# Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

What do u think is the Best Dogfighter between the altitudes of 15,000 and 35,000 feet????

***this was originally started by Adolf Galland....***


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Spitfire Mk. XIV. You know you shouldn't really put the Spitfire marks in the same slot, all Spitfires were different from one another.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

Yea well, for simplicity i combined them..... Same reason I combined the Me-109's and didnt list the Fw-190A series...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I suppose the list would be stupidly long if you started putting each variant.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Spit XIV, no contest...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

What? C.C sees reason!?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2005)




----------



## Maestro (Jan 7, 2005)

Spitfire, of corse.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I cannot believe the Mustang is getting so many votes.


----------



## Maestro (Jan 7, 2005)

Well, the Mustang was comparable to the Spitfire. As I always said, prefering one to an other is a question of personnal taste.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

No it wasn't. The Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang had a range advantage over the Spitfire, that's all.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

In my opinion the Ki-84 Frank by the Japs is better than the spit in almost every single thing exept speed(climb rate, armament, range, manuvability) but i do not think that anybodyhere notice that


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

woobs i don't mean climb rate


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The Spitfire Mk. XIV was better than the Ki-84. Going back a bit, the Mk. VIII Spitfires in Burma slaughtered Zeros on a 8:1 kill ratio. All the Ki-84 had was manuverability, and the Spitfire could hang with it, outclimb, outdive and out do it in speed.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

well i'd say that itz depending on the pliot


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

and the fact that the Ki-84 is way better then itz zero counter part


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Almost any dogfight can be brought to pilot skill.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

yea, ever heard of the story of a US marine pliot shot down 3 of the 11 Zero that he fought single handed w/ his lone Buffelo?


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

The best dogfighter in WW2 was the A6M Zero without question, even Spitfire pilots didn't dog-fight with it, they fought the Zero in the same way every other Allied fighter did.
They used their far better performance to bounce and then break off, never getting into a turning fight.
My 2nd best dog-fighter would be one not on the list, the Hawker Hurricane.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

redcoat said:


> The best dogfighter in WW2 was the A6M Zero without question, even Spitfire pilots didn't dog-fight with it, they fought the Zero in the same way every other Allied fighter did.
> They used their far better performance to bounce and then break off, never getting into a turning fight.
> My 2nd best dog-fighter would be one not on the list, the Hawker Hurricane.


WHAT? ARE U KIDDING ME? HURRICANE? OMG UR MAD; THERE IS SO MANY FIGHTERS THAT ARE BETTER THAN IT: P-51, P-38, P-47, Spit, Me-109, Fw-190, and a lot more!!


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

and the fact that the Zero is not the best, even the Japs admit that the Ki-84 is a far better fighter...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 7, 2005)

Actually, the Hurricane was one of the best.


Whether or not there are better ones than it, that's his opinion.

Also, the La-7 seems to be missing, seeing as how it's not there, I'll say La-5FN.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> WHAT? ARE U KIDDING ME? HURRICANE? OMG UR MAD; THERE IS SO MANY FIGHTERS THAT ARE BETTER THAN IT: P-51, P-38, P-47, Spit, Me-109, Fw-190, and a lot more!!


I suggest you read the original question a little more carefully.
the question asked was;
"What was the best * Dog-fighter *"
Not what was the best fighter.
In a turning battle, , the Hawker Hurricane, if both pilots were of the same skill and determination, would beat everyone of the aircraft you mentioned.
The advantages the other aircraft had was in speed, climb and dive.
They would use these advantages to engage the Hurricane only when they had the advantage, and avoid it when they didn't


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

ok fine


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 7, 2005)

wait redcoat: the hurrican is very bad in turn fights so i don't know wut ur talking about


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Excuse me? The Spitfire didn't engage the Zero in a turning fight? The Spitfire could engage the Zero anyway it wanted, it could turn much better than anything else in the skies over the CBI the Allies had. 
The Spitfire could run rings around the Zero and blast it with .50s or 20mm. That is why it got a 8 : 1 kill ratio. And Hurricane turning inside of everything Allied? Are you on drugs, or is it a mental deficiant?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 7, 2005)

If the Hurricane was so bad in turn fights, why was its BoB score so much better than the Spitfires, in both fighter and bomber kills?

Its turn abilities are about on par with the Zero's, so long as you don't stall it...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't believe I stated it was a bad turner. I said it couldn't turn inside everything. The reason the Hurricane got better kills in the BoB was not because it was a better plane, it was because there were 32 Squadrons of them and only 11 Squadrons of Spitfire. 

If the Hurricane was so good, why was it taken from frontline service in 1942? 

And don't get me wrong, I love the Hurricane. It was the saviour of Britain but the Spitfire is factually a better plane.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I don't believe I stated it was a bad turner. I said it couldn't turn inside everything. The reason the Hurricane got better kills in the BoB was not because it was a better plane, it was because there were 32 Squadrons of them and only 11 Squadrons of Spitfire.
> 
> If the Hurricane was so good, why was it taken from frontline service in 1942?
> 
> And don't get me wrong, I love the Hurricane. It was the saviour of Britain but the Spitfire is factually a better plane.




Actually, I was responding to Adolf's comments...

Unless of course you were responding to redcoat...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I just don't know anymore.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If the Hurricane was so good, why was it taken from frontline service in 1942?


Because its performance in terms of speed. climb and dive had fallen so far behind the other front line fighters in service.
Dog-fighting ability is only useful if you can get in a position to use it to your advantage. 



> And don't get me wrong, I love the Hurricane. It was the saviour of Britain but the Spitfire is factually a better plane.


I totally agree with you, in fact if you look up the Battle of Britain thread you will see I say exactly the same thing.
This thread is about dog-fighting, or a turning fight. In this the Hurricane was a little better than the Spitfire, in everything else the Spitfire was better.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

A dogfight isn't always a turning-fight. Speed, climb, dive and roll can all work in a dogfight. The Spitfire surpassed the Hurricane in all those.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Excuse me? The Spitfire didn't engage the Zero in a turning fight? The Spitfire could engage the Zero anyway it wanted, it could turn much better than anything else in the skies over the CBI the Allies had.


No, when the Spitfire encountered the Zero for the first few times, it suffered high losses, because its pilots attempted to fight the same way as they did against the Bf 109. However when the pilots realized they couldn't out-turn a Zero, they changed their tactics and used the Spitfires better speed, climb and dive to defeat the Zero. It was using these tactics that the Spitfire achieved an 8 : 1 ratio


> And Hurricane turning inside of everything Allied?


The Hurricane could out-turn a Spitfire, are you aware of any other Allied fighter that could do this????


> Are you on drugs,


I could do with some. I've got quite a bit of back pain at the moment 


> or is it a mental deficiant?


I've not been rude to you, therefore its good manners not to be rude to me


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> A dogfight isn't always a turning-fight.


That's exactly what a dog-fight is!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

I think some people have a different definition of the term "Dogfighter"......


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

It was a question. How is that rude?  

No, a dog-fight is when a fighter tangles with another. This doesn't automatically mean turning-fight. If the Spitfire is rolling on its back and diving away, is it turning? If it's climbing high over the Hurricane, flipping on its back and zooming back down on the Hurricane, is it turning?


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It was a question. How is that rude?


Are you a total prat...
Thats a question as well


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No, a dog-fight is when a fighter tangles with another.


In close combat


> This doesn't automatically mean turning-fight. If the Spitfire is rolling on its back and diving away, is it turning?


 Thats breaking off from a dog-fight


> If it's climbing high over the Hurricane, flipping on its back and zooming back down on the Hurricane, is it turning?


That called a 'bounce', its not dog-fighting.


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 7, 2005)

Here's a statement for variety. 

Pack it in with the cheap shots. Goes out to everybody.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

If I may say something about the Zero here. I have talked with a couple of fighter pilots and they agree that in a low speed dogfight, there was little chance of out-turning a zero. The ailerons on that plane were described "big as barn doors". They worked great at slower speeds. Once the speed picked up, they didn;t have the strength to hold the turn. 

In the early days of the Pacific war, the Zero became almost mythical until the tactics were developed that could take advantage of it's weakness. The AVG, flying the P-40s were the first to develop the tactics of zooming in from higher altitude while firing and then zoom back up out of harms way.

Before those tactics were developed, the Zero was scoring kills against the US P-39, P-40, F4F, F2A Buffalo and P-26. The British were also losing to the Zero with the F2A, Hurricane and yes, the Spitfire. These were early war versions but the fact remains that early on in the Pacific Theater, the Zero was ruling the skies.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

So is that what u voted for in the poll e???

I think its obvious that I voted for the Fw-190D-9....... At that altitude, it was unmatched...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

Actually no, the Zero did better at lower altitudes. I pulled a bonehead and clicked the P-38, not meaning to. I was distracted when I clicked. I meant to click on the F6F. So I guess I left a hanging chad! 

It was not an easy choice though. Is that an FW109, or 190? Sorry, I am not terribly familiar with some of the German designations, so I had not heard "Wurger" before. the vote was a toss up for me, F6F, FW-190 (assumed a 190, not 109), Spit or Corsair. They were all awesome. While I just talked up the Zero, it would not have been my top because of the lack of survivability. No armor plating and non self-sealing fuel tanks make it a flying deathtrap in my book.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2005)

Damn man I made a typo.... Yes its supposed to read Fw-190D-9.....

***I have fixed the poll listing***


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I am wondering how in the world some of these aircraft made it into this list? The P-47 was not a very good dogfigther. Nor was the Me-262. And where is the N1K2-J, beloved my so many on this site?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

I put it on there...... Dont know why it isnt there anymore.... HMmmmmmm.....

I remade this topic from another poster, so I kept his list and added some.....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2005)

Actually the P-47 was surprising to many because for it's size, it was quite manueverable. While they were testing the P-47C, the army discovered that it had the best aileron roll rate of any US fighter. Considering it was about twice the size of it's contemporaries, I'd say it faired very well. Not my top choice for a dogfighter, but still got the job done when it was needed. But I will say that it was a better ground attack airplane.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

I said this before, and Ill say it again... Many German Aces with victory markings over Gabreskis and Johnsons were shot outta the sky by relative newbies inn P-47s.....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

Excuse me, evan. How were the British losing Spitfires to the Zero? Spitfires didn't reach the CBI until 1943. 

redcoat, have you got a sense of humour? And if it's in combat, you can pull up, dive and flip to get advantages over your enemy not just turn. Have you got Il-2 FB? I want a dogfight.


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 8, 2005)

FW-190 D series.

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

that reminds me, CC, we were gonna have a dogfight..............


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2005)

I will have to find the source, I read it in one of my books that the Zeroes were taking down the early marks of the Spitfire. It was more a question of tactics at that time. But my source material could have been wrong. Either way, the zero was a mean machine early in the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Wow this topic REALLY exploded overnight...good discussions going on...

Dont think I can fight this weekend lanc, my PZL needs to be repaired by the ground crew as I crashed it trying to fly upside down under a bridge...

(it means im busy tomorrow and working on my car  )


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

The race is on between the Mk XIV and the Dora-9.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Indeed it is... I always thought that the D-9 wasnt that manoeverable?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Boy were u wrong....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

The 190 rolled better than any fighter of the war. In turn rate, it wasn't that special.

As far as the P-47 is concerned, it only rolled well with the engine torque. It's turn rate was rather poor and its climb was ridiculous. I'm not saying it wasn't an effective fighter, but it was not a true dogfighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

i agree i wouldn't considder it a true dogfighter.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Whatever U consider it, its gotten 2 votes already.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I think that's peronal bias. 

I mean, the P-38 was my all time favorite aircraft. I think it was one of the best fighters of the war and properly flown a very good dogfighter, but I'm not trying to argue it was the BEST dogfighter of the war.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

umm...that the Hurricane scored more kills than Spits in the Battle of Britain is first because it had more Hurricane sq.s, and second its because in the real world (not in games) the Spit is harder to fly than the Hurricane and almost all fighter pliots agreed that the Hurricane was really a easy plane 2 fly...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

That may well be, but the Spit could fly rings around the Hurricane.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 8, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> That may well be, but the Spit could fly rings around the Hurricane.


No, that was the one thing a Spitfire couldn't do against a Hurricane...Anything else it was far better at, but it couldn't out turn a Hurricane.....


----------



## Maestro (Jan 8, 2005)

Ohhhh yes, it could.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

aspecailly the Mk.I.............


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

"With over 15,000 Hurricanes built, the aircraft served on virtually every front; even remaining in front-line service as a ground-attack aircraft well after production ended. During the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane downed more Luftwaffe aircraft than any other aircraft type, accruing over 1,500 confirmed victories.

Despite its record, the Hurricane is slow, under-powered, maneuvers poorly, and lacks acceleration. The early Bf109s and Bf110s had little problem contending with the Hurricane. During the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane's main advantage came from fighting over friendly territory against opponents operating at the very edge of their combat range. On the average, though, the Hurricane was outclassed by most of its air-to-air opponents.

The Hurricane is a relatively stable aircraft and generally less difficult to fly than the Spitfire. The Hurricane reaches maximum power between 16,000 to 18,000 feet, but performance falls off sharply above 18,000 feet. Typically, the Hurricane should engage inbound bombers while Spitfires engage the escorting Bf109s."


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

Notes: Once the aircraft caught fire, it was quickly engulfed in flames. Many pilots suffered the effects of 'Hurricane burns'. The Hurricane is only capable of being flown in a clean configuration.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 8, 2005)

hey where the choice of 110  

i had to vote for the george instead


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

The 110???? U referring to the Bf-110???


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 8, 2005)

The Bf-110 isn't a dogfighter!

It's a heavy interceptor, and a pig in a turning battle...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Hence why i was asking...... Didnt make any sense to me either....

Unless.......


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 8, 2005)

Hmm, didn't see your post, we must have been posting at the same time, but you got there first...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

I beat ya by 2 minutes HAHA!!!!!


----------



## redcoat (Jan 8, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> "With over 15,000 Hurricanes built, the aircraft served on virtually every front; even remaining in front-line service as a ground-attack aircraft well after production ended. During the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane downed more Luftwaffe aircraft than any other aircraft type, accruing over 1,500 confirmed victories.


according to some sources I've seen the Hurricane was the most successful Allied fighter in WW2 for air victories (though I myself think that might be going a little to far)


> Despite its record, the Hurricane is slow, under-powered, maneuvers poorly, and lacks acceleration.


What a load of nonsense.
As the war progressed other fighters did out pace the Hurricane in performance, but at the start it was a very good aircraft..... as for 'maneuvers poorly'.... I'm sorry but whoever wrote that doesn't have a clue 


> The early Bf109s and Bf110s had little problem contending with the Hurricane.


While the Bf 109 was better than the Hurricane in the BOB, it wasn't that better.
As for the Bf 110 having little problem with the Hurricane....LOL
In the BOB the Bf 110 had to be escorted by the Bf 109 to *protect* it from the Hurricane


> During the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane's main advantage came from fighting over friendly territory against opponents operating at the very edge of their combat range.


Seeing that the Hurricane Squadrons fought the Luftwaffe raids as soon as they crossed the Channel, thats nonsense.


> On the average, though, the Hurricane was outclassed by most of its air-to-air opponents.


No, from 39-41 the only axis aircraft that outclassed it, was the Bf 109.


> The Hurricane is a relatively stable aircraft and generally less difficult to fly than the Spitfire.


Both aircraft are noted for being easy to fly.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 8, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> The Hurricane is only capable of being flown in a clean configuration.


Sorry, but I don't follow this  
What do you mean?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 8, 2005)

Someone got *TOLD!!!*


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

> Adolf Galland wrote:
> The Hurricane is only capable of being flown in a clean configuration.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't follow this
> ...


That means that the Hurricane can only be flown without any external weapon in BoB.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

External weapons on a Hurricane?? What does that have to do with ur post???


> Once the aircraft caught fire, it was quickly engulfed in flames. Many pilots suffered the effects of 'Hurricane burns'. The Hurricane is only capable of being flown in a clean configuration.


It sounds like u are talking about the plane either being in flames, or pieces were missing....
Where did the external weaps come from???


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

and about the spit...

"The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

The Spitfire Ia and the early Bf109 are well-matched, with the 109 being slightly faster in level flight and accelerating quicker in a dive. At slow speeds, however, the Spitfire is much more maneuverable and rolls faster than the 109. The Spitfire Ia suffers at high altitude, however, with the Bf109E clearly superior above 20,000 feet. The Spitfire Ia is under armed; its light punch can't guarantee lethality against targets with self-sealing fuel tanks (such as the He111 bomber). Further, the Spitfire Ia's carburated engine will cut out under negative G, something the fuel-injected Bf109 doesn't have to worry about. The Spitfire Ia must watch out for high-speed bandits diving from above, and generally needs to sucker the opponent into a low-speed turning fight.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

Turn performance is good, but being slower meant that the enemy could generally dictate the terms of the fight, disengaging at will. Subsequently, later Spitfires added emphasis on speed. The Spitfire IX is generally 20% faster at all altitudes, accelerates better, and climbs faster than earlier variants. It can still dominate the low-speed turning fight against a 109, but also has the option of diving away and escaping a battle. Lastly, the Spitfire IX packs more punch, carrying two 20mm cannons and four .303cal machine guns.

Faster German planes, like the Fw190, again called for a faster Spitfire. The Spitfire XIV, weighing some 8,400 pounds compared to the Spitfire Ia's 5,700, is substantially faster than the IX, performing better at all altitudes. The XIV can meet any Luftwaffe fighter on equal terms with the exception of the significantly-faster Me262 jet."

Is the site wrong about the Spitfire?


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

Turn performance is good, but being slower meant that the enemy could generally dictate the terms of the fight, disengaging at will. Subsequently, later Spitfires added emphasis on speed. The Spitfire IX is generally 20% faster at all altitudes, accelerates better, and climbs faster than earlier variants. It can still dominate the low-speed turning fight against a 109, but also has the option of diving away and escaping a battle. Lastly, the Spitfire IX packs more punch, carrying two 20mm cannons and four .303cal machine guns.

Faster German planes, like the Fw190, again called for a faster Spitfire. The Spitfire XIV, weighing some 8,400 pounds compared to the Spitfire Ia's 5,700, is substantially faster than the IX, performing better at all altitudes. The XIV can meet any Luftwaffe fighter on equal terms with the exception of the significantly-faster Me262 jet."

Is the site wrong about the Spitfire?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Three posts in a row..... Whatcha tryin to do boy, set a new record???


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

Notes: The Spitfire I suffered from a carburetor problem which caused the engine to cut out if the pilot performed an inverted maneuver like a Split-S.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

No, just tell those ppl that the site is NOT wrong.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 8, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> and about the spit...
> 
> "The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."


Whats the source for these odd quotes....  

The RAF,along with every other air force, had known about the importance of speed and climb since WW1

Even with the Mk 1 the Spitfire was was capable of 355mph at 19,000ft, while the top speed of the E model Bf 109 was 357mph at 11,500ft (the A-D marks were all considerably slower)


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2005)

I am a little surprised that the Dora 9 is doing so well in the polls with so few units really equipped with the bird.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Im not.... It saw enough operational duties to be considered for this.... JG 6 under Barkhorn took delivery of 150 new Dora-9's in April 1945....

Fw-190D-9's first flew in May 1944 and began service in Aug/Sept 1944 with III/JG 54.... Protecting Hesepe and Achmer and Nowotny's Me-262's...
Equipped, from early 1945, JG's 2/3/26 and 301.....

Not sure on total production run.....


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2005)

yes JG 2 in full and JG 26 for the most part as they absorbed III./JG 54 into their IV./JG 26.

for JG 3 1 staffel in the old IV.Sturm/JG 3 SturmFw gruppe. The stab had some D-9's under RK winner Oskar Romm who though it was the best a/c on the Ost front in 1945.

Stab of JG 4 under Michalski had some Doras on hand with the distinctive black/white/black rumpfbands

tests with JG 11, erg unit

JG 6 as you mentioned although the unit also had A-9's on hand.

II./JG 301 in the 5-7th staffels only. 8th staffel with blue numerals had A-8's and A-9's. Geschwader stab had the Ta 152H-1 in 45 III./JG 301 had the Ta first in January but sent them all to the Geschwader stab, III. gruppe then took back the heavier A-8.

there has been talk and notm proven as of yet that stab of II./JG 300 had 5-6 possibly 9 Doras on hand. Several pilots have made mention but no pics seen.......... ?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I still am surprised. As I noted earlier, many of the aircraft in this list could out turn the 190.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 9, 2005)

I say the P-38L as you all knew I would.

The mock fight with the Spit XIV is well known.

A Dogfight with John Lowell vs Adolf Galland in a fw-190D from altitude to the inside of a deep pit, Galland was defensive until fuel made John break off. In Gallands own words "You son of a Bitch, you dom neer keel me dat day"

In the PTO it was known that Bong, McGuire and others often had dogfights with Zero's (though slashing was the normal tactic).

In the words of Art Hieden a pilot who flew both P-38s and P-51s in combat " There is nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better".


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 9, 2005)

Maybe we need to lose the name "Dogfighter" then, because some people believe there was more to a dogfighter than turning.....

If thats the case, the poll should be "Best turning plane".....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

I disagree with the notion that turning was all that there was to it, but it was important. Being a good dogfighter basically means being able to turn, roll, and climb well.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

redcoat, the Fw-190 arrived in July 1941 over the skies of France. Far surpassing the Hurricane, and beating the Spitfire Mk. V. The Spitfire could out-climb, out-dive, out-roll, was faster, better acceleration, better armed...basically, just a better aircraft. 

The Spitifre A-wings were under-armed. That's why they had the B,C and E-wings. My personal favourite is the E-wing (Two .50s and Two 20mm).
And dogfighting isn't all about turning. 

Example - I was online on FB (with my CW Mk. IXe Spitfire) and went through a head-on pass against a La-5. Instead of turning round (I knew I could out-turn him, but I wanted to slaughter with style) I pulled up vertical, twisted starboard so my wing was facing him, banged the rudder over and fell down to face him. While the fool was turning - still - I came zooming down and tore his wing off. NO TURNING INVOLVED. Only moves were roll, climb and dive.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 10, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> In my opinion the Ki-84 Frank by the Japs is better than the spit in almost every single thing exept speed(climb rate, armament, range, manuvability) but i do not think that anybodyhere notice that



Could you show me a picture of the Frank?


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Example - I was online on FB (with my CW Mk. IXe Spitfire) and went through a head-on pass against a La-5. Instead of turning round (I knew I could out-turn him, but I wanted to slaughter with style) I pulled up vertical, twisted starboard so my wing was facing him, banged the rudder over and fell down to face him. While the fool was turning - still - I came zooming down and tore his wing off. NO TURNING INVOLVED. Only moves were roll, climb and dive.



Aahhhhhh! My favorite move.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Ki-84 'Frank' (Captured)






Ki-84 'Frank'


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

Apart from the long tail that captured one looks a hell of a lot like a P-47...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 10, 2005)

The P-38 had an incredible acceleration of 2.8mph/sec the P-51 was only 2.2mph/second. A big difference in combat.

The climb was still 3,700ft/min at 20,000ft.

Dive with the Compressibility slats was as good or better than any other.

Arts Comment on the erlier P-38s " Despite these revolting developments (The operational problems, wmaxt) the pilots of the 8th knew that the P-38 could out turn, outclimd, outrun and outfight anybodys airplane in the air so the set about rectifying their problems" and "It makes the Gospel Word. The P-38L. Now there was the airplane." He flew both P-38s and P-51s in combat.

In the words of Art Heiden "Nothing to these pilots, after the hard winter of '43-'44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin, split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to iniate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do the American in the P-38 could do better.

The Roll rate in the J-25, L was great and at higher speeds the best.

The P-38 also had a "Clover Leaf" manuver at low/slow speeds that would cut a circle up very efectivly.

Earlier models couldn't do everything the L could. 

And of course the pilot made the difference in combat where the aircraft are as close as these. The P-38 just had more to work with.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

The Ki-84 looks a lot better than the P-47. It is a much smaller aircraft and lacks the "fat gut" of the P-47.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 11, 2005)

And it flew alot better too.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 12, 2005)

I agree. The Ki-84 is my favorite of the Japanese fighters.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No it wasn't. The Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang had a range advantage over the Spitfire, that's all.



That is not true. The P-51 was, in most meaningful respects, faster than the Spitfire. It was more manuverable at _very high_ speeds than the Spitfire. It had a better zoom climb than the Spitfire. It was (a little) tougher than the Spitfire. It was a better gunplatform than the Spitfire. And it had better visability than the Spitfire.

The Spitfire wins in acceleration, climb rate, and medium and low speed manuverability.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2005)

Erich said:


> I am a little surprised that the Dora 9 is doing so well in the polls with so few units really equipped with the bird.



The poll didn't ask about numbers produced. As I recall something around 1500 were produced but only a little more than half were deployed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The Ki-84 looks a lot better than the P-47. It is a much smaller aircraft and lacks the "fat gut" of the P-47.





lesofprimus
said:


> And it flew alot better too.....



Hmmm....



> ...
> Perdomo described what happened in his combat report:
> 
> I pushed the throttle into water injection with the prop pitch at about 2,700 rpm. As I gained on the Oscars, I placed my gyro sight on the last one and adjusted the sight diamonds on his wings. At this time the Oscars were flying a very loose vee. When I closed into firing range I gave him a burst and saw my bullets converge on his nose and cockpit. Something exploded in his engine and fire broke out. I was still shooting as he fell to the right.
> ...



Admittedly these were P-47N's, but a late mode P-47D was just about as good. While rated at 2550 HP, Robert Johnson's P-47 was in fact pulling about 2700 HP, just 100 HP less than the N model, and the D weighed less.

Note that these were Frank's, the best that Japan had to offer, flown by two of their most experianced Sentai's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Better gun platform? How do you figure that one out then? Two 20mm and two .50 cal is just as good and more diverse than six .50s.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Good account RG...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

-47N's were better than D's...quite a bit better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

I agree...Statistically they may have be close but stats dont show the whole story...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

Plan_D the being a good gun platform has nothing to do with the numbers and types of guns. It refers more to how stable the aircraft was when firing and the covergence of the weapons. Granted, I am not certain which aircraft (P-51 or Spit) would be considered superior in this catergory


----------



## redcoat (Jan 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > No it wasn't. The Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang had a range advantage over the Spitfire, that's all.
> ...


