/min with 180 gallons of fuel. The Spitfire LF IX at 67" (18 lbs in British terminology) something around 4,700 ft/min with 102 gallons of fuel, and a much more powerfull armament.


----------



## Glider (Aug 29, 2006)

This is digressing a little but you may be able to help me. I know that later Spit IX's had an extra 75 gallon tank internally in the rear fusulage giving a similar amount of fuel as the P51. What I don't know is what different this made to the range. Can either of you help me?

Finally just a thought re the Spit IX vs 190 debate. Don't forget the other improvement the Spit had which gave it a considerable advantage over the 190 in actual combat and that is the new advanced gunsights. This was I suggest, as least as important as as an extra 100/200 hp from the engine.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 29, 2006)

Glider said:


> This is digressing a little but you may be able to help me. I know that later Spit IX's had an extra 75 gallon tank internally in the rear fusulage giving a similar amount of fuel as the P51. What I don't know is what different this made to the range. Can either of you help me?
> 
> Finally just a thought re the Spit IX vs 190 debate. Don't forget the other improvement the Spit had which gave it a considerable advantage over the 190 in actual combat and that is the new advanced gunsights. This was I suggest, as least as important as as an extra 100/200 hp from the engine.




It actually gave them about three fifths as much fuel as a P-51, and less range because the Mustang was a more slippery airframe and cruised a little faster at the same level of consumption. A fully loaded P-51D carried about 280 US gal and a further 150-220 US gal in drop tanks, for a total of ~420-490 US gal.

A fully loaded Spitfire IX with rear fuselage tanks carried about 150-160 Imperial gal (180-192 US gal) and a 90 Imp gal (108 US gal) drop tank, for a total of around 240-250 Imp gal (288-300 US gal) . The larger 170 gal drop tanks was usually reserved for ferry operations, not combat operations

The Spit IX came in a couple of flavours in regards to fuel tankage:

1. 85 gal internal, nose tanks (standard) 

2. 95 gal internal, enlarged nose tanks (non-standard, only some small production runs and refits)

3. 85 gal nose tanks + 75 gal rear tanks (standard from mid-late 1944)

4. 95 gal nose tanks + 75 gal rear tanks (non standard)

5. 85 gal nose tanks + 65 gal rear tanks (standard from 1945 onwards)

Mk IXs and XVI with the bubbletop canopy had smaller rear fuselage tanks, usually 50-60 gal, but they were often removed due to weak directional stability caused by the reduction of vertical area (corrected somewhat by the later larger tail)

The effect on range was significant. On plain old internal tankage, the Mk IX had a (one way) range of about 460-475 miles. Adding a 45 gal drop tank adds about 50% to that and addding a 90 gal drop tank essentially doubles it.

The problem was that with just 85 gal internally, there really wasn't enough fuel to effectively use the 90 gal drop tank to stretch the range. 

However, when the rear tank was added, all of a sudden the Spitfires could take off and climb on the rear tanks, cruise on the drop tank and then punch the drop tank off for combat and still have full foward tanks to fight with and go home on. The rear fuselage tanks effectively increase the standard combat radius from 225-250 miles to around 400-425 miles. Not enough for Berlin, but still enough to cover the Ruhr and some of Western Germany from bases in the UK, a marked improvement.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 29, 2006)

Yep, they did increase the range (as can be seen from this table comparing the MK-I to the Seafire 46 (last production version))

Supermarine Spitfire - Technical Data


----------



## davparlr (Aug 29, 2006)

Hop said:


> Well, climb rate was far lower on the P-51 and the ceiling was about 2,000ft lower for similar altitude versions. But more importantly, the first production P-51B flew in May 43, they didn't actually get into action until December 43.



What would have been the equivalent Spitfire in December 1943? Spitfire configurations always confuse me. What would the equivalent Spitfire version with the Packard Merlin-3 and -7? Some of the data I have seen indicated a P-51B with a -3 engine had a similar ceiling as the Spit IX, 42,000 ft. although I am confused about the equivalency.




> Bear in mind maximum power on the Merlin was developed at 67" MAP on 100/130 octane fuel. The figures for 75" required 100/150 octane fuel, which didn't enter service until the summer of 1944. Even then, in service the 8th AF only used 72", although the RAF used up to 81" in their Merlin engined aircraft (Spitfire IXs mainly, but also Mustangs, Mosquitos)
> 
> In short, look at the performance figures for the P-51B at 67" to represent P-51Bs from Dec 1943 to summer 1944, and performance figures at 72" after that.
> 
> At 67" MAP the Merlin developed about 1750 hp peak, which is considerably less than the Jumo 213 (1900ps was common, over 2000 possible in some configurations). However, at 81" the Merlin put out over 2000hp, so 75" would be somewhere around 1900hp.



Good info, thanks



> Yes, the P-51B on 67" climbed at a peak rate of 3,450 ft/min with 180 gallons of fuel. The Spitfire LF IX at 67" (18 lbs in British terminology) something around 4,700 ft/min with 102 gallons of fuel, and a much more powerfull armament.



With your info on fuel, this appears correct. The P-51B did seem to have a substantial top speed advantage of about 10% (30-40mph) over the envelope. Even compared to later IX models although not as much (about 20mph)


----------



## Hop (Aug 29, 2006)

> What would have been the equivalent Spitfire in December 1943?



In December 1943 there were 3 Spitfire IX variants. The LF IX (most common), the F IX and the HF IX (least common).

LF stands for Low Fighter, F for Fighter, HF for High Fighter.

They were fitted with the Merlin 66, 63 and 70 respectively.

The only real differences between them were in best altitudes. The LF IX had a peak speed developed about 21,000ft. The F IX about 25,000 ft, the HF IX 27,500ft.

Speeds were about 404 mph for the LF IX, 408 for the F IX, 416 for the HF IX.



> Spitfire configurations always confuse me. What would the equivalent Spitfire version with the Packard Merlin-3 and -7?



They're not exactly the same, but the -3 was somewhere between Merlin 63 in the F IX and the Merlin 70 in the HF IX, and the -7 was similar to the Merlin 66 in the LF IX.

Bear in mind there was an earlier F IX, from July 1942 with the Merlin 61, which wasn't as powerfull. The Merlin 63 began to take over early in 1943, and the Merlin 61 seems to have been removed from service Spitfires quite quickly.



> Some of the data I have seen indicated a P-51B with a -3 engine had a similar ceiling as the Spit IX, 42,000 ft.



