# Just How Superior



## Ghostdancer (Oct 6, 2007)

For years I've heard and read how the P-51 Mustang was so superior to the best German fighters (except for the ME-262 jet) meaning the ME-109 and FW-190, but just how true is this? Now, what I read and hear about suggests that this superiority isn't as great as has been stated over the years.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 7, 2007)

Well its hard to argue the fact that the P51 was a fabulous and very effective plane, however it is definately an overated plane. While obviously there are many more factors than just the plane I dont necessarily think that the plane itself was that superior. The Germans had some excellent designs. It is hard to truly decide if it was entirely superior because the Germans didnt have the numbers of aircraft and trained pilots that the US did when the Mustange was dominating the skies of Europe. 

I personally do not consider the Mustang the best fighter of WW2. I think it was an excellent long range fighter which was integral to the war effort though. Its range being its major drawcard compared to other planes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2007)

The main thing the P-51D had going for it was its long range. It was the fighter that took the war to the Germans. That is undisputed.

I too think the P-51D is overated but not because it was not a good plane. It was one hell of a plane. The reason I think it is overated is because when someone says what is the best plane ever buit and automatically the majority of people go "P-51 Mustang!". 

You have to look at it this way. Each aircraft had ist point where it was operating at maximum efficiency and ability. Some aircraft that was at high alltitude and some it was at lower alltitudes.

The P-51D would be superior at certain altitudes to other aircraft and not superior at other altitudes. 

The P-51D I believe however was superior at the altitudes it needed to operate at and that was where the bombers were. Dont quote me on this though.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Oct 7, 2007)

Like many of you already said the major fact for the greatness of the P51 was its long range...


----------



## delcyros (Oct 7, 2007)

...and it´s comparably high altitude cruise speed. While other planes had to climb to altitude at low speeds, the Mustang in it´s escort role already possessed altitude and a very high cruise speed there, enabling them to take basic advantage in combat.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2007)

Yes, that is completely true. Like Adler said, it wasn't the best fighter plane of WW2 simply because there is no such thing as the best. Beside the range there were other things which made it the success it was. American pilots were the best trained in the world. Couple that with optimized tactics for aggressive boom and zoom fighting. And it's true that certain planes are better at certain altitudes but that wasn't the case for the Mustang as it was faster than German planes at any altitude. And speed was its main weapon. Being able to outpace any adversary means you always have the initiative. Put all that together with excellent tactics and a flying range which allows you to roam all over Germany for hours and you've got yourself a devestating weapon. 

Kris


----------



## glennasher (Oct 7, 2007)

One other thing, NUMBERS, there were a heckuva lot of Mustangs flying around, with fairly well-trained pilots, while Germany's numbers of pilots, fuel, and aircraft were dwindling. I think it's a beautiful aircraft though, and it's still my favorite, but "facts is facts".


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 7, 2007)

Years ago I was at the museum in Mesa, Arizona which had a collection of WWII fighters (These are now at the Museum of Flight in Seattle) which included an FW-190. One of the guides was taking a group of visitors through and he stated that some believe the FW-190 to have been the best fighter of the war.

The quality of piloting was mentioned. It should be remembered that at the outbreak of WWII the P-40 and F4F Wildcat were the best fighters in the US arsenal at that time and were technically inferior to the Japanese Zero and yet these planes in the hands of skilled pilots held their own against the Zero.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The main thing the P-51D had going for it was its long range. It was the fighter that took the war to the Germans. That is undisputed.
> 
> I too think the P-51D is overated but not because it was not a good plane. It was one hell of a plane. The reason I think it is overated is because when someone says what is the best plane ever buit and automatically the majority of people go "P-51 Mustang!".
> 
> ...



That pretty well sums it up Chris... the key comment is that it was superior at bomber escort altitudes 600 miles away from home..


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2007)

Ghostdancer said:


> Years ago I was at the museum in Mesa, Arizona which had a collection of WWII fighters (These are now at the Museum of Flight in Seattle) which included an FW-190. One of the guides was taking a group of visitors through and he stated that some believe the FW-190 to have been the best fighter of the war.
> 
> The quality of piloting was mentioned. It should be remembered that at the outbreak of WWII the P-40 and F4F Wildcat were the best fighters in the US arsenal at that time and were technically inferior to the Japanese Zero and yet these planes in the hands of skilled pilots held their own against the Zero.



That particular Fw190 was a 190D-9 and the crown jewel of Doug Champlin's collection at the American Fighter Aces Museum..the only 'flyable' one in the US. 

The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes.. pilot skill and tactical advantage were keys in which one won a one on one fight.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2007)

glennasher said:


> One other thing, NUMBERS, there were a heckuva lot of Mustangs flying around, with fairly well-trained pilots, while Germany's numbers of pilots, fuel, and aircraft were dwindling. I think it's a beautiful aircraft though, and it's still my favorite, but "facts is facts".



Glen - there weren't a 'heckuva lot of Mustangs flying around' in the first 5 months of its operational history from late Dec 1943- early May 1944 - when the critical battles were being fought for control of the air... and the Groups that had them were spread out to cover Target Escort for three separate and large Bomb Divisions over different targets.

The Germans were smart and tough - they did their best to attack when they were able to position for local air superiority... and we perhaps have exhausted this particular subject over that last four months in other threads.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 7, 2007)

drgondog said:


> That particular Fw190 was a 190D-9 and the crown jewel of Doug Champlin's collection at the American Fighter Aces Museum..the only 'flyable' one in the US.
> 
> The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes.. pilot skill and tactical advantage were keys in which one won a one on one fight.



And it is one of the few WWII planes that is not in the Seattle Museum's Red Barn which is the newer section dedicated to WWII. That FW-190 is in the main area with aircraft from different eras.

If I'm not mistaken when the Museum is Mesa was dedicated among those present were Erich "Hartmann, Adolf Galland and Saburo Sakai, not sure about that though.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2007)

Ghostdancer said:


> And it is one of the few WWII planes that is not in the Seattle Museum's Red Barn which is the newer section dedicated to WWII. That FW-190 is in the main area with aircraft from different eras.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken when the Museum is Mesa was dedicated among those present were Erich "Hartmann, Adolf Galland and Saburo Sakai, not sure about that though.



When the American Fighter Aces had their first meeting there in 1984 or 5 (CRS) Rall, Galland, Krupinski, Goehrke and maybe Stigler were there. Neither Hartmann nor Sakai were at that particular re-union.. I posted pics of that somewhere in the Aviation section back in August.


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 7, 2007)

drgondog said:


> When the American Fighter Aces had their first meeting there in 1984 or 5 (CRS) Rall, Galland, Krupinski, Goehrke and maybe Stigler were there. Neither Hartmann nor Sakai were at that particular re-union.. I posted pics of that somewhere in the Aviation section back in August.



Wouldn't it be great to meet and talk with these guys. Their own knowledge and experience would be so interesting to hear.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2007)

Ghostdancer said:


> Wouldn't it be great to meet and talk with these guys. Their own knowledge and experience would be so interesting to hear.



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fighter-aces-german-visitors-1984-a-9215.html

It was and helped shape my own thoughts about the big picture contribution of the Mustang over ETO. Galland and Rall were very helpful in my research and Ray Toliver was key in making the introductions.


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2007)

Good posts Bill Adler, I can only agree.

But remember there weren't a heck of a lot of German aircraft around either, esp. not dedicated fighters which were hugely out-numbered.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 7, 2007)

Watanbe said:


> I personally do not consider the Mustang the best fighter of WW2.