What marks are you comparing, if its the P-51D and the Mk XIV Spitfire,( both of which entered service at around the same time) my understanding is that the only advantages (with these two marks) that the P-51 had over the Spitfire was in inital dive speed, and range.
As for being tougher, wasn't the P-51 banned from making certain manuvers due to its tendancy to break apart


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

No, my point was that Spitfire was stable with so many different gun types. It was tested so much, with so many different lay outs...how could it be one of the best dogfights (if not the best) if its was unstable.  

And, again, only person ever that has said a P-51 was a better dogfighter than a Spitfire. Even pilot reports all say the Spitfire outclassed the 'Tang in a dogfight.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Better gun platform? How do you figure that one out then? Two 20mm and two .50 cal is just as good and more diverse than six .50s.



"gun platform", not armament. The P-51 was a more stable shooting platform (as was the Hurricane). The P-47 was more stable than the P-51. Has nothing to do with the specific armament.

On top of that, the nature of the Hispano is that it relies on the structure of its mount for support. In its aircraft form, it is not workable w/o the mount, it would collapse and break upon firing. The Spitfire wings were really not rigid enough to support the Hispano and as a result twisted while firing, reducing its accuracy even more. Four Hispano's in the wings was tried and abandon for this reason - Spit IXc pilots almost always had two of the four Hispano's removed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> -47N's were better than D's...quite a bit better.



At factory performance levels yes. However, by late 1944, most P-47D's in service were RE20 or later models. Most of these had been hopped up by the aircrews to yeild over 2600 HP, in Robert Johnson's case, more like 2700 HP. Performance figures we typically see have to do with the earlier models, sometimes with and sometimes w/o the paddle prop. The laminar flow wing of the P-47D was better for range and very high speed, but not as good for turn and climb as the more conventional wing on the earlier models. The P-47N had 2800 HP but weighed a good 1500 lbs more than the D models, and ground crews in the PTO had little time to gain experiance with hopping up the engine (and its new C5 turbosupercharger), where P-47D ground crews in the ETO had had years of experiance with the R-2800(B) and its supercharger. Late model P-47D performance was, aside from top speeds, probably as good and in some respects better than that of the N.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No, my point was that Spitfire was stable with so many different gun types. It was tested so much, with so many different lay outs...how could it be one of the best dogfights (if not the best) if its was unstable.
> 
> And, again, only person ever that has said a P-51 was a better dogfighter than a Spitfire. Even pilot reports all say the Spitfire outclassed the 'Tang in a dogfight.



Some planes were better gun platforms than others. This is far from the only factor involved in a planes quality as a fighter. The Hurricane was considered a much better gun platform than the Spitfire - that doesn't make the Hurricane a better "dogfighter".

Where did I say the Stang was a better "dogfighter" than the Spitfire? What I responded to was your statement:



plan_D said:


> No it wasn't. The Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang had a range advantage over the Spitfire, that's all.



Which is not true. I was simply pointing out that the P-51 did have other advantages over the Spitfire, not saying that these advantages added up to its being a superior "dogfighter".

The term "dogfighter" really is undefined. If what we mean by this is turnfighting until one plane is on the six of the other, the Spitfire XIV wins hands down. If what we mean is which one will win in a fight with equal quality pilots, it depends tremendously on the conditions of the fight.

The P-51 could do diving spirals the Spitfire could not follow. It zoom climbed better than the Spitfire, and it could do a high speed turn with less energy loss as long as it didn't turn too tightly (ie: stayed within the "laminer-flow bucket"). It had better pilot visiability, and was a superior gunnery platform, had 70% greater volume of fire, and its gun setup was effective to a longer range. The P-51 is faster in a mild-moderate dive than the Spitfire. The P-51 pilot is wearing the Berger G-Suit, and can sustain higher G forces w/o blacking out (especially advantagous in very high speed combat). Finally, the P-51 cruises much faster than the Spit XIV, so in a realistic contest, it starts with a 70-100 mph speed advantage.

Does this mean the P-51 wins in a fight? No! It means it has a good chance. If it can take advantage of its assets early, it can win. The P-51 can run away if it has sufficient altitude and the pilot has not let the Spitfire gain the energy advantage before he decides to exit combat.

The Spitfire probably wins a protracted fight fairly easily. 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

You're marking the P-47N down because of lack of pilot experience on them, that doesn't negate the design of the aircraft. 
And I've already said dogfighting isn't turning fight, although it can go into one. It is well recognised the Spitfire Mk. XIV is superior dogfighter than the Mustang. Alright, the 'tang has a few minor advantages over the Spitfire but on a whole the Spit is better. Pilots who flew both all mark it higher in combat.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You're marking the P-47N down because of lack of pilot experience on them, that doesn't negate the design of the aircraft.
> And I've already said dogfighting isn't turning fight, although it can go into one. It is well recognised the Spitfire Mk. XIV is superior dogfighter than the Mustang. Alright, the 'tang has a few minor advantages over the Spitfire but on a whole the Spit is better. Pilots who flew both all mark it higher in combat.



I assume your replying to me. I was talking about the mechanic's lack of experiance with the R-2800 and C5 turbosupercharger combo. They were not able to tweak this configuration much, where the mechanics in the ETO were very familiar with the R-2800 and turbosupercharger on the D model, and were able to tweak an extra 100-200 HP out of it over factory specs.

Pilots who flew both? Just what pilots flew both the P-51 and the Spitfire XIV? If you check, I think you will generally find that pilots say they enjoyed flying the Spitfire (early models) more, and make few if any comparisons for combat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## redcoat (Jan 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Pilots who flew both? Just what pilots flew both the P-51 and the Spitfire XIV? If you check, I think you will generally find that pilots say they enjoyed flying the Spitfire (early models) more, and make few if any comparisons for combat.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic


This is from the USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s) "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

I have read reports of Spitfires and Mustangs being tested against one another, and both pilots in the dogfight stating the Spitfire was better. 
Not all pilots who flew earlier Spitfires enjoyed them, there were those that enjoyed the speed advantage on the Griffon Spitfires.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I have read reports of Spitfires and Mustangs being tested against one another, and both pilots in the dogfight stating the Spitfire was better.
> Not all pilots who flew earlier Spitfires enjoyed them, there were those that enjoyed the speed advantage on the Griffon Spitfires.



Sure... but all moch dogfights end in tail chases.

The AD Skyraider consistantly beat the F4U-4 and F4U-5 in such contests. Does that mean it was a better fighter?

I'm not saying the P-51 was better, just that in the high energy combat of the late war, it was competitive with any prop plane flying. What it could not do was stick around and duke it out in an extended engagement, all its assets required the pilot maintain very high speed at all times (except at the peak of a zoom-climb).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 22, 2005)

Saying a plane is Competitive is one thing.. To go and say that it was a "Match" is something completely different..... Seems like u changed ur opinion....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2005)

Yes. The Mustang was competitive, but it wasn't an equal match for the Spitfire in a dogfight. 
And in those mock combats it wasn't just that the Spitfire could get on the tail, BOTH pilots said the Spitfire was better in a dogfight.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 23, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Saying a plane is Competitive is one thing.. To go and say that it was a "Match" is something completely different..... Seems like u changed ur opinion....



What I mean is it could have the advantage in some circumstances.

In the most likely combat meeting between a P-51D and a Spitfire XIV, the P-51D was a match for, or maybe even a little superior to, the Spitfire. This is because the P-51D is already at altitude, and is cruising about 75-100 mph faster than the Spitfire when they see each other. It controls the enagagement at the start, which often is enough to mean victory. If it starts to loose control of the fight, it can exit combat in a shallow dive the Spitfire cannot keep up with.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

Wait...no, he's just said it...he thinks the Mustang is a better dogfighter...


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Wait...no, he's just said it...he thinks the Mustang is a better dogfighter...



Grrrr...

No that is not at all what I said. I said that in realistic combat situations, you would expect the P-51 to start with an initial advantage, and that any time the fight is not in the P-51's favor, it should run away.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

You see, that's a standard thing of thinking that dogfighting is a turning fight. We all know it's not, and the Spitfire is a better dogfighter. 

The Mustang can run away, do you know how hard it is to actually run away. It's not a case of putting your nose down and waving goodbye, because the acceleration wasn't fast enough. This thing has gone on before with the Hurricane Vs. -109 ...the Corsair Vs. Shiden...if the -109 could just run away (which it could, on paper) why did the Hurricane shoot so many down!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2005)

because it could turn inside it for a start...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2005)

I think that was more of a rhetorical question to prove a point...and a good point at that.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You see, that's a standard thing of thinking that dogfighting is a turning fight. We all know it's not, and the Spitfire is a better dogfighter.
> 
> The Mustang can run away, do you know how hard it is to actually run away. It's not a case of putting your nose down and waving goodbye, because the acceleration wasn't fast enough. This thing has gone on before with the Hurricane Vs. -109 ...the Corsair Vs. Shiden...if the -109 could just run away (which it could, on paper) why did the Hurricane shoot so many down!?



Because not every fight is a "fair fight". Within the context of this type of discussion, I assume we are excluding the most common way that planes got shot down - by the sneak attack. You can bet that more than half of the 109's shot down by Hurricanes never realized they were a target. Either they were bounced and never saw tha attacker until it was too late, or they were fighting another plane when they got in the crosshairs of the plane that shot them down. And because of the combat situation, the 109's being far away from their bases with limited fuel and ammo, they were ripe for being bounced.

Within the context of this type of discussion, we assume such things are not the case. We assume an equal number of planes meet either at equal initial conditions, or at typical initial conditions. Typical conditions make more sense, because, as an example, P-38's engaging Zero's would almost always start at a higher altitude.

In the case of the P-51 vs. the Spitfire, the typical condition of contact would be that the P-51's would be cruising at somewhere between 330-395 mph TAS, the Spitfires at something around 275-300 mph TAS, because those were the cruise speeds the planes could sustain while seeking the enemy. Therefore, the P-51 should start with an initial speed avantage, and if it is unable to at least damage the Spitfire before the Spitfire gains the advantage, it should run away using its faster sustainable moderate dive speed. The smart P-51 pilot would never "turn-fight" with the Spitfire, except at very high speeds where it has the advantage (better roll rate, pilot in a G-suit, guns that are easier to score with).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 23, 2005)

Umm, I can add one more thing to that:

The Hurricane (in BoB) got the highest kill for example is because it sucks, and the RAF command had to LET them attack the vunerable bombers while they FORCED the Spitfire to fight off the Messerschmitts, so the Hurricane is really NOT as good as SOME people might think...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

In effect, RG, you just said if the Mustang failed in bouncing the Spitfire then it'd run away. GREAT DOGFIGHTER! 

The Hurricane was a good plane. It was there to destroy the bombers, yes but it could and DID shoot down -109s and not always by bouncing. 
Not every pilot thinks perfectly for every second of combat, the Mustang pilots would get into turning fight..or they'd just run away. What good is that? It's not a fight then is it.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> In effect, RG, you just said if the Mustang failed in bouncing the Spitfire then it'd run away. GREAT DOGFIGHTER!
> 
> The Hurricane was a good plane. It was there to destroy the bombers, yes but it could and DID shoot down -109s and not always by bouncing.
> Not every pilot thinks perfectly for every second of combat, the Mustang pilots would get into turning fight..or they'd just run away. What good is that? It's not a fight then is it.



Much of the time, they'd score in the first pass or two, and then they win. If not, they seperate, reposition, and come back. They have much longer endurance, so they can dominate the combat area. And they don't need to shoot down the enemy to succeed, only stop them from performing their missions.

I'd like to see one documented case of a Hurricane winning a dogfight against a 109E4 or later that was not a bounce or other blind shot. I.e., a one on one engagement with the two pilots mutually aware and at roughly equal altitude, both planes having sufficient fuel and ammo to fight. It probably did happen, but if it did it was because the 109 pilot made a huge mistake.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

The Mustang was an escort fighter, if it failed to bounce the Spitfire (which the Spitfire had good visibility, so it wouldn't be a slaughter as you think) and the Spitfire was intercepting, the Mustang would have to run away..so the Mustang has failed. 

The Spitfire is on a fighter sweep, the Mustang had to run away so it's failed. 

The Spitfire on escort, the Mustang had to run away so it failed.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Mustang was an escort fighter, if it failed to bounce the Spitfire (which the Spitfire had good visibility, so it wouldn't be a slaughter as you think) and the Spitfire was intercepting, the Mustang would have to run away..so the Mustang has failed.
> 
> The Spitfire is on a fighter sweep, the Mustang had to run away so it's failed.
> 
> The Spitfire on escort, the Mustang had to run away so it failed.



No, because the Spitfire cannot cruise at nearly the speed the Mustang can. 75 mph is a huge advantage at the start of combat. If the Spitfire maintains the same patrol speed as the P-51, it has to land in about 40 minutes. The P-51 can do it for over 2 hours.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

The Spitfire was an interceptor, a dogfighter. It goes up to intercept the bombers, the Mustang is escorting. It HAS to keep the fighters off the bombers, so it has to stay and fight or the bombers are dead. The Spitfire can easily dogfight with the Mustang in this situation. 

This isn't endurance, this is a dogfight. The Mustang couldn't just run away in a lot of situations. If the Mustang had to run away and re-adjust when defending the Fortresses, think how many more would be lost.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire was an interceptor, a dogfighter. It goes up to intercept the bombers, the Mustang is escorting. It HAS to keep the fighters off the bombers, so it has to stay and fight or the bombers are dead. The Spitfire can easily dogfight with the Mustang in this situation.



Wrong. This never worked for any side that tried it, regaurdless of the planes involved. It was well proven that close escort didn't work!

What the Mustangs do is patrol in sweeps well out in front of the bombers, looking to catch the interceptors climbing or cruising to the targets, where they bounce and kill them. Sweeps are started at approximately 33,000 feet, and the P-51 dives at a little less than 1000 fpm, allowing it to attain a speed of over 450 mph TAS for 5 minutes and sweep an arc in front of the bombers approximately 60 miles in length over about 8 minutes. If no contacts are made, it zoom climbs from its finishing altitude of approximately 27,000 feet back up to about 31,000 feet, then climbs to 33,000 feet, then builds level cruise speed and then conducts another sweep. That is how the P-51 provided final escort after Gen. Doolittle took over the 8th AF. 



plan_D said:


> This isn't endurance, this is a dogfight. The Mustang couldn't just run away in a lot of situations. If the Mustang had to run away and re-adjust when defending the Fortresses, think how many more would be lost.



All the P-51 has to do to defend the fortresses is make the interceptors try to engage them. If the interceptors turn back to the bombers, the P-51's can turn back on the interceptors. If the interceptors engage the P-51's, their fuel situation precludes interception of the bombers.

And besides, as long as the fight is fast, the P-51 can duke it out with the Spitfire. The P-51 out rolls and out-zooms the Spitfire, and the pilot can handle higher G loads w/o blacking out. If the Spitfire wants to engage the P-51, it will have to chase it, and if it does so, it will have to give up altitude, making bomber interception impossible.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

If it was as simple as you made out, then the Germans would have never intercepted the bomber formations. The roaming escort was effective, but in fact the Spitfire would not need to chase the Mustang. The reason being, unlike the Fw-190 and -109, the Spitfire would out-dogfight the Mustang, if the Mustang wanted to run away, it could because the Spitfire wouldn't need to give chase. It would just carry on to the bombers, while the Mustang is trying to re-adjust for its own advantage. 
While it's re-adjusting, the bombers have been caught and slaughtered.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If it was as simple as you made out, then the Germans would have never intercepted the bomber formations. The roaming escort was effective, but in fact the Spitfire would not need to chase the Mustang. The reason being, unlike the Fw-190 and -109, the Spitfire would out-dogfight the Mustang, if the Mustang wanted to run away, it could because the Spitfire wouldn't need to give chase. It would just carry on to the bombers, while the Mustang is trying to re-adjust for its own advantage.
> While it's re-adjusting, the bombers have been caught and slaughtered.



But that only could occur after the Spitfires overcame the initial speed advantage of the P-51's. And by the time that is accomplished, the bombers are probably beyond Spitfire interception.

And again, the Spitfire could not out-dogfight the P-51 at high speeds. Above 350 IAS, the P-51 had the clear advantage, and above 300 IAS it held a slight advantage.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

A clear advantage, so you're claiming that the Mustang was a better dogfighter. 
In World War 2, planes could not keep up speed for long. The Mustang would need to slaughter on the first pass, and keep it fast by dropping lower and lower. The Spitfire didn't need to follow.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> A clear advantage, so you're claiming that the Mustang was a better dogfighter.
> In World War 2, planes could not keep up speed for long. The Mustang would need to slaughter on the first pass, and keep it fast by dropping lower and lower. The Spitfire didn't need to follow.



If the speed was high enough, yes the Mustang was a better "dogfighter" (your term). Spitfires at altitude were full wing versions, and rolled rather poorly at even moderate speeds, and quite poorly at high speeds.

The P-51 would use energy tactics. It attacks on the first pass and then levels out and zoom climbs. The Spitfires either engage or are subject to another free pass. To be effective, the Spitfires need to turn and fight. But in doing so, they loose their intercept opportunity. The same tactics that worked on 109G's would work on Spitfires.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

If that's the case, what happened to all those bombers falling mysteriously out of the sky?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If that's the case, what happened to all those bombers falling mysteriously out of the sky?



Not that many were lost to fighters once the P-51's were on the scene in force were they? In fact, the Luftwaffe' got their asses handed to them on a platter.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

Not many were lost? What World War 2 are you looking into?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Not many were lost? What World War 2 are you looking into?



Not that many heavies were lost to enemy fighters after about July 1944, and by Oct. 1944 the Luftwaffe' was practically non-existant.


----------



## Erich (Jan 24, 2005)

the Luftwaffe was quite a viable force till it moved from Reich defence to the Ost front in January 45. The Nachtjagd was nver quelled actually by the RAF, it swas due to the confinement of the Reich and lack of fuels


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

The Luftwaffe' pretty much hid from the USAAF after summer 1944. Only on a few occassions did they try to attack in force. Bomber losses to fighters dropped to minimal levels as compared to the 1943 and early 1944 levels.

Germany still actually had plenty of fuel production for aircraft useage. They just could not get it from production to the aircraft that needed it - becuase of Allied air interdiction.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Jan 24, 2005)

the order by "Fatty" was to attack at all costs or suffer the consquences in 44, including keeping the drop tank in place. the Sturmgruppen first mission was 7-7-44 so no the Luftwaffe was not absent from the skies in the least bit. for the amount of German a/c-pilots in the skies of 44 they dealt out more death than all the Reich defence of late 43 and early 44. Because of the success's of the SturmFw units in the July-august 44 moths all Fw and Bf 109 gruppen were to change their tactics to angriff über hinten. And becaue they did attack like this and tried to linger for another Gefechtsverband they were caught by P-51's and beaten up


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> the order by "Fatty" was to attack at all costs or suffer the consquences in 44, including keeping the drop tank in place. the Sturmgruppen first mission was 7-7-44 so no the Luftwaffe was not absent from the skies in the least bit. for the amount of German a/c-pilots in the skies of 44 they dealt out more death than all the Reich defence of late 43 and early 44. Because of the success's of the SturmFw units in the July-august 44 moths all Fw and Bf 109 gruppen were to change their tactics to angriff über hinten. And becaue they did attack like this and tried to linger for another Gefechtsverband they were caught by P-51's and beaten up



Late summer of 1944 was the last gasp of the Luftwaffe'. By the end of October they were beaten. Bomber losses, especially to fighters, fell considerably after that point.


----------



## Erich (Jan 24, 2005)

Really =S=

better do some more research friend

27 SEptember 1944 30 B-24's lost by the 445th bg group alone.

6 October 1944 94th bg lost 4 over Berlin, the 385th lost 11 plus, the entire "B" group shattered by SturmFW's

7 October 1944 the 94th again is shattered by losing 8 plus to SturmFw's.

21 November 44 one US bg loses 10 B-17's to JG 301 and JG 1 Fw's

26 November 44 my cousin KIA, JG 301 nearly destroys the 491st bg with the destruction of 16 bombers and clobbering the 445th with 5 confirmed destroyed ? damaged.

September 11, 44 as a back up the 100th bg is assaulted by JG 4 and is crapped on with losses of some 11 B-17's and the 92nd bg loses 8 to IV.Sturm/JG 3 Fw's.

granted I am picking select incidences but these are terrible losses by individual bomb groups not just huge bomber armadas with bg's losing 1-2 bombers apiece. the point I am trying to make is that the Luftwaffe during the summer-fall months of 44 was a more effective force in bringing down bombers than it was in the spring with fewere a/c and pilots.

November 2, 44 is another gut ripping incident with some 35 US bombers shot down by 2 gruppen of SturmFw's. 

Note in practically no cases have I listed any other Luftwaffe defence units, except for one, and these muyst be given credit where credit is due upon their defence even in dealing with horrendous numbers of P-51's.

Only after 14th of janusary 45 was the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe delinquished and that as I have repeated in other threads, when the Defnce of the Reich was left wide open and only 4-5 Reich defence units were left to defend Germany/ the others sent to the Ost front.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 24, 2005)

Those are some impressive totals, but you also have to remember that the 8th was putting up some where around 1000 heavies for each mission. 30 bombers out of 1000 is a far cry from the 30 out of 300 that was so common during late '43.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2005)

Keep in mind that there were about 10 guys per bomber though. That's 300 men! Some became POWs, but I have seen statistics that show about 60% of them made it out alive to become POWs. I don't know how accurate that is, I have not actually done the research myself nor seen a source. I just heard it from someone else. Either way, that's 300 guys that have to be replaced.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 24, 2005)

umm... about the bomber loss, many of the bombers are not loss ONLY 2 fighters, since they fly in formations they are vulnarable to FLAK consontrasion like wut u sad in berlin(which has the most flak in the whole third reich), and stuff, and the pilots are green pilots so they keep shoting the bombers utill they were shot down


----------



## Erich (Jan 24, 2005)

again I am trying to point out that the Luftwaffe was not under the covers during the summer to winter of 44/45. I have other tallies if interested. Remember gents I have interviewed both sides the last 20 years and the listings of US bombers "killed" I have the documentation and mission reports to back all of this up as I was planning to put all of this online. My listings indicate no interference from Flak as those were under a different loss category with the US bg's.

the major difference and I do know this, is that the P-51 escorts were overwhelming. Just as friend and ace Oskar Bösch has said " We had ver sensiteve listening devices in Germany on the western border in the summer-fall of 44 and we could determine by "hearing" just how many US bombers were in the air as well as the lighter friends. It was then radioed/called into our Gruppen HQ. Every mission in the fall of 44 was doomed as a suicide but we did what we were ordered to do."


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

See, so the Mustangs were not a definate saviour. German aircraft always got through. You think too clean cut, RG. If it was so simple for the Mustang to dive, bounce, climb and re-adjust it'd be invincible. 
Say we have Spitfire Mk. XIV and Spitfire Mk. VI (High Alt) flying high cover. The Mustangs aren't going to be able to stop the attack. Why? Because both groups of Spitfire aren't going to follow.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 25, 2005)

plan_D said:


> See, so the Mustangs were not a definate saviour. German aircraft always got through. You think too clean cut, RG. If it was so simple for the Mustang to dive, bounce, climb and re-adjust it'd be invincible.
> Say we have Spitfire Mk. XIV and Spitfire Mk. VI (High Alt) flying high cover. The Mustangs aren't going to be able to stop the attack. Why? Because both groups of Spitfire aren't going to follow.



I never said they would be 100% effective. Any time the two combatants are roughly competitive, some are going to get through. Escort is by definition more difficult than interception, so you need more escorts than the number of interceptors to be stopped. The point is that the P-51 was the better escort/patrol plane than the Spitfire.

As for your follow argument - you are assuming there are more Spitfires than P-51's? If so then of course some are likely to get through!

For the Spitfire vs. the P-51, you failed to suggest their counter tactic. It is rather simple. The Spitfire XIV was able to fight more effectively at 35,000 feet than the P-51. By climbing to such altitude they could harry the P-51's and drive them off, and then dive into the bombers. Timing would be critical and difficult to manage given the very short endurance, but it could be done - sometimes it would work out, sometimes it wouldn't. The issue then becomes the fact that the Spitfire lacks the firepower to take down B-17s reliably in a single pass - but that's another issue.

So what it comes down to is the Spitfires need to get above the P-51's, the P-51's need to prevent them from doing so. Either result could be achieved depending on circumstance, but all things considered the P-51 is probably more likely to succeed if available in sufficient numbers (ie: something more than 1:1 which would be expected as P-51's were easier to build than Spitfires).

===================

Erich-

Sure the Luftwaffe' was able to mount a few sorties where they had some measure of success. But compared to the overall numbers of bombers flying on those days, they were tiny. Looking at single bomber formations that the luftwaffe' upon which concetrated its attacks and trying to use that as a reference is totally playing with numbers, you have to look at the total number of heavies in the air that day. And what you've failed to list is the losses suffered by the Luftwaffe' to achieve those relatively few kills.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 25, 2005)

You of ALL people should not be accusing others playing with numbers.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2005)

If I just started going on and on about a clean cut situation of the Spitfire being at 35,000 feet then I'd be...well...you! Love nor war is as clean cut as you think.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 25, 2005)

evangilder said:


> You of ALL people should not be accusing others playing with numbers.



Oh? Please be specific. Sometimes my numbers may be wrong, but I don't "play with them" to give a false impression of what I know to be the truth.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 25, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If I just started going on and on about a clean cut situation of the Spitfire being at 35,000 feet then I'd be...well...you! Love nor war is as clean cut as you think.



Of course it's not. But in the context of this discussion we are looking at a basically unrealistic type of situation right?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2005)

You might be, but I'm not. If it was an unrealistic situation they'd know one another was there and they'd both be going to exact same speed at the exact same altitude.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 25, 2005)

So now you are claiming that Erich is giving a false impression? You better go back and READ his post, thoroughly. He does the research and has been talking to the guys that fought the battles. You have a tendency to rely on charts and graphs to come to a determination that one airplane is better than another by specifications. Things on paper are not always the whole truth, you as an engineer should know that.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 25, 2005)

...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2005)

That's the most informative post EVER, I think it even beats some of the good ole brads worthless piles of shit, waste my time, I'm going to sue you for my time back posts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

wow even this post is better than his


----------



## Erich (Jan 25, 2005)

good morning or afternoon/evening where-ever thout dwell.