Official service ceiling for the F IX with Merlin 63 was 44,000ft, and 45,000 ft for the HF IX. 



> The Spit IX came in a couple of flavours in regards to fuel tankage:
> 
> 1. 85 gal internal, nose tanks (standard)
> 
> ...



The 95 gallon forward tanks became standard later on in Spitfire IX production, I believe.

Later Spitfire IXs were also fitted with 2 18 gallon bag tanks in the wing leading edge. 

A better comparison for range in the Spitfire is with the Spitfire VIII, which was fitted with extra tankage as standard for operations overseas. Spitfire VIIIs had 96 gallons in forward tanks and 27 gallons in the wings, for a total normal internal fuel load of 123 imp gallons.

The Spitfire VIII was similar to the Spitfire IX, just a slightly revised airframe. Performance was similar.

There's an Australian test of fuel consumption in the Spitfire VIII at 20,000ft:









> The effect on range was significant. On plain old internal tankage, the Mk IX had a (one way) range of about 460-475 miles.



That figure is for the early Merlin 61 engined aircraft. The Merlin 63, 66 and 70 were different engines, with different carbs. The only test I know of with the later engines is the one I linked above.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 29, 2006)

Thanks. Great info on the Spitfire and the Merlin. The Merlin was certainly a wonderful engine. Both the Allies and Axis had great engines to power their airborne war machines.


----------



## Soren (Aug 29, 2006)

Hop,

The engine ran improperly long before the testing had begun, as the sparkplugs all suffered from fouling (Later discovered by replacing them with Siemens sparkplugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber), and that allied fuel was used didn't help matters either. 

And as I said, something went wrong translating the climb rate of the a/c, it simply didn't climb that well at that setting. 

And I hope that when you come to your senses you will realize that the engine certainly at no point ran better than it should, cause that is just a downright silly idea. 

Also Faber's A-3 was never run at above recommended settings, and I have no idea what makes you think otherwise. As written in the report itself: "_There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit._" 

At no point did the power setting ever exceed 1.42ata in the British tests with the a/c.



Hop said:


> As late as December 1941 the Luftwaffe was recommending that the 190 not be flown over water because of engine reliability.



Firstly I'm going to need a source on that, secondly the A-3 with its BMW-801D engine hadn't even entered production by then. 

The BMW-801D engine was an extremely powerful, reliable and nicely running engine with an astonishing service record, and I repeat; never was its reliability ever questioned by the men who flew or maintained the bird.

As Eric Brown put it himself:
"_it purred smoothly as it ran._"




Hop said:


> No, they didn't. By 1943 the RAF very much had the upper hand.



You must be kidding me ! In terms of Kill/loss ratio the LW were giving the RAF a licking during that period !



Hop said:


> And the casualty figure looks a bit low. Caldwell lists at least 40 JG 26 pilots killed during the period. considering pilots usually die half as often as their planes, that would make JG 2 very quiet.



According to German loss records 85 a/c were lost in that period by JG 2 26, and where you got your "Pilots usually die half of the time" theory I have no idea.



Hop said:


> About 60 Spitfires lost, according to Tony Wood's lists.



Tony Wood ? Yes ofcourse  

I think I'm going to stick with Caldwell on this one though..


----------



## Hop (Aug 29, 2006)

> And I hope that when you come to your senses you will realize that the engine certainly at no point ran better than it should, cause that is just a downright silly idea.



It's perfectly possible to get more power out of an engine, by overboosting or over revving it. Neither does it much good, of course...



> Also Faber's A-3 was never run at above recommended settings, and I have no idea what makes you think otherwise.



The fact that it says so in black and white in the RAE report.



> s written in the report itself: "There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit."



Yes. It also says:


```
The following table, taken from the cockpit, gives the operational limitations of the engine on this aircraft:

Conditions Time Boost    RPM
                       ATA   Up to 6km Over 6km
Take off   3 min  1.35    2450        2450
and level  

Climbing  30 min  1.28    2350        2450

Continuous         1.14   2250         2450
```

Those were the ratings on Faber's plane.

From the AFDU report:



> Speed runs (maximum 3 minutes ratings used)
> 
> FW 190 2700 rpm @ 1.42 ata
> 
> In the case of the FW 190 the 30 minute rating was taken to be 2450 rpm @ 1/35 ata



So, the Germans had rated Faber's 190 at 1.35 @ 2450 rpm for 3 mins, the British ran it at 2700 rpm @ 1.42 ata for 3 mins.

The Germans had rated Faber's 190 at 2350 rpm @ 1.28 ata for 30 mins, the British ran it at 2450 rpm @ 1.35 ata for 30 mins.



> At no point did the power setting ever exceed 1.42ata in the British tests with the a/c.



Not that we know of. But Faber's plane was rated at a max of 1.35 ata and 2450 rpm, not the 1.42 ata and 2700 rpm the British ran it at.



> Firstly I'm going to need a source on that,



I believe it's from the December 1941 evaluation of the Fw 190 and Bf 109, either by Reichlin or one of the channel JGs.



> The BMW-801D engine was an extremely powerful, reliable and nicely running engine with an astonishing service record, and I repeat; never was its reliability ever questioned by the men who flew or maintained the bird.



"Unreliability would be the curse of the BMW 801 for its entire existence" 
Don Caldwell, JG 26 War Diary



> According to German loss records 85 a/c were lost in that period by JG 2 26, and where you got your "Pilots usually die half of the time" theory I have no idea.



Oh, it's a fairly common rule. Some pilots bail out, you see. On the other hand, if the pilot is killed, the plane rarely survives.

It would be incredibly unusual for plane losses to equal pilot losses, and when they do it's usually due to cherry picking statistics, or incomplete statistics. Air forces usually have better records of the fate of their pilots than planes, for example.



> About 60 Spitfires lost, according to Tony Wood's lists.
> 
> Tony Wood ? Yes ofcourse
> 
> I think I'm going to stick with Caldwell on this one though..



Stick with Caldwell. Caldwell doesn't say 88 Spitfires lost. He says 88 FIGHTERS lost. The RAF also used large numbers of Hurricanes at Dieppe.


----------



## Glider (Aug 29, 2006)

Not to mention Typhoons at Dieppe. The Hurricanes were for use in GA rope and as we all know that is a dangerous game. 60 Spits out of 88 fighters lost does sound like a decent breakdown of likely losses remembering that only 4 squadrons of Spits were mk IX's.

As the Mk IX came into service its my belief and understanding that the tide turned and the Germans were losing the initiative. Sorren, have you breakdowns on the losses?