How about the best looking post war 'executive' aircraft?


----------



## The Basket (Oct 7, 2007)

Two issues as I see it. Was the Mustang better than its German or Italian rivals. Was the Mustang better than its allied rivals.

That is some mighty company.

A Yak 3 would eat a Mustang D at low altitude in a dogfight. Mustang better at altitude and range of course. On a ground attack mission, I would rather be in a Jug. 

I could buy the argument that the Mustang was the most versatile and all round capable fighter of its type. But I would rather say the Spitfire 14 was a better dogfighter and interceptor. Useless range of course.


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2007)

The best fighter of WW2 is undoubtedly the Me-262A-1a, but unreliable engines, low fuel supply the few numbers available made sure it didn't have a chance to turn the tide of the war. 

In terms of piston engined fighters the Ta-152H-1 takes the prize hands down, but again low fuel numbers also made sure this baby didn't seriously affect the war. 

Next comes the FW-190 Dora-9 which IMO was the best series produced fighter of WW2, featuring much better maneuverability than the P-51, P-47 P-38, its main rivals over Germany, as-well as being faster at most altitudes. But yet again it was out-numbered in the air and fuel was low.

Even so the only aircraft which could've turned the tide in favor of the Germans was the Me-262, had it been available in numbers by the beginning of 1944 as-well as granted the fighter-role by the Führer by this time then it could've turned the tide. Could it have won the war for the Germans ? No I don't believe so, esp. not with Hitler in command, but it would've prolonged the war to a point where an invasion of Germany would've proven way too costly and other more drastic measures had to be taken - so lets consider ourselves lucky that didn't happen.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 7, 2007)

The P-51 was a average performer until it dumped the Alison engine and installed twin 20 mm gattlin guns under the wings and a rear firing 40mm .

Some models had Electromagnetic Pulse capability.

Other models had a flamethrower and tail gunner


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The P-51 was a average performer until it dumped the Alison engine and installed twin 20 mm gattlin guns under the wings and a rear firing 40mm .
> 
> Some models had Electromagnetic Pulse capability.
> 
> Other models had a flamethrower and tail gunner


  

Kris


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2007)

Nothing beats the guardians though: 

LOL


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 7, 2007)

Soren said:


> The best fighter of WW2 is undoubtedly the Me-262A-1a, but unreliable engines, low fuel supply the few numbers available made sure it didn't have a chance to turn the tide of the war.
> 
> In terms of piston engined fighters the Ta-152H-1 takes the prize hands down, but again low fuel numbers also made sure this baby didn't seriously affect the war.
> 
> ...



Gotta go woth Soren on this one . . .

One thing I learned a long time ago in my many studies of history is that "The winner writes the history"; there is no better example than WWII. Yes, the Germans did some atrocious things (i.e "the Nazis"), but the average German soldier was no different than the average Allied soldier; they were both just fighting for "God and the homeland". 

That being the case, the P-51 came out of the War looking like a delivering angel. Yes, it was good at a few things and, overall, it probably was the best "all-rounder" of the War; but I'd still go up against it in a Ta 152/153 or a Do 335. Give me a Pfiel in decent running order, and I'd take on a -51D any day.

That being said, as Soren argued, if the 262 had been available in quantity earlier than '45, I'm sure it would've extended the War well into '46 and, possibly, beyond. And by then, maybe, the Go 229 would've been available in numbers, which would've prolonged the War another year or so. Ya never know . . .


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Oct 7, 2007)

Really, the 262 didn't even have to necessarily have to enter service earlier... it just should have been top priority to be used as a fighter as opposed to a jabo machine like Hitler wanted it to be.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 8, 2007)

Don't think that would have mattered much. It didn't see much action as a fighter bomber nor as a fighter before 1945. It was the engines which delayed the project, how the Me 262 was to be used was of secondary importance to that.

Kris


----------



## The Basket (Oct 8, 2007)

I don't understand the Americanos giving the P-51 a hard time. It is a fine machine. Of course, it was a British ordered aircraft and needed a British engine...but aint that what allies are for?

Not sure about the Pfiel against the D. The Pfiel was never operational and no dogfighter. It would be outnumbered too in 45.

The Zero would out turn it at low speed and low altitude but I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. So the Mustang is great because it can do many things well and has no real weaknesses. Hurrah.


----------



## JP Vieira (Oct 8, 2007)

It is allways a balance between the aircraft itself (its caractheristics) and the pilot (his training and motivation)


----------



## Erich (Oct 8, 2007)

several top things come to mind

.50's had a longer range and could buzzup a 109/190 like hot knife to butter

the late war G suit for compressability

the K-14 gunsight which I feel was superior to any Revi sight during the war

from mid 44 till wars end it was not going to matter what the LW threw up in the air, they were going to lose every time


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 8, 2007)

Agreed with Erich 100%...


----------



## Aussie1001 (Oct 8, 2007)

Erich said:


> several top things come to mind
> 
> .50's had a longer range and could buzzup a 109/190 like hot knife to butter
> 
> ...



what about the 20mm cannon.....?


other than that yeah i have to say you are right......
BUT my favourite plane is the Tempest......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The P-51 was a average performer until it dumped the Alison engine and installed twin 20 mm gattlin guns under the wings and a rear firing 40mm .
> 
> Some models had Electromagnetic Pulse capability.
> 
> Other models had a flamethrower and tail gunner


----------



## Soren (Oct 9, 2007)

Erich said:


> the late war G suit for compressability



Huh ? 

Frank's G-suit didn't help that much at all, and some argue that the heightened foot-rests + the inclined seating position in German aircraft did more or atleast as much to set back black outs under high G-forces.



> the K-14 gunsight which I feel was superior to any Revi sight during the war



How about the Askania EZ42 gyro gunsight later mounted in the Me-262 ? I'd argue that it was at the very least as good as the K-14, esp. since it proved superior to the K-14 in Allied testing.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Huh ??
> 
> How about the Askania EZ42 gyro gunsight later mounted in the Me-262 ? I'd argue that it was at the very least as good as the K-14.


I remember seen some stats on the EZ42 and from them it was superior. Some 190s and even a Do335 mounted the EZ42 (from photos). 

One of the problems many people have is they look at the stats for the P-51 which is for it loaded take off weight and not for its combat weight when it would be engaging LW fighters. The fuel in the fuselage tank added some 510lbs. Two 75gal drop tanks, fueled, weighed 1040lbs.


----------



## Soren (Oct 9, 2007)

The P-51 used a laminar flow airfoil though, and while the sharper and more symmetric profile of this type of airfoil helped decrease drag allot it also lowered the lift compared to the ordinary type airfoil.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> Huh ?
> 
> Frank's G-suit didn't help that much at all, and some argue that the heightened foot-rests + the inclined seating position in German aircraft did more or atleast as much to set back black outs under high G-forces.
> 
> ...



Huh??? Where in the world did you come up with basis for the G-suit not being useful?

"who" argues that the seating arrangement in German aircraft did more to reduce black outs- and under what tests were the comparisons made?

As to the EZ42 - what was the basis for 'superiority'. Source?

Both slaved to gyro, both tuned to boresight, 50 cal more efficient ballistically and therfore more margin for error when 'ring' not set correctly.


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (Oct 10, 2007)

the EZ-42 i spend some research on it..
It was proven to be in fw-190 sturn versions and it realy did wel..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> Frank's G-suit didn't help that much at all, and some argue that the heightened foot-rests + the inclined seating position in German aircraft did more or atleast as much to set back black outs under high G-forces.