I'll make this very breif as I am very busy today and the morrow but would like to reply to RG's somewhat evasive posting.

# 1 I never play the numbers game so understand that

# 2 what I reported were truly casualty figures and confimred by the bomb groups and the historian/pilots of each one of those particualr bomb groups.

# 3 if RG or anyone else would like a German Luftwaff casualty figures I can help out as I have them too. True they are dreadful

# 4 it is obvious that RG does not understand my point or what I was trying to get at. Let's see real basic now. The Luftwaffe was not dead in the summer-fall or winter of 44-45 as you seem to figure. I have the accts to back this all up. Again I repeat, only when the Luftwaffe broke up the interior Reich defence (Reichsverteidigung) and sent 3/4r's or more of the defence units to the Ost front that the Luftwaffe although made up of still some excellent fighter Geschwaders, were they literally destroyed from the German airspace.

# 5 As I have also said I understand fully the 8th AF especially and they sending hundreds of bombers over in 1943 early 1944 and on certain battles the bomber groups in numbers lost many heavies, but what I am trying again to point out is that in the summer/fall-winter of 44 and 45 individual bomber groups lost more bombers at a given time than they did on missions flown earlier in the war. In no way does this discredit the function of the Luftwaffe although their own sources were limited in comparision to their overall activity with twin engine destroyers during later 1943 through spring of 1944.

Klar ?

v/r E ♪ on the morrow gents maybe...........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2005)

evangilder said:


> So now you are claiming that Erich is giving a false impression? You better go back and READ his post, thoroughly. He does the research and has been talking to the guys that fought the battles. You have a tendency to rely on charts and graphs to come to a determination that one airplane is better than another by specifications. Things on paper are not always the whole truth, you as an engineer should know that.



What Erich is trying to do is point to a few incidentents where the Luftwaffe' massed its force and attacked a specific BG with some success and implying that this was representative of their effectiveness without also pointing out the losses suffered in the attack or the overall picture.

So what that JG-whatever massed 150 planes and attacked the 300 BG-whatever and managed to kill 30 bombers. He is trying to imply that such a thing means the Luftwaffe' was effective. The fact that the JG lost 30 planes that day is left out. The fact that there were 5 BG's flying 1500 bombers that day is also left out. And when the whole picture is considered, the Luftwaffe' was ineffective.

Yes I know figures and graphs are often decieving. In fact, German planes look much better on paper vs. US planes than they really were.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

Bull s**t friend, originally and even now you are not even asking me for the casulties figures. you state I have never come up with them although I offered from my first post. You are a strange bird. The Luftwaffe was effective buddy ande I can plainly see you have not interviewed any bomber crewmen who went through a heavy Fw 190 attack in summer /fall of 44. their indication of effectiveness would definately enlighten you.

I love being called a liar............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

But at the same time, weren't there numerous bomber crews who, by the end of '44, weren't seeing a single German fighter attack? And nobody get defensive that's just a question for curiosity's sake.


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

LG their were bomber crews that never saw an enemy a/c in 1943 early 1944. the point again is that the Luftwaffe was not dead.........

I'm now going to sign off of this thread


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2005)

Erich said:


> LG their were bomber crews that never saw an enemy a/c in 1943 early 1944. the point again is that the Luftwaffe was not dead.........
> 
> I'm now going to sign off of this thread



Erich,

I should have been more diplomatic in how I phrased my earlier reply on this topic. My appologies.

But, I still think if you look at the overall picture, the Luftwaffe' was pretty much ineffective by the fall of 1944. Yes they mounted some successful sorties, but that is looking at individual instances, not the big picture. And to accomplish this, they suffered heavy losses which meant such actions could not be sustained.

You can find interviews from many Iwo Jima vets who will tell you how terrifying the Japanese defenses were. That does not mean that they were effective or had any chance of turning the tide of the war. Please do not try to draw big-picture conclusions from isolated accounts.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

I fully understand your feelings but after interviewing many veterans even locally I go by what their personal feelings were in combat. they thought the tactics of the Luftwaffe although in much more slimer numbers were still quite effective in dealing out death blows.

let me go back to 27 Septmber 1944 as one instance. The 445th bg actaully took a wrong turn and it was actually by total luck that when the unit took the turn that the P-51 escorts did not turn with them but stayed with the other 2nd air Division B-24's on their mission op. the 445th bg was first assaulted by the SturmFw's of IV.Sturm/JG 3 which knocked out 18 B-24's confirmed and within 2 minutes JG 4 and JG 300 Sturmfw's followed up behind. During the chaos of the first Sturm attack by JG 3;s a/c the 445th survivors shouted loudly for any and all P-51's to come to their aid; the Yellowjackets were the closest and tried to come to their rescue, the results were not that good for the Sturm Fw's for the last two attacking gruppen, although shooting down another12 plus B-24's they also took it in the shorts.............losses of 14 Sturm Fw's and 4 Bf 109G-6's of I./JG 300 which provided high cover agasint any P-51's. 2 P-51's were shot down by the German fighters.

another case is the 26 November 44 battle, in part I cover the JG 301 only. 16 B-24's knocked out of the 491st bomb group and several B-17's from another bg. 5 B-24's from the 445th bg. P-51 escorts were effective in the total overall picture as the 2nd scouting force of 6 P-51's and the 339th fg took it to the Fw's, my cousin being one of them lost and his Staffelkapitän of 5./JG 301. The battle was totally insane from JG 301's point of view as when the days tally was added they came up with a total of 58 bombers destroyed. later it was confirmed with the figures I gave. Losses were drastic whcih for JG 301 alone was 39 Fw's shot down ......

To put into perspective, the P-51 escorts were overwhelming from late August 44 till war's end. But as you can see from the begining of my post, any bomb group left alone could easily become dog-meat. Losses of GErman a/c are important as we have to take into consideration just how many were put up to try and counter Allied bomber formations and the masses of P-51's.

here is a casualty report for 27 December 44. Luftwaffe lost 35 pilots KIA, 2 pow, 13 wounded. 63 a/c shot down 60-100% destroyed. Claims were 28 Allied a/c, nearly all fighters............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

I think everyone would agree that the tactics of massing against a particular bomber group were brutally effective. Yet at the same time, overall loss rates to American bombers were on the decline.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 26, 2005)

as RG had said, the Luftwaffe is winning TACTICAL victory in those few battles, itz like winning 1 or 2 battle out of 10 and lose the rest, they are lossing badly STRATEGICALLY, and itz like the naval battle of Guadalcanal(many battles) where the American LOSSED a TACTICAL victory but WIN a STRATEGIC vitory because it stop the japanese on itz tracks but loss more ships than the japs.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 26, 2005)

I thing that I keep going back to is that in mid/late 1944, there were more bombers destroyed than in 1943/early 44... That piece of information is all u need to see quite clearly that the Luftwaffe wasnt dead.. 

It may have been ineffective, but thats not being debated.....


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

think about if there had not been an overwhelming superiority in P-51's in the Fall of 44.............

March 2, 1945 was almost the last day for JG 301 thanks to these guys....

a line up of my friends a/c of the 352nd Blue Nose Bastards of Bodney


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 26, 2005)

Theres something to be said about the term "Overwhelmed" when talking about the last days of the Luftwaffe.... 

Amazing courage of these guys to go up into the melee with such disasterous odds.... True Bravery......


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I thing that I keep going back to is that in mid/late 1944, there were more bombers destroyed than in 1943/early 44... That piece of information is all u need to see quite clearly that the Luftwaffe wasnt dead..
> 
> It may have been ineffective, but thats not being debated.....



Not really. There were a lot more bombers flying, they were flying more frequently, and they were striking deeper targets. Loss ratios were smaller, and Luftwaffe' losses higher, and that is what really matters.

I thought that (Luftwaffe' effectiveness) is what was being debated. ????

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2005)

I dont think there is a debate over that.... The Luftwaffe was just completely overwhelmed in the end... They had some moments when they were effective to a degree, but overall, the Luftwaffe could not stop the Allied onslaught....

They fought as best they could in the end, but sheer #'s and fuel were Germanys downfall.....

Hard to be effective when u cant get enough planes in the air....


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I dont think there is a debate over that.... The Luftwaffe was just completely overwhelmed in the end... They had some moments when they were effective to a degree, but overall, the Luftwaffe could not stop the Allied onslaught....
> 
> They fought as best they could in the end, but sheer #'s and fuel were Germanys downfall.....
> 
> Hard to be effective when u cant get enough planes in the air....



But I don't think that was the issue in mid-late 1944. Yes the Allies had the advantage in terms of total numbers, but remember that escorts had to fly staggered sorties to provide cover. As many as five sets of fighters had to fly to provide full cover within the range of Luftwaffe' interception. What killed the Luftwaffe' was when Doolittle released the fighters from strict escort and told the to "kill the Luftwaffe'".

German fighters were designed, much like the Spitfire, to perform scramble and intercept missions. This works fine if the bombers are not escorted or if they are grossly under-escorted. But, once the 8th AF fighters were freed to go hunting, they often caught the Luftwaffe trying to climb to intercept, when they were extremely vulnerable. A group of P-47's or P-51's on escort duty would, after being relieved of escort by the next escort group, go hunting for any German's climbing and staging for intercept.

It did not matter that the German fighters climbed better than the US fighters, the US fighters started with the altitude and speed advantage because they were already up high. What the German's really needed were fighters capable of climbing high early and patrolling for hours so they would have advantagous position when the Allied fighters and bombers arrived. The German fighters trying to climb and intercept an incomming bomber formation while being subject to roving fighter sweeps were relatively easy meat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Feb 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic:

Surely I have not been around the way Erich has; I am 21, and began knowing and learning about that shitty world war two thing 5 or 6 years ago. I`ve had the chance of speaking with veterans of several of the nations involved as well.

You are highly influenced by the propaganda of your country; i am telling you this only with good intentions. It is not my aim to insult. 

Why do you think victory of the USA is the exclusive product of superior weapons, superior tactics and the like?

Have you ever thought the German soldiers were sent to fight a war not even the very best warriors can win?

It is called MATH. The most basic of the mathemathical notions. The Luftwaffe was fighting three large air forces (RAF, USAAF and VVS) throughout and across vast and distant regions; that is not the fault of the allied pilots, but it happened to be a GREAT advantage for them.

The German soldiers and pilots in my opinion, are among the very greatest of the war. They were fighting a war impossible of winning. They gave the mind, the body and the blood for their nation, just like the guys of the USAAF, RAF and VVS. 

It was the lunatics on top of the power of the Reich who did not do their job the way it should. See the work the Luftwaffe boys did with the VVS in 1942-43?

What else could the government of nation at war expect from any branch of its armed forces? The Luftwaffe guys faced a brave opponent, but virtually erased it in such a brutal manner the USAAF never ever came even close to achieve against the Luftwaffe in 1944. 

Allegiance to one´s country does not apply only for victors.

A nation like Germany, could produce great planes and great pilots. The Luftwaffe´s human and material resources, however, had to be sent and scattered across huge frontlines (from the artic circle to the mediterranean heat, from the coasts of France to the soviet steppes) to fight against the large air forces of 3 enemy nations; there lies the issue RG.

You are convinced the P-51 was absolutely superior to everything the Germans fielded? Sorry but you are wrong. That victory was achieved does not mean the victors were better and superior at every department.

What makes you think the allied pilots who shot down German experten in dogfights were superior to the Germans? Have you got any idea of the countless elements that can arise during a dogfight?

Mr. Celebrity, Chuck Yeager, who speaks like if he made the greatest combat pilot in the history of arms, got himself surpassed and shot down in dogfight by a German pilot. You did not considered the gentleman lucky to be alive though. 

If being inside a small plane, having machine gun bullets and even cannon shells hitting and exploding a few meters and/or centimeters away from your body and not getting killed or badly wounded ain´t luck, then it would perhaps be interesting to know what your notion of luck is.


RG: sum the fatal casualties of both the RAF and the USAAF bomber forces, and you will discover their losses were everything but low, not even moderate applies; the Luftwaffe inflicted frightful losses to both air forces. That the Luftwaffe took very heavy losses? Of course!! That is what they were there for, and they were totally outnumbered

As Erich correctly put it: the RAF, even if having the mossie, could never ever effectively come nowhere close to taming the NachtJagd of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

The work of the Luftwaffe in Russia I am more impressed with, they only had 20% of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern front after 1943...80% was to stop the WEST, and even then they only fielded some 600 aircraft against the Allies 14,000 in August 1944.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's the most informative post EVER, I think it even beats some of the good ole brads worthless piles of s**t, waste my time, I'm going to sue you for my time back posts.




I WILL make one worse, just to trump his...



You have been warned.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 7, 2005)

I told you.


That post was so bad, it got me two UNconfirmed kills. *Edit*~Though editing the one preceding it gave me less, a mere 0.02 unconfirmed kills...


Yes, that is a post; if you quote it, you will see that it consists of a simple "space."


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

You should be proud. Go on, be proud GrG.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 7, 2005)

Do I get an iPod mini as a prize for my accomplishments?


But yes, I am proud.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

You'll get your iPod when I decide to give up drinking...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 7, 2005)

Damn you!


In order to help you remember, I've added a special something to my siggy.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

That's a good reminder. I think I've become jealous of your award, I want one too but what...?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 7, 2005)

Geeze Udet,

I just don't know where you come up with this crap...



Udet said:


> RG_Lunatic:
> 
> Surely I have not been around the way Erich has; I am 21, and began knowing and learning about that s**t world war two thing 5 or 6 years ago. I`ve had the chance of speaking with veterans of several of the nations involved as well.



So I'm nearly twice your age, and have met a lot of WWII aces and non-ace pilots. I grew up around Navy, USMC, and some USAAF pilots, and heard many stories of the war. I also heard tales of WWII aircombat from British and Canadian pilots when I was very young. I also have several relatives (most now dead) who fought in WWII. I've only spoken to a few German pilots, and only one Japanese pilot.



Udet said:


> You are highly influenced by the propaganda of your country; i am telling you this only with good intentions. It is not my aim to insult.



That is your opinion. My opinion is that, aside from a few clear exceptions, most German technology did not advance very much _during_ the war. They started out with an initial advantage, but slowly lost that advantage in most areas as time progressed. The primary exception to this would be in tank quality.



Udet said:


> Why do you think victory of the USA is the exclusive product of superior weapons, superior tactics and the like?



Hmmm... I think the Allied soldiers had a superior war machine behind them. As for superior tactics... I don't think that applies at all. As for superior weapons, this was true in some places, and not in others. But where it counted most, it was generally true.



Udet said:


> Have you ever thought the German soldiers were sent to fight a war not even the very best warriors can win?



I totally disagree. Had Germany geared up it's war machine in 1940 or even 1941, they may well have won WWII. But instead they waited until very late 1943 or even 1944 to do so.



Udet said:


> It is called MATH. The most basic of the mathemathical notions. The Luftwaffe was fighting three large air forces (RAF, USAAF and VVS) throughout and across vast and distant regions; that is not the fault of the allied pilots, but it happened to be a GREAT advantage for them.



And through most of the war, especially w.r.t. the air war, the Germans were defending which is a GREAT ADVANTAGE FOR THEM!



Udet said:


> The German soldiers and pilots in my opinion, are among the very greatest of the war. They were fighting a war impossible of winning. They gave the mind, the body and the blood for their nation, just like the guys of the USAAF, RAF and VVS.



Well, I agree, in general this is true. With a few notable execptions (such as Italy), the soldiers of all sides fought valiently.

As for the quality of German soldiering... I think it was sustained in the early years by amphetamines, which can work well for the short term but this cannot work over time.



Udet said:


> It was the lunatics on top of the power of the Reich who did not do their job the way it should. See the work the Luftwaffe boys did with the VVS in 1942-43?



I agree about the leadership.

As for the VVS... You mean 1941 and 1942 right? During this time, the German pilots racked up huge numbers of kills against much inferior aircraft. By 1943 they were not doing quite so well, and by 1944 the tide had turned.



Udet said:


> What else could the government of nation at war expect from any branch of its armed forces? The Luftwaffe guys faced a brave opponent, but virtually erased it in such a brutal manner the USAAF never ever came even close to achieve against the Luftwaffe in 1944.



You are talking about the VVS? They may have been "brave", but that does not mean much when you are facing 109's and 190's in Yak-1's and Lagg-3's and Biplanes. Something like one-third of German kills scored on the E. Front in 1941 and 1942 were against bi-planes and non-military aircraft. And the USAAF did achieve an equivalent level of success against the Luftwaffe' in 1944 - mostly against planes parked on the ground because the pilots would not come up to fight. And the Luftwaffe' aircraft were never so obsolete as the Russian aircraft encounterd in the early E. Front war.



Udet said:


> Allegiance to one´s country does not apply only for victors.
> 
> A nation like Germany, could produce great planes and great pilots. The Luftwaffe´s human and material resources, however, had to be sent and scattered across huge frontlines (from the artic circle to the mediterranean heat, from the coasts of France to the soviet steppes) to fight against the large air forces of 3 enemy nations; there lies the issue RG.



You are saying the German's had to cover more territory than the USA? The USA also had to fight from the Arctic circle to mediteranean. From the coast of France to the Sea of Japan. From the mountains of Burma to the Soloman islands. Yes it only had to fight two air-forces - but those were airforces prepared for war from the start - Germany faced airforces which were not prepared. And Germany never had to build an Navy. The US efforts in building its Pacific fleet dwarf the entire German war effort.



Udet said:


> You are convinced the P-51 was absolutely superior to everything the Germans fielded? Sorry but you are wrong. That victory was achieved does not mean the victors were better and superior at every department.



No I don't think that. I think it was competitive with anything the Germans could field, except maybe the 262. But it did so over Germany! It was able to take that competitiveness to the Germans, no German plane could do that against the Allies, even as far back as the BoB.



Udet said:


> What makes you think the allied pilots who shot down German experten in dogfights were superior to the Germans? Have you got any idea of the countless elements that can arise during a dogfight?



I never said the Allied pilots were superior to the German pilots, so I don't know where your getting this crap from.



Udet said:


> Mr. Celebrity, Chuck Yeager, who speaks like if he made the greatest combat pilot in the history of arms, got himself surpassed and shot down in dogfight by a German pilot. You did not considered the gentleman lucky to be alive though.



I think you are making far too much of Yeager having been shot down. Almost every German ace got shot down many times. One of the Experten was shot down something like 17 times! The difference is that when Yeager was shot down, he was shot down over enemy territory. Yes he was lucky to be alive, but he was more lucky to escape capture. Most German aces were shot down behind their own lines, making it much less likely they'd be captured if they survived.



Udet said:


> If being inside a small plane, having machine gun bullets and even cannon shells hitting and exploding a few meters and/or centimeters away from your body and not getting killed or badly wounded ain´t luck, then it would perhaps be interesting to know what your notion of luck is.



Of course it is luck. But the fact is most pilots did survive the initial damage to their planes. The question was could they crash land their plane or survive bailing out. I really think you need to research the histories of some WWII aces. You will see that most of the double Aces and beyond got shot down at least once, ESPECIALLY THE GERMAN ACES!



Udet said:


> RG: sum the fatal casualties of both the RAF and the USAAF bomber forces, and you will discover their losses were everything but low, not even moderate applies; the Luftwaffe inflicted frightful losses to both air forces. That the Luftwaffe took very heavy losses? Of course!! That is what they were there for, and they were totally outnumbered



Sure, because the chances of surviving being shot down in a Heavy Bomber were not very good. On average, well more than half the crew died when a bomber was shot down. In a fighter, the odds were not nearly so bad as in a bomber.



Udet said:


> As Erich correctly put it: the RAF, even if having the mossie, could never ever effectively come nowhere close to taming the NachtJagd of the Luftwaffe.



I doubt this is true. Had the night war gone on much longer, Allied radar equipped night fighters would have become extremely effective. The P-63 for instance. Allied radar had intrinsic advantages over German radar and in the end this would have meant much superior night fighters. This never happened simply because the war did not last long enough and the German night fighters were never really that effective. They certainly were not stopping the British night bomber offensive - they weren't even slowing it down much!

You totally mis-understand me. A big part of the Allied advantage was indeed the productive capacity of both the USA and the British. But a big part of it was also the breadth of the industrial base. Over time, Allied technology had to surpass German technology simply because the ceiling was higher because the base was broader.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2005)

wow some very good points there............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> I told you.
> 
> 
> That post was so bad, it got me two UNconfirmed kills. *Edit*~Though editing the one preceding it gave me less, a mere 0.02 unconfirmed kills...
> ...



Im sorry GrG, its been done. brad has done that before...I remember it well, Crazy replied with "This, a post of EPIC proportions, is one that is sure to shatter boundries of our very beliefs"



Sorry to shatter your bubble, but its true


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

No, he did three dots...I'm sure of it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Nope, it was a simple space. brads excuse was "I forgot what I was going to say"


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

Excellent, I love it.


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 22, 2005)

what is it with the frikin spitfire The mustang is so much better


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 22, 2005)

How many mustangs were fighting in the Battle of Britain P51ace 16?
Now you see why the Spitfire is so well known and if it could do that much damage to the Luftwaffe in 1940, imagine how good the developed versions were


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

The Spitfire is superior to the Mustang in every way except range...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 22, 2005)

I believe a saying was: "The Mustang can't do what the Spitfire can, but it does it over Berlin"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 22, 2005)




----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Spitfire is superior to the Mustang in every way except range...



Or high speed manuverability - especially roll. Or sustained speed.


----------



## Udet (Feb 24, 2005)

RG, good evening:

" think you are making far too much of Yeager having been shot down. Almost every German ace got shot down many times. One of the Experten was shot down something like 17 times! The difference is that when Yeager was shot down, he was shot down over enemy territory."

Getting shot down tells very little on the quality of a pilot. You know it well, many superb pilots got shot down and that did not imply, AT ALL, they were bad pilots! The point with mr. Yeager is that on interviews (tv documentals) he speaks with a big smile on his face, mocking the German pilots and their fighters, apparently forgetting one German pilot surpassed him in a dogfight on his "perfect" fighter and shot him down; as simple as that. I thought his attitude was even disrespectful towards his very own countrymen which perished by the dozens of thousands fighting Germany in the air.

Perhaps mr. Yeager has not seen footage of P-51 pilots getting their nuts barbecued under the fire of Bf109s and Fw190s, or if he has, it appears like he has forgotten everything.


As I have said before, the military build up of the USA on both theaters of war, Pacific and Europe, as well as the massive supplies of the Lend Lease shipped to the soviet union are an undisputed testimony of the might of the military industry of the USA.

Though comparing the military effort of Germany with that of the USA in the fashion you put is misleading. 

Germany is a small nation with limited access to natural resources. A diametrally opposed thing happened in the case of the USA: a very large country, with a large population and access to large natural resources -i.e. the oil of some countries of latin america-.

What of the geography? 

Germany located in the centre of the war map, with borders close to enemy nations. Its military industry within the reach of the heavy bombers of the enemy.

USA located the atlantic and the pacific ocean away from its two main enemies bordering only allied nations. Safe from any bombing raid and/or any significant sabotage, meaning its massive military industry would work at top capacity unhindered. 

Those are only a few very fundamental differences between the military efforts of both Germany and the USA.

The geographic position of the USA allowed to plan its military production and to deploy its massive forces the way we know it did.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2005)

Udet,

I agree, Yeager is very arrogant. However, he did score 5 kills in a single day, on something like his 8th sortie over France.

I agree, Germany's position in WWII had some disadvantages. But I really think the biggest factor leading to their defeat was incompetant leadership and the failure to fully utilize their economy for war production until it was far far too late to matter.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## NightHawk (Feb 24, 2005)

My vote gose to the Zero as well, Its fast and deadly,


----------



## Udet (Feb 24, 2005)

RG:

I am glad to realize you and me can sometimes agree, at least in some points!

Remember i have not suggested gentleman Yeager was a bad pilot, at all. Simply the remarks i´ve commented here. He was indeed arrogant but also contradictory; all i can say is I found him amusing.

I also agree with you on the incompetence and disorganization in the German high command which contributed to their final defeat.

They simply had too many private designers working independently, each pursuing his very own interest and aircraft models. When they saw what was coming, say, by mid 1943, the German high command should perhaps have brought all designers together into a very close coordination in order to establish a more efficient program for distributing raw materials, labor force and spare parts programs. 

That is, they should have implemented, maintained and assure adherence of aircraft desginers to the Reich´s designing and production policies. They simply did not.

Germany did not have access to large natural resources, therefore a coherent production program was necessary.

Example: many say the Bf109 should have been phased out, say, by the end of 1943, in order to let the Fw190 be the mainstay fighter of the Luftwaffe alone.

I disagree there. The Bf109 Gs and Ks were superb fighters (yes, i know manouverability got somewhat affected; likewise the superb Spitfire did not evolve seeing its manouverability unscathed). The Fw190As and Ds, not to mention the Ta152 were also superb fighters.

One single fighter could not have covered absolutely all roles being always a marvel. The Bf109 could do things the Fw190 couldn´t and viceversa. So i see both types necessary.

But why to continue producing as late as 1944 -and in the cases of some types to the very end of the war- the Bf110 (great as nightfighter though), the flunked the Me 210 and the Me410? The Me 410 was a great plane, but it came to life too late and its chances against single engine enemy fighters were little, so perhaps it should not have been produced beyond protoype models.

Furthermore, why continue to produce bombers? 

Perhaps not a single bomber should have been produced when 1944 commenced. I know bombers were necessary in some theathers by such date, but if the resources -material and laborforce- devoted to produce bombers had been used to produce more fighters, who knows what could have happened.

Keeping the fearsome and superb Ju88 for nightfighting duties and perhaps working further -in accordance with the Reich´s policies- to solve the problems of a plane with great potential such as the He219, why did they continue to produce the He111, the later Dorniers, the several prototypes of heavy bombers and the Stuka? (The Stuka was a great plane, but the conditions for its deployment in significant numbers had ceased to exist).