Jabber, thanks for the info on the Spitfires range and fuel load. I had the wrong idea about the P51 and had a figure of 180 as its internal fuel capacity. Thaks for putting me on the right path.


----------



## Soren (Aug 29, 2006)

Oh for Christ's sake Hop, you contradict yourself time and again...

The British ran the engine at maximum power for only 2min at a time, and the BMW-801D would normally easily achieve this. But this is irrelevant cause the British ran Faber's A-3 at 2,450rpm @ 1.35ata during the partial climbing tests.

The official operational limitations of the BMW-801D engine:
_Start u. Notleistung (3min): 1.42ata
Steig u. Kampfleistung (30min): 1.32ata
Höchstdauerleistung: 1.20 ata_

Now looking at this why should the limitations for the engine on Faber's A-3 be any different from this if it wasn't because of the fact that it underperformed quite significantly ?? 

As to the reliability of the BMW-801 engine, you're totally forgetting the inviroments and conditions in which it had to operate, cause considering this it did much better than what could be expected ! 

By Crumpp:
"_Certainly the 801 had teething problems as all new designs experience. These early teething problems were quickly overcome and the engine was constantly improved during its lifespan. If you factor in the fact that BMW`s reliability goal was 120 hours before being declared fully operational compared to the USAAF standard of 50 hours, there is little to compare. The Germans simply did not have the resources to get so little time out of their engines. 

Using the USAAF ruler, the BMW801C was an operationally reliable motor in August on 1941. Under BMW standards it never became a reliable motor. The BMW801D2 became a reliable motor under BMW standards in June 1942._ "

Also by Crumpp:
"_EB-104 was also done at combat weight. Focke Wulf generally corrects their curves to Take-Off weight. 

The RAE "Brief Handling Notes of FW-190A3" WNr. 313 climb measurements were calculated off data collected in partial climbs:_ 





_And corrected to a nonsensical weight (for the type) between a Type I and a Type II Jagd-einsatz. WNr. 313 was a Type II with full wing armament. The aircraft was weighed to it's actual weight and was slightly short of fuel and ammunition. It was exactly 87Kg lighter than the Focke Wulf ladeplan FW-190A3 for a Type II. _





_Due to the rough running of the engine, the climbs at aircrafts "Steig u Kampfleistung" rating were calculated off of one data point. The other partial climbs were done at 1.28ata or the "Dauerleistung" rating. _

_Quote: It's certainly arguable the 190 wasn't making proper power in the test_,

_There is little to argue about as it is a documented fact. More than one test of WNr. 313 had to be abandoned due to engine trouble. _"


----------



## Hop (Aug 30, 2006)

> Oh for Christ's sake Hop, you contradict yourself time and again...



No Soren, I am presenting a very simple and logically consistent case.

Faber's plane was derated.

Faber's plane was tested first by the AFDU at higher than permitted settings.

Faber's plane ran roughly throughout the AFDU test, but towards the end of the test must have got worse, as the tests were abandoned.

Faber's plane was tested by the RAE at the correct settings.

Just because the engine was running roughly at the AFDU doesn't mean it wasn't producing normal power. It might have been producing more, as it was being overboosted.



> The British ran the engine at maximum power for only 2min at a time, and the BMW-801D would normally easily achieve this. But this is irrelevant cause the British ran Faber's A-3 at 2,450rpm @ 1.35ata during the partial climbing tests.



It's relevant because Faber's aircraft was derated, and not allowed to use 1.42 ata. It was only allowed to use 1.35 ata for 3 minutes. The British used 1.35 ata for up to 30 minutes. They used 1.42 ata 2700 rpm, which Faber's aircraft was not allowed to use at all.

The British exceeded both the rev limit and the boost limit of Faber's aircraft.



> The official operational limitations of the BMW-801D engine:
> Start u. Notleistung (3min): 1.42ata
> Steig u. Kampfleistung (30min): 1.32ata
> Höchstdauerleistung: 1.20 ata



THE BMW 801D engine? You mean they only made one?

Of course not. That's AN engine rating. It's not the rating of the engine in Faber's aircraft. The rating of the engine in Faber's aircraft was given on the datacard in the cockpit, and was:

Start u. Notleistung (3min): 1.35ata
Steig u. Kampfleistung (30min): 1.28ata
Höchstdauerleistung: 1.14 ata

Why there is a difference between the two engines is a valid question, but the ratings of Faber's plane were explicitly stated by the RAE. 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm for 3 minutes.

As to why there is a difference, de rating of German aircraft engines was not uncommon, the 109G for example was originally supposed to use 1.42 ata, but was restricted to 1.32 (or 1.35, can't remember which) until late 1943.

Some people claim all the 190A3s were derated, some that only a proportion were, some that there was no blanket derating at all. But Faber's plane was derated, and the British ignored that and ran it at higher power settings.



> Now looking at this why should the limitations for the engine on Faber's A-3 be any different from this if it wasn't because of the fact that it underperformed quite significantly ?



As I said, you'll find different explanations depending on who you ask. But it doesn't really matter, as the question is Faber's aircraft, and there is no doubt that was derated.

As to derating an engine that's performing badly, you derate an engine if it can't perform safely at the higher setting. If it was performing at less than spec when running at the lower rating, it would have been rejected. It certainly wouldn't have had a different cockpit card made up.



> Quote: It's certainly arguable the 190 wasn't making proper power in the test,
> 
> There is little to argue about as it is a documented fact. More than one test of WNr. 313 had to be abandoned due to engine trouble.



One statement doesn't follow another. I could turn the turbo up on my car and get more power. How long it would reliably run is another question. But if I did so, and later suffered engine trouble, I could not safely conclude it didn't for a time produce more power than originally designed.

Quite simply, there are too many inconsistencies in the tests of Faber's plane to draw any reliable conclusions.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 1, 2006)

> As late as December 1941 the Luftwaffe was recommending that the 190 not be flown over water because of engine reliability.



I have also heard this. The BMW 801C equipped Fw 190A-1 had over-heating troubles and the fuel control system showed signs of serious trouble. The Fw 190A-2 still suffered over-heating, even with the improved BMW 801C-2 engine. The fires caused inflight led the Luftwaffe to order pilots not to fly beyond gliding distance of the coast.

The Fw 190A-3 solved most of the problems with the introduction of the BMW 801D-2 engine. The Luftwaffe lifted the ban on sea flight during early 1942.


----------



## Soren (Sep 4, 2006)

Ok, I'm back, had a rather long week at work.