Soren, I could tell you first hand, I don't care if you had heightened foot rests, reclining seats or anything as such, the guy without the g-suit WILL black out first, end of story!!!!


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2007)

luftwaffemesserschmitt said:


> the EZ-42 i spend some research on it..
> It was proven to be in fw-190 sturn versions and it realy did wel..



I'm not skeptical about its quality, just curious how tests had been performed to compare to K-14 and lead to any conclusions one way or the other.


----------



## Soren (Oct 11, 2007)

Guys,

I know how useful a G-suit is, its absolutely essential in mordern fighters, but we're talking about the first pratical G-suit ever here. The Frank's G-suit doesn't even approach capabilities of the modern G-suit, being according to dr. Frank himself capable of allowing pilots to withstand six G's. The heightened foot rests inclined seating position in German aircraft in itself did allot to delay black outs, and experienced pilots could with a little grunting delay black outs for another 3 g's. Having the pilot completely on his back or stomach would've largely eliminated black outs, but this wasn't really possible to technically achieve in 1940's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> Guys,
> 
> I know how useful a G-suit is, its absolutely essential in mordern fighters, but we're talking about the first pratical G-suit ever here. The Frank's G-suit doesn't even approach capabilities of the modern G-suit, being according to dr. Frank himself capable of allowing pilots to withstand six G's. The heightened foot rests inclined seating position in German aircraft in itself did allot to delay black outs, and experienced pilots could with a little grunting delay black outs for another 3 g's. Having the pilot completely on his back or stomach would've largely eliminated black outs, but this wasn't really possible to technically achieve in 1940's.


The early G suits used late in the war worked just fine. Franks MK III suit was very similar to what is in use today with the exception of nomex materials and the quick disconnect fittings where the suit plugs in. The Earlier MK II suit used water and was not as effective or favored by pilots. I know at least 2 WW2 P-51 vets who specifically spoke about G suits and they stated they were a major advantage in the dogfight - Col. Mike Alba, USAF (Ret) and Lt. Joe Melechi USAF (Ret).

I believe the Mk III Suit made its way to Korea as well...





P-51 drivers with MK III G suits


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2007)

Joe - dead on. They didn't wear them for style or comfort.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> Having the pilot completely on his back or stomach would've largely eliminated black outs, but this wasn't really possible to technically achieve in 1940's.


And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no? 

Kris


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 11, 2007)

Civettone said:


> And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?
> 
> Kris



I don't think they blacked out; I think the reason for the auto pilot was because of the tremendous G-forces at launch. Also, the pilots that were projected to be flying the Natter were extremely inexperienced, so radio ground-control guided the Natter to the incoming bomber formation(s), at which point the pilot actually took over and salvoed his rockets at the nearest bomber.


----------



## Soren (Oct 12, 2007)

Civettone said:


> And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?
> 
> Kris




Where have you heard this ?

What were they supposed to black out from ? Accelleration ? Not really possible.

Many of the late war German designs had the pilot lay on his stomach, why?, because this will greatly reduce the risk of black outs, the blood not being directly pulled towards your legs.



*FLYBOYJ,*

I know that pilots liked the Mk.III G-suit, it was allot more comfortable to wear than the MK.II, but as Dr. Wilbur Rounding Franks says himself the G-suit only helped pilots withstand G-forces of up to six G's, something a experienced pilot can withstand without a G-suit. So yeah the early G-suit did give novice pilots an advantage, but for experienced pilots it wasn't really necessary, esp. not by 1944-45 where seven G's was very rarely exceeded - Me-262 pilots I bet would've loved to have it though as it would've proven VERY useful in the speed regimes they were flying. So ofcourse in Korea the G-suit was very important as seven G's was regularly exceeded.




drgondog said:


> As to the EZ42 - what was the basis for 'superiority'. Source?



Like I said the source is an Allied test report.



> Both slaved to gyro, both tuned to boresight,



The EZ42 uses two gyro's Bill.



> 50 cal more efficient ballistically and therfore more margin for error when 'ring' not set correctly.



Nonesense Bill, the MG-151/20 featured similar ballistics, gaining the edge as range increases. 

20x82R
Bullet weight: 117 g (1,805 gr)
Bullet SD: .416
MV: 720 m/s 

12.7x99
Bullet weight: 43 g (663 gr)
Bullet SD: .379
MV: 890 m/s

And what kind of logic lets you to the conclusion that because the .50 cal has better ballistics there is therefore more margin for error ??? The primitive computer is calibrated to the exact ballistics of the particular weapon used, so what'ever error might occur will be similar for any weapon used.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 12, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Yes, that is completely true. Like Adler said, it wasn't the best fighter plane of WW2 simply because there is no such thing as the best. Beside the range there were other things which made it the success it was. American pilots were the best trained in the world. Couple that with optimized tactics for aggressive boom and zoom fighting. And it's true that certain planes are better at certain altitudes but that wasn't the case for the Mustang as it was faster than German planes at any altitude. And speed was its main weapon. Being able to outpace any adversary means you always have the initiative. Put all that together with excellent tactics and a flying range which allows you to roam all over Germany for hours and you've got yourself a devestating weapon.
> 
> Kris



This is a repeat of a post I have submitted before. I think the impact of the P-51B/D is similar to the Russian T-34 tank. Like the T-34, when the P-51B appeared, the Germans were taken aback. Here was plane that could fly from England to Germany and was generally faster from SL up and significantly faster from 10K up and was similar in climb to the German front line fighters (the Bf-109 had a somewhat better climb up to 20K). Certainly, when the late model Bs and D appeared, the P-51s pretty well outperformed the front line German fighters in speed with similar climb rates (and dive rates) from SL up. This superiority lasted from fall of ’43 till the fall of ’44 (when German responses to the P-51, Fw-190D-9, Bf-109K, and Ta-152H, began to be deployed). So, during the most severe test of the German war machine and certainly when the balance of war was beginning to press against the Germans, they lost command of the air on the Western front and over their homeland due to the P-51. This was not solely due to numbers either. And, like the T-34 tank, by the time the Germans had developed an answer, the numbers of these very capable, but now only above average, weapons systems were overwhelming. 

Most military historians consider the T-34 as the most significant tank of the war due to its impact. Sure, later WWII tanks were better tanks (like the panther) but none had the impact as the T-34 did. As such, most historians consider the P-51 as the most significant fighter due to its impact on the war.

Later models of aircraft were superior to the P-51D including the P-51H. But none had the impact that he P-51B/D. If I had to choose one plane to fight WWII with, it would probably be the F4U-4.



Drgondog said:


> The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes..



When the Fw-190D-9 appeared in late 44’, the P-51B was generally faster at all altitudes than the D-9 and significantly so above 15K ft. Climb rates were similar. The Fw-190D-9 was superior to the P-51D up to 25K ft., but the P-51 had better performance above 25K ft. with significantly greater speed. The Fw-190D-9 was not equal to or better than the P-51B above 20K, or the P-51D above 25K.





Soren said:


> In terms of piston engined fighters the Ta-152H-1 takes the prize hands down, but again low fuel numbers also made sure this baby didn't seriously affect the war.


Well, maybe in your hands. It had severe low altitude deficiencies compared to some other late war aircraft, especially in speed and probably in climb.



> Next comes the FW-190 Dora-9 which IMO was the best series produced fighter of WW2, featuring much better maneuverability than the P-51, P-47 P-38, its main rivals over Germany, as-well as being faster at most altitudes. But yet again it was out-numbered in the air and fuel was low.