Let´s see, roughly 1,200 Me 410s were produced. We are talking about some 2,400 engines. What if 2,400 Fw190s had been produced instead?

There were many other factors which played a role as well. The fuel crisis which struck the Reich by mid 1944 grounded a good deal of the Luftwaffe.

I simply attempted to mention one aspect that you mentioned and that is very true. The Germans failed to put their stuff together and even if they had superb planes and many superb pilots, they simply wasted it.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2005)

I agree some consolidation of engineering efforts should have been made. I also agree production of twin engine designs (except as night fighters and perhaps ground support aircraft) was foolish after the start of 1944, and questionable even at the start of 1943, but it is easy to see how the high command deluded itself into believing it would somehow be able to regain the initiative and would need bombers in the future.

In the Reich, politics often played a bigger role in aircraft acceptance than quality of designs. It is interesting to note that only two single engine designs were produced in any quantity during WWII, the 109 and the 190. Furthermore, the 190 was kind of a fluke, Tank pushed it through against the current of the Nazi system by accepting the BMW air cooled engine, which severely limited high altitude performance. Lack of diversity in engineering opportunities was another problem of the Nazi system.

Personally, I thin the 109 design was not worth futher development by the end of 1941, maybe 1942. Another design was needed. I have to wonder what Tank would have done with the DB engine had he been able to design a plane around it?

But most of all, the German's failed to fully utilize their economy from the start of the war. Had they ramped up for total war the way the British and USA did within the first year of war they would have done much better. Likewise, they failed to capitalize on what resources were available to them early enough for it to matter. Germany was only oil poor because they failed to exploit the available supply sources in 1940 and 1941. Had they run things properly, they would have had pleanty of oil from the balkins and the airpower to defend it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Archangel (Feb 25, 2005)

> Had they run things properly, they would have had pleanty of oil from the balkins and the airpower to defend it.



ony on this i can disagree, I dont think you can say they didnt run things properly when it als depends on what the enemy is doing.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 25, 2005)

Who's voted for the 190D  

Hot Space


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Personally, I thin the 109 design was not worth futher development by the end of 1941, maybe 1942. Another design was needed. I have to wonder what Tank would have done with the DB engine had he been able to design a plane around it?




But Tank did have DB powered a/c, that had flown in the summer of 1942, the would have been the Fw190C.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

Hot Space said:


> Who's voted for the 190D
> 
> Hot Space



People who've never heard of the Spit XIV, obviously!


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 25, 2005)

Damn blast those people  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

I already have


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2005)

i still aint voted...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

Then vote for the XIV


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 25, 2005)

No, vote for the Tempest


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

No, Yak-3 :wink


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2005)

Archangel said:


> > Had they run things properly, they would have had pleanty of oil from the balkins and the airpower to defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> ony on this i can disagree, I dont think you can say they didnt run things properly when it als depends on what the enemy is doing.



Sure you can. What you can say is that even had they run things right they might not have been successful.

Failure to exploit their advantage and expand and harden Rumanian oil production and produce sufficient fighters (and pilots) to defend this vital resource was a critical error for which there was no excuse.

Failure to enter a "war economy" until 1944 had nothing to do with what the enemy was doing - it was a critical error of German leadership.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 25, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> No, Yak-3 :wink



Go the whole hog and vote for the Sopwith Camel  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Nah, the Avro Antelope


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2005)

Here's the Mk XIVe with the Universal Horns and two 20mm Hoofs.......






..........It's the one I like to be in more then any other  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Phwoar, thats a beauty! 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2005)

Stop looking, you know I'm shy  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2005)

Thats not what came across the other night


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 27, 2005)

Yeah I'm sorry about that - I was aiming for the cup on the side   

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Its ok - first shower ive had in a while


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 28, 2005)

You missed as well? Isn't it terrible when that happens  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

I thought that cup of coffee tasted funny...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2005)




----------



## Hot Space (Mar 2, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I thought that cup of coffee tasted funny...



I'm sorry but that wasn't coffe you were drinking  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

I hope it wasnt Paraffin, that gives me terrible wind :Wink:


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 2, 2005)

Close............Tinned Cat Food   

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Sounds delicious! I haven't had a gourmet meal in ages!


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 3, 2005)

Yeah the Rabbit and Chicken one is quite nice  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

Goes down well with a glass of Chianti, so I hear


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 3, 2005)

................or bleach  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2005)

Yeah but not the own-brand stuff...that gives me migraines


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 4, 2005)

Very good for the skin I hear though  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 4, 2005)




----------



## Hot Space (Mar 4, 2005)

...................that's if you've got any skin left over that is  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2005)

Nope, I had a full-bodily circumcision when I was born


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 4, 2005)

No wonder Med calls you "Miss Whiplash" then  

Hot Space


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 4, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Nope, I had a full-bodily circumcision when I was born


 Ouch!


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2005)

A snip at half the price, eh  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 5, 2005)

Actually, it was free with a box of Corn Flakes.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2005)

I alway's had to pay for mine on Street Corner's.............and the Cornflakes    

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 5, 2005)

Ah, round these parts we get home delivery  If they aint here within 5 minutes we get a 50% discount...


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2005)

Same kind of thing here - We wait 5 mins and get a Home  

Hot Space


----------



## marseille jr (May 24, 2005)

Willy Reschke shot down a tempest in a turnfight at low speed and low altitude in his ta-152H which was designed for high altitudes !! People who flew the ta-152 all confirm it outclimbed , outdove, outaccelerated anything the allies had. It was also superior in turnfights to almost any allied plane, especially at high altitudes. It was therefore the best piston driven a/c of WWII.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

does that include prototypes?


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

Take into account that the Tempest pilot wouldn't know what to make of the new aircraft. He didn't know the capabilities of the Ta-152 but the Ta-152 pilot knew his. 

For the Tempest pilot it was like fighting blind!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 28, 2005)

> For the Tempest pilot it was like fighting blind!


Dont quite believe that.... Sure, he wouldnt know what to expect from a new foe, but he certainly would be putting his everything, man and machine, into defeating the new aircraft...... He definatly would NOT think it inferior.......

Any intellegent individual in 1945 would rationalize that if the Germans had a new COMBAT aircraft, that it would rightly be superior in performance to the most recent German aircraft produced.... (Prototype is a different matter)


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2005)

Not knowing your enemies aircraft doesn't mean you think it's inferior to previous aircraft. The Tempest pilot wouldn't know what to make of it, does he try and out-turn, out-run, out-climb, out-dive it? See, he doesn't know and is at a distinct disadvantage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2005)

If it was me, I'd try to weigh it out if I was at an advantage (behind, above, spotting the other aircraft first etc.), the minute things weren't going well, I'd run like hell!


----------



## delcyros (May 28, 2005)

If Reschke got the Tempest flying at low speed and low altitude, e.g. at low energy, he wouldn´t have a problem with it (like any other plane). Any plane at low energy goes for turky shots. 
With the specifications in mind, I would assume that the Tempest could do better on equal terms in low altitude against the Ta-152 H.
The best dogfighter of ww2, hands down, is the He-162. It saw limited service as well as aerial dogfights and therefore is qualified.


----------



## Erich (May 28, 2005)

you terms for the He 162 is baseless........

indeed the Ta 152H was a tough cookie but it never flew at high altitiude against any Allied/soviet a/c.

I've got a full on operative forms coming to me from Will Reschke along with Hans Müller cover their exploits in the Ta 152


----------



## lesofprimus (May 28, 2005)

The -152H had pressureization problems, and a decompression issue that was never fully solved..... But at medium atitude it still owned all the other prop jobs, but once again, pilot skill factors in as well.......


----------



## delcyros (May 29, 2005)

The pressuraizaton problems are reasoned on the tigthened pipe, which sealed the canopy. There have been similar problems in the V-models for this issue. However this is far away from happen regularly and even if, the emergancy breathing hood would do the job...
Erich, why do you think the He-162 shouldn´t be mentioned? Beacuse it is a jet engined one or because of mechanical problems or performances? If we just compare the abilities in dogfighting this plane could match anything in the skies.
I f we go for piston engined planes only, I would favour the Ta-152 C.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 29, 2005)

Heres alittle Snippit from Willi Reschke...

Tempests vs. Ta 152H, 14 April 1945
By Prof. Erata

Background: While carrying on a final rearguard against the Allied air forces, the Luftwaffe continued to fight fiercely with its determined pilots and its remarkable fighter aircraft, one of which was the Focke-Wulf Ta 152H. The only unit which used it, the Stabsschwarm JG 301 (JG 301 Staff Formation), won a few kills with this aircraft, one on 14 April 1945. 

In the words of Ofw. Reschke:

"Two enemy fighters were spotted some eight kilometres to the south-west of the field, making low-level passes over Ludwigslust railway yards. Three Ta 152 took off at once, piloted by the Oblt. Aufhammer, the Ofw. Sattler and myself. We were immediately in contact with the enemy fighters, which turned out to be Tempests. Flying in n°3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them. It was hardly possible for his crash to have been the result of enemy action, as the Tempest pilots had clearly only just registered our presence. Now began a fight at two against two at the ground-level, which was never to climb above 50 metres. At this altitude neither could afford to make the slightest mistake. And for the first time since flying the Ta 152 I began fully to appreciate exactly what this aircraft could do.

"Pulling ever tighter turns, I got closer and closer to one of the Tempests, never once feeling I was even approaching the limit of the Ta’s capabilities. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside me had failed. My first burst of fire caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage; its pilot immediately engaged its aircraft in a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapons fell silent and refused to fire another shot. However, the Tempest, which had already taken hits continued desperately to twist and turn, and I positioned myself so that I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually, inevitably, it stalled. The Tempest’s left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods immediately below us, about one kilometre of the site from Sattler’s crash. The Tempest pilot, the W/O O.J. Mitchell was buried side by side with the Ofw. Sattler next day in Neustadt-Glewe cemetery with full military honours".


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2005)

the Ta 152C did not have time to prove itslef in combat as only 5-6 were flown by JG 301 on 1-2 missions. Same goes for the He 162.

friends see my webpages for more from Will Reschke and like I said I will have more from him personally and another unknown ace whom I did not know flew the Ta 152H in combat.... tis from the small but very private JG 301 get together a week agao in Dresden


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2005)

also of note is a translated page to English briefly of Jupp Keils flights on 10 April of 45. At the top of or web-pages....

Horrido !

E ~


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2005)

also if I may suggest Will Reschkes JG 301/302 book and Monogram Monarch will have a new book on the Ta 152 shortly....


----------



## lesofprimus (May 29, 2005)

erich, im glad to see u guys have updated some of the info there on yr site... I always enjoy going there... GREAT INFO!

For those who do not already have it bookmarked, heres the link....

http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/contents.html


----------



## NightHawk00 (Jan 18, 2006)

its SIMPLE the *Spitfire and aviation master piece which ill neer be able to fly*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2006)

What I do not understand what you just said. The 109D would outfly a Spitfire at high alltitudes anyhow and I really dont get the 



> Spitfire and aviation master piece which ill neer be able to fly



that you said.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 19, 2006)

Me neither, Im lost on him as well....

The Fw-190D-9, according to an majority of our esteemed membership, is the Best Dogfighter of World War II...


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2006)

Best guess. Spitfire an aviation masterpiece that I will never be able to fly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

Ah thankyou for translating Glider!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2006)

yeah i understood him perfectly, being able to speak redneck does help at times


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 22, 2006)




----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 26, 2006)

How many bomber were shot down when escorted by the Tuskeegee Airmen? And what plane did they fly? Nuff said.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

LTARaptr said:


> How many bomber were shot down when escorted by the Tuskeegee Airmen? And what plane did they fly? Nuff said.



And your point?!?


----------



## Smokey (Jan 26, 2006)

Surely there should be at least 4 categories:

Best dogfighter below 300mph above 15000ft

Best dogfighter below 300mph below 15000ft

Best dogfighter above 300mph above 15000ft

Best dogfighter above 300mph below 15000ft

etc


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2006)

Fly he has not point, the fact is the Black pilots were ordered and not to deviate from proteecting the bombers while other P-51 groups of the 15th could engage Luftw prop and jets at will. A few tangles with Me 262's did occur almost by luck and several notables in the all black unit were shot down and made POW. I have to hand it to the all black fg as they did a marvelous job in protection and they are quite an overlooked bunch of chaps


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

Erich said:


> Fly he has not point, the fact is the Black pilots were ordered and not to deviate from proteecting the bombers while other P-51 groups of the 15th could engage Luftw prop and jets at will. A few tangles with Me 262's did occur almost by luck and several notables in the all black unit were shot down and made POW. I have to hand it to the all black fg as they did a marvelous job in protection and they are quite an overlooked bunch of chaps



Yep!!


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 26, 2006)

They did a great job and were under appreciated at the time.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 26, 2006)

> Surely there should be at least 4 categories:
> Best dogfighter below 300mph above 15000ft
> Best dogfighter below 300mph below 15000ft
> Best dogfighter above 300mph above 15000ft
> ...


Surely there would be, but this is an overall accounting, on an individuals opinion, so just vote dammit...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> > Surely there should be at least 4 categories:
> > Best dogfighter below 300mph above 15000ft
> > Best dogfighter below 300mph below 15000ft
> > Best dogfighter above 300mph above 15000ft
> ...


 -190D


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

LTARaptr said:


> How many bomber were shot down when escorted by the Tuskeegee Airmen? And what plane did they fly? Nuff said.



They also did not go up against any pilots such as Hartmann and Baer. 

The best dogfighter in my opinions hand down goes to the Fw-190D and the Spitfire.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> LTARaptr said:
> 
> 
> > How many bomber were shot down when escorted by the Tuskeegee Airmen? And what plane did they fly? Nuff said.
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 28, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > LTARaptr said:
> ...



And the P-38 could fight right there with them 800mi from base!

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 28, 2006)

> And the P-38 could fight right there with them 800mi from base!


Over enemy held territory...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 28, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> > And the P-38 could fight right there with them 800mi from base!
> 
> 
> Over enemy held territory...



Yep - and then the next day drop 3,200 lbs (H model) or more on a target.

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 28, 2006)

Nope, the next day he's getting interrogated at a local POW collection center...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 28, 2006)

Or get his ass-kicked for trying to shoot down a Spitfire.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 28, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Nope, the next day he's getting interrogated at a local POW collection center...



Not that sure, in air to air combat in the ETO it had a 4:1 kill rate (The 8th AF only lost 451 P-38s total) excluding the AA fire they had to contend with on ground attack missions which made up just over half the sorties the P-38 made in the ETO. In the MTO the ratio was 5:1. 

Though if he did go down he was captured but thats a risk you take when you take the war to the enemy over his turf - something the P-38 did better than the Spitfire or the Fw-190. It's a point several Japanese pilots and military leaders noted when they mentioned that they never knew where or when the P-38s would turn up.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

what the hell does range have to do with dogfighting? could the P-51D out dogfight a Spit XIV? no, a dogfight's a dogfight no matter where it happens, so i'm gonna say spit Mk.XIV...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Im going with the Fw-190D because overall I think it was a better aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

This discussion has been hashed, and hacked to pieces before. The Spitfire Mk.XIV and Fw-190D-9 were both dogfighting equals, it would take the pilot to tip the balance rather than the aircraft itself. But there is also the Spitfire F.21 - let's not forget this aircraft did serve from January to May, 1945. Although, from my information it's climbing was actually slower than the Mk.XIV but I think that's sustained climb because it's engine was more powerful than the XIV. I don't know for sure. 

Sorry, the Fw-190D-9 and Spitfire Mk. XIV are the best. And the poll says Fw-190D-9, with the Spitfire in second. So, obviously some people with sense are voting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Sorry, the Fw-190D-9 and Spitfire Mk. XIV are the best. And the poll says Fw-190D-9, with the Spitfire in second. So, obviously some people with sense are voting.



LOL Agreed!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what the hell does range have to do with dogfighting? could the P-51D out dogfight a Spit XIV? no, a dogfight's a dogfight no matter where it happens, so i'm gonna say spit Mk.XIV...........



No, but the P-38 could at least hold it's own, and take it to the enemy, that doesn't take away anything from either the Fw-190 or the Spitfire's dogfighting ability but the P-38 belongs in the mix to.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what the hell does range have to do with dogfighting? could the P-51D out dogfight a Spit XIV? no, a dogfight's a dogfight no matter where it happens, so i'm gonna say spit Mk.XIV...........



Ok - another term that coincides with range - endurance; true a dogfight is a dogfight but it kinda sucks when you're about to get close enough to flame your opponent and run out of gas!!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > what the hell does range have to do with dogfighting? could the P-51D out dogfight a Spit XIV? no, a dogfight's a dogfight no matter where it happens, so i'm gonna say spit Mk.XIV...........
> ...



I agree, right off the top of my head I can put these circumstances where it was a critical point.

1. The BoB what if the Bf-109s had another 40-60min of fuel?
2. Sicily and Sardinia where to quote Stienhoff, The fact the P-38s would turn up anywhere at any time was very troubling. Moreover, the clear superiority the Lightning, in both speed and maneuverability, was especialy disconcerting.
3. As mentioned above the Japanese said similar things.
4 I belive it was Goering that said "The jig is up" when he saw American fighters over Berlin.
5 Probably the best piston dogfighter to come out of WWII, the F8F Bearcat was only with the fleet a few years because its short range made it virtualy usless for anything but CAP flights.
6. Escorting - you can't win a major conflict just over your own bases, you must project that power to the enemys strategic heart.

Maybe in the strictest sense range doesn't matter but in the prosecution of a war it can make a criticla difference. In my opinion.

But back to the point of this thread, I think the P-38 belongs right there with the Spitfire and the late models of the Fw-190. All three had advantages over the others at certain altitudes/situations and winning/losing depended more on who got and held the initial advantage than the capabilities of their indivdual aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

Here is my 10cents b/c my 2 cents is for free. I think you all bring up good points, Fb, Lanc, Wmaxt, but I think you are talking about different planes, meaning the following. The thread is talking about best Dogfighter, not best over fighter or anything else. When I see the title of the thread I think both planes that do not have to about reaching a target or anything else just one on one and you do not have to worry about fuel levels. If you start talking about fuel, over all height performances, then it starts getting very hard to even compare one plane to the other. It becomes like comparing apples to oranges. If you take all the gloves off and then you should just say the ME262, it would shoot any of these planes down one on one. But if you say dogfighter then can argue different planes and forget about fuel etc., if you want to talk about best fighter over all that is a different thread. I hope I am getting across what I am trying to say here. If not oh well.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 30, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Here is my 10cents b/c my 2 cents is for free. I think you all bring up good points, Fb, Lanc, Wmaxt, but I think you are talking about different planes, meaning the following. The thread is talking about best Dogfighter, not best over fighter or anything else. When I see the title of the thread I think both planes that do not have to about reaching a target or anything else just one on one and you do not have to worry about fuel levels. If you start talking about fuel, over all height performances, then it starts getting very hard to even compare one plane to the other. It becomes like comparing apples to oranges. If you take all the gloves off and then you should just say the ME262, it would shoot any of these planes down one on one. But if you say dogfighter then can argue different planes and forget about fuel etc., if you want to talk about best fighter over all that is a different thread. I hope I am getting across what I am trying to say here. If not oh well.



It all is valid, the best dogfighter in the world is essentialy useless if it can't fight when it needs to or can only fight in defensive battles over its own field. 

But as my last paragraph shows, I think the P-38 belongs in the mix even if range not taken into account. I base this on accounts, note Stienhoffs comments above, and from many other sources. I've even read where Gunter Rall (after the war) compared the Spitfire to the P-38 with the comment 'It's about as good as the 38'. There is also an account of Adolf Galand in a 190D that could not shake a P-38 which was getting occasional shots in to him until the P-38 had to leave because of fuel. That said I must also acknowledge that a well flown Spit or late 190/152 that gets the jump on the P-38 can, if he holds onto that advantage get the P-38. I think the three need to be ranked together.

wmaxt


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

Wmaxt, I guess I am trying to split atoms here, I just see a difference between the best dogfighter and the best fighter overall. I see the Spitfire as the best dogfighter (honorable mention to the 190) and the P-51 as the best overall fighter. Spitfire due to its performance, guns, and over all its very manuavability in a fight. P51 due to its balanced manuavability, performance, guns and over all its amazing range that always gets it to reach the enemy when other fighters can't even fly that far never mind then dogfight. That all being said this does not mean I would pick either one as the best overall fighter that I would want to fly if my life depended on it, that would be the 190D. It was a high flyer, great performance, guns: all of which I would rather have than mauavability. I would rather have good guns, good performance and aluitude than a manuavable plane. I would never dogfight if I could help it. Hit and run is the way to live a long happy life. Dogfighting is like standing up the throwing punches in Mixed Martial Arts, crazy!!! You might win sometimes but you are going to get hit back and it takes just one punch and you are out (see Tank Abbott who is one mean SOB who throws them but also takes them). Hit and run is like grappling to me, it limits the chance that you are going to get tagged back. You wait until you have the advantage then you get in there. Just my thoughts while trying to make myself tried enough to go to sleep.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 31, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Wmaxt, I guess I am trying to split atoms here, I just see a difference between the best dogfighter and the best fighter overall. I see the Spitfire as the best dogfighter (honorable mention to the 190) and the P-51 as the best overall fighter. Spitfire due to its performance, guns, and over all its very manuavability in a fight. P51 due to its balanced manuavability, performance, guns and over all its amazing range that always gets it to reach the enemy when other fighters can't even fly that far never mind then dogfight. That all being said this does not mean I would pick either one as the best overall fighter that I would want to fly if my life depended on it, that would be the 190D. It was a high flyer, great performance, guns: all of which I would rather have than mauavability. I would rather have good guns, good performance and aluitude than a manuavable plane. I would never dogfight if I could help it. Hit and run is the way to live a long happy life. Dogfighting is like standing up the throwing punches in Mixed Martial Arts, crazy!!! You might win sometimes but you are going to get hit back and it takes just one punch and you are out (see Tank Abbott who is one mean SOB who throws them but also takes them). Hit and run is like grappling to me, it limits the chance that you are going to get tagged back. You wait until you have the advantage then you get in there. Just my thoughts while trying to make myself tried enough to go to sleep.



Your thoughts have merrit a hit and run from a higher altitude is not only the best method in all reality it was the most effective.

I will stand on my earlier post - the P-38 on its dogfighting ability deserves to be with the 190 and Spit. The P-38 was also one of the very best when it came to climb, altitude ability (Js and Ls still had full power at 30k where the Spit/190/P-51 had lost as much as half), and speed. Also as I pointed out above even Galland himself in a 190D couldn't shake a P-38. The P-38 was at least a match.

As to the P-51, the P-38 not only could out fly it, a quote from a P-51 pilot to his nephew was 'to fight one (P-38 ) you (P-51) had to start out a lot faster and higher to have a chance'. Performance wise the comtemporary P-38J-25/Ls 
Flew higher - 44,000ft to 40,000ft (Sometimes rated at 41,000ft)
Climed 20% faster 7min to 20,000ft to 9 to 20,000 in METO power
were as fast/slightly faster
Accelerated faster 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft to 2.2mph/sec
Out maneuvered
carried more in Fighter Bomber roll reportedly 5,200lbs (official rating 4,000lbs) to the P-51s 2,000lbs
Heaver firepower that was housed in the center of the aircraft and was effective at twice the range of the P-51.
The longest fighter mission of WWII was by the P-38 at 2,300mi.

The P-51 was cheaper, easier to train in, easier to maintain and had a faster cruise speed if ultimate range was not required. Those are the advantages of the P-51 over the P-38.

wmaxt


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 31, 2006)

Wmxt thanks for all that information, more than I knew thats for sure.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 31, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Wmxt thanks for all that information, more than I knew thats for sure.



Your welcome. Check out the Planes and Pilots of WWII web page there are 5 P-38 and 1 F4U articles that have some great info on the P-38 here is the page http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html another one thats packed with info is http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html you'll find some other good articles in the Planes and Pilots page.

wmaxt


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 31, 2006)

Thanks I will.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

redcoat said:


> The best dogfighter in WW2 was the A6M Zero without question, even Spitfire pilots didn't dog-fight with it, they fought the Zero in the same way every other Allied fighter did.:



Here here, light and manuverable, but really not the fastest though. Granted without armour it shredded but nimble like a butterfly. 

:{)


----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 31, 2006)

Tuskeegee Airmen what did they fly and how many bombers did they lose. point made I hope.

P.S.
If you didn't know They flew Mustangs  and lost 0 bombers  the only squad that can brag that fact I believe 8) .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

LTARaptr said:


> Tuskeegee Airmen what did they fly and how many bombers did they lose. point made I hope.
> 
> P.S.
> If you didn't know They flew Mustangs and lost 0 bombers the only squad that can brag that fact I believe


And it had nothing to do with the plane they flew. Had they encountered a top notch experten we wouldn't be having this conversation...

they were fine pilots, however the P-51 was over-rated but it did accomplish the mission....


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2006)

Agreed, Joe. The Tuskegee airmen stayed with the bombers, that was their orders. Other FGs were allowed free reign to attack targets of opportunity, leaving the bombers. The P-51 was a good plane, but there were better ones too.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 1, 2006)

Granted I may have missed this in all of the pages but we are also forgetting the pilot itself. Part of the skill of dogfighting also comes from training and experience. In Hoyt's McCampbell bio the pilots tell (and in my opinion in a very humorous fashion) of them in '44 going up against a Japanese pilot in a Zero that they describe as "old school" and no matter what McCampbell's boys did, and they were not slouches either, they could not get a shot in on the Zero becuase this pilot was obviously a very old hand in the dogfighting game and out flew the Navy boys. 

Grated this is an extreme example but my point is that the equipment was important but so was the skill and the experience of the pilot. Look at the beginnig of BARBAROSSA, many Red AF aircraft were very manueverable, arguably more than the 109s the GAF flew but the experience of the GAF won over the the Red AF boys, those that could get off the ground.

My two yen on this.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2006)

Absolutely, that does make a difference in the fight, but having a good plane with a good pilot can be a great combo. Could you imagine what the Filipino pilots who became aces in P-26s against Zeroes could have done with something more updated, even a P-40? 