*Plan_D, *

That is correct, however as explained even the BMW-801C engine became reliable by USAAF standards in August 1941 - So Hop's argument that the BMW-801 engine was an unreliable engine is totally without basis.

*Hop,*

I disagree with you, but I simply don't have enough time to go and waste any on a long discussion with you on this subject, cause in my opinion you're making allot of ill founded assumptions. I have therefore decided to notify Crumpp about this discussion, then he can pick up this discussion from where I left off, and possibly try correcting us "experts".

But until then here's some answers by Crumpp to some questions and opinions regarding the BMW-801 engine:

_quote: 
Does this mean that with C3 injection cooling the BMW801D-2 could be run at full power until fuel ran out? Was the cooling effect that good? _

_The BMW801 tested ran at a constant cylinder temperature of 175 degrees for 4 hours with C3-Einspritzung during endurance testing. You have to understand though, that two seperate systems both using C3 as the antiknock agent were used. The Jabo-einsatz could use their system "as long as the emergency lasts". The Jagers were limited to 10 minutes but did not use as much of their onboard fuel. Each system had different injection rates._ 


_quote: 
although German engine design efforts were crippled by their level of industrial metallurgy, as for example, in the case of the later BMW 801TS/TH/F series with the turbo supercharger, a device which had serious reliability problems due to the metal in the exhaust driven turbocharger not being able to withstand the heat and rpm's required for designed operation_ 


_Please pick up a copy of the Wright Aeroengine companies metallurgical analysis of the BMW801. The German metallurgical sciences were behind in a few areas, on par with allies in some, and about 7 years ahead of them in most. The engine block of the BMW 801 is constructed of an alloy called "elektron". Look it up. Again you are confusing shortages of strategic materials with technology. _


----------



## Crumpp (Sep 5, 2006)

Hi Everyone,

Soren requested I join this thread. 



> Faber's plane was tested first by the AFDU at higher than permitted settings.



Do you have documentation showing this blanket de-rating of the BMW801? I certainly do not. However I have a numerous Beanstandungen's which show both JG2 and JG26 operating "de-rated" motors right alongside "normal" motors in June 1942. This makes sense as neither BMW or Focke Wulf list any other settings beside the "normal" ratings.

De-rating is tool to manage engines serviceability. All air forces operate "de-rated" motors. The most common reason for "de-rating" an engine is to burn stocks of inferior grade aviation fuel. All engines are "de-rated" for a period of time when they are brand new. It is called the break in period. BMW801's were de-rated for their first 10 hours of operation. The "de-rating" consists of pre-threaded holes in the throttle mount in which a screw is placed limiting the advance of the throttle. To return the engine to "normal" you remove the screw. 

Here is an excerpt from an upcoming magazine article I am writing:



> Like all new designs there were problems to be solved. When it first appeared the motor was extremely unreliable. It’s life expectancy was measured in a few short hours. On 01 August 1941 Oblt. Otto Behren’s Operational Test Squadron, Erprobungsstaffel 190, moved from Rechlin to Le Bourget outside of Paris to begin training the II Gruppe Jadgeschwader 26 on the FW-190A1. Although many minor technical difficulties would be solved over the next few weeks it would not be until the 06 November 1941 that III Gruppes Technical Officer, Rolf Schröder would make the biggest leap forward in reliability for the engine. At BMW’s repair shop in Albert during the investigation into engine failures Schröder noticed that a simple exhaust reroute would prevent the back bottom two cylinders from overheating. The design change was immediately implemented and the aircraft modified both at the Geschwader and the Factory. Within a short period of time, the 8th Stafflekaptain, Oblt. Karl Borris received a gold watch from BMW for having the first engine to reach 100 hours of operational flight time. Borris’s luck would continue to hold as he later survived a fall from 22,000 feet with a collapsed canopy suffering numerous broken bones. Average reliability would now be measured in triple figures for the BMW 801C2 series motor.



Motors that were modified were not restricted to overland flights.

This exactly what the FW190A1 Flugzeug-Handbuch instructs for the overhaul instructions for the BMW801C2 motor:



> Laut TAGL Nr. 257-42 ist für die zelle die kontrollreihe 200-5 vorgesehen. Das bedeutet, daß nach 200 betreibsstunden eine Teilüberholung und nach 5 teilüberholungsabschnitten eine Grundüberholung durchgeführt werden muß. *Für den Motor BMW 801 liegt eine kontrollreihe von 100-1 vor eines jahres keine teilüberholung bei einem flugzeug oder motro vorgenommen, so sind nach einer sonderprüfung die zulassungen zu verlängern.* Nach 200 starts muß eine fahrwerkskontrolle eingelegt werd.



Teilüberholung instuctions can be found in the BMW Flugmotoren BMW801 MA, ML, C, u. D Handbuch und Teilüberholungsanleitung. 

All new designs experience some teething troubles. I fear if WWII had started in 1937, the R-2800 would have the reputation as being very unreliable alongside the BMW801!



> Just prior to World War II, engineers at both Pratt Whitney and Curtiss-Wright worked feverishly to produce the first air-cooled engine capable of more than 2,000 horsepower. The efforts of both teams were nearly thwarted by severe vibration from unexpected sources. This is the story of how the Pratt Whitney team, through hard labor and persistence, identified and solved the problems with vibration. The result was one of the most successful engines of all times - the R-2800.



http://www.enginehistory.org/NoShortDays/Development of the R-2800 Crankshaft.pdf

I loathe getting into a performance comparison discussion. They are in fact very silly undertakings given the facts of the science behind aircraft. All aircraft performance comes from the manufacturer not as absolute performance but rather as a mean average over a guaranteed performance range. Additionally atmosphere was not standard during WWII and testing procedures certainly were not either.

In the case of WNr. 313, the performance as tested by the RAE appears to be pessimistic but not outside the realm of possibility. The climb testing was calculated off four datum points gather from partial "saw" climbs at 3500 feet and 17,000 feet. Rough running of the motor was experienced throughout the test and caused one datum point to be completely disregarded by the engineers. The Tactical Trials of WNr. 313 as tested several days later were cut short due to the rough running of the engine. The RAE then removed the motor and bench tested it to determine mixture settings and timing information. Mixture/Timing adjustments and spark plug change allowed that particular motor to run smoothly on the bench. It was never flight tested and in June 1942 the alkane ratio of C3 fuel was adjusted. This prompted new plugs for the motor and a change in the mixture and timing regulations.