The D-9 was excellent at low altitude but roughly equivalent in performance to the P-51B (<20K). Above that the P-51B is much faster with a better climb rate. Above 25k, the P-51D is clearly faster with equivalent climb. And of course it would be hard pressed against a contemporary F4U-4 at any altitude.



> Even so the only aircraft which could've turned the tide in favor of the Germans was the Me-262, had it been available in numbers by the beginning of 1944 as-well as granted the fighter-role by the Führer by this time then it could've turned the tide. Could it have won the war for the Germans ? No I don't believe so, esp. not with Hitler in command, but it would've prolonged the war to a point where an invasion of Germany would've proven way too costly and other more drastic measures had to be taken - so lets consider ourselves lucky that didn't happen.



I agree with this, but enough Me-262 would have to have been available to stop the Normandy invasion. After the Allies were solidly in France, by July ’44, nothing could help the Germans, except maybe the atom bomb.




> The P-51 used a laminar flow airfoil though, and while the sharper and more symmetric profile of this type of airfoil helped decrease drag allot it also lowered the lift compared to the ordinary type airfoil.



The airfoil of future fighters, except the Ta-152H.




> So yeah the early G-suit did give novice pilots an advantage, but for experienced pilots it wasn't really necessary, esp. not by 1944-45 where seven G's was very rarely exceeded - Me-262 pilots I bet would've loved to have it though as it would've proven VERY useful in the speed regimes they were flying. So ofcourse in Korea the G-suit was very important as seven G's was regularly exceeded.



Yes, experienced pilot could handle this. But how many sorties did the typical German fly in the critical times and what level of energy would a pilot have on the last couple of flights after pulling six gs with no g suit? I suspect this had a big impact to endurance, even for an experienced pilot. 

I think most WWII aircraft were stressed to similar levels as Korean aircraft and I find it hard to believe a WWII pilot would not use the most of his aircraft like a Korean pilot. In fact, I don’t think an F-4 is stressed to a higher level than the Bf-109. Speed means you can ramp up gs faster but not necessarily get higher gs.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 12, 2007)

Davparlr, I'm with you all the way with that post! 

It's all the more surprising when you notice that the P-51B was a year older than the Dora. If needed the Americans could have come up with new fighter variants to counter anything the Germans would throw at them.

Kris


----------



## davparlr (Oct 12, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Davparlr, I'm with you all the way with that post!
> 
> It's all the more surprising when you notice that the P-51B was a year older than the Dora. If needed the Americans could have come up with new fighter variants to counter anything the Germans would throw at them.
> 
> Kris



I agree with this. The US had the P-47M and N delivered and the P-51H could easily been accelerated. They were just not needed as the superb new German aircraft could not be effective in the environment in which they were deployed.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 12, 2007)

The Mustang was a phenomen in the air. But it didn´t appear when the tide was beginning to turn against the Luftwaffe (first larger use in december 43, in numbers appeared in march 44). The USAAF had the excellent P-47C and the P-38 operational before and to those belongs this fame.
The Mustang deserves to be mentioned as a force multiplier in a critical time. Not only did the P-47 and -38 together with NUMRERS of bombers turned the tide against the Luftwaffe but the appearence of the -51 acted exactly like the N-squared law, securing aerial superiority over Germany for the allies.

BTW, ballistically, the 0.50cal is much flatter than the 20mm MG 151. The .50 drops to Mach 1.5 at 900m while the MG 151/20 drops to Mach 1.5 at 250m and goes subsonic starting at 550m.


----------



## renrich (Oct 12, 2007)

Ghostdancer, Herr Adler's post early on was right on. To me, the thing to remember is that all AC are compromises. An AC designed as an interceptor should be able to climb fast. An AC that is designed as an escort fighter needs to have long range. A WW2 air superiority fighter needs to have good maneuverability. The Mustang with the Merlin engine was a pretty good climber, pretty good maneuverer, had pretty good high altitude performance and had superior range. There were a lot of WW2 fighters that had SOME qualities that surpassed the Mustang but few(if any) had the mix of good qualities and long range performance the Mustang had in 1944. Ask a Spitfire, FW, 109, Jug or even P38 to do what the Mustang did in 1944 and they could not do it. All but the P38 had not the range. If an AC can't get to where the fight is, it is of no use.


----------



## renrich (Oct 12, 2007)

Dav, very good posts. The sectional density which Soren quotes on the various projectiles is not the major factor when it comes to trajectory. That factor is the ballistic coefficent. I doubt the 20 mm projectile of anyone had the BC of the .50 BMG.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> Where have you heard this ?
> 
> What were they supposed to black out from ? Accelleration ? Not really possible.
> 
> ...



The 'exact' ranging solution wasn't available until the Sperry A1-C Radar Ranging gunsight on the F-84 and F-86 - which also eliminated the need to for the ranging adjustment on the throttles of the 51/47 and 38. The ballistics were important for shots taken at longer ranges (beyond the pilot's bore sight range) when the computer wasn't coupled to the range correctly for low deflection shots. I haven't looked up the BC for the 20 versus the 50 but it has to to be lower.

As far as I know, the K-14 had zero adjustment for different ballistics for 20mm versus 50 cal as an example, and the solution was strictly lead calculation based on keeping the pipper on the cockpit with correct or near correct span adjustment. The optimal use was for 'level' but high deflections versus attempting to solve for high G turning and climbing combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2007)

davparlr said:


> As such, most historians consider the P-51 as the most significant fighter due to its impact on the war.



I can completely agree with that. The P-51D was able to do what no other fighter could and in that sense its impact was that of a war winner.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2007)

As anyone knows who has done much shooting with a rifle, the flatter shooting a load is, the easier or less critical, range estimation becomes. That has always been one of the strong points of the .50 BMG round. With a muzzle velocity of around 2800 fps and a very high ballistic coefficent(my handloading manuals are packed so can't look it up) it is a very flat shooting load. When first beginning to handlaod, it was hard to believe that a 700 grain .50 BMG bullet at 2800 fps had a flatter trajectory than a 150 grain caliber .30 bullet with the same muzzle velocity. But it is incomparably flatter shooting. Just from memory, the BC of the .50 is twice that of the .30 assuming they are both spitzer bullets.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2007)

renrich said:


> As anyone knows who has done much shooting with a rifle, the flatter shooting a load is, the easier or less critical, range estimation becomes. That has always been one of the strong points of the .50 BMG round. With a muzzle velocity of around 2800 fps and a very high ballistic coefficent(my handloading manuals are packed so can't look it up) it is a very flat shooting load. When first beginning to handlaod, it was hard to believe that a 700 grain .50 BMG bullet at 2800 fps had a flatter trajectory than a 150 grain caliber .30 bullet with the same muzzle velocity. But it is incomparably flatter shooting. Just from memory, the BC of the .50 is twice that of the .30 assuming they are both spitzer bullets.