I think everyone here agrees that pilot skill will most likely determine the victor, but the poll is which airplane would be the best for a pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

LTARaptr said:


> Tuskeegee Airmen what did they fly and how many bombers did they lose. point made I hope.
> 
> P.S.
> If you didn't know They flew Mustangs  and lost 0 bombers  the only squad that can brag that fact I believe 8) .



Read this pal...

From another member in another post....


Fw-190 D-9 Statistics: 

Engine: Junkers Jumo 213A1 with MW-50 boost. 
Power: 2,240 HP. 
Max. Speed: 704 km/h. (438 mph.) 
Max. Climb: 1110 m/min (3,642 ft/min.) 
Empty Weight: 3,490 kg. (7,694 lbs.) 
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,293 kg. (9,464 lbs.) 
Max. Weight: 4,839 kg. (10,670 lbs.) 
Wing-Span: 10.50 m. (34.4 ft.) 
Wing-Area: 18.3 sq.m. (197 sq.ft.) 
Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) 2x 20mm cannons (MG 151/20). 

Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics: 

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.) 
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02. 
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009. 
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% . 
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 . 

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.) 
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.) 

Fw-190 D-9 Additional features: 

-Bubble-canopy Flettner Tabs. 
-Inclined seat position for better G-load resistance. 


P-51D Mustang Statistics: 

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7. 
Power: 1,790 HP. 
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph). 
Max. Climb: 1011 m/min. (3,320 ft/min) 
Empty Weight: 3,466 kg. (7,641 lbs.) 
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 5,034 kg. (11,100 lbs.) 
Max. Weight: 5,489 kg. (12,100 lbs.) 
Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.) 
Wing-Area: 21.64 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.) 
Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2). 

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics: 

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.) 
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 . 
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100. 
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%. 
Wing CL-max: 1.28 . 

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.) 
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.) 

P-51D Mustang Additional features: 

-Laminar wing Tear-shaped canopy. 
-Gyro-Gunsight. 

---------------------------------------------------------------- 
Aerodynamic Facts: 

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better. 
Airfoil CL-max - Higher is better. 
Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better. 

Lift-loading - Lower is better. 
Power-loading - Lower is better. 

Wing Aspect ratio info: 
High aspect ratio wings have long spans (like high performance gliders), while low aspect ratio wings have either short spans (like the F-16 fighter) or thick chords (like the Space Shuttle). There is a component of the drag of an aircraft called induced drag which depends inversely on the aspect ratio. A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing. All else being equal, the higher the wing aspect ratio, the higher the wing Cl-max is also going to be. 

Laminar wing info: 
Laminar flow wings lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing. 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 

It is easy to understand why the Fw-190D-9 was considered a nasty handful for the P-51D !


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2006)

I would go so far as to say that the FW-190 was a nasty handful for just about ANY allied fighter.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 1, 2006)

evangilder said:


> I would go so far as to say that the FW-190 was a nasty handful for just about ANY allied fighter.


I'd agree with that Eric, it would of been quite a handful.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 1, 2006)

Oh yea, very nasty aircraft. A buddy of mine, and this is for the Trekkies in this list, compared the 190 to Klingon Bird of Prey. Fast and very heavily armed. Thank the goddess they could not cloak!

:{)


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 1, 2006)

One thing that is also noticeable is that overall the Tuskegee Airmen didn't score very high because in close escort your not allowed to follow the attacker. This doesn't take anything away from the TA they hadhave a great record - I just wanted to point out that different tactics result in different outcomes.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> One thing that is also noticeable is that overall the Tuskegee Airmen didn't score very high because in close escort your not allowed to follow the attacker. This doesn't take anything away from the TA they hadhave a great record - I just wanted to point out that different tactics result in different outcomes.
> 
> wmaxt



There was only one ace From the Tuskegee Airmen....


----------



## plan_D (Feb 2, 2006)

I think it's pretty much agreed that the only Allied fighter really capable of taking on a Fw-190D-9 in one on one combat would be a Spitfire. I still disagree that the P-51 was over-rated, but I do agree that it was no dogfighter.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I think it's pretty much agreed that the only Allied fighter really capable of taking on a Fw-190D-9 in one on one combat would be a Spitfire. I still disagree that the P-51 was over-rated, but I do agree that it was no dogfighter.



The P-38s did, and and Galland himself in a Dora (I don't know if it was a 9 but it was late '44) couldn't get away from a P-38 until the 38 ran low on fuel and left, Galland was defensive the whole time. 

The P-38 could go 1 on 1 with either. All three had both strongpoints and weaker points. 

As always the trick was to fight your strengths to your opponents weaknesses. The P-51 like the Wildcat and the Hellcat used tactics and numbers to make up for their weaknesses and that made them winners.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

I think the P-51D was a great escort fighter but as planD said she was not a dogfighter and compared to the Spitfire and the Fw-190D would outlfy a P-51D. The reason the P-51 did so well was because of its numerical advantage and the abilitity to decide when to have the fight.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2006)

> All three had both strongpoints and weaker points.


I agree 100%, but out of the three, the P-38 pilot had to be the most competent because it was a more difficult machine to combat with...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Agreed


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

And we don't know if it was a Fw-190D-9 the P-38 was flying against. You're absolutely right, les, the P-38 pilot always had to be the best in any combat to get the most out of his aircraft. 

The P-38 was a plane for the experts, and no air force is made up of experts. They're mostly rookies ... no matter what they tell you.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 4, 2006)

I think thats true to an extent, in the hands of someone like Bong it was just about unbeatable but pilots like that were few and far between. However as the traning accident rates showes the P-38 wasn't hard to fly, in '45 its accident rate was
P-38 186 per100,000 flying hours
P-51 317 per 100,000 Flying hours
P-47 682 per 100,000 flying hours
P-40 421 per 100,000 flying hours 
Thats almost Half the losses over the P-51 that is so much easier to fly, and 3 1/2 times better than the P-47.

The P-38 did very well everywhere but the ETO, including the Aleutians where there were no adverse problems due to heat (though this was a real weakness) or engines and the temps were often -50 on the ground, why? Because it was supported by the AAF comands and the Fighter Groups and the pilots. Things like tactics and differential throttle usage, proper cruise techniques, etc. were commonly taught to new pilots

In the ETO it was not supported - even Dollittle admits that - but it still did the job. As to harder to fly, yes, a little but lets look at a couple of fighter groups and how they handled the P-38. First the 20th FG. The Co of the 20th was a P-40 man and was convinced that a twin engined fighter was useless and said so to his pilots. Until LeViers demo flights they all had a very low morale and were convinced the P-38 was only good for suicide. They made no recorded attempts to learn/maximise their useage of the P-38s. Many groups and squadrons held ground schools in tactics etc. By late summer '44 it was normal for a P-51 pilot to go through 50hrs ETO training before going into combat the first time. Their score 78 P-38s for 74 Germans and an early transition to P-51s. The 82nd FG embraced the P-38 tried new things and had a score of 230 P-38s to 586 German/Italian aircraft. Of the P-38 losses 50 were accidents and collisions, and about half of the remainder from ground fire. These guys had missions like bombing Ploesti among others.

The P-38 was a little more complex but a competant pilot with a little training of P-38 capabilities was a very effective aircraft that did not require a wizard to fly well. 

Edited to clarify accidents were per 100,000 flying hours.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

Don't you think that accident rate is a bit bias? How many P-38s were operating compared to P-51s in the ETO?


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 4, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Don't you think that accident rate is a bit bias? How many P-38s were operating compared to P-51s in the ETO?



The accident rate is for the training in the US proper and the AAF Training command as a whole, and is based on the number of accidents per 100,000 flying hours. I can't think of a way to make them more equaly representitive. Training here in the states was pretty consistent, my mom used to watch the P-38s and P-51s train together, here at Mountain Home AFB during the war. Same base, same weather, same time - can it be more equal?

Source AAF Stastistical Digest

To be sure I don't think the P-38s were unsupported on purpose but it wasn't in the best interests of people like Eaker, and Spatz, and Arnold who had supported non escorted bombers to the point that the whole AAF was built that way. Then it was conclusively proven that an escort was mandatory - worse they had a plane that could do it but they sent it to Africa. 

Did you know the fuel problem the early P-38s had was not fixed until the P-51s were having blown headgaskets and severly fouled plugs causing a 30% abort rate in Jan/Feb '44?

wmaxt


----------



## Twitch (Feb 7, 2006)

PS- Just looking at the list and realize most on it are not worth a hoot at the upper end of the altitude range 35,000 feet. They are barely airworthy much less able to fight.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 7, 2006)

Contrary to popular belief, not all combats happened in the upper confines of the lower atmosphere....


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 7, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Contrary to popular belief, not all combats happened in the upper confines of the lower atmosphere....



You are right there Les. With all of the Allied Fightbombers and ground attack planes from the West and East all closing in on Germany, LW had alot of chances to fight at lower levels as well. Of course when LW intercepted Allied bombers they were way up high, but other than that there was still combat going on well below. Even when Allies attacked German airbases LW would get into fights there to, protecting their own bases as well as ME262 bases.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 8, 2006)

Your thoughts have merrit a hit and run from a higher altitude is not only the best method in all reality it was the most effective.

I will stand on my earlier post - the P-38 on its dogfighting ability deserves to be with the 190 and Spit. The P-38 was also one of the very best when it came to climb, altitude ability (Js and Ls still had full power at 30k where the Spit/190/P-51 had lost as much as half), and speed. Also as I pointed out above even Galland himself in a 190D couldn't shake a P-38. The P-38 was at least a match.

As to the P-51, the P-38 not only could out fly it, a quote from a P-51 pilot to his nephew was 'to fight one (P-38 ) you (P-51) had to start out a lot faster and higher to have a chance'. Performance wise the comtemporary P-38J-25/Ls 
Flew higher - 44,000ft to 40,000ft (Sometimes rated at 41,000ft)
Climed 20% faster 7min to 20,000ft to 9 to 20,000 in METO power
were as fast/slightly faster
Accelerated faster 2.8mph/sec @ 15,000ft to 2.2mph/sec
Out maneuvered
carried more in Fighter Bomber roll reportedly 5,200lbs (official rating 4,000lbs) to the P-51s 2,000lbs
Heaver firepower that was housed in the center of the aircraft and was effective at twice the range of the P-51.
The longest fighter mission of WWII was by the P-38 at 2,300mi.

The P-51 was cheaper, easier to train in, easier to maintain and had a faster cruise speed if ultimate range was not required. Those are the advantages of the P-51 over the P-38.

wmaxt[/quote]

Was the P-38 that much manuverable than the P-51?

From wikepedia:The Lightning proved surprisingly maneuverable at low altitudes, mostly due to very docile low-speed stall characteristics. The contra-rotating props had the benefit of eliminating the effects of engine torque, and on occasion a Lightning could even out-turn smaller fighters. However, maneuverability wasn't its strong suit, its major virtue in combat being a "terrific zoom climb" that would leave pursuers in the dust.

On ocasion. Also other websites about world war II aircraft seem to confirm that the lighting wasn't really the most manuverable aircraft out there. Sure, in the hands of an expieranced pilot it could outmanuver a single engine plane like the mustang, but not in the hands of an inexperianced fighting pilot. Technichly the mustang was more manuverable. It was at best a match with the mustang for manuverability, but not generally superior.

Besides, several mustang pilots downed FW's in one on one dog fights too just like that one P-38 pilot did. I don't think it was that much harder for them.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 8, 2006)

What one pilot had to say about the mustang.

was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2006)

The only reason the Mustang was so successful was the fact that it had the numerical superiority. The aircraft itself was overrated and nothing speacial.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

For the newer members....

I posted this before...

Here is a photo of my old neighbor Mike Alba, courtesy of "Little Friends."







Mike was with the 338th Fighter Squadron, 55th Fighter Group, 8th Ar Force. He flew P-38s and P-51s in combat. Prior to going over seas Mike logged several hundred hours in the P-38 so he had a good handle on the idiosyncrasies of the aircraft. During his time in Europe Mike told me he actually preferred the P-38. He did confirm the heating problems but said the -38 was a better gun platform and way a way more stable aircraft to fly. He went on to tell me that the P-51 was faster and could be a bit "squirly." He first flew converted P-51Cs that didn't have the fin in front of the vertical stabilizer. He said when the "Ds" arrived there was an improvement.

Mike mentioned that when the 8AF fighter command started going on the deck to hunt down the Luftwaffe on the ground he lost half of his squadron and he sited the P-51 went down easy because of its liquid cooled engine. Mike went on to say that at that time many of his surviving squadron members wished they still had their P-38s....

As a side note, Mike finished the war with 3 1/2 kills, all in the P-51. He stayed in the AF after WW2 and assisted many Central and South American Air Forces in setting up combat training schools, Mike was Mexican and spoke Spanish fluently. Mike spent several years in Honduras and trained a guy named Fernando Soto - this guy became the "Top Gun" of the 1969 El Salvador/ Honduras "Soccer War."


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 8, 2006)

But for the Lightning being a faster plane also makes me wonder. On wikipedia they say the P-51 had a maximum speed of 437 mph and the P-38 had one of 414 mph. Unless I'm mistaken the Lighting didn't beat it in speed. Also it sounds like the P-51 could only fly a 100 miles less.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2006)

With WEP P-38L's could do over 440mph.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 8, 2006)

I like the lightning. I just wasn't that sure if it was superior to the P-51 in taking down a WF 190. I know it did great with the Japanese planes. I'm sure it could do it well and in a head on fight the P-38 had more powerful guns to wipe you out. It's just I still kind of wonder how much more maneuverable in a dogfight it was.

Anyway, here is the story of one on one dogfight of a P-51. I wish I had it in the pilots own words. 

A flight of P-51s from the 353rd Fighter Squadron, operating out of Criqueville, France, was patrolling the skies over Berriere on 29 June, 1944. Newcomer 1st Lt. Kenneth Dahlberg was flying "Beantown Banshee", a P-51B "borrowed" from another 353rd pilot. Shortly after 1400 hours, they encountered a large number of yellow-nosed Focke-Wulf 190s. As the two formations meshed into one swirling mass of Mustangs and Focke-Wulfs, a '190 curved in on the tail of Dahlberg's flight leader. Dahlberg slid in behind the black-crossed figher and fired a burst that caused the German to break off. Dahlberg stayed with his opponent in a twisting, turning combat, each trying to maneuver into a position to get a hit as they spiralled down to almost treetop level. Finally Dahlberg scored a crucial burst and the Focke-Wulf dove into the ground. Lt. Dahlberg later described the German pilot as "my most formidable air opponent of the war".

The German pilot may have come from the excellent fighter Unit JG 26.


Another reason the P-38 wasn't liked as well in Europe as a bomber escort is this from wikipedia: 

A growing need for long-range escort fighters in Northwest Europe to protect heavy bomber operations resulted in four groups of Lightnings being deployed to the 8th Air Force in 1943-44. Although the P-38 gained a reputation with the Luftwaffe as the "fork-tailed devil", its performance at frigid high altitudes was disappointing and it proved difficult to maintain. By September 1944 all the Lightning groups in the 8th Air Force had converted to the P-51.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

I use Wikipedia as well sometimes, however it is not the best source for material.

Good post up there FBJ.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

Agreed. The nickname "the fork-tailed devil" is a myth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Everyone believes it though.


----------



## spitfire1940 (Mar 2, 2006)

The Hurricane was the tightest turning aircraft the RAF operated in the early years it could even out turn a spitfire! its weakness was overall it was not as nimble as the spitfire or as fast thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain. The hurricane was an excellent and stable gun platform and performed well but on the whole I think the spitfire was the better air to air fighter a unique design years before the P51 better than the ME109 it has to be the best fighter of WW2.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 2, 2006)

> thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain.


Huh??? No it wasnt....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2006)

spitfire1940 said:


> The Hurricane was the tightest turning aircraft the RAF operated in the early years it could even out turn a spitfire! its weakness was overall it was not as nimble as the spitfire or as fast thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain. The hurricane was an excellent and stable gun platform and performed well but on the whole I think the spitfire was the better air to air fighter a unique design years before the P51 better than the ME109 it has to be the best fighter of WW2.



Disagree with you to an extent. It was not way better than the Bf-109 and it was an equal to the Fw-190D.


----------



## spitfire1940 (Mar 2, 2006)

The Hawker Hurricane was I admit not only used as a bomber destroyer but when the RAF used the big wing tactics towards the end of the battle of Britain the spitfires task was to break up the bomber formations attracting the escorting ME109 to tangle with then as the superior performance of the spitfire enabled them to do this. The bomber waves would now tangle with Hurricanes sent up to destroy them obviously they met with fighter escort but the RAF after the battle of France became aware of the hurricanes weakness in air to air with the faster Me109's if anybody doubt this I can recommend a few literary references to check this!
There is no argument that the hurricane was also used in the fighter to fighter role but after the early lessons stated the RAF changed tactics to great effect.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> spitfire1940 said:
> 
> 
> > The Hurricane was the tightest turning aircraft the RAF operated in the early years it could even out turn a spitfire! its weakness was overall it was not as nimble as the spitfire or as fast thus it was used mainly in the bomber destroyer role during the battle of britain. The hurricane was an excellent and stable gun platform and performed well but on the whole I think the spitfire was the better air to air fighter a unique design years before the P51 better than the ME109 it has to be the best fighter of WW2.
> ...



Someone on this site said the Me-109 itself was really no good unless flown by a capable pilot, Well with that said the Hurricane was a much simpler plane to fly, newly trained pilots had a better chance of surviving the first 2 or 3 weeks of combat than they would in a Spitfire or newby -109 pilots.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

any newbie pilot wouldnt do well...


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 1, 2006)

the hellcat .


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 1, 2006)

the Hellcat was a Zero killer, but what about when it faced the Franks and the Georges? maybe it was a match for the Tony though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> the Hellcat was a Zero killer, but what about when it faced the Franks and the Georges? maybe it was a match for the Tony though


 It still ate all of them, mainly becuase of pilot training......


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 1, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Agreed. The nickname "the fork-tailed devil" is a myth.



That might or might not be the truth - I don't know. Consider this before you dismiss this as out of hand.At the time and place 1943, North Africa/Sicily/Sardinia, that this "name" is supposed to have begun, this was the situation in the Med as described by the German Commander of Sardinia's Luftwaffe force, Johannes Stienhoff. 

In his book "Messerschmidt's Over Sicily", he writes that the air defense of the island was "hopless". Stienhoff in his bid for reinforcements, told Galland that the "Luftwaffe no longer held the qualitative or quantitative advantage. The fact that American P-38s could and would turn up anywhere at any time was very troubling. Moreover, The clear superiority of the Lightning, in both speed and maneuverability, was especially disconcerting".

Like I said above, I can't prove it one way or the other, In light of Stienhoff's statement to the General of the Air Force Galland and the situation at the time, it certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. Lastly, is there anyone who can categorically disprove it?

I'm not going to push it either way - I certainly don't have enough information. I'm also not going to accept a flat statement either way! Just my opinion.

wmax


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 4, 2006)

the hellcat has the best kill to loss ratio of any us fighter . yes ki 84 frank was a great fighter , and the NIK2 shiden or George KI 61 and 100 tonys . The frank intered service march of 43 and did not get to combat till early 44 the speed rate of climb is slightly better at best and it could not out turn the big cat or take hits like the cat .
since it was in service for over a year and production reached over 3700 it do dought fought against it , since it was a army plane it did not suffer like the zero persay in the fact the the best pilots drowned , the frank had more trouble was it lost its wings flaps ect in stress , that is very bad for the frank driver , i dont here of that happening to the cat so i was sat the cat would and as a dogfighter it would have beat the frank hands down


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 4, 2006)

KI 61 Tony came into sevice april of 43 ,2650 + were made so there is no dought that met the hellcat like the frank . in spec's the cat 3400 + climb . rate eats the 2200 of tony alive roll rate for the tony was just as bad and turning the cat could out turn it easy , so hands down it coould beat the Tony


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> the hellcat has the best kill to loss ratio of any us fighter . yes ki 84 frank was a great fighter , and the NIK2 shiden or George KI 61 and 100 tonys . The frank intered service march of 43 and did not get to combat till early 44 the speed rate of climb is slightly better at best and it could not out turn the big cat or take hits like the cat .
> since it was in service for over a year and production reached over 3700 it do dought fought against it , since it was a army plane it did not suffer like the zero persay in the fact the the best pilots drowned , the frank had more trouble was it lost its wings flaps ect in stress , that is very bad for the frank driver , i dont here of that happening to the cat so i was sat the cat would and as a dogfighter it would have beat the frank hands down


 The Hellcat was a great aircraft - it also had a target rich enviornment against sub-par competition...............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 4, 2006)

Aside from the engine.. what were the problems of th N1K2-j? i know the undercarriage problem was fixed


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 8, 2006)

the point being the hellcat , just did not just meet the zero's from japan. as japan had army fighters everywhere also and the hellcat did great agaist them great them as well if yo take in to where they meaning japan made the Ki 100 and Ki61 tonys and the Ki 84 Frank 
a little after the hellcat came into service in 1943 so yes the most part was against sub par foes yet that was what it was built for to take out the zero little else and it did it better than any other us fighter weith very lil changes to the planes so as to dog fighting it was the best in what one would say a dog fighter was to do for in fact there were very few real dog fighters in ww 2 one could say that in fact of the many types one two that were the zero and the hellcat i mean in great amounts the rest could not fight toe to toe in what one would call i dog fight agaist the zero none of the other fighters could stay in a turning fight with the zero not the spit
ect , none yet the one ship that was made for that was the hellcat and it did ,not that it could turn with the zero , it came closest , and did kill the zero all others had to use the dive and run , hellcats did also but they could mix it up if they had to. so that is the reason i choose the hellcat as the best dog fighter. not the best fighter


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> the point being the hellcat , just did not just meet the zero's from japan. as japan had army fighters everywhere also and the hellcat did great agaist them great them as well if yo take in to where they meaning japan made the Ki 100 and Ki61 tonys and the Ki 84 Frank
> a little after the hellcat came into service in 1943 so yes the most part was against sub par foes yet that was what it was built for to take out the zero little else and it did it better than any other us fighter weith very lil changes to the planes so as to dog fighting it was the best in what one would say a dog fighter was to do for in fact there were very few real dog fighters in ww 2 one could say that in fact of the many types one two that were the zero and the hellcat i mean in great amounts the rest could not fight toe to toe in what one would call i dog fight agaist the zero none of the other fighters could stay in a turning fight with the zero not the spit
> ect , none yet the one ship that was made for that was the hellcat and it did ,not that it could turn with the zero , it came closest , and did kill the zero all others had to use the dive and run , hellcats did also but they could mix it up if they had to. so that is the reason i choose the hellcat as the best dog fighter. not the best fighter


And when you say "dogfighter" you put a very simplistic view on this - ask any fighter pilot, the object IS NOT to dog fight - it's to close in on your enemy and shoot him down - PERIOD! If you're placed in a situation where you're twisting and turning for more and 30 seconds, you already failed to gain the initiative and it may cost you you're life. The Hellact took on opponents in great numbers along with mainly inferior pilots flying the opposition, as far as the aircraft itself, if it fought the Zero below 300 mph it was easily out maneuvered, and this has been pr oven during and after WW2 (I witnessed this myself during a mock "dogfight" at Chino Airport). 

There were many other aircraft that well better than the Hellcat on all counts - the Hellcat just was at the right place at the right time to severely maul the Japanese, and it did its job well, but as far as maneuverability and performance, it was not "Top Dog."


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 8, 2006)

the point of the poll was dog fighter, not fight and run


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 8, 2006)

and a mock fight has nothen to do with real fight ie , for exsample when i was in the army i saw a F 4 going against a f 16 and the f 4 one the fight , is that saying the f 4 was better than the 16 no it was the pilot not the plane so in case of many fights agaisnt many types and many grades of fighters pilots is the only way to look at a planes weekness or streths not a mock fight or one time ingagment


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2006)

And maybe u need to go back to school and learn how to spell.... nothen is *nothing*, exsample is *example*, one is *won*, weekness is *weakness*, streths is *strengths*, and ingagment is *engagement*...

And the F4 winning an engagement with an F-16 means the Falcon pilot was either sleeping or some nugget straight outta OCS, or ur whole little story is bullshit....

The Hellcat could not and did not turn with the Zero below 300mph....

And for the record, how does an Army puke get to witness mock combat between 2 non-Army aircraft, and how do u know who won???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> the point of the poll was dog fighter, not fight and run


 No - the point was which aircraft, if placed in a Dogfight was the best aircraft - and the Hellcat, while sporting a very impressive combat record, doesn't come close to other aircraft shown here as far as maneuverability and performance.....

I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of F6F WW2 kills were accomplished with the Hellcat bearing down on its opponent at high speed and blasting away......

In a real dogfight if you loose the initiative you better run if you want to live!!!!

And the mock dogfight I witnessed wasn't a "one time deal." Several flights were made and both pilots were highly skilled. Bottom line the Zero won when it forced the Hellcat to fight on its terms....


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 8, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> And maybe u need to go back to school and learn how to spell.... nothen is *nothing*, exsample is *example*, one is *won*, weekness is *weakness*, streths is *strengths*, and ingagment is *engagement*...
> 
> And the F4 winning an engagement with an F-16 means the Falcon pilot was either sleeping or some nugget straight outta OCS, or ur whole little story is bullshit....
> 
> ...




Ohhhh Les you can be funny at times.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2006)

Im funny MOST of the time, and just plain pathetic the rest... My above post is indeed quite funny, according to the Comedy Central Laugh-o-Meter Scale...


----------



## Henk (Apr 8, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Im funny MOST of the time, and just plain pathetic the rest... My above post is indeed quite funny, according to the Comedy Central Laugh-o-Meter Scale...



   

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 8, 2006)

nice
and dude, who in the right mind would put such a big and heavy plane in a dogfight against a little Japanese Zero or an Oscar?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2006)

David McCampbell....