Here is Focke Wulf tolerances:






Here is an RAF memo explaining aircraft performance variation:






Here is the order I would rate these fighters:

#1 FW190 _if_ I was Luftwaffe pilot who flew the FW190.

#1 Spitfire _if_ I was an RAF pilot who flew the Spitfire.

#1 P51 _if_ I was a USAAF pilot who flew the P51.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2006)

Good interesting info there, cool.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2006)

Crumpp said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> 
> Here is the order I would rate these fighters:
> ...



Best bit of common sense I have seen on this thread for a long time. Well said


----------



## Soren (Sep 6, 2006)

Excellent info Crumpp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2006)

I have to agree and that has actually been said here so many times but it never is actually realized by anyone.


----------



## jhawk (May 15, 2011)

certainly not what the people who flew the p-51 in combat say, like chuck yeagar for one i read. but hey, it makes the germans feel good. opps, will i get suspended for telling the truth?


----------



## jhawk (May 15, 2011)

yea i know, you all know better than chuck yeager and the people who fought in the war, i bet you all broke the sound barrier too.


----------



## jhawk (May 15, 2011)

The disparity in developmental time frame between the two fighters which represents a good four years of aviation progress. The high performance P-51 Mustang was conceived during 1940/41 and didn't really come into its own until 1943 over Europe while the FW-190 'Butcher Bird' was a 1937 project and no thoroughbred seven years later. Tank was a WW I infantry soldier turned aircraft designer - his creation was a 'workhorse', powered by a massive air-cooled radial engine and suited for a range of operating environments and mission types - lethal in its early incarnations but rather long in the tooth for 1943-1945. In the battles fought high over the Reich during 1944 the P-51 was 'cutting edge' while the Fw 190 was a lumbering bludgeon totally unsuited for fighter vs. fighter combat. The A-8 variant - produced in greater numbers than all the other FW 190 sub-types put together - weighed in some 2,000 kg heavier than the first Fw 190s to see service over the Channel during 1941 while powered by essentially the same BMW 801 engine. Fw 190s were generally deployed as bomber destroyers - only the odd Staffel of Fw 190s might be deployed as cover against P-51s and these were generally machines stripped of their heavy armament and flown by the handful of pilots that had achieved successes against the P-51s.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 16, 2011)

jhawk said:


> The disparity in developmental time frame between the two fighters which represents a good four years of aviation progress. The high performance P-51 Mustang was conceived during 1940/41 and didn't really come into its own until 1943 over Europe while the FW-190 'Butcher Bird' was a 1937 project and no thoroughbred seven years later. Tank was a WW I infantry soldier turned aircraft designer - his creation was a 'workhorse', powered by a massive air-cooled radial engine and suited for a range of operating environments and mission types - lethal in its early incarnations but rather long in the tooth for 1943-1945. In the battles fought high over the Reich during 1944 the P-51 was 'cutting edge' while the Fw 190 was a lumbering bludgeon totally unsuited for fighter vs. fighter combat. The A-8 variant - produced in greater numbers than all the other FW 190 sub-types put together - weighed in some 2,000 kg heavier than the first Fw 190s to see service over the Channel during 1941 while powered by essentially the same BMW 801 engine. Fw 190s were generally deployed as bomber destroyers - only the odd Staffel of Fw 190s might be deployed as cover against P-51s and these were generally machines stripped of their heavy armament and flown by the handful of pilots that had achieved successes against the P-51s.


 


Good grief.

Well done for plagiarising inaccurate information from a public review on amazon.com.


----------



## jhawk (May 16, 2011)

didn't claim it was my work, but 100% accurate, funny how people on this site are jealous of the fact that once america got at it our weapons far surpassed anyone elses, as they do now, just the facts.

roll your eyes all you like.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2011)

As for you suspension comment for telling the truth:

No one gets suspended for stating any fact or opinion, people do get suspended for being assholes though...

As for you speaking the truth? Are you sure about that. As for your comment about "American weapons surpassing anyone elses", you might want to do some research first. Anyone who seriously studies the subject will know that no country had a monopoly on superiority. The US did some things better, the British did somethings better, the Russians did some things better and the Germans some things better for example. 

Also if you have a problem with people on this site (as you call them jealous) then go someplace else. I am sure you can find a better place, that more suits your need. 

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2011)

jhawk said:


> didn't claim it was my work, but 100% accurate,
> 
> roll your eyes all you like.



100% accurate?

What, pray tell, did they do to the A-8 to get it to weigh 2000kg (4400lbs) more than the A-1/A-2?

Some sources give the weight difference closer to 675kg. This far enough off that even mistaking pounds for kilograms doesn't excuse it. 

If the rest of the "facts" are as "accurate" as the weight I am siding with Jabberwocky and adding a few extra eyerolls.


----------



## jhawk (May 16, 2011)

bud anderson on the subject

Bud Anderson on german aircraft

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.


somewhere i read yeager said similar comments, i certain trust their opinion more than us wanan be's here, me included


----------



## Readie (May 16, 2011)

Ummmm...

Are we not forgetting that any fighter is only as good as its pilot? 

Cheers
John


----------



## Kryten (May 16, 2011)

And the tactical situation at the time!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> Ummmm...
> 
> Are we not forgetting that any fighter is only as good as its pilot?
> 
> ...



In most cases yes...



jhawk said:


> *the guy that got there first shot down the most of them.*
> 
> somewhere i read yeager said similar comments, i certain trust their opinion more than us wanan be's here, me included



Please re-read that statement. I'll also say they you're attitude is slowly pissing me off. I suggest you correct your malfucntion or your stay here will be very short.


----------



## jhawk (May 16, 2011)

yea i bet you rank right up there with anderson and yeager, in your dreams


----------



## jhawk (May 16, 2011)

here is from the history of the 20th fighter group, i am sure old cryboy know better than them too.

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


77th FS tries out their new P-51Ds over the England. 

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

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

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

Bomber escort missions by the 20th FG for the remaining eight weeks of 1944 met little German resistance. Weather conditions, limited the group's participation in the Battle of the Bulge. Nevertheless, Eighth Air Force (including the 20th) bombing and ground strafing of German road and railway lines of communication effectively strangled the enemy to death, and by 10 January 1945 the German army had begun its retreat to the Rhine.

The Luftwaffe's Last Push

Germany launched its final major air defense operation on 19 January 1945. This last full-scale attack against Allied bombers lasted approximately 20 minutes. In those 20 minutes, over the German homeland, aircraft of the Eighth Air Force downed a total of 121 out of 214 attacking aircraft without the single loss of a fighter aircraft. Only nine B-17s, two percent of the total force, were lost.