Agreed on the general ballistic properties - I would have to look up the BC of the 700 gr to see the BC.. it would be hard to believe it is 2 x the BC of the 150 gr spitzer at .387... but the 50 cal was mostly boat tail as I recall and would have had better BC than the spitzer in that caliber - the 50 cal BMG round was scaled up 30-06 

The best BC that I found in all the rifle calibers was .519 (figures!) for the 7mm 175 gr spitzer but a boat tail would have been better. The best 30 cal round I found was the 180 gr boat tail at .507 but a 200

At any rate the 20mm round is a dog by comprison on trajectory.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2007)

davparlr said:


> When the Fw-190D-9 appeared in late 44’, the P-51B was generally faster at all altitudes than the D-9 and significantly so above 15K ft. Climb rates were similar. The Fw-190D-9 was superior to the P-51D up to 25K ft., but the P-51 had better performance above 25K ft. with significantly greater speed. The Fw-190D-9 was not equal to or better than the P-51B above 20K, or the P-51D above 25K.
> 
> *Dave I believe the Fw 190D was superior in turn and roll below 20,000 feet from both the few performance tests and the anecdotal comments that I've herd from people who flew both.. climb and acceleration essentially the same, 51D dived faster initially and the 51D was faster... your points are still essentilly correct or mine re slightly incorrect - but the matchup is close. The 51H was better in everything except roll from the performance extrapolations - and the Fw190D-13 was better at high altitude (>30,000 ft)than the 51H if the German test figures are correct and the 3 stage turbo was working.
> 
> ...



I may be wrong - too many years - but I believe the F4 and F-14 and F-8 were stressed in 8G limit load and the F-16 and F-15 and F-18 are at 9G limit ~ 12-13 G ultimate.. in other words beyond the pilot's ability to use the strength in a fight

Like you I have maintained that the P-51 was the most IMPORTANT fighter, not the BEST when you break down its attributes as a dog fighter. It simply competed to dominated at the altitude of interest 600 miles from home.

Regards,

Bill

PS "we ain't disagreein'


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 13, 2007)

drgondog said:


> As to the EZ42 - what was the basis for 'superiority'. Source?



Must the venerable Fritz Hahn.



> Both slaved to gyro, both tuned to boresight, 50 cal more efficient ballistically and therfore more margin for error when 'ring' not set correctly.



It would be just nice to see some ballistic tables, similiar to that available for German rounds. I don`t quite get the reason for such tense debate on a marginal thing tough, efficients and such... practical shooting range limit was about 300 yards/meters, and usually even less against small sized aircraft. You did not need excessive ballistic performance for such short range shooting. This whole .50/20mm debate is a bit bizarre, like arguing in favour of the long range qualities of a 30-06 bolt action sniper rifle vs. a semi-automatic shotgun... ...in a close-quarters battle, that is.



> Originally Posted by Drgondog
> The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes..



The 109G-x/AS versions were perfectly comparable to the P-51, and they appeared the same time as the P-51..

BTW, do you have some sort of 'on hand figures' for P-51s with operational 8/15th AAF groups? I am trying to establish the 'rate of appearance' of the Mustang. I have seen some figures fromthe USAAF Stat. digest, but those appear to me including other stuff as well (storage, reserves etc.). I understand the Mustang appeared in December 1943 but initially it did not equip too many fighter groups.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> It would be just nice to see some ballistic tables, similiar to that available for German rounds. I don`t quite get the reason for such tense debate on a marginal thing tough, efficients and such... practical shooting range limit was about 300 yards/meters, and usually even less against small sized aircraft. You did not need excessive ballistic performance for such short range shooting. This whole .50/20mm debate is a bit bizarre, like arguing in favour of the long range qualities of a 30-06 bolt action sniper rifle vs. a semi-automatic shotgun... ...in a close-quarters battle, that is.
> 
> *Agreed - but a lot of shots were taken beyond bore sight range and aircraft downed.. who really knows how much the ballistic efficiency played a role.
> 
> ...



The 15th AF did not get their Mustangs until May 1944. For example the 325th FG converted to P-51s in May.

The order was 9th AF first with 354th in December 1943, then the 363rd on Feb 23 1944...

The 8th received the 357th FG from the 9th and it started Ops in Feb 11, 1944.. then the 4th around the 26th, then the 355th on March 8 with one squadron, then the 352nd in early April, then 339th on April 30.. 

The 8th AF was very 'thin' on Mustands over the target until late August as both the 354th and 363rd returned to 9th AF operational control in May. By D-Day the 339th, 359th and 361st were all operational to pick up the 'vacuum.'

The 15th continued to fly a mixture of the P-38 and P-51 to end of war, whereas the last of the P-38 groups in ETO converted in late September (479th), while the 20th, 55th and 364th converted in late July


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2007)

drgondog, I could not find my handloading manual that had the ballistic coefficent of the .50 BMG bullet but online I found a Hornaday 750 grain bullet in .50 BMG that has a BC of 1.050, SD of .412. I had in my memory a BC of around .700 for the .50 BMG so I believe the Hornaday bullet validates that. I do believe the military bullets used in WW2 would have the .50 BMG with twice as good a BC as the 150 grain cal. .30 bullet. I also believe that the effective range of the .50 BMG is substantially greater than the 300 yards mentioned earlier by someone else.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2007)

Correction, the statement was "practical range" I seem to recall that one reason(among several) that the tactics of the F4F4 was to turn into and go head to head with a Zeke was that the 6-50s were much more likely to get hits on the Zeke before the Zeke could get hits with his 20 mms which had a rainbow trajectory. I used to hunt with a Ruger #1 in .270 Win with which I had handloaded the 150 grain Nosler partition (because of superior BC compared to the 130 grain) to a MV of 3000 fps(chronographed) Zeroed at 300 yds, the bullet drop at 500 yds was only about 18 inches and range estimation was pretty easy. Killed a many a mule deer at extended range with it. Had two witnesses once who saw a 500 yd one shot kill with it. They were impressed.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2007)

Also seem to remember a story of a Marine pilot in Korea who was on loan to the AF and in a Sabre. The Marine pilot was a WW2 veteran and was flying the wing of an experienced AF pilot in pursuit of a Mig at an altitude in excess of 35000 ft. The AF pilot opened fire at what the Marine thought was an impossibly long range(700 yards sticks in my mind) and shot down the Mig. When on the ground, the Marine questioned the AF guy about the long range. The AF pilot replied to him that at that altitude the bullet trajectory was much flatter than at the altitudes WW2 was fought at and the speed of the Sabre added a lot to the MV of the guns.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2007)

renrich said:


> drgondog, I could not find my handloading manual that had the ballistic coefficent of the .50 BMG bullet but online I found a Hornaday 750 grain bullet in .50 BMG that has a BC of 1.050, SD of .412. I had in my memory a BC of around .700 for the .50 BMG so I believe the Hornaday bullet validates that. I do believe the military bullets used in WW2 would have the .50 BMG with twice as good a BC as the 150 grain cal. .30 bullet. I also believe that the effective range of the .50 BMG is substantially greater than the 300 yards mentioned earlier by someone else.



Renrich - I saw the Lilja article and still don't believe 1.050 for BC. I believe without proof that the form factor for the bullet would have to something like an area rule wasp waist to achieve that much improvement.. Of course my belief may be totally wrong!

Here is a link to one I do believe ~ .65 for the 668gr API which would be 50+% better than the 150gr ball round in the 30-06. The Hornady .50 BMG AMax has about the same form factor as the 7mm 170gr Amax so the comparative difference should be mass to mass divided by the diameter squared.

750/ .510>>2 compared to 170/.284>>2-------> 50 BMG AMax about 37% higher than the 7mm AMax in a very rough comp - which puts the very best .50BMG in the .7 BC range - not 1.050. Still awesome.

AmmoGuide is now... "Interactive"!

Anyway - the 50 cal being aimed by a K-14 would be very dangerous at the 800yd limit (theoretical) of the K-14 gunsight - well beyond the boresight range for convergence on either an F4U or P-51 or P-47.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 13, 2007)

Years ago, I started to make a simple DOS-program, allowing basic estimates on ballistics (both, interior and exterior), the details of recoil (not of importance here) and some approximations on typical barrel length, breech mechanisms and service lifetime (also, not important-and not concluded in this program-I dropped attention as a friend provided me with a more perfectual software).