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 9, 2006)

first off i was with a pilot on the ground he was or is a pilot and was working with the ground forces as a pathfinder , second the us was the country that was crazy to put up against them, and agaisnt the zero > the hellcat had a better record the any other type . spit or other wise thank very much beside do you have to be rude to try and make a point , to those that were, sorry to flyboy i do see your point and as far as the army goes , what would you know


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2006)

I think it would be next to impossible to figure out who won a dog fight from the ground if they were low enough to see them as they work at 9 miles a minute binoculars would be useless because of lateral separation so how could you determine who got into firing position or even if they had a firing solution


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2006)

> thank very much beside do you have to be rude to try and make a point


Yup.... 

I agree with pb, there is no way to possibly determine who won a dogfight between two supersonic jets, pilot or no pilot....


> and as far as the army goes , what would you know


I was a Navy SEAL and saw more combat than u did Im sure, and endured one of the toughest training curriculums in the world.... Army Rangers??? HA! We were singing cadences while they were puking their guts out....

U Army pukes could shine my jump boots for $5.00 bucks, if u asked me nice enough...


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 9, 2006)

i was going by what the pilot on the ground was saying , he was in radio contact with them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> sorry to flyboy i do see your point and as far as the army goes , what would you know


 I'm a pilot and flown high performance aircraft (as a civilian) participated in simulated combat and tested weapon systems, I learned a little about this stuff in my 29 years in the aircraft industry - and by that comment its evident you know little or nothing about combat aircraft and how they may be used, and you were also too dumb to read some of the profiles here and find out who you're communicating with - 

And by the way the "Guy on the Ground" is called a "FAC." Forward Air Controller -or don't they tell you that "as far as the Army Goes"?!?!? Mushrooms grow better in the dark left undisturbed and fed with bullshit!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2006)

you're basing your entire argument around the plane's combat record against one fighter type? a fighter type that it was designed to take on, was about all it took on, was often flown by infereor pilots and was pretty much the only plane taking it on? well of course it's going to get kills, what happens when you put her up against a Spit XIV? or Fw-190D? you're gonna die, because the hellcat rarely got into turning fights with the zero, "boom and zoom" got most if their kills, go fast and hard, and DON'T get into a turning fight with a zero, you cannot base an argument for a aircraft because of it's combat record against an older, infereor plane...........


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2006)

> he was in radio contact with them


What kind of radio was this that he was using to talk to fighter pilots from the ground??? One of those special "make believe" radios????

I sure could have used one of those....


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 9, 2006)

what does that have to do with the fact he was there and your right dumb ass i was talking in gen to you as far as your profile i do not give a rats ass , the point is your thoughts are to high and mighty and do not mean anything , so your sayng thata pilot on the ground was is a combat pilot is a dumb ass also you high and mighty load of crap and i am right about the hellcat in my thoughts prove it wrong


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2006)

When u grasp the basics of the English language, I'll bother replying to ur load of crap....

But for now, here's alittle warning.... My thoughts are high and mighty, and so is my size 14 shoe.... Before it gets permanently inserted into ur ass, u gotta ask urself a question, would my Mommy be proud, cause ur Immigration Officer sure wouldnt be....

Ur a meatball concerning the Hellcat, and u need to prove urself here moron, not the other way around... It's irrelevant anyways, cause I can tell ur stay here is gonna be a short one...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2006)

And another thing... 

Dude, if ur 43 years old, ur either retarded, or "A Very Special Little Man"... Ur an embarassment to Americans across the globe....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 9, 2006)

It's kind of embarrassing for this guy who is an American most likely older than me, cause even i can speak better english than he does, and im just a kid from a poor little bunch of islands

and lonestar, it takes my quite a while to understand ur posts


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2006)

but then again you also refer to yourself in the possesive 



> it takes my quite a while





and i dunno how long it's been there but i've just noticed les's rank/title



> Minister of Whoopass


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2006)

Boom, Headshot!!!!

http://www.break.com/index/toomuchcs.html


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but they again you also refer to yourself in the possesive


typo


----------



## evangilder (Apr 11, 2006)

I will throw in my $.02. I have seen both the Zero and the Hellcat fly on numerous occasions, together and separately. Below 275-300, the Zero will easily eat the Hellcat for lunch. Above that, the Zero is just a dart. Compare the 2 airplanes side by side and you will notcie right away that the Hellcat is pretty close to twice the size of the Zero. Yes, it was rugged and made a good show in the Pacific, but the Hellcat was no match for an FW-190, if everything else was equal with pilots..


----------



## delcyros (Apr 11, 2006)

N1K2-J George for me. Not the fastest plane in this comparison but often underrated. Excellent medium altitude performer, good rate of climb, good dive, excellent handling, decent firepower.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Boom, Headshot!!!!
> 
> http://www.break.com/index/toomuchcs.html



can you really blame that guy's dad?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> can you really blame that guy's dad?


 I don't know - I think there's also some gene pool problems as well!


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2006)

No doubt...


----------



## lonestarman63 (Apr 12, 2006)

you know i do not know or recall the name of the radio they used it was a different type than we did just because i do not know the radio type means i am wrong ? , it just means your just trying to degrade someone like a class bully , you think as a E 1 i would have said sir what kinda radio is that, yeah right ! and that was in 1981 just a few years ago , but i am sure when you did your service your were good at what you did , but you had to be trained , by some ground pounder, that you think is a puke. fact is your full of yourself lesofprimus ,


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2006)

And since I am so full of myself, and u wouldnt let well enough alone, heres another warning... One more and ur gone pal....

Now STFU and move on.......


----------



## JeffK (Jul 29, 2006)

Does this guy think he's the Sherriff , on many other Forum he would have been kicked of by now.

being a Navy seal explains a lot though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

Alright JeffK you are talking about one of the moderators here! As another moderator I am telling you we back each other up, and I am telling you dont talk **** unless you can back it up! 

Your comment is about 5 months too late, what the **** and why bring it up now. If you do not like this forum, leave.

Consider this your verbal warning.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2006)

Fu*k him, he's alittle opininated cry-baby looking for attention in the cyberworld, cause Mommy refused the tit to him.... Pretty sure we're seeing #16 here gents....

And yea meatball, for the record, I am the Sherriff, and if u dont like it, say so and I'll ban ur *** for u so u can keep ur head up, pround and mighty, and tell all ur pet Roos that u were picked on by the big bad bully.... Ive had enough of this cu*t.... Just crack it a little tiny bit, thats all it will take at this junction.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

You see Jeff there are 3 catagories of people here:

1. The Core/Regulars: Quite a bit of people who enjoy coming on here learning from each other about WW2 aviation. We all get along and there is no problem between any of us. There were even a few people like you that learned there lesson and now are contributing members of the forum and you know what they even get along with Les.

2. The Every once in a whilers: They come around a couple of times a month and make some pretty good posts that everyone learns from.

3. The meatballs: They either come here make stupid posts and never come back because they cant take the heat they get from it. Or there are the real meatballs that think they can be the **** and they get banned....

Basically we dont like meatballs around here. Catagory 1 and 2 are okay but meatball catagory people dont last long. I am sure they dont last long outside of cyberspace as well....


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 29, 2006)

I just like to learn and debate with good folks is all thanks for the reply 8)


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

Has to be the Ki-84.It could reach high altitudes,has 4mgs,and usually nice paint jobs.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 11, 2007)

yep the paint jobs do it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

I see my pm did not do any good.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 12, 2007)

JeffK said:


> Does this guy think he's the Sherriff , on many other Forum he would have been kicked of by now.
> 
> being a Navy seal explains a lot though.




Dude, comments like that get you no where fast and they earn you no friends. Don't insult a person's country or his time in the Military. 

Brutal


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Hunter that was back in July of last year!


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hunter that was back in July of last year!




Oops my bad.


----------



## Treize (Mar 18, 2007)

LoL, I was definitely in the minority saying "Tempest" wasn't I...

Still stand by it though, as far as combining overall speed, climb rate, maneuverability (not the best turner out there, but decent and rolls pretty well) and knock-down punch goes.

190D9 would be second.

Despite my avatar and bias, I wouldn't even put the 51 in the top 5. Its not a dogfighter, except in the hands of a real expert. high wing loading, poor climb, touchy handling characteristics...


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2007)

For what it is worth, at the Joint Fighter Conference, October, 1944, a large group of pilots evaluated and ranked fighters as to certain characteristics. Best all around fighter above 25000 ft: P47D,P51D,F4U1D, F6F5,F4U4,P38L Best all around fighter below 25000ft: P51D,F4U1D,F6F5,F4U4 (P38 and P47 not mentioned)


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2007)

I would be sorely pressed to not name Tempest based on High/low all around capability, but I couldn't remove the Spit or the F4U-4 or even the 51 but I would prefer the B w/Malcolm Hood.

This one goes back to Mission because I don't think any single one excelled at 30K, 15K or the Deck, nor can you include any of the above except Spit if you say it has to dogfight over water (as in a LOT of it)

So, unless you limit once again ops only with dry feet the silly old Corsair or Sea Fury is your huckleberry.. pesky questions

Regards,
Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2007)

plan_D said:


> No it wasn't. The Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang had a range advantage over the Spitfire, that's all.



So, how many German fighters did the Spit XIV shoot down as compared to P47D and P-51B/C (same ship different plant)..results are possibly an important factor in this discussion as all pilots are not equal and certainly not the engagement factors - and being able to go a long way and engage on even near equal terms is a huge advantage.

I would Not say the 51 (any variant) was a better dogfighter than the Spit - except for one very important factor - the range. The 51 was a better dogfighter over Brunswick, Stuttgart, Munich and Berlin simply because it was there and the Spit XIV was not. 

When the XIV could engage at altitude or on the deck it was better than the 51. If it had to fight some Yaks and Laags on the deck, maybe not? 

Anyway I'll vote for the XIV as the one I would lean to if I had to put my butt in the seat in a real fight.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2007)

as for battling the Soviet a/c at medium to deck level.........I'll take the Fw 190Dora every time. JG 3 accts prove this


----------



## Jackson (Jun 5, 2007)

was the Dora competitive over 30000 feet with a P38L?


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2007)

question would be this : did any Dora 9, 11 or 12 unit ever come in contact with any P-38 variant of the 15th Af ? in my opinion..............no

so how do you compare ? we do know that 15th AF units flying Stangs like the 31st fg were engaged with Doras even as early as January 20, 45 against II./JG 301 and even this Luftw. unit may have been in contact with P-38's. I doubt it seriously but it may have. Most Dora units were in touch with RAF/RCAF birds and with the Soviets in 45. JG 301 was on par with the US 8th AF daily


----------



## Jackson (Jun 5, 2007)

I dunno, it soo hard to compare, 

Lke the 51-H, I have heard that it shared NO compnents with the 51D... 

But heck, the F100 has a few P51D parts, like the rudder pedals..

How much did the Ta152 share with the Dora? The 152 never even got the chance to air out its developement problems, many were simply gounded. 

The P38 L , well, it was way past the pre "J" model problems.

To me the 152 was a 'shoulda woulda coulda" maybe.. Yeah I have heard about it fighting down on the deck, but I never heard of it getting anywhere never a P38 L at altitude. 

Think about it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2007)

And why do you bring that up Jackson? Whats your agenda hear? You bring up a 152 with Erich when he was not even talking about a 152...

He said against *Russian ACFT* at *Med to Deck level* he would taka *Fw 190D.* So why bring up a 152 against a P 38L above 30,000ft....

Stay on topic please.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

What about other manouvers beside turning and rolls like accelerate and brake? I guess that during a dogfight you'll be pushing and pulling in your (darn I can't remember the name but you know what I mean) to increase and decrease rpm, right? Which one of these had the best chance of braking to get your nemesis off your tail and then to accelerate to get behind this already mention person and nail him?


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

drgondog said:


> So, how many German fighters did the Spit XIV shoot down as compared to P47D and P-51B/C (same ship different plant)..results are possibly an important factor in this discussion as all pilots are not equal and certainly not the engagement factors - and being able to go a long way and engage on even near equal terms is a huge advantage.
> 
> I would Not say the 51 (any variant) was a better dogfighter than the Spit - except for one very important factor - the range. The 51 was a better dogfighter over Brunswick, Stuttgart, Munich and Berlin simply because it was there and the Spit XIV was not.
> 
> ...




Bill, the P-51 proved succesful because of its range and numbers, pure and simple. The P-51's simply swarmed the LW fighters pretty much everytime they met.

Another prime reason why the P-51 got more kills than the Spitfire was that it didn't dogfight the LW fighters anywhere near as much, it started out above the Allied bombers and poured down on the LW fighter whilst they were climbing or intercepting the bombers, a turkey shoot for any a/c equipped with guns.

The P-51 was not at all a good dogfighter, it was a decent B&Z fighter though.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

Soren and all, what would the scenery have been if there had been as many Fw 190D's as P-51D at the end of 1944?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 6, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill, the P-51 proved succesful because of its range and numbers, pure and simple. The P-51's simply swarmed the LW fighters pretty much everytime they met.
> 
> Another prime reason why the P-51 got more kills than the Spitfire was that it didn't dogfight the LW fighters anywhere near as much, it started out above the Allied bombers and poured down on the LW fighter whilst they were climbing or intercepting the bombers, a turkey shoot for any a/c equipped with guns.
> 
> .


why were they climbing when they had home court advantage any militery would strive to be the Hun in the Sun if they were capable


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 6, 2007)

> Soren and all, what would the scenery have been if there had been as many Fw 190D's as P-51D at the end of 1944?



A lot of wrecked bombers.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill, the P-51 proved succesful because of its range and numbers, pure and simple. The P-51's simply swarmed the LW fighters pretty much everytime they met.
> 
> Another prime reason why the P-51 got more kills than the Spitfire was that it didn't dogfight the LW fighters anywhere near as much, it started out above the Allied bombers and poured down on the LW fighter whilst they were climbing or intercepting the bombers, a turkey shoot for any a/c equipped with guns.
> 
> The P-51 was not at all a good dogfighter, it was a decent B&Z fighter though.



Soren - Do you have any knowledge of the strength and composition of the P-51 groups on February 1, March 1, April 1 and May 1 - 1944? Do you know and understand the tactical doctrine of 8th FC with respect to tactics? It was NOT to 'fly high above' the bomb groups. There were several reason which I will explain later if you care to hear them - 

Do you understand that the LW was smart? They didn't wake up 15 minutes before Bombs away and say to themselves "I must climb abd fighter for der Fatherland".

They didn't say to themselves "Gee the way we must fight is to a.) fly with as few possible and as low as possible so that we can ensure that "we Vill be outnumbered and stupiud", and b.) try not to put as many fighters and zerstorers in one area as possible to maximize the damage?

If you understand the relative strength of the 9th and 8th AF Mustang Groups - all accounted for during those months? If so, you should feel a little silly. 

Last but not least, there were so few encounters in which more than two Mustang squadrons actually engaged with any number from 20 to 200 LW fighters as to be unimportant. In that timeframe (of Jan 11 to end of May)

Because of the B/C Mustang early production problems many of those missions were flown at 1/2 to 2/3 strength so even two squadrons were lucky to meet the LW. You don't have to take my word for this, the strengths and statistics are published.

The reasons are simple - so few Mustangs on target support beyond range of P-47, but required to try and protect three separate Bomb Division Task Forces, and each Task Force going to different locations and each strung out 20-40 miles.

So, "Vere ar der Schwarms"??

It is hard to make "diving attacks with swarms" when you are mostly climbing to attack, frequently outnumbered, because the next nearest Mustang Group is 20-40 miles away escorting a different combat wing. This 'numerical defect' basically disappeared from June forward to major superiority on part of Mustangs and Long Range P-47s.

But if the Mustangs weren't 'dogfighting' to your standards, the Me109s and Fw190s were at least trying to and the reason I made the comment is that the pitiful 8th AF just had 'to make do' with a lousy dogfighter to make Strategic Bombing work - and somehow crushed the LW in the Jan-June timeframe with those pitiful machines.

I am really curious how much history you have studied from both sides..and your profile doesn't give much away?

Regards as always

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

Apparently you're not aware of the fact that mostly LW fighters were out-numbered 8 to 1 then ? Doesn't sound at all like what you describe... Not that its a surprise.



And as to my knowledge on the history of the airwar, well I've read countless books on the subject, most recently Willi Reschke's Wilde Sau which also notes the overwhelming advantage in numbers almost always enjoyed by the Allies. 

PS: Are you trying to be funny with these remarks ?:_"Do you understand that the LW was smart? They didn't wake up 15 minutes before Bombs away and say to themselves "I must climb abd fighter for der Fatherland".

They didn't say to themselves "Gee the way we must fight is to a.) fly with as few possible and as low as possible so that we can ensure that "we Vill be outnumbered and stupiud", and b.) try not to put as many fighters and zerstorers in one area as possible to maximize the damage?

If you understand the relative strength of the 9th and 8th AF Mustang Groups - all accounted for during those months? If so, you should feel a little silly"_



> There were several reason which I will explain later if you care to hear them -



I will not if you carry on in the same manner as above.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2007)

Soren lighten up he was just trying to be funny and that is what most German sound like when they speak English. You know the "Ve Haf vays to make you talk...."  My wife even laughs at it and she is German.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

What sounds perfectly good and funny when said, can sound completely different even when meant well. Language barriers and all that. I think that you know what I mean Adler, right?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> Apparently you're not aware of the fact that mostly LW fighters were out-numbered 8 to 1 then ? Doesn't sound at all like what you describe... Not that its a surprise.
> 
> And as to my knowledge on the history of the airwar, well I've read countless books on the subject, most recently Willi Reschke's Wilde Sau which also notes the overwhelming advantage in numbers almost always enjoyed by the Allies.
> 
> I will not if you carry on in the same manner as above.



From Dr Price's "The Lufwaffe Data Book"? He has a thorough Order of Battle for the Compositions of the Main Operational Units by Luftflotte and types for 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945.

For those that have this research tool we're talking about pages 75-128. If you want different numbers - pick another reference

Having said this here are the preliminary figures for all Luftwaffe Single engine fighters (Me 109 and Fw 190) for ALL fronts for the May snapshots
All
Year S/E Luft3 Reich Total(1) %
1942 945
1943 980 198 207 405 41
1944 1063 115 439 554 52

1. % of ALL operational s/e Fighters in Luftwaffe - not including Italian, Romanian, etc fighters not assigned to a JG.

This does not include the Luft's assigned to Norway, To Italy, to Romania/Hungary/Austria/SW Russia, the W Russia, the NW Russia

These figures do not include any of the Kamp's assigned 190's - this is strictly the total number of Single engine day fighters assignable to attack USAAF bomber and fighter forces from England. 

The units deployed in South part of Luftflotten Reich available to Support Lufts from Austria and Italy or attacks into S. Germany from Italy but not counted above as fighter forces from Luftflotten 2 and Kdo Sud Ost were available to resist those.

To our debates regarding 'Ratio's', only the Reich numbers should be used as it can be presumed that Lufflotte 3 *JG/2 and JG26* would have their hands full with P-47's and Spits over France and Lowlands while JG's 1, 3, 5, 11, 27, 53, one gruppe of JG54, JG300, one gruppe of JG301, one gruppe of JG302 comprised Reich.

These data reflect only 'effectives' not 'authorized' based in Germany.

So, these figures represent the Maximum number of Me 109s and Fw190s available to take on Mustang escort for deep penetrations.

Two facts should be considered based on Price's numbers - First, the maximum percentage available to East Front is 48% - and that is only if all of Italy, Norway, Rumania, Austria, Czech and Poland based fighters were applied to fight Soviets and ignored attacks on Ploesti for example by 12 and 15AF. Second, that is a long way from the 85% you cited as fighting on the Ost Front.

*Summary May 1, 1944 - 439 Me 109s and Fw190s available within Germany to assist Zerstroyers and the NJG's attacking the bombers. That is more than twice the TOTAL number of Mustangs in ALL the operational Fighter Groups in the entire 8th and 9th and 12th and 15th AF*

It seems intuitive that great numerical superiority of German S/E Mustang Killers could be focused on any one or two Mustang groups covering a Task Force. Not saying impossible for Mustang groups always at a disadvantage - but I hope this illustrates why I don't accept the legends of 'swarms of Mustangs attacking us' at face value in every debate.

It seems far less intuitive that smart Luftwaffe controllers continually insisted on attacking with inferior numbers when superior is better AND available.

So, why do you insist on "swarms, greatly outnumber, 8:1, 12:1, etc, Ratios of Mustangs to German Fighters? I have never disputed the fact that the Luftwaffe was outnumbered by USAAF fighters over targets by 1945 - what I do dispute is the notion that the Luftwaffe Fighter Arm took terrible losses from Mustangs during long range escorts Jan-May, 1944 DUE to Numerical Advantage - when it was the Reverse scenario instead.

If you don't like my logic - do your own but don't throw words back from LW fighter pilots trying to explain why they lost control of the air between Jan 1944 and May 1944?

The USAAF Mustangs from England (all the ones available to attack Germany) in those first 5 months were Out Numbered by Germany based Single Engine Fighters. by 10:1 in Jan, 5:1 in Feb by 2:1 in March and 4:3 in April.

Show me your data if I am wrong on the statistics? 

Show me the facts on the alleged desparation of Luftwaffe 'climbing to attack' when I believe they mostly were waiting from higher altitude and trying to avoid escort Mustangs altogether, and engage bombers/fighters from above..

Regards

Bill


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 16, 2007)

Adolf Galland said:


> well i'd say that itz depending on the pliot



Totally, the FockeWulfe 190 is probably the best but i'm most experienced in the Yak-3.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2007)

Bird-Nerd said:


> Totally, the FockeWulfe 190 is probably the best but i'm most experienced in the Yak-3.



Experienced in the Yak-3?


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 17, 2007)

Games + armchair pilots


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2007)

Yep!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2007)

Bird-Nerd said:


> Totally, the FockeWulfe 190 is probably the best but i'm most experienced in the Yak-3.



Are you talking about video games, because this forum is about real aircraft.


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 18, 2007)

Both, the Yak-3 is the only warbird i've ever flown in real life (family owned) it was one of the reproductions which doesn't have the real klimov engine made in the 90's or whatever the year was... I had about 10 hours in it then I went back home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

And you were checked out in it or was an UTI?


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 18, 2007)

Really I'm not checked out in any planes. I don't even have a liscense, my dad just taught me how to fly in a cropduster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

Bird-Nerd said:


> Really I'm not checked out in any planes. I don't even have a liscense, my dad just taught me how to fly in a cropduster.



Oh really? And what was that in? An Agcat or a Pawnee?


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 18, 2007)

those are single seat...
it was a boeing-stearman model 75 kaydet


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

Bird-Nerd said:


> those are single seat...
> it was a boeing-stearman model 75 kaydet



Wow - I didn't know anyone was still dusting with Stearmans. Where might this be at?


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 19, 2007)

It was 17 years ago. it's scrapped now because it went to crap.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2007)

I see......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2007)

So is Ponderosa Avaition in Az?


----------



## Plane Freak (Jul 10, 2007)

cheddar cheese said:


> Spit XIV, no contest...



i agree


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2007)

And you got banned, so who cares....


----------



## ju87 (May 25, 2008)

i said the me 109.

ju87


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 29, 2008)

Later versions of those planes were better - Ta 152, P-47M/N, P-51H, F6F-5 and F4U-4.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

I have a book from osprey called aicraft of the aces legends of world war two. the last chapter is called master falcon. It talks about the kawasaki ki100. In it a force of 24 ki100's interceptid 200 p-51s. In the end the japs shoot down 11 p-51s and only lost 3 planes in return. The story is told from the perspective of a japenise pilot and claims that it was easy for them to shoot the mustangs down. I belive the mustang had a 60 mph speed advantige over the ki100. I think that is proof that the ki100 is one of if not the best dogfighter of world war two.
Here is a link for the ki100 Kawasaki Ki-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

the dora....

Hey! I'm with the majority on this one!

Of course, I am assuming that it has the Mk 103 and the MG 151 combination.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2008)

103???


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 6, 2008)

The Fw 190D-9's armament was 2x cowl upper mounted MG 131's plus 2x wing root mounted MG 151/20's.

The D-9 had no engine mounted gun (I don't think there was even a proposed verion with the MK 103) and it lacked the outer wing cannons. (which was a possible mounting for MK 108's)

THe D-12/13 had engine guns, though neither had the MK 103. (D-12 MK 108, D-13 MG 151/20)

The only place any Fw 190 mounted the MK 103 was in underwing pods, and then only on the Anton.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

I seemed to have read that a Mk 103 WAS tested on at least one D-9 in the engine block mounting position...are you positive that not a single Dora was so built? Or, perhaps, am I confusing that single Dora with a test Ta !52?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 6, 2008)

There was a proposed version of the Bf 109K with an MK 103 engine gun, and of course the Do 335.

There was also a version of the Ta 152C with the MK 103.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

DANG I think you're right, and I've mixed up my Dora with my Tank!
Oh well, even with a 151 in the engine bloc and two more in the wing roots, the Dora's still got what it takes!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 20, 2009)

Looks like the Dora has beaten the competition. 

It's a "Butcher Bird" after all. Probably one of the most scary birds the Allies ever had to face, except for the Me 262. 

It's too bad the Allies didn't get their own jet out in time.


----------



## Duke Soddy (Jan 18, 2010)

The Dora was a beast to deal with between 15-20000 ft, but above that it was a pig, very sluggish at the controls. Hense the reason Kurt Tank considered the Dora and iterim fighter aircraft while he implimented his masterpiece the Ta-152.

The only way you could possible consider the P-51 a better _dogfighter_ than any other advanced fighter at the end of the war is if you took in range as a variable. It would get you there, but in a fight the 47 was more capable of over coming the enemy using angles as well as speed . The 51 had to use more pure energy tactics, and was even slower than the Jug, and the Jug could turn inside the 51, it just couldn't go as far as the Mustang.


----------



## Locke (Jan 18, 2010)

I'd have to give the Dora my vote ^_^


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 28, 2017)

The TA-152 didn't make the list!!! Given that I voted for the Thunderbolt. The high roll rate allows it to stay out of trouble in a dog fight, and as soon as you exit and dive away the thunderbolt has you. The big engine, paddle props, and supercharger makes it work well at the high altitudes. Robert Johnson proved he could best spitfires in mock combats using the superior roll rate to advantage. Eight 50's give good armament for fighter vs fighter and deflection shooting. If you read the book thunderbolt, you realize that it's the Allied's high altitude dog fighter. (as big and clumsy as it looks).