----------



## jhawk (May 16, 2011)

and what you have to remember is p-51 pilots were on search and destroy on the way home, shoot up trains, airfields, and target worthwhile, many of those 14 were from flak or ground fire.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 16, 2011)

jhawk said:


> here is from the history of the 20th fighter group, i am sure old cryboy know better than them too.
> 
> 
> The Luftwaffe's Last Push
> ...


 
Might want to check your sources a bit more closely. 

From the official Combat Chronology of the US Army Air Forces:



> 19 January 1945:
> 
> EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS
> 
> ...



And, just so you know:




> 20 January 1945
> 
> (Eighth Air Force):: Mission 801: 772 bombers and 455 fighters are dispatched to hit synthetic oil plants at Sterkrade and rail targets and bridges in W Germany using H2X radar; they claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft; 4 bombers and 3 fighters are lost:
> 
> ...


----------



## jhawk (May 16, 2011)

What it appears to me is the FW-190 and ME-109 were good airplanes for their time. I imagine they were both designed in the mid 1930’s. Technology was advancing quickly then, and the P-51 was an early 1940’s design. Add to that the USA had just about unlimited resources while Germany had been at war for a number of years. A similar situation existed with Japan. The Zero was a great airplane for its time. I would guess many more P-51’s were lost on the search and destroy part of their mission and flak then fighters. Also consider that the Germans were in desperation mode by 1943 and they put into service aircraft that weren’t really ready. Even more to consider is the P-51 dominated the skies deep in enemy territory. Something no other fighter of that time could do, it’s obvious what the best fighter was, the P-51. We can bicker about small facts, but I think it’s pretty obvious the facts.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 17, 2011)

jhawk said:


> I would guess many more P-51’s were lost on the search and destroy part of their mission and flak then fighters.



Don't guess, do research! There is plenty of (freely available) data out there.

MOST WW2 fighter aircraft had more losses to flak and other causes (accident, collisions, mechanical failures, friendly fire, weather or just lost) than to other aircraft in combat. 

P-51 8th A/F losses know to have occurred due to fighters were approximately 350 to 370 aircraft. Flak losses are pegged somewhere between 590 and 680. So the ratio would be somewhere between 2:1 to 1.6:1. 

This is somewhat higher than for 8th AF P-47s and P-38s, but give the longer operational timeline of these aircraft in the ETO, and the curtailing of Luftwaffe strength post May-June 1944, its unsurprising that P-51 losses to flak are proportionally higher.

Situation is always as important in measuring combat performance as the actual numbers themselves. 



> Even more to consider is the P-51 dominated the skies deep in enemy territory. Something no other fighter of that time could do, it’s obvious what the best fighter was, the P-51. We can bicker about small facts, but I think it’s pretty obvious the facts.


 
So what if you want a fighter to perform interceptions at 25,000 ft. Or bomber destroying duties. Or double as a ground pounder. 

Is the P-51 the best then?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2011)

Goodbye jhawk, you are the now officially the weakest link. Go play on someone elses forum you troll. Once you start insulting other members of this forum you are not welcome here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2011)

jhawk said:


> yea i bet you rank right up there with anderson and yeager, in your dreams


 
Compared to you I do you dumbass, but it seems you're too stupid to heed a warning and one of my fellow mods kicked your sorry ass into cyberspace.


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2011)

Damn - you punched him out too fast!


----------



## slaterat (May 18, 2011)

I saw that one coming


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2011)

Like I said, anyone is welcome here until they become pompous insulting assholes.


----------



## drgondog (May 18, 2011)

well I only get two out of three per post


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2011)

Yeah but everyone loves you.


----------



## BiffF15 (May 21, 2011)

Here is the order I would rate these fighters:

#1 FW190 if I was Luftwaffe pilot who flew the FW190.

#1 Spitfire if I was an RAF pilot who flew the Spitfire.

#1 P51 if I was a USAAF pilot who flew the P51.

All the best,

Crumpp



Glider said:


> Best bit of common sense I have seen on this thread for a long time. Well said



Gents,
Another excellent thread! Having flown the Eagle for a long time this conversation struck a very familiar cord. 
Biff

"You love a lot of things if you live around them, but there isn't any woman and there isn't any horse, nor any before or any after, that is as lovely as a great airplane, and the men who love them are faithful to them even though they leave them for others. A man has only one virginity to lose in fighters, and if it's a lovely plane he loses it to, there his heart will ever be." 
Ernest Hemingway
August, 1944


----------



## BiffF15 (May 21, 2011)

Here is some food for thought on which A/C is the "best". First, you can rack and stack them by numbers, charts, and diagrams. Or, you can quote combat records and statistics (what history Hollywood tend to favor). Or you can look at them through a pilots eyes and experiences. Air to air combat between fighters is won by the guy who brings his strengths to bear against his adversaries weakness. This is how a "lesser" performing A/C defeats a "better" one. Have you ever seen a little guy beat the sh!t out of a bigger guy. He is not as strong, has less reach or weight to bring to bear, but in the end he wins. Why? He uses his strengths against his the other guys weakness. Sun Tzu said, "know you yourself and your enemy and you will know the outcome of every battle".

More to follow..


----------



## tomo pauk (May 22, 2011)

Each plane of type A, or type B, has almost indentical capabilities, hence the discussion covering the best fighter, or best bomber, or what not.
The pilots, from the same country, flying in same squadron, are different in their capabilities, often by a large margin. We have thread(s) covering the pilots/crews, and those are other threads, not this one


----------



## BiffF15 (May 22, 2011)

Tomo,
Excellent points and I agree as I have experienced what you speak of personally. My point with the previous post was that thrust to weight, rate of climb, turn rate radius, wing loading all have a place but do not encompass the entire "package" of plane pilot. Each plane has strengths and weakness, plus's or minus's, just as pilots do. The plane and the pilot is what one encounters, not just the A/C. The pilot's proficiency and skill are also a large part.
By the way, I have around 20 sorties against the Laage Fulcrums complete with HMD and AA-11. Outstanding guys and a lot of fun both in the air and on the ground!
Biff


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2011)