It is based on approximations given at Tony Williams gun site and my data files for 278 ww1 ww2 guns projectiles.

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables

here is what comes out:
MG 151/20 firing 105gramm projectile at 725 m/s muzzle velocity (at a given form factor of 1.67, attributed for very pointed but not boat tailed, derived from drawings): *sec. density: 0.373275; bc: 0.623369*
0.50BMG firing a 43.3gramm projectile at 880 m/s muzzle velocity (at a given form factor of 1.95, attributed for very pointed, full jacket boat tailed, derived from drawings): *sec. density: 0.379106; bc: 0.739257
*

Everybody should now be able to do the maths on his own...

BTW, as noted already above by Kurfürst, the discussion about this detail is leading us nowhere...


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2007)

The info I quoted on the .50 BMG projectile was from a Hornaday website. Anyway, as others have observed we seem to be doing some hairsplitting but us hand loaders are good at that sort of thing. Keeps us awake at night sometime. Also, I believe the .50 cals used by all the air forces of the US in WW2 were a very effective weapon. The one time I fired one it made me feel invincible.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 14, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The 15th AF did not get their Mustangs until May 1944. For example the 325th FG converted to P-51s in May.
> 
> The order was 9th AF first with 354th in December 1943, then the 363rd on Feb 23 1944...
> 
> ...



Hi, 

Thanks for this sort of info, I really appreciate it. I am almost totally ignorant on the subject, so bear with me if I ask some very basic questions :

1, Do you have some sorts of strenght breakdown, too? I mean something like 

end of 43-Nov : zero Mustangs 
end of 43 dec : say 100 Mustangs with operational units (all with 354th), 80 servicable
end of 44 feb : say 150 Mustangs with operational units (say 80 with 354th, 40 with 363rd, 30 with the 4th FG), 120 servicable in total

and so on ?

Basically what I am trying to achieve with these sort of data is to establish how availibilty and performance related.. quantity vs. quality, does the plane has both? I am trying to avoid fixation on rare, best variants (obviously the Mustang isn`t such) if at the given date would be available only in limited numbers, introduction of the Me 262 and P-51D in the summer of 1944 comes to mind... they are 'contemporaries', only that one has the numbers to make it`s performance felt in the air, the other doesn`t.

2 What`s the importance of being issued to the 9th, I though the 8th Strategic and 9th Tactical were on the same side of the fence.  Or did the Army Air Force think different at the time...? Did the 9th strictly operated against targets in France or...?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for this sort of info, I really appreciate it. I am almost totally ignorant on the subject, so bear with me if I ask some very basic questions :
> 
> ...



A curious choice. The 354th and 357th FG in 9th AF trained in P-39s and naturally were assigned the P-51 as in line engine extension but Eaker and Doolittle immediately 'borrowed' the P-51 in the form of the 354th FG and agreed to transfer the P-47 equipped 358th in exchange for the next P-51 Group, the 357th...They also worked out the exchange of the new P-38L's due to come to ETO in May for all the P-51s allocated to the 9th AF. 

The 9th then committed to P-47, and even forced the 354th Pioneer Mustang Gp to convert in November until late Feb 1945 when they got their Mustangs back.

The 9th AF operated against France but also Lowlands and combined many operations w/8th AF to attack some strategic targets in western Germany, primarily with B-26s. 

In 1943 the 9th AF B-26 and B-25 Groups would occsionally fly Penetrations at 20,000 feet to fool German Controllers into guessing whether they were B-24 Groups inbound to Germany - then drop lower to attack tactical targests inland from Coast to Koblenz for example. They were more frequently escorted by RAF than 8th as well as their own P-47 and later P-38 groups.

Their assignments were primarily tactical and focused on the Invasion and future tactical ops in front of INvasion force.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 14, 2007)

Hell of a post Bill, very impressive... Thanks for the hard work brother...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Hell of a post Bill, very impressive... Thanks for the hard work brother...



Thanks Dan - Off topic so someone whip me with a noodle but just got the sad news about a SEAL that just got the Medal the hard way. Tip of the hat to the Teams - once again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2007)

Good discussion Bill and Kurfurst and good info Bill. I think everyone will find this discussion and info interesting.

As Bill said my  to the SEAL.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good discussion Bill and Kurfurst and good info Bill. I think everyone will find this discussion and info interesting.
> 
> As Bill said my  to the SEAL.



Stop The ACLU » Print » New Yorker Wins Medal of Honor, NY Times Ignores

Chris - It seems everybody cares but the NY Times..what a suprise.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2007)

Yeah I read about in the Stars and Stripes the other day.


----------



## Soren (Oct 15, 2007)

I agree, good discussion and info provided by Bill Kurfürst.


*Bill,*

I agree with you on the Dora vs P-51 subject. 

And  to the fallen SEAL.



> Well, maybe in your hands. It had severe low altitude deficiencies compared to some other late war aircraft, especially in speed and probably in climb



Davparlr the Ta-152H-1 has a top speed of 597 km/h at SL, climb rate is above 5,000 ft/min, and 10km was reached in just 10.1min. Exactly which Allied piston engined fighter which saw active service during WW2 could match this ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 15, 2007)

I dont know why we are comparing the Dora-9 to the -51B in the first place, as I dont think the 2 ever met in the skies over Germany....

Soren, as far as I can determine, no Allied fighterr could match the numbers of the 152H-1...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I dont know why we are comparing the Dora-9 to the -51B in the first place, as I dont think the 2 ever met in the skies over Germany....
> 
> Soren, as far as I can determine, no Allied fighterr could match the numbers of the 152H-1...



Les - actually the D-9 probably did tangle in a very limited way against some 51B's. Both the 353rd and 78th FG were converting from Jugs when the Dora started rearing its ugly head and both were receiving some 51B/C's from different Groups already equipped with D and K's. A lot of the Recon units were still flying B's as well as RAF

I would have to look at the order of battle for both the 355th and 78th for January 14, 1945 but the 78 hurt JG26 Dora's near Koblenz and the 3554FS/355 hurt another unit a little further north near Munster - just for two possibilities. 

Future test pilot and 355th vet (again) of Vietnam, Bob White was shot down in WR-V 42-103795 P-51C on Feb 23rd, 1945

I would estimate that most of 8th FC command still had 10+% P-51B in Nov/Dec 1944 timeframe.

Dad's 355th had at least 5 of the P-51B/C's still flying combat in April 1945. It wasn't until VE Day when deployments were planned to Germany that all the groups finally got full 51D TO&E. 

He actually preferred the B w/Malcolm Hood to the D as the pure 'gunfighter' as he felt it turned better and accelerated better than the D at mid to high altitude (anecdotal recollection) - and it was faster at altitude.. 

It's an interesting question about P-51B versus Fw 190 Dora.. I can speculate but I don't KNOW.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

I read somewhere that 1/3 of all P-51 in the ETO still had 4 MGs. I suppose this meant they were primarily P-51Bs as also some P-51Ds were equiped with just 4 guns. I expect only few P-51Ds had 4 guns but I could be wrong.

Or the notion that 1/3 had only 4 guns is wrong, that's also possible.

Kris


----------



## Soren (Oct 15, 2007)

> It's an interesting question about P-51B versus Fw 190 Dora.. I can speculate but I don't KNOW.