I thought about the N1K, but it didn't have good altitude performance. Those automatic flaps (similar to the leading edge flaps on the ME-109) allowed very tight turning. This will start an argument, but when the leading edge flaps were working, the ME-109 will out turn a Spitfire at lower speeds.


----------



## Glider (Dec 29, 2017)

At those altitudes the Spit is the best all rounder. It had agility, climb and speed.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 29, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> The TA-152 didn't make the list!!! Given that I voted for the Thunderbolt. The high roll rate allows it to stay out of trouble in a dog fight, and as soon as you exit and dive away the thunderbolt has you. The big engine, paddle props, and supercharger makes it work well at the high altitudes. Robert Johnson proved he could best spitfires in mock combats using the superior roll rate to advantage. Eight 50's give good armament for fighter vs fighter and deflection shooting. If you read the book thunderbolt, you realize that it's the Allied's high altitude dog fighter. (as big and clumsy as it looks).
> 
> I thought about the N1K, but it didn't have good altitude performance. Those automatic flaps (similar to the leading edge flaps on the ME-109) allowed very tight turning. This will start an argument, but when the leading edge flaps were working, the ME-109 will out turn a Spitfire at lower speeds.


Your post compares both the P 47 and Bf 109 to the Spitfire in certain conditions. to me that makes the Spitfire the best.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 29, 2017)

Burmese Bandit said:


> the dora....
> 
> Hey! I'm with the majority on this one!
> 
> Of course, I am assuming that it has the Mk 103 and the MG 151 combination.



On this day, there is no majority; the plurality is held by the Spitfire at 27%. 
Any of these aircraft could have defeated any of their contemporaries if the pilots were using tactics appropriate to their aircraft or started with and were able to hold a tactical advantage. 

After all, AD Skyraider pilots shot down MiG-15s, and it wasn't because the Spad was a particularly great fighter aircraft -- it wasn't -- but because the MiG drivers fought to the AD's strengths.


----------



## drewwizard (Jan 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> On this day, there is no majority; the plurality is held by the Spitfire at 27%.
> Any of these aircraft could have defeated any of their contemporaries if the pilots were using tactics appropriate to their aircraft or started with and were able to hold a tactical advantage.
> 
> After all, AD Skyraider pilots shot down MiG-15s, and it wasn't because the Spad was a particularly great fighter aircraft -- it wasn't -- but because the MiG drivers fought to the AD's strengths.



Well said, P-40s downed a lot of Zero's by using the advantage. ME-109 pilots found out quickly that the spitfire engine stalled in negative Gs. The FW-190 could out turn both spitfire and me-109. If I remember right, the spitfire had the climb advantage. I used to be a real spitfire fan (fell in love with the Mark 21). After reading many pilot accounts I eventually became a fw-190 fan. All the top fighters were deadly in the right hands with a pilot who exploits the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages. The latest book I am reading is Green Hearts first in combat with the Dora 9. Great fighter with very green pilots and used at very low altitudes. The great performance did not help when the plane was not used in it's best role, or it's advantages leveraged. I recommend the book.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> Well said, P-40s downed a lot of Zero's by using the advantage. ME-109 pilots found out quickly that the spitfire engine stalled in negative Gs. The FW-190 could out turn both spitfire and me-109. If I remember right, the spitfire had the climb advantage. I used to be a real spitfire fan (fell in love with the Mark 21). After reading many pilot accounts I eventually became a fw-190 fan. All the top fighters were deadly in the right hands with a pilot who exploits the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages. The latest book I am reading is Green Hearts first in combat with the Dora 9. Great fighter with very green pilots and used at very low altitudes. The great performance did not help when the plane was not used in it's best role, or it's advantages leveraged. I recommend the book.



The Bf 109 could not out-turn the Spitfire.

The Fw 190 could not out-turn the Spitfire. But it could out-roll, the Spitfire.

The Fw 190A could out-climb the Spitfire V. Possibly not the ones with the cropped impeller, though.

The Spitfire XIV was judged to be able to out-climb, out-dive and out-turn a Fw 190A when carrying an auxiliary fuel tank.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> P-40s downed a lot of Zero's by using the advantage.


Please provide sources for such claims as the truth is the P-40 barely held a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero. Read "Bloody Shambles" for starters.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 5, 2018)

'There are many very competent fighters listed here, and each one has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses. In my mind however it's probably easier to separate the herd into two altitude categories, such as which fighter was supreme below 20K and which ruled the skies above it. If that were the case here then I'd say the F6F was the dominant fighter below 20K and the P-51 above. I feel that the F6F's superb low speed handling and maneuverability, immense strength, and excellent gun platform characteristics gave it a nice balance of "weapons" to use in a dogfight that took place at low to medium altitudes. It was never bested by any of it's adversaries, and this also applies to the German fighters it encountered in mid 1944, however brief that encounter may have been.

And although Hellcat had a competent performance all the way up to it's service ceiling, I would still have to concede the fight to the Mustang above 20k because it's fairly well known that the P-51 was a machine that was at it's best high up, where many airplanes started to lose huge aspects of their performance envelope, becoming more vulnerable and thus being an easier target for enemy bullets. At these heights the P-51 had a nice combination of good speed, decent firepower, great range, adequate agility, and excellent visibility with it's bubble canopy. It basically was good or great at everything that was expected of a WWII fighter plane, especially when taking the fight to an enemy.

I don't think it's purely a coincidence that more American pilots earned "acedom" while flying the F6F and P-51 than any other type of US fighter. A combined 10,000 aerial victories says a lot for the prowess of these two great war machines.....


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> <snip>.



Luckily, there is no flag-waving in that post


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 5, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Luckily, there is no flag-waving in that post



Of course there's flag waving; the aircraft listed are too close in overall performance to permit an objective choice based merely on the aircraft's physical characteristics, so they get muddled by pilot quality, aerial tactics, and operational issues.

There is limited, objective data, albeit imperfect comparing some of these aircraft. I suspect that one can find much more reliable data comparing US to British aircraft than Allied to Axis aircraft, especially from before the end of the War, as the US and Commonwealth air services (not just Air Forces) were on relatively good terms, and exchanging data: the USN/USMC, USAAF, RAAF, RAF, RCAF, RN/FAA, etc were all talking to each other and flying overlapping sets of aircraft.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 5, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Luckily, there is no flag-waving in that post



LOL it may seem that way but everything I said is completely factual and unbiased. Should I be blamed for America producing an arsenal of excellent weaponry that had a major role in soundly defeating the oppressive Nazi and Japanese regimes????


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> LOL it may seem that way but everything I said is completely factual and unbiased. Should I be blamed for America producing an arsenal of excellent weaponry that had a major role in soundly defeating the oppressive Nazi and Japanese regimes????



Completely factual it was not - you did not provided measurable data that might prove your point. You also seem to equate victory claims with proven victories.
Nobody was acusing you for feats of design, production and use of American weaponry.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 5, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Completely factual it was not - you did not provided measurable data that might prove your point. You also seem to equate victory claims with proven victories.
> Nobody was acusing you for feats of design, production and use of American weaponry.


......Hmmmmm I think I used "measurable data" when I mentioned 10,000 aerial victories. Those are officially recognized totals provided by United States government sources, which are well known and accepted by the majority of people who frequent this forum. Didn't you notice I said "victories" and did not use the terms "kills" or "destroyed"? You really need to be more observant before starting a spirited debate with people for whom you disagree with or find contempt for.....


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 5, 2018)

If dog fighting is the only criteria, would not biplanes rule?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> If dog fighting is the only criteria, would not biplanes rule?


I think that was a school of thought in the 1930s, Stona (I think) made a post about it a while ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ......Hmmmmm I think I used "measurable data" when I mentioned 10,000 aerial victories. Those are officially recognized totals provided by United States government sources, which are well known and accepted by the majority of people who frequent this forum. Didn't you notice I said "victories" and did not use the terms "kills" or "destroyed"? You really need to be more observant before starting a spirited debate with people for whom you disagree with or find contempt for.....



If you think that I went _ad hominem_, I apologize.
10000 victories do not equate with what aircraft was the best dogfighter. If that was so, we'd have the Bf 109 as a winner. Victories reflect much more than qualities of individual fighter aircraft - for example the state of training & experience of both sides, presence of force multipliers (radars on surface or in air, ditto for jammers*), numbers of oposing combatants. For example, the Hawker Tempest possesd far better performance than any in-service Hellcat, it rolled very fast, and it was capable to either beat or at least hold it's own vs. anything Luftwaffe throw against it. Ditto for Spitfire XIV, while Hellcat can't compete, as represeted in the US Navy comparative test where Fw 190 was pitted against Hellcat and Corsair.
I don't think that you will draw a correct picture of what majority of the forum members know and accept as a fact by reading the posts in short time.

*radars and other up-to-date electronics were crucial in winning the BoB and the Battle of Atlantic, plus assorted campaigns vs. Axis, many naval battles inn the ww2, Falkland war, Middle east wars

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 5, 2018)

Your apology is not necessary but accepted nevertheless. The mention of victory totals was only one reason why I feel that these two aircraft are the best dog fighting aircraft of WWII. After all, the responses to this thread will normally be part opinion and part statistical in nature. I firmly believe that the actual war record of a particular fighter speaks volumes and should be included in any debate in which we are discussing it's relative merits.

The BF 109 was indeed a very successful aircraft and worthy of note. it's victory total should be included as well, along with any other attributes it may have possessed. But I was making an argument for the Hellcat and Mustang so why would I spend time building a case for it or FW 190???

Anyway, I have that report you mentioned concerning the US Navy's comparative trials between the F6F-3, the F4U-1, and the FW 190A-4 (Project TED No. PTR-11107 dated 17 Jan 1944). It's an excellent analysis but I have obviously drawn a completely different conclusion than what you proposed in your post. Maybe you should re-read it, as you may find yourself changing your view in regards to this supposed superiority of the FW 190A series over the Hellcat fighter.

The Tempest and late war Spitfires were indeed outstanding aircraft in their own right, and they too contributed to the destruction of Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent, Imperial Japan. And while I'll agree with you concerning the roll rate of each fighter (they did in fact exceed that of the F6F), there are other aspects of a performance envelope to consider when looking at dog fighting abilities. The Hellcat is known to have had one of the best high-speed rate of turn among the late war types so we have that to consider as well....

And I'm in complete agreement concerning the outside influences that effect the overall effectiveness of a fighter plane. But that's for another thread, we should just stick to the narrow topic at hand, which is which of the airplanes listed do we feel is the best "dogfighter" of WWII. I gave my reasons for selecting the F6F and P-51, and I see that you have your favorites as well. So why not just respect each other's opinions and share information freely, without making rude or snide comments, shall we?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 5, 2018)

Victory totals may be an indication as much of opportunity as it is of an aircraft's fighting qualities.

Opportunities against lesser opponents - aircraft, pilots (less well trained and/or novices) and situation.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 5, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ......Hmmmmm I think I used "measurable data" when I mentioned 10,000 aerial victories.



It's measurable data but it is not a direct comparison of the aircraft; as a comparison of aircraft it's contaminated by a host of factors such as pilot quality, tactics, aircraft serviceability, and sheer quantity.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Your apology is not necessary but accepted nevertheless. The mention of victory totals was only one reason why I feel that these two aircraft are the best dogfighting aircraft of WWII. After all, the responses to this thread will normally be part opinion and part statistical in nature. I firmly believe that the actual war record of a particular fighter speaks volumes and should be included in any debate in which we are discussing it's relative merits.



War record has it's weight, however the quality of an aircraft contributes just a part on that, not 100%. Again, if we use war record as the main measure of quality of a fighter aircraft then Bf 109 was the best fighter ever.



> The BF-109 was indeed a very successful aircraft and worthy of note. it's victory total should be included as well, along with any other attributes it may have possessed. But I was making an argument for the Hellcat and Mustang so why would I spend time building a case for it or FW-190???
> 
> Anyway, I have that report you mentioned concerning the US Navy's comparative trials between the F6F-3, the F4U-1, and the FW-190A/4 (Project TED No. PTR-11107 dated 17 Jan 1944). It's an excellent analysis but I have obviously drawn a completely different conclusion than what you proposed in your post. Maybe you should re-read it, as you may find yourself changing your view in regards to this supposed superiority of the FW-190A series over the Hellcat fighter.



The test in question states that Fw 190 was better or at least equal in speed, rate of climb, acceleration, rate of roll, while the F6F was found to have better maneuverability, mostly turn capabilities.



> The Tempest and late war Spitfires were indeed outstanding aircraft in their own right, and they too contributed to the destruction of Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent, Imperial Japan. And while I'll agree with you concerning the roll rate of each fighter (they did in fact exceed that of the F6F), there are other aspects of a performance envelope to consider when looking at dogfighting abilities. The Hellcat is known to have had one of the best overall rate of turn amongst the late war types so we have that to consider as well....



Quirk is that having the rate of turn will win an aerial dogfight if the enemy does know what he's doing, or has an under-performing aircraft. The Japanese aircraft bein case in point - always turned well, but hacked from the skies once better tactics were employed by Allied ari forces/services, let alone once the Allies started employing slightly of much faster aircraft in Asia/Pacific (P-38, Spitfire, F6F, F4U, P-47, P-51). Even a well-flown P-40 will do well if the pilot keeps his speed up and avoid low-speed turns - P-40 rolled much better than Japanese when speed is high, and dived far better.
The RAF came in with the same conclusion with Spitfire V vs. Fw 190 - even with Spit turning better, it was dangerous to be in the same airspace with Fw 190. Only realistic and timely cure was introduction of better performing Spitfire, the Mk. IX.



> And I'm in complete agreement concerning the outside influences that effect the overall effectiveness of a fighter plane. But that's for another thread, we should just stick to the narrow topic at hand, which is which of the airplanes listed do we feel is the best "dogfighter" of WWII. I gave my reasons for selecting the F6F and P-51, and I see that you have your favorites as well. So why not just respect each other's opinions and share information freely, without making rude or snide comments, shall we?



My comment on 'outside influences' was to point oiut that your metrics (number of victories) is a product of many factors, not just aircraft quality.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> ...while Hellcat can't compete, as represeted in the US Navy comparative test where Fw 190 was pitted against Hellcat and Corsair....



Is that what you gathered after reading this report?!?

Excerpts from the aforementioned comparative tests:

"The F4U-1 and F6F-3 were found to be much more maneuverable than the FW 190. No maneuvers could be done in the FW 190 which could not be followed by both the F4U-1 and F6F-3...."

"It was found that the FW 190 requires a much greater turning radius in which to loop than either the F4U-1 or F6F-3, and tends to stall sharply when trying to follow the F4U-1 or F6F in a loop..."

"The general opinion of the pilots who made the comparative tests is that the FW 190 is an extremely simple airplane to fly and is designed for pilot convenience, but is not equal to the F4U-1 or F6F-3 in combat..."

"All the pilots agreed that the F4U-1 and F6F-3 would be preferred in actual combat operations..."

"Results of comparative tests of turning characteristics showed the F4U-1 and F6F-3 to be far superior to the FW 190. Both the F6F and F4U could follow the FW 190A in turns with ease at any speed, but the FW 190 could not follow either of the two airplanes..."

Speed comparisons (MPH):

Height (Feet )/ FW 190A-4 / F6F-3
200/ 334/ 334
5,000/ 357/ 351
10,000/ 357/ 348
15,000/ 386/ 369
20,000/ 401/ 381
25,000/ 410/ 391

Diving (never exceed) restrictions:
FW 190A-4: 466 MPH below 10,000 feet ("according to captured document and posted on indicator" - quote from report)
F6F-3: 477 MPH below 10,000 feet (according to wartime Pilot's Handbook)

As you can plainly see there isn't a huge difference in top speed between the two airplanes until around 15,000 feet. But even at these higher altitudes the difference is negligible IMHO and would not change the outcome of a dogfight.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Quirk is that having the rate of turn will win an aerial dogfight if the enemy does know what he's doing, or has an under-performing aircraft. The Japanese aircraft bein case in point - always turned well, but hacked from the skies once better tactics were employed by Allied ari forces/services, let alone once the Allies started employing slightly of much faster aircraft in Asia/Pacific (P-38, Spitfire, F6F, F4U, P-47, P-51). Even a well-flown P-40 will do well if the pilot keeps his speed up and avoid low-speed turns - P-40 rolled much better than Japanese when speed is high, and dived far better.
> The RAF came in with the same conclusion with Spitfire V vs. Fw 190 - even with Spit turning better, it was dangerous to be in the same airspace with Fw 190. Only realistic and timely cure was introduction of better performing Spitfire, the Mk. IX.



If I remember correctly, it was more than just new tactics that helped to defeat the "dreaded" Japanese Zero. The A6M was indeed a great turning aircraft, but only up to around 200 MPH, after that the controls began to get heavy and it's turning radius went south rather quickly. A dogfight above those speeds was suicide for a Zero, and when the Japanese pilot broke hard into a dive to escape this situation he would most likely be caught and shot down by the Hellcat pilot.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

Since the poll is about combat between 15,000 and 35,000ft I don't see how anything could touch the Me 262 since if it doesn't want to fight you cant make it. The situation in 1944/45 was that the need to attack the bombers forced combat but in 1 on 1 combat I cant see anything else getting near it.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> It's measurable data but it is not a direct comparison of the aircraft; as a comparison of aircraft it's contaminated by a host of factors such as pilot quality, tactics, aircraft serviceability, and sheer quantity.



You are absolutely right, but so is all other data, such as various flight tests, combat reports, and pilot reflections.

Speaking of flight tests, were all aircraft from all nations test flown by the same pilots, using the same test instruments that were calibrated to read identical under the same conditions? This is a rhetorical question of course.....


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> LOL is that what you gathered after reading this report?!?
> 
> Excerpts from the aforementioned comparative tests:
> 
> ...



I've already stated that F6F was found to be more maneuverable than Fw 190, so the quoted remarks are moot points. With regard to the pilots opinons - US pilots were praising their aircraft, just like most of the other pilots were praising their A/C when given a choice.
You seem to overlook that Fw 190 out-climbed and out-accelerated F6F.



> Speed comparisons (MPH):
> 
> Height (Feet)/ FW-190A4/ F6F-3
> 200/ 334/ 334
> ...



20 mph worth of difference is quite a bit. Nobody wanted a slower aircraft. BTW - before 1944 there was no war emergency setting for the F6F, speed on military power was about 320 mph at 5000 ft and 340+- mph at 10000 ft. Thus in 1943 Fw 190 was faster at all altitudes, and climbed better. By late 1943, Fw 190A-5 was doing 360 mph at 5000 ft and 375 mph at 10000 ft - much faster than F6F with war emergency power.



DarrenW said:


> If I remember correctly, it was more than new tactics that helped to defeat the "dreaded" Japanese Zero. The A6M was indeed a great turning aircraft, but only up to around 200MPH, after that the controls became exceedingly heavy and it's turning radius went south mighty quick. A dogfight above those speeds was suicide for a Zero, and when the Japanese pilot broke hard into a dive to escape this situation he would be quickly caught and shot down by the Hellcat pilot.



Tactics, teamwork, radars, ability to take hits, numerical advantage - all was there in the Allied hands many months before Hellcat was in service. Combined with huge numbers of land- and ship-based AAA, Japanese air services were on the ropes by ealry 1943.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Since the poll is about combat between 15,000 and 35,000ft I don't see how anything could touch the Me 262 since if it doesn't want to fight you cant make it. The situation in 1944/45 was that the need to attack the bombers forced combat but in 1 on 1 combat I cant see anything else getting near it.



That's a very good point. I'm sure that's the primary reason why allied pilots waited around German airfields and hit the jets while they landed, when they were most vulnerable.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Speed comparisons (MPH):
> 
> Height (Feet)/ FW-190A4/ F6F-3
> 200/ 334/ 334
> ...



Fnatastic.

By mid 1943 the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat had slightly superior performance to an early 1941 Supermarine Spitfire V.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> I've already stated that F6F was found to be more maneuverable than Fw 190, so the quoted remarks are moot points. With regard to the pilots opinons - US pilots were praising their aircraft, just like most of the other pilots were praising their A/C when given a choice.
> You seem to overlook that Fw 190 out-climbed and out-accelerated F6F.
> 
> 
> ...



The reports states "slightly" superior in acceleration ABOVE 160 knots (which is around climbing speed for most aircraft of this era). It wouldn't be a game changer. And while the report did mention the FW 190 climb as superior in some aspects, it also said that at 140 Knots and below 15,000 feet the climbs were about equal.

I knew you would discount the report as soon as it didn't agree with your position but I'm in agreement with you that pilots tend to believe in their own machines over the enemy. But your assertion that the report concluded that the Hellcat couldn't compete with the FW 190 is just patently false.

And I know about War Emergency Power (WEP). This was added in January 1944, which was a mere 4 months from it's introduction into combat. Where did you get those speed figures for the FW 190A-5, they look a little optimistic to me.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Fnatastic.
> 
> By mid 1943 the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat had slightly superior performance to an early 1941 Supermarine Spitfire V.



LOL are you guys trying to tag team me here?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2018)

I would note that the F6F-3 and F6F-5 used just about the same engine. The R-2800-10s in the field (carrier hanger) could be converted to the R-2800-10W version with the addition of a retro-fit kit. Difference in performance between a -3 and -5 Hellcat would be minimal if both are using water injection. Alight difference in cowl and/or prop? 
external fittings?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> That's a very good point. I'm sure that's the primary reason why allied pilots waited around German airfields and hit the jets while they landed, when they were most vulnerable.


The same would apply today to a squadron of F-22s confronted with 600 P 51s.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> You are absolutely right, but so is all other data, such as various flight tests, combat reports, and pilot reflections.
> 
> Speaking of flight tests, were all aircraft from all nations test flown by the same pilots, using the same test instruments that were calibrated to read identical under the same conditions? This is a rhetorical question of course.....



The closest to that sort of test were a series performed between various US aircraft. With these, it would be possible to get equally skilled pilots in aircraft known to be properly maintained and operated properly.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the F6F-3 and F6F-5 used just about the same engine. The R-2800-10s in the field (carrier hanger) could be converted to the R-2800-10W version with the addition of a retro-fit kit. Difference in performance between a -3 and -5 Hellcat would be minimal if both are using water injection. Alight difference in cowl and/or prop?
> external fittings?



There were many small differences, which when added together equated to improved performance. During several recorded tests that particular model of Hellcat was clocked at more than 400 MPH.....


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Victory totals may be an indication as much of opportunity as it is of an aircraft's fighting qualities.
> 
> Opportunities against lesser opponents - aircraft, pilots (less well trained and/or novices) and situation.



Yes I agree, the majority of the enemy that opposed the United States during WWII were lesser opponents.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I knew you would discount the report as soon as it didn't agree with your position but I'm in agreement with you that pilots tend to believe in their own machines over the enemy. But your assertion that the report concluded that the Hellcat couldn't compete with the FW-190 is just patently false.



I'm glad that you adhere to your own advice about not making snide remarks. I will bow to the hard figures, however once opinions are stated they usualy require grain of salt.
Yes, my comment that F6F couldn't compete with Fw 190 was wrong.



> And I know about War Emergency Power (WEP). This was added in January 1944, which was a mere 4 months from it's introduction into combat. And those figures you quoted look like the worst case scenario for a very battle worn machine. I've seen far better figures for even the lowest MAP settings. Can you tell me which document you derived those figures from? Also, where did you get those speed figures for the FW-190A/5, they look a little optimistic to me. But I suppose there could have been ONE capable of that performance.



F6F making ~330 mph at 5050 ft, 340 mph at 10050 ft, manufacturer's specs: link
310 mph at 5000 ft, 330 mph at 10000 ft: link
320 mph at 5000 ft, 335 mph at 10000 ft: link
All for military power.
Fw 190A-5 with perf figures I've quoted: link
The draggy & overweight A-8 making 360 mph at 5000 ft, 370 mph at 10000 ft: link

All of this before we add Fw 190A-9 or D-9, that were out-performing any F6F.



> Lastly, should I bring out the stats I have for tests performed on the F6F-5? I say this because it's performance exceeded the F6F-3 by a noticeable margin. I figure it's only fair as you decided to discuss the FW-190A/5 rather than stick to the A/4 version......



The Fw 190A-5 was contemporary of F6F-3. Same engine and same armament as the A-4, so nothing is lost there, and performance figures are much more widely available.
I have no problems with any set of performance figures you post, they can just add to the discussion.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

I have seen the first F6F-3 document you listed. The speeds listed are only estimates and do not reflect those actually attained. However, I'm in agreement with you that the main asset of the Hellcat series was not outright speed (read all of my posts and this can be confirmed). However it could be a very elusive target in a dogfight, due to it's powerful engine and generously large wing which allowed for abrupt and violent turns to be made. This, coupled with great low speed handling, made the fighter very lethal in close quarter aerial combat. And luckily it was always "fast enough" to allow the pilot to leave the fight, if caught at a disadvantage.

Thanks for the FW-190 links. However you sent me two documents for the A-8 model. It may have been heavier than earlier models but it had the C3 boost system which increased engine power by about 15%. It's definitely more comparable to the later F6F-5 version. And I was able to find a German test report for the FW-190A-5. It's speed is more in line to what I'm use to seeing for this earlier version of the aircraft (se attachment).

I also attached two files for the F6F-5 (one of these includes comparison figures for the F6F-3). In this particular document they list the minor structural differences between the -3 and -5 models as well. You will also see that the reported top speed of the F6F-5 (391 MPH) was on military power and not combat (WEP). This aircraft also suffered from lower than normal neutral blower power so this obviously affected both speed and climb as well.

The comparative trials against the A6M5 is worthy of note. Under WEP, the F6F achieved 409 MPH, which proves that the Hellcat was a true 400 MPH aircraft. I believe that this version could compete with the long nose D-9 on somewhat equal terms, but it would be a tough fight for sure.

And I apologize if you feel I insulted you earlier. I'm very passionate about this subject so I just got carried away a bit......