I do envy you


----------



## BiffF15 (May 24, 2011)

Okay gents let me take a swing at this thread. First, my background is both Mil and Commercial pilot, with 23 years of former, and 14 years of the latter. Mil time centers around 16 years (approx 2700 hrs) of flying the F15A-D, with 15 of that in operational squadrons (not training units). As a US Eagle Driver we spend all of our time training for the air to air arena, and as such have trained with / against all the major US Ally fighters. The one thing I have found that was a serious trend, regardless of which country or type of A/C, is that if a guy was good in his / her jet then that is the one they wanted to go to war in. That verifies what Crumpp stated early hence the familiar cord. However, the other thing I learned is that when the A/C are close in performance or capabilities, then it came down to the pilot. I have done enough similar fighting to see that some guys will almost always win, regardless who they fight, while others it comes down to who makes the least amount of errors that day in that fight (dog fighting / BFM - Basic Fighter Maneuvers). The key to winning in one of these engagements, particularly when it's dissimilar, is to know what the other plane can do first and foremost as compared to yours. That allows you to have a plan prior to ever taking off. If you are inventing sh!t on the fly the odds are you will lose. If however, you have several game plans up your sleeve, and are comfortable with knowing WHEN to execute, as well as HOW, then the outcome should favor you. A fighter pilot of credibility can tell you the strengths and weaknesses of his A/C as compared to his adversary, the preferred tactics techniques for fighting the other guy as well as when it's time to leave (always leave yourself an out). The tactics we use as Eagle / Viper / (insert any quality fighter) guys have been proven from fight after fight, year after year, and takes into account our strengths and weaknesses, the other guys tactics, strengths weaknesses. Other factors (not inclusive by any means) come into play, which include mission specifics, fuel considerations, and weapons.
An example would a guy tasked to protect his airfield. He would have the benefit of getting to sleep in, take off late (as compared to me who has to fly several hours to get to his field), and he has a full tank of gas, can fight till almost empty, and should he be unlucky enough to have to jump out he is over friendly terrain. The defender in this instance has the benefit of fighting over his home, but then that's not good because the enemy is taking the fight to you versus the better option of taking it to him. 
I hope this isn't too long winded for the forum. I have to catch a flight, more to follow and I promise I will get to picking an airplane!
Biff


----------



## FalkeEins (May 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> 100% accurate?
> Some sources give the weight difference closer to 675kg.



quoted in Lorant "Le Fw 190" 

MTOW 3,200 kg vs 4,700 kgs for the A-8


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2011)

FalkeEins said:


> quoted in Lorant "Le Fw 190"
> 
> MTOW 3,200 kg vs 4,700 kgs for the A-8



From this site: indexneu

FW 190 A-0/V6g Leistungsdaten Startmasse* 3500

FW 190 A-1 Leistungsdaten Startmasse* 3775

FW 190 A-2 Leistungsdaten Startmasse* 3850

FW 190 A-3 Leistungsdaten Startmasse* 3995

FW 190 A-8 Leistungsdaten Startmasse* 4350

I took the difference between the A-1 and the A-8.

I would be interested in finding out what was included in that 4,700kg. 

If MTOW is maximum take off weight does that mean max clean or max with under wing/ fuselage stores which is not a fair comparison to a an A-1 or A-2 which, as far as I know, didn't carry anything external. 

Some figures in an old book by William Green for the A-3-- 2905kg for empty weight, 3231kg for empty equipped and 3986kg for loaded. I certainly am not going to argue over the 9kg difference in loaded weight between Green's book and that website.


----------



## Milosh (May 24, 2011)

From TD #284 it would appear the 4700kg weight is for the Fw190A-8/R3 (4674.5 - 4675kg) or the fighter bomber version (4775.2 - 4775kg)

Flying weight for the basic A-8 is 4391 - 4400kg. (this includes the aux fuselage tank)


----------



## FalkeEins (May 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> If MTOW is maximum take off weight does that mean max clean or max with under wing/ fuselage stores which is not a fair comparison to a an A-1 or A-2 which, as far as I know, didn't carry anything external.


 

....not a fair comparison? ..all I'm demonstrating - as per the review that you found so ridiculous - is that weight difference between early and late Fw 190 variants on what was basically the same engine- for argument's sake - could be as high as 2,000 kg, give or take a few hundred....and Rodeike in his Jagdflugzeug 190 book quotes the A-8/R2 Sturmjäger at 4,974 kg _Fluggewicht_ (inc Sturm armour of 200 kgs, cannon another 100 etc etc and full belly tank ..) ..all told that's rather closer to 2,000 kg difference than 675 kg....


----------



## pbfoot (May 25, 2011)

Just a thought after reading and listening to many accounts of WW2 flying I think it would be a rare occasion when any of these aircraft took off without being over gross weight and not by just a few kg-lbs, although I recall one exception of a Malta Spit pilot who removed his mirror and arnour to save weight,


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2011)

FalkeEins said:


> ....not a fair comparison? ..all I'm demonstrating - as per the review that you found so ridiculous - is that weight difference between early and late Fw 190 variants on what was basically the same engine- for argument's sake - could be as high as 2,000 kg, give or take a few hundred....and Rodeike in his Jagdflugzeug 190 book quotes the A-8/R2 Sturmjäger at 4,974 kg _Fluggewicht_ (inc Sturm armour of 200 kgs, cannon another 100 etc etc and full belly tank ..) ..all told that's rather closer to 2,000 kg difference than 675 kg....



I like the "could be as high as 2,000 kg" bit.

From the original post in question:

" In the battles fought high over the Reich during 1944 the P-51 was 'cutting edge' while the Fw 190 was a lumbering bludgeon totally unsuited for fighter vs. fighter combat. The A-8 variant - produced in greater numbers than all the other FW 190 sub-types put together - weighed in some 2,000 kg heavier than the first Fw 190s to see service over the Channel during 1941 while powered by essentially the same BMW 801 engine."

Now if we take a STANDARD A-8 is it a "lumber bludgeon totally unsuited for fighter vs. fighter combat" or can we take an A-8 and load it down with enough crap to make it a lumbering bludgeon? Not the same thing is it? 
This poster, to me anyway, seemed to be saying that ALL A-8s weighed weighed 2,000kg more than the first SERVICE (not prototype) FW 190s. 

IF the weight of the A-1 is as listed in the link I gave (3775kg) then for that poster to be 'accurate', I believe he claimed it was 100% accurate, the A-8 would have to weigh 5775kg at take-off or about 365kg less than a loaded but clean P-47C. 

Now I did make a rather stupid math error and the difference from the A-1 to the A-8 in source listed should be 575kg not 675kg but if you are asking me if 4974kg given by you ( a 1199kg increase from an A-1) is closer to 575kg or to 2000 kg I would have to say it is closer to the 575 kg increase. Off by 624kg instead of 801 kg.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

If you want to see P-47s shooting down P-51s instead of FW-190s, set your TiVo to TCM HD for Sunday 1:00AM MST.