Aerodynamics and the anecdotal evidence I've collected over the years supports your speculations as-well as the anecdotal evidence you've collected so far though Bill (If I've understood you correctly that is ofcourse)

According to its pilots the Dora-9 turned rolled better than the P-51, esp. at high speeds. But above 20kft the difference between these two fighters was minimal.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I dont know why we are comparing the Dora-9 to the -51B in the first place, as I dont think the 2 ever met in the skies over Germany....
> 
> Soren, as far as I can determine, no Allied fighterr could match the numbers of the 152H-1...



Dan - I have never been able to see all the flight test data on the F7F but have heard too many marine and naval aviator types swear that the a/c was "twice as good as the F6F" and preferred it to F8F. 

I know that the best speed in the first production birds in late 1944 was 460mph at 21,000 and anecdotally that it had 'twice the climb" of the F6F which would put it in Ta152 spectrum below 30,000 feet and probably slightly better in medium to low altitudes - but I sure would like a pointer to a location that has facts instead of feelings on this subject.

Objectively the Ta152H-1 was the 'best' fighter designed and produced.


----------



## Soren (Oct 15, 2007)

Agreed Bill, the F8F was a beast in the climb! (It was a beast at most things really)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I read somewhere that 1/3 of all P-51 in the ETO still had 4 MGs. I suppose this meant they were primarily P-51Bs as also some P-51Ds were equiped with just 4 guns. I expect only few P-51Ds had 4 guns but I could be wrong.
> 
> *That begs the question re: Timeframe. For, example, the D was introduced to ETO combat ops in Late May, 1944. By September 1 all of the 'original' Mustang units were probably 75/25 P-51D to P-51B/C.
> 
> ...



Kris - Likely to be wrong on VE Day, but likely to be right in November 1944


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Agreed Bill, the F8F was a beast in the climb! (It was a beast at most things really)



Soren, the nagging thing is back to anecdotal stories. 

One of my dear friends was a marine Night Fighter that flew F7Fs out of Okinawa at the end of the war. He flew F4Us, F7F and also flew the F6F and F8F. He swore that the F7F was the best single piston engine fighter he ever flew and I have heard this from several pilots that flew the F7F.

It was a 'beast' in a spin (unrecoverable after 3-4), a beast in a dive above .8Mach but allegedly outclimbed the F8F by a significant margin, was faster and could out dive it. Could not turn or roll with F8F.. but I want to see the facts (lol).

And the 'freakin' thing could carry a TORPEDO...try sticking that on a P-51 (or Ta 152)


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

Oh, it seems I forgot to mention that. It was on 1-1-45 that 1/3 still had 4 MGs... or so I read 

Kris


----------



## Soren (Oct 15, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Soren, the nagging thing is back to anecdotal stories.
> 
> One of my dear friends was a marine Night Fighter that flew F7Fs out of Okinawa at the end of the war. He flew F4Us, F7F and also flew the F6F and F8F. He swore that the F7F was the best single piston engine fighter he ever flew and I have heard this from several pilots that flew the F7F.
> 
> ...


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 15, 2007)

Soren... u enjoyed that a bit too much  !


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2007)

Soren said:


>


Soren - 
A. That has a rather short nose for a Ta152H, and B.) That particular airplane above has a hard time doing 460mph in a dive.. but good pic anyway. I have seen it before.

we all know that most USAAF and USN a/c that had a c/l rack could carry 2000+ on a c/l rack - but only a couple could carry the torpedo


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 15, 2007)

Someone needs to brush up on their airplane ID. 

That plane in the photo is a Fw190A-5/U14, WNr 871 with a LTF 5b torpedo. A similar /U15 was to carry the B&V LT950.

There was a design study done to fit a torpedo to the Fw190D-12/R14 and Ta152C/R14.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm sure he knows thats not a TA-152... The point being that if a FW-190 can do it.. certainly a TA-152 could


----------



## Soren (Oct 16, 2007)

Exactly comiso90. 

I have Hermann's book on the Ta-152, and the Ta-152 was like the FW-190 capable of carrying a torpedo, that was my "subtle" point 

*Bill,*

Next time note the grin  

Anyhow we are in agreement Bill. 
_________________________

PS: If one can't distinguish a FW-190A from a Ta-152 then one needs glasses!


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2007)

Soren said:


> Exactly comiso90.
> 
> I have Hermann's book on the Ta-152, and the Ta-152 was like the FW-190 capable of carrying a torpedo, that was my "subtle" point
> 
> ...



Lol - I did 'note' the grin, did impute that a Ta 152H-1 might be able to carry a torpedo if the Fw190A could, (but would wonder why it would be tasked to do so), while apparently that was a design spec for the F7F in 1941.

And having said all that, I wonder, because not enough data available, if the F7F was the best US piston engine fighter that was actually deployed to combat in WWII


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Someone needs to brush up on their airplane ID.
> 
> That plane in the photo is a Fw190A-5/U14, WNr 871 with a LTF 5b torpedo. A similar /U15 was to carry the B&V LT950.
> 
> There was a design study done to fit a torpedo to the Fw190D-12/R14 and Ta152C/R14.



Somebody probably needs to purchase or develop a 'sarcasm detector' to easily discern the presence of 'such' when someone else is commenting on a short nose Fw190A that would take awhile to get to 460mph in a dive at 21,000 feet while the F7F was doing it in level flight.  

Secondly, a design study has two conclusions - 1.) it makes sense, 2.) it doesn't. Where do torpedo carrying Ta152 and Fw 190D fit in the above category as contrasted with a very high performance fighter for sea going bellhops and naval aviators? 

Hitler 'wondered' if Me 262s could carry bombs - and it could, the design study said so. and it must have made sense because the Blitz Bomber was born!


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 16, 2007)

Somebody needs to know when a post is directed towards them and is not directed towards them. 

Lighten up. You got no humor?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Somebody needs to know when a post is directed towards them and is not directed towards them.
> 
> Lighten up. You got no humor?



You think I was referring to you? hell I was looking for my reading glasses so I wouldn't make such a terrible mis identification again..


----------



## Civettone (Oct 16, 2007)

Perhaps his point was also that a Fw had to be modified to carry a torpedo while the F7F might have carried it like that...

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Perhaps his point was also that a Fw had to be modified to carry a torpedo while the F7F might have carried it like that...
> 
> Kris



LOL Kris - your point is correct but if the airframe can take the mod and do the mission it would be the same. My original point of amazement (for me) was that it was in fact designed to do just that before the war started (for us)..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Oct 16, 2007)

Let me make something clear:

a.) Noting sarcasm without any clues (Such as smileys) is hard if you don't know the person real well
b.) Why are we discussing this anyway ???? 

Seriously guys, it'll become a REAL long and boring thread if we continue nit picking like this...


----------



## p14u2nv (Aug 5, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Future test pilot and 355th vet (again) of Vietnam, Bob White was shot down in WR-V 42-103795 P-51C on Feb 23rd, 1945.



Wow imagine my surprise to see my cousin Bob White listed after doing a 'net search for his aircraft the "Duchess of Manhattan" 42-103795 WR-V, the P-51C you listed!

Is there by any chance just one pic of that aircraft? I have looked at the Steeple Morden site yet no go. In fact I have scoured the net and nothing except tail number, name and date lost/POW status of Bob.

Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 5, 2009)

Thee P-51 is hardly superior(meaning very little) to the FW-190 and Bf-109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Thee P-51 is hardly superior(meaning very little) to the FW-190 and Bf-109.



Explain why you think so...


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 5, 2009)

FW-190s and Bf-109s were fearsome competiters, almost more than a match.

The British needed the spit IX to compete with the FW-190, and the Bf-190 had a lot more power for its size then the P-51....