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2011)

Shortround MTOW or max GW should be the same reference - litterally do not exceed this airframe/stores/fuel combination on a standard day - and woe be to the fearless that ignore the rule on a hot day with a short runway..


----------



## BamBamNaples (Jul 21, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Here is the order I would rate these fighters:
> 
> #1 FW190 if I was Luftwaffe pilot who flew the FW190.
> 
> ...



First when comparing these aircraft you need to look at their actual roles! I have the unique insight from two of my Uncles who each flew Spits and Mustangs... The P-51 D was designed to escort long range bombers and gave up performance in order to be more heavily built. The Spit and most other fighter/interceptors of WWII were built to dogfight and intercept other aircraft... In most cases the American Aircraft were underpowered at first and had more stringent building requirements which is why they were heavier... The P-51D did its job better than any other aircraft; And so did the spitfire! The later variants of the Spitfire, XIV etc. all had more powerful Griffon and Merlin engines in them. So, in combination with the lighter weight its no wonder it outperformed the "D".. However, if you look at the final Variant of the P-51, P-51G/H which was designed more as a fighter/interceptor where they shaved of weight and added the more powerful Merlin and Griffon engines the P-51 performance now tops all the other Spits and I believe all other prop fighters in top speed and rate of climb...

The P-51D MAX rate of climb was approx. 3,600 ft/ min, Spitfire Mk 21 4,800 ft/min, the MK XIV 5,000 ft/min, and the P-51G/H 5,200 ft/min
Top speed for the P-51G 495 mph, H 487 mph, Mk 21 455 mph, Mk XIV 443 mph, P-51D 437 mph...

They were both great aircraft and we were lucky they were fighting on the same side... In conclusion I would think PILOT ability and experience would win the day...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2014)

BamBamNaples said:


> First when comparing these aircraft you need to look at their actual roles! I have the unique insight from two of my Uncles who each flew Spits and Mustangs... The P-51 D was designed to escort long range bombers and gave up performance in order to be more heavily built.
> 
> *The P-51 was first and foremost designed and built to be a better fighter than the P-40, by NAA which proposed such to the Brits in April 1940. The 'keys' to the P-51 were a.) exceptional airframe with the best (lowest) drag of all WWII fighters except the P-80 and b.) enormous (for that time) fuel capacity. The original Allison engine was a no-go for 'long range bomber escort' for the US because escort altitudes were 10,000 feet above the Allison Critical Altitude.*
> 
> ...



The dominant weight growth stages occurred when the Packard Rolls added 300 pounds in plumbing and engine over the Allison (P-51A to P-51B), then another 300 pounds for two extra 50 cal plus ammo (P-51B to P-51D).

In summary - the superiority of the aerodynamics coupled with internal fuel capacity is what separated the Mustang from the other ships named in this thread - the engine change enabled it to fulfill its potential. 

The 600 pound decrease in weight of the P-51H from the D along with the 1650-9 engine made it very competitive with the Spit in all areas and superior to the FW 190D and all FW 190 subsets... plus parity more or less depending on altitude with the Ta 152.


----------



## grampi (Jan 25, 2016)

Crumpp said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Soren requested I join this thread.
> 
> ...



Chuck Yeager has stated many times that he would take the P-51 over any other prop fighter...that doesn't mean it's the better plane, just means he prefers it over the others...this goes right in line with your rankings...


----------



## grampi (Jan 25, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The dominant weight growth stages occurred when the Packard Rolls added 300 pounds in plumbing and engine over the Allison (P-51A to P-51B), then another 300 pounds for two extra 50 cal plus ammo (P-51B to P-51D).
> 
> In summary - the superiority of the aerodynamics coupled with internal fuel capacity is what separated the Mustang from the other ships named in this thread - the engine change enabled it to fulfill its potential.
> 
> The 600 pound decrease in weight of the P-51H from the D along with the 1650-9 engine made it very competitive with the Spit in all areas and superior to the FW 190D and all FW 190 subsets... plus parity more or less depending on altitude with the Ta 152.



Most people conveniently forget about the "H" model when getting into these comparison discussions...it would have given even the Bearcat fits...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2016)

grampi said:


> Chuck Yeager has stated many times that he would take the P-51 over any other prop fighter...that doesn't mean it's the better plane, just means he prefers it over the others...this goes right in line with your rankings...



He won't be responding. He has not been a member here for quite some time.


----------



## grampi (Jan 26, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He won't be responding. He has not been a member here for quite some time.



I wasn't expecting him to respond...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2016)

The Fw 190 posessed some distinctive qualities vs. other top fighter of the war, in some features was at least equal, and in some features lagged when Allied designs received improvements. The rate of roll was superb, firepower was heavy for the era, speed and RoC were excellent until Allies deployed 2-stage engined fighters. Visibility was very good, the Kimmandogeraet eased pilot's work load. Nobody regarded the Fw 190 as flimsy, or badly protected (though the protection was over-done with later marks).
Shortcomings were, before late 1942, mostly connected with the engine and it's installation, the reliability was low until refinements in the engine & installation were worked out. The engine istallation have had the flaw in being too squished; the external intake was an afterthought that gave better hi-alt capability, but also a bigger drag (not much of concern in climb).
Where the Fw 190A could not compete vs. later Allied fighters was at altitude above 20000 ft, the single stage supercharger has it's limits. Steve/Stona has kindly provided translations of German radio trafic where Fw 190 drivers prefer to stay clear from 4-mots whenever P-47 is spotted nearby.
Fw 190D upped the performance figures, not just via the small increase in power, but also via reduction of drag, while also using the external ram air intake. Problem with 190D is that it came almost a year after it was feasible, ie. too late to matter.
It did not featured that great combat range/radius, a major shortcoming. As fighter-bombers, I'd rate them higher than P-51 or Spitfire, and equal to P-47. Fw 190A could carry a torpedo, that's not too shabby either.

The Germans dropped the ball with a too late introduction of Fw 190 with a 'big' V-12, whether from Jumo 213 or DB 603 line, or both.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2016)

grampi said:


> Chuck Yeager has stated many times that he would take the P-51 over any other prop fighter...that doesn't mean it's the better plane, just means he prefers it over the others...this goes right in line with your rankings...


he also said the P-39 was one of his favorite aircraft to fly...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2016)

The P-39 was also one of Aleksandr Pokryshkin's favorite aircraft, too.


----------