----------



## drgondog (Aug 5, 2009)

p14u2nv said:


> Wow imagine my surprise to see my cousin Bob White listed after doing a 'net search for his aircraft the "Duchess of Manhattan" 42-103795 WR-V, the P-51C you listed!
> 
> Is there by any chance just one pic of that aircraft? I have looked at the Steeple Morden site yet no go. In fact I have scoured the net and nothing except tail number, name and date lost/POW status of Bob.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.



here you are.


----------



## p14u2nv (Aug 5, 2009)

Thank you so very much Sir, I have looked for years and I just took a chance today by asking here as you know. You have no idea how I feel right now seeing this aircraft finally after so many, many years of wondering. Since it was destroyed by flak I assumed that I never would get to see a pic. I also found out today that a book either is being written about him or has recently been released. He flew the F-80 in Japan, the X-15 as I'm sure you know and then flew F-105's in Nam with the 355th TFW at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand. He was instrumental in the development of the F-15, avionics I believe was his charge. He was recently inducted into the Aeronautical Hall of Fame and has received many awards, too numerous to list.

Again thank you so very much, I am much indebted my friend.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 6, 2009)

p14u2nv said:


> Thank you so very much Sir, I have looked for years and I just took a chance today by asking here as you know. You have no idea how I feel right now seeing this aircraft finally after so many, many years of wondering. Since it was destroyed by flak I assumed that I never would get to see a pic. I also found out today that a book either is being written about him or has recently been released. He flew the F-80 in Japan, the X-15 as I'm sure you know and then flew F-105's in Nam with the 355th TFW at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand. He was instrumental in the development of the F-15, avionics I believe was his charge. He was recently inducted into the Aeronautical Hall of Fame and has received many awards, too numerous to list.
> 
> Again thank you so very much, I am much indebted my friend.



I am aware of his marvelous record in aviation - he was a good friend of my father and a man I had the privelege to meet when he was in the X-15 program. I may have met him earlier while we were in Japan during Korea but I was very young at the time.

I recently extended an invitation to him to speak at our 355th Reunion Banquet at San Antonio in September. He would be an inspiration to all the young 355th FW A-10 warriors. He is fondly remembered as a tiger by both his WWII and Vietnam guys. 

A legend in the service of his country. As you probably know he got his AFC at Dhoumer Bridge in NV - one of the nastiest F-105 targets of the war.

If you have his email send him my warmest regards, along with Billy Sparks hello.

Bill Marshall
President, 355th Fighter Group Association


----------



## drgondog (Aug 6, 2009)

p14u2nv said:


> Thank you so very much Sir, I have looked for years and I just took a chance today by asking here as you know. You have no idea how I feel right now seeing this aircraft finally after so many, many years of wondering. Since it was destroyed by flak I assumed that I never would get to see a pic. I also found out today that a book either is being written about him or has recently been released. He flew the F-80 in Japan, the X-15 as I'm sure you know and then flew F-105's in Nam with the 355th TFW at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand. He was instrumental in the development of the F-15, avionics I believe was his charge. He was recently inducted into the Aeronautical Hall of Fame and has received many awards, too numerous to list.
> 
> Again thank you so very much, I am much indebted my friend.



send your email via PM and I will sed more pics


----------



## p14u2nv (Aug 11, 2009)

Well Sir, believe it or not I am a member of the [email protected] and have been for a few years now. In fact I was just notified of the 2009 reunion today. I was approved as a member for research a few years ago. Real life has gotten in the way of a book that I have begun a few times. Maybe one day I will finish it. I believe a book written by Al Hallonquist is either complete and/or close to publishing.

He has some records alright in addition to many awards; 

The first man to fly Mach 4, Mach 5 Mach 6
The first to fly above 200,000’
The first above 300,000’
The first to exceed 3,000 mph 
The first to fly a winged vehicle into space

And if my memory serves me he was the first USAF pilot to become an astronaut. 

Inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame in Dayton, Ohio in 2005. Bob White - National Aviation Hall of Fame Induction

Inducted into the Florida Aviation Hall of Fame 

He is a command pilot astronaut. His military decorations and awards include the Air Force Cross, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star with three oak leaf clusters, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross with four oak leaf clusters, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal with 16 oak leaf clusters, and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award Ribbon with "V" device. For his achievements in the X-15 aircraft, General White received the Harmon International Aviators Trophy, the Collier Trophy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Distinguished Service Medal. 

The X-15 must have been one heck of a hairy ride. I just spoke with a family member here about the Dhoumer Bridge in NV - he found out shortly after that sortie his son Gregory had been born. 

I will be emailing him this evening and I will send your and Billy Sparks warmest regards.

Thank you so very much for your offer of other pics. I and my family thank you most graciously Sir. PM sent with email.


----------



## Buccaneer (Aug 16, 2009)

Regarding Mustang superiority, I have the logbook of an RAF Mustang pilot sitting on my desk. One of the combats he was involved in may answer the question.
On 15 Aug 1944, 12 Mustangs of 19 Squadron spotted a mixed formation (gaggle) of 80 plus Me109 and Fw190 fighters. They started to climb to get into an attack position and then spotted another two formations, totalling another 80 aircraft.
Four Mustangs climbed to deal with the top gaggle, four dived on those below and four remained to meet the middle gaggle. The outcome was one Me109 destroyed, one Me109 and three Fw190s damaged, against slight damage to two Mustangs.
The pilots' log book records, 'Armed Recce, 150 plus Huns - Rough'. With odds of 15-1 against, 'Rough' must have been an understatement. A modern euphemism would be, 'Target rich environment'.
Incidentally, the 19 Squadron motto is 'POSSUNT QUIA POSSE VIDENTUR' -- 'They can, because they think they can. Which neatly summed up the combat.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2009)

Buccaneer said:


> Regarding Mustang superiority, I have the logbook of an RAF Mustang pilot sitting on my desk. One of the combats he was involved in may answer the question.
> On 15 Aug 1944, 12 Mustangs of 19 Squadron spotted a mixed formation (gaggle) of 80 plus Me109 and Fw190 fighters. They started to climb to get into an attack position and then spotted another two formations, totalling another 80 aircraft.
> Four Mustangs climbed to deal with the top gaggle, four dived on those below and four remained to meet the middle gaggle. The outcome was one Me109 destroyed, one Me109 and three Fw190s damaged, against slight damage to two Mustangs.
> The pilots' log book records, 'Armed Recce, 150 plus Huns - Rough'. With odds of 15-1 against, 'Rough' must have been an understatement. A modern euphemism would be, 'Target rich environment'.
> Incidentally, the 19 Squadron motto is 'POSSUNT QUIA POSSE VIDENTUR' -- 'They can, because they think they can. Which neatly summed up the combat.



The Mustang had a huge air to air ratio against both the Me 109G and the FW 190A. Having said that, the dominant factors were a steadily declining average quality of the Luftwaffe fighter pilot - particularly after February-May span when LuftFlotte Reich was gutted by the target escorts - and a built in throttle on aggressive tactics against US fighters by Goering.

In my opinion the outcome would not have been different but the ratios would have been lower if the Luftwaffe had been encouraged to at least try to punish 8th AF escort pilots while they were still green.

With RAF, the opponents were largely old hands from JG2 and JG26 in the Lowlands and they could each choose to fight or slip away. 

With 8th AF deep penetrations the German fighter commanders were tasked to go after the bombers and avoid the fighters. They completely gave away all initiative and that is the lifeblood of a fighter pilot.


----------