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I have seen the first F6F-3 document you listed. The speeds listed are only estimates and do not reflect those actually attained. However, I'm in agreement with you that the main asset of the Hellcat series was not outright speed (read all of my posts and this can be confirmed). However it could be a very elusive target in a dogfight, due to it's powerful engine and generously large wing which allowed for abrupt and violent turns to be made. This, coupled with great low speed handling, made the fighter very lethal in close quarter aerial combat. And luckily it was always "fast enough" to allow the pilot to leave the fight, if caught at a disadvantage.



There is plenty of speed graphs on the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site where F6F can't do 400 mph, tests not estimates, military and WER power. And only one test report where the F6F attained better than 400 mph. Powerful engine was present in most of the mid/late war fighter, it is power vs. weight and power vs. drag what counted. In either of these categories the F6F was perhaps 15th on the list? Both Grumman and Navy were well aware of that, hence the drive for the F7F and F8F, they probably missed the chance to go with F6F-6 instead.



> Most British tests of the Hellcat I've seen (like another report you linked) quote a top speed that's around 10-15 MPH less than a large majority of other Hellcat test documents. I can see where some people will think that these figures represented a factory fresh aircraft. It's a fairly well known fact that operational aircraft did not attain factory performance figures (with a loss of as much as 5-10%), due to wear and tear, and that's exactly what these test aircraft were.



Vast majority of US data gives 380-390 mph for the Hellcat. The -5 included.



> Thanks for the FW-190 links. However you sent me two documents for the A/8 model. It may have been heavier than earlier models but it had the C3 boost system which increased engine power by about 15%. It's definitely more comparable to the later F6F-5 version. And I was able to find a German test report for the FW-190A/5. It's speed is more in line to what I'm use to seeing for this earlier version of the aircraft (se attachment).



It might be a good idea just to post the links for the docs at William's site, instead of posting the whole docs here.
The 1st link is for the A-5 using over-boost, not the additional C3 injection. Tests for the later can be read at teh Fw 190A-5 part of the Williams' site. The A-5 will do well even with 'normal' emergency power, eg. ~370 mph both at 5000 and 10000 ft (link , link).



> I also attached two files for the F6F-5 (one of these includes comparison figures for the F6F-3). In this particular document they list the minor structural differences between the -3 and -5 models as well. You will also see that the reported top speed of the F6F-5 (391 MPH) was on military power and not combat (WEP). This aircraft also suffered from lower than normal neutral blower power so this obviously affected both speed and climb as well.
> 
> The comparative trials against the A6m5 is worthy of note. Under WEP, the F6F achieved 409 MPH, which proves that the Hellcat was a true 400 MPH aircraft. I believe that this version could compete with the long nose D-9 on somewhat equal terms, but it would be a tough fight for sure.
> 
> And I apologize if you feel I insulted you earlier. I'm very passionate about this subject so I just got carried away a bit......



One time the Hellcat was clocked at 409 MPH, vs. dozen of ither data showing 380 mph or thereabout - so let's draw conclusions.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

I'm not arguing the fact that the F6F wasn't the fastest fighter around. You can see that I never mentioned it in my initial posting:

..........I feel that the F6F's superb low speed handling and maneuverability, immense strength, and excellent gun platform characteristics gave it a nice balance of "weapons" to use in a dogfight that took place at low to medium altitudes.......

It definitely was fast enough to compete wherever it was deployed, and obviously the US Navy felt so as well. There are stories out there that claim there may have been instrumentation errors that gave readings which were lower than actual speeds attained but that's been hammered home countless of other times on this and other forums so much that I don't care to discuss it any further. It doesn't even matter anyway. Remember, the Hellcat was a shipboard aircraft so of course it wouldn't be as fast as it's land based counterparts. It's a no brainer that both it and the F4U-1 would have been faster if it lost all the extra weight and drag associated with the requirement to take off and land on carrier decks.

Besides, this thread is about expressing which aircraft was the best dogfighter. An aircraft doesn't have to be the fastest fighter in the sky to be that. Speeds rarely exceed 300 MPH while twisting and turning. A 20 MPH level speed difference would only come in handy if you had to break off or engage and enemy, it's useless in close in aerial combat. And in case of the Hellcat this speed deficit wouldn't really matter anyway, as it could out-dive the majority of it's opponents.

Which aircraft on list do you feel is the best dogfighter then? I'd like to know the reasons too.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2018)

I've voted for Spitfire IX/XIV. Rate of climb, speed, turn rate, dive speed, accelration - either best of the lot, or at least equal to the best on specified altitude band. Obviously the Spitfire IX as a chioce before XIV is available.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

The Spitfire would be high on my list as well.


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 7, 2018)

Hi, first post. At least in this decade.

All things being equal, at 25,000 feet on a clear April day over Boscombe Down with the same pilot at the controls of each plane, I'd put my money on the Sptifire to win more than it loses.

In the real world? 1,100 mile northeast of New Guinea on a mild February morning, what was the best dogfighter? The F6F-3, or Fw-190A5? 

Or what's a better dogfighter on a March 1945 afternoon when you coming back from a mission flying cover for Avengers that just struck an island and you're flying back in your fighter with AAA frangments in your belly just aft your engine and you know you're half way back and you'll have to fly CAP until the Avengers are on board because the groups' radar detected incoming enemy aircraft. Rather be in a Hellcat or a Seafire? Would you even be able to be there in a Seafire?

The best dogfighter? Neat question if all fighters did exactly the same job uinder exactly the same circumstances. 

What's the best fighter to get the job done that needs to get done?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2018)

The F6F will not be able to compete in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and best part of 1943. Leaves on third of the ww2 for the F6F to prove it's worth, vs. Spitfire being there and proving it's worth in 1939, 1942 as well as 1945. Be is at it is, and not trying to take anything from anone, but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 7, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.



If only the Japanese had known that.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2018)

Japanese military-junta-like thinking before 1945 was as far from rational as possible.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The same would apply today to a squadron of F-22s confronted with 600 P 51s.



Me262s were shot down _in flight_ by Allied aircraft, not just on approach. The only way a P-51 could down an F-22 in flight would be as FOD.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> ...but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.



WOW, now that was a cheap shot if I ever saw one! So in essence what you are saying is that the thousands of allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen who fought and died in the Pacific theater wasn't necessary? Don't ever say that in front of someone who either served there or has family/ friends that did as well. You must think that the allied military planners were a bunch of buffoons back then, don't you?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> WOW, now that was a cheap shot if I ever saw one! So in essence what you are saying is that the thousands of allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen who fought and died in the Pacific theater wasn't necessary? Don't ever say that in front of someone who either served there or has family/ friends that did as well. You must think that the allied military planners were a bunch of buffoons back then, don't you?



So you are acusing me of the things I didn't say, and decided not to quote the part of my post that does not serve to your purpose? Here it goes:


tomo pauk said:


> *Be is at it is, and not trying to take anything from anone,* but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.


Allied military planers didn't came out with 'Europe 1st' doctrine for nothing. BTW, here is what Americans, authors of the book 'Shattered sword' said in their Midway-related book: "This is because the real strategical focus of the war as a whole lay not in the Pacific, but rather in Europe in general and the steppes of Russia in particular' (pg. 429).


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Me262s were shot down _in flight_ by Allied aircraft, not just on approach. The only way a P-51 could down an F-22 in flight would be as FOD.



True, I was just making the point that you gotta land sometime, there is a limit to what technical superiority can overcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> So you are acusing me of the things I didn't say, and decided not to quote the part of my post that does not serve to your purpose? Here it goes:
> 
> Allied military planers didn't came out with 'Europe 1st' doctrine for nothing. BTW, here is what Americans, authors of the book 'Shattered sword' said in their Midway-related book: "This is because the real strategical focus of the war as a whole lay not in the Pacific, but rather in Europe in general and the steppes of Russia in particular' (pg. 429).



Please create another thread if you are hell-bent on starting another debate that has nothing to do with the thread's original purpose....


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The F6F will not be able to compete in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and best part of 1943. Leaves on third of the ww2 for the F6F to prove it's worth, vs. Spitfire being there and proving it's worth in 1939, 1942 as well as 1945. Be is at it is, and not trying to take anything from anone, but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.


I give credit for "being there", in the skies over Kent in 1940 there were few dogs available to fight. Discussing maritime aircraft why not involve the later Seafires although to be honest I think the only thing a Spitfire Mk1 and a Seafire Mk47 had in common was use of the word "fire" like a Wildcat and Bearcat


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Please start another thread if you are hell-bent on starting another debate that has nothing to do with the thread's original purpose....



I didn't started it.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 7, 2018)

Hello All,

I just found this poll a couple days ago after it has degenerated a bit.
For Best DOGFIGHTER from 15,000 feet to 35,000 feet, my vote is for Spitfire Mk.XIV.
It may not be the best at all altitudes, but would have been competitive anywhere within this range while many of the other candidates either are not good knife-fighters or poor somewhere within this altitude range. The Spitfire XIV may not be the most maneuverable aeroplane on the list, but it doesn't give up much in other performance characteristics either.

Regarding the secondary discussion of Hellcat versus FW 190, my belief is that the FW 190A had almost all the advantages with the exception of turning circles. The report Project TED PTR 1107 that is often quoted of Hellcat versus Corsair versus FW 190A is interesting because although the numbers are almost all in favour of the FW 190A, the conclusion was that the USN fighters were better. Consider that the USN fighters were well maintained new aircraft while the FW 190A was a captured example and not running War Emergency Power.
The American fighters did have WEP available but only used it for 2 minutes per speed run and may not have reached absolute maximum speed at each altitude.

Absolute Speed: Advantage FW 190A 410 MPH to Hellcat 391 MPH.
Under the SAME test conditions it should have been 410 MPH to 380 MPH.
Now keep in mind that this was a F6F-3 Hellcat and although the F6F-5 may have been a few MPH faster, the difference would not have changed the results. As Shorround6 pointed out earlier, the -3 and -5 have basically the same engine with same basic airframe. There were no changes that should greatly improve speed.

Acceleration: Slight advantage to FW 190A.
Note that without Emergency Power available, the FW 190A would only have been making around 1700 HP (Plus or minus 50 HP or so depending on the exact version of the BMW 801D-2 engine installed.
With Emergency Power available: MW 50, C3 Injection or "Increased Boost" (Erhohte Notleistung), the engine output would have been around 2050 HP.

Climb Rates: Significant Advantage to FW 190A in this test.
I came to this conclusion by observing that at the best climbing speeds of the Corsair and Hellcat, the FW 190A was about equal but at the FW 190A's best climbing speed, it was greatly superior to the USN fighters.
The Climb Rate of the FW 190A differed quite a bit depending on the version with some being significantly better than Hellcat and some heavier late models being pretty comparable at rated power.

Roll Rates: FW 190A is greatly superior.
At low to medium speeds, the FW 190A is one of the best rolling fighters ever built.
Although the F6F-5 with spring tab ailerons was not tested here, it improved high speed roll rate at the cost of low speed roll rate as compared to the F6F-3.

Turning Circles: Hellcat is greatly superior.
In a sustained horizontal turn, the FW 190A simply is not competitive with either USN fighter.

Now keep in mind that by the end of WW2, the Hellcat was no longer competitive from a performance standpoint.
It was still winning because of aircrew superiority and not because of aircraft superiority.
The next generation of USN fighter was the F4U-4 and F8F. The F6F-6 with the same engine as the F4U-4 did not gain the same performance as the Corsair did so it did not make sense to build it.

- Ivan.


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 7, 2018)

It's a rather pointless debate. Fun, but pointless. Every fighter ever made was made for a reason. They were made to carry out a mission and fight as compentently as possible under their individual circumstances.

The P-51D might have been the best dogfighter that could also fly a round trip mission to Berlin.

The F6F might have been the best dogfighter that also had to be tough enough for long missions over open water and take the abuse of carrier landings after returning damaged.

The Spitfire might have been the best dogfighter that had to rise and fight, in some case, right over its own airbase.

The Zero might have been the best dogfighter that also had to fly long missions from Timor to Darwin and return.

The Fw-190 may have had some performance advantages over the F6F, but it couldn't do the F6F's job.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2018)

*SkyChimp* said:


> It's a rather pointless debate. Fun, but pointless. Every fighter ever made was made for a reason. They were made to carry out a mission and fight as compentently as possible under their individual circumstances. The P-51D wasn't the best dogfighter, e


No dog ever got close to a US bomber formation


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> No dog ever got close to a US bomber formation



Given some of the nose art, I'm suprised there wasn't a cat fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

*SkyChimp* said:


> It's a rather pointless debate. Fun, but pointless. Every fighter ever made was made for a reason. They were made to carry out a mission and fight as compentently as possible under their individual circumstances.
> 
> The P-51D might have been the best dogfighter that could also fly a round trip mission to Berlin.
> 
> ...



Excellent overall evaluation IMHO.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The report Project TED PTR 1107 that is often quoted of Hellcat versus Corsair versus FW 190A is interesting because although the numbers are almost all in favour of the FW 190A, the conclusion was that the USN fighters were better....



Why do you assume that the FW 190 was in poor condition? And the answer to why the US aircraft were judged superior is simple: the performance edge that the FW 190 happened to possess in certain flight parameters was deemed to be insignificant and could be overcome by the greater handling and maneuverability of the US fighters. This is why you cannot just look at numbers and be done with it. Or are you saying that you are a better evaluator of what was occurring that day than the pilots and engineers who were actually present ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

Most of the other points you mentioned were already voiced by Tomo so there really wasn't any need to reiterate them here....


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 7, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Why do you assume that the FW-190 was in poor condition? And the answer to why the US aircraft were judged superior is simple: the performance edge that the FW-190 happened to possess in certain flight parameters was deemed to be insignificant and could be overcome by the greater handling and maneuverability of the US fighters. This is why you cannot just look at numbers and be done with it. Or are you saying that you are a better evaluator of what was occurring that day than the pilots and engineers who were actually present ?



Hello DarenW,

Please show me WHERE I stated the FW 190A was in "poor condition".
I stated that it was a captured aircraft and not running Emergency Power during these tests.

Now that you mentioned the subject, this FW 190A was, according to the report, in "fairly good condition".
From the Report:
"At the request of the Technical Air Intelligence Section of Operations 16-V-Division of Naval Intelligence, the Army Air Forces/A-2 obtained a captured Focke Wulf 190A-5/U4 fighter bomber aircraft for test by the Bureau of Aeronautics. The aircraft was forwarded to the Captured Enemy Aircraft Unit of Technical Air Intelligence, Naval Air Station, Anacostia, D.C., and arrived on January 24, 1944 in fairly good condition, but minus all armament, radio, center fairing for wheels, and port wing bolt. Necessary repairs to the fuselage, wings, engine (BMW801D2), canopy, and electrical system were completed by CEAU on 22 Febr. '44, and the aircraft was flown from Anacostia to Patuxent on Febr. 24 '44."

This hardly compares to the F6F-3 and F4U-1D in the test which were stated to be new production aircraft.

US Reports of this type have a tendency to favour US equipment over the enemy equipment being tested. The quoted performance numbers are generally accurate (though there are occasional issues and reinterpretations) but often the testing is set up to make the US equipment appear superior even if it is not necessary. The reports on the Aleutian A6M2 Type Zero are a perfect example.

As for comparisons of flight handling, one needs to read a few more reports to come to a reasonable conclusion. Captain Eric Brown had a pretty good evaluation of all the aircraft listed here though I believe that on some subjects he was wrong on occasion. Just like anyone else, he had his biases. The British themselves rated Faber's FW 190A as superior in maneuverability to their Spitfire Mk.IX "except for turning circles".

Leroy Grumman himself and one of his engineers made the comment after testing a captured FW 190A that, "This was the fighter we should have built". The F8F Bearcat was the result and in a lot of ways is quite similar to the FW 190A.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 7, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Consider that the USN fighters were well maintained new aircraft while the FW 190A was a captured example.....


Hi Ivan 

Just to clarify, you were comparing the condition of the aircraft involved, so why mention that it was a "captured example" when everyone's obviously already aware of this fact? I believe you were and still are implying that the FW 190 wasn't up to the same quality as the American fighters and therefore it wasn't a fair evaluation but you have no basis in fact to suggest this. The testing facility went as far as to strip the aircraft of it's cruddy old paint and reapply a smooth painted camouflage finish (this action would normally enhanced the performance). If the Navy wasn't interested in the truth and already picked the Hellcat and Corsair as clear winners, why go through all that trouble?

I am positive that the aircraft was in good operating condition, which normally means it will perform as one would expect with no deficiencies or problems. The standards held by the American aeronautical community during this time were second to none and they would not fly the aircraft without ensuring it was in service condition and could give an accurate representation of the machine's characteristics. Why waste everyone's time otherwise?

Grumman's remark has to be taken in the right context. Can you tell me more concerning this supposed adulation of the FW 190, I'd love to know more about it.

Also, could you verify the actual report that you are quoting? The report that I have, which is numbered PTR-1107, is dated 17 January 1944, and the aircraft is described as an A-4 model, not an A-5.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2018)

Hello DarrenW,

I can confirm that in my version of the report the FW 190 is a FW 190A-5/U4.
I can also see that the only easily found version of this report on an Internet search is on Mike Williams' site and calls the aircraft a FW 190-A/4 and does not have the cover page with introduction that I quoted in my prior post.
There are also other minor differences in the report such as the speeds which are listed in knots, MPH, and Kilometers/Hour in my version but without the kilometers/hour in the other version.
Other than that, I see formatting changes but no substantive differences.
I will need to poke around to figure out which version is actually more correct.
One thing worth noting is that FW 190A-5/U4 is a proper designation while FW 190-A/4 is not.
Perhaps another source such as the BuAer documents listed will specify the serial of the captured aircraft which MIGHT settle things.

Note that if your reference is the Mike Williams version of the PTR 1107 report, you are reading the date incorrectly. 
17 January 1944 is only the date of the first BuAer Letter which is one of the references in either copy of the report.

Regarding condition of a captured aircraft that has had repairs and remanufactured parts:
Although the aeroplane is safe to fly, I am not convinced that it is 100% as a new aircraft would be.
There are not a lot of spare parts and there are no manuals or jigs to assure that things are set up properly.
Again, I can refer you to the rebuild of the Aleutian A6M2. One of its test pilots was asked whether it was 100%. 
His reply was that it was about 95%. The A6M2 was a much simpler aeroplane and was not rebuilt perfectly.
I remember seeing a comment that the gear doors did not fit flush which would not have helped.
There were vibrations at high speed which might have been common to the type or an indication something was bent.

Regarding this FW 190A-Whatever in particular:
Note that the FW 190A-4 was a simple fighter variant carrying an early BMW 801D-2 engine with only 1677 HP (1700 PS).
It was lighter than later variants but engine power especially at altitude was not as good.
Note that the FW 190A-5/U4 was a photo recon variant which is not in line with the later note in the report that this was a fighter bomber.
The armament load is a match for the U4 variant though, but was there a difference in engine calibrations because it was originally a fighter bomber?

Note that in Service Ceiling tests, all power was lost abruptly at 33,000 feet. Cause unknown.
This is one indication that something was not right and there was not the expertise available to fix things.
Some rough running of the engine was experienced which was caused by fouled plugs.
I wonder if that issue even could have been addressed in a captured aircraft without spares?
Note that some of the odd stall characteristics and high speed vibration COULD HAVE been caused by Ailerons that were out of adjustment. I have seen that in discussion but do not know the validity.

One other thing worthy of note is that the test pilots preferred the engine controls of the USN fighters over the single throttle lever of the FW 190A because they felt that the multiple levers gave them "more actual control" of the engine. 
With this in mind note that later versions of many US Fighters went to controls that were closer in design to those on the FW 190A....

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2018)

Oops. Almost forgot to mention:
If anyone has a clear photograph of the FW 190A used for this test, it is fairly easy to tell whether this was a A-4 or A-5 variant.
The A-5 is 15 cm longer and this can be seen at the junction of the Cowl and Wing Root.
I have a very very grainy photograph on the first page of my report but can't tell without doing a bunch of comparisons with other photgraphs and even then I may not be so sure.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2018)

have


Ivan1GFP said:


> Note that if your reference is the Mike Williams version of the PTR 1107 report, you are reading the date incorrectly.
> 17 January 1944 is only the date of the first BuAer Letter which is one of the references in either copy of the report.



You mentioned a date of 24 January 1944. I was just informing you that the only date on the report in front of me was chronologically before this so we can get some bearing on whether in fact we were looking at the exact same report. Ditto in regards to the aircraft designation. Is there really a problem here?



Ivan1GFP said:


> One other thing worthy of note is that the test pilots preferred the engine controls of the USN fighters over the single throttle lever of the FW 190A because they felt that the multiple levers gave them "more actual control" of the engine.
> With this in mind note that later versions of many US Fighters went to controls that were closer in design to those on the FW 190A....



What does this really have to do with the discussion at hand?



Ivan1GFP said:


> Regarding condition of a captured aircraft that has had repairs and remanufactured parts:
> Although the aeroplane is safe to fly, I am not convinced that it is 100% as a new aircraft would be.
> There are not a lot of spare parts and there are no manuals or jigs to assure that things are set up properly.
> Again, I can refer you to the rebuild of the Aleutian A6M2. One of its test pilots was asked whether it was 100%.
> ...



I think it's best if we try to focus on the report that's actually under scrutiny at the moment.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> You mentioned a date of 24 January 1944. I was just informing you that the only date on the report in front of me was chronologically before this so we can get some bearing on whether in fact we were looking at the exact same report. Ditto in regards to the aircraft designation. Is there really a problem here?



Just pointing out that a date ON A REPORT may not be the date of the report.
You need to read the report for context which it seems you have not done.



DarrenW said:


> What does this really have to do with the discussion at hand? Are you going to denounce every aspect of this report before you are finished? I hope you can be objective about this as I really do not have time for these little tangents you keep taking us on. Please try to stick to what is actually printed in the report, and refrain from the water cooler talk for the moment.....



This is an illustration of the validity of pilots' opinions as versus the views of the engineers who found the systems on the FW 190 to be a good enough idea to copy them on future designs.



DarrenW said:


> ...another useless bit of information concerning a completely different set of circumstances. I have a great idea, why not focus on the report that's actually under scrutiny at the moment? THANK YOU!



This is an illustration of the limitations of repairing a foreign aircraft without adequate documentation or materials.
It is a different aircraft but the circumstances are pretty similar and it would have been the same organizations involved.



DarrenW said:


> Actually I've grown tired of the entire topic. Tomo and I have hashed this back and forth for two entire days so at this point I could care less if it was an A-4 or an A-5 variant. Bottom line is the US Navy wasn't as impressed as some FW-190 fans want to believe so they try to nit-pick the subject to death. If they were as critical of themselves as they are of the report they would see the error of their ways and just let things be. I'm finished here because I feel that I made my point and said all I need to say on the subject. Ivan is more than welcome to continue but I wonder how many people here will be suckered into his con game. Thankfully not me anymore.....



Read the report again. It seems to me that the USN was VERY impressed.
The designation question is a good illustration of how little they actually knew about the enemy at the time.
It would be interesting if this really was a FW 190A-4 which first was produced in mid 1942 and even without emergency power and not in the best shape and was STILL outperforming current production USN fighters in early 1944.
It would also be interesting that an old "mud mover" was outrunning brand new USN fighters on War Emergency Power.

This is also a pretty good illustration of why the Hellcat simply would have been outclassed over continental Europe where competition was a whole lot stronger. A couple other folks have already pointed this out.

- Ivan.


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 8, 2018)

Well, Grumman was impressed enough with the Fw-190 that it was considered in the developement of the F8F Bearcat. Grumman engineers studied and flew the exact Fw that was used in that test.

With respect to the argument that the F6F Hellcat couldn't compete over Europe. It's a rather academic assertion, as it wasn't intended to compete over Europe. It was intended to compete well out to sea where it had to rely on carriers for a place to land. Out over the pacific, the Fw190, as it was, would not have been able to compete with the F6F. 

Add to, or replace, all the stuff on a Fw190 so as to make it a sutiable aircraft out in the middle of the Pacific, and you would get a plane that would be better than it was in some categories (wing loading, stall characterisitics, etc) and worse in some (climb, speed, etc.). They would be much more equal.

To be better than either, you'd have to design a new plane, taking the best of both - F8F Bearcat.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2018)

In early 1944 the US Navy conducted comparative trials and judged the Hellcat superior to the FW 190. Anything contrary to these findings would be conjecture only. Same goes for whether or not the Hellcat would survive over continental Europe.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 10, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> WOW, now that was a cheap shot if I ever saw one! So in essence what you are saying is that the thousands of allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen who fought and died in the Pacific theater wasn't necessary? Don't ever say that in front of someone who either served there or has family/ friends that did as well. You must think that the allied military planners were a bunch of buffoons back then, don't you?



Not to stir the pot too much, but Tomo is right, Japan was never going to be in a position to dictate anything to the United States, there never was a real chance for them after starting the war the way they did ( sneak attack ) and with the limited resources they had or could hope to garner through conquest.

Nazi Germany on the other hand, was a valid threat to the civilized world, so _*yes*_, WWII _*was*_ going to be decided in the skies over Europe, not the Pacific. To say this is not belittling anyone, it's simple fact, and I say this with the full backing of two uncles ( now gone West ) that served in the Air Corps in the Pacific, one flying out of New Guinea and the other the Solomon's.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 10, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> In early 1944 the US Navy conducted comparative trials and judged the Hellcat superior to the FW-190. Anything contrary to these findings would be conjecture only. Same goes for whether or not the Hellcat would survive over continental Europe.



<sigh>
That isn't really what the report says.
Reading Sections K and L of the report is quite revealing:

Section K states that the pilots involved judged the Corsair and Hellcat to be "preferred in actual combat operations".
This is not a surprising conclusion for pilots that were trained on USN types.
Note however that this is qualified as "General opinion of the pilots", not a conclusion of the report.

Section L gives suggestions on tactics when facing a FW 190 in combat. This one is REALLY interesting.
You can't out run him, out climb him and probably not out dive him either or the suggestion would have been made here.
You CAN out turn and loop tighter so try to get in close and sucker him into a turning fight.
This sounds exactly like the kind of advice that one might give to a A6M pilot facing a Corsair or Hellcat.
There would be a slight problem with a turn fight in that the FW 190's roll rate is better.

Now in the interest of fairness, these folks really did not ballast the FW 190A properly for a typical fighter variant.
There was no allowance for outboard wing guns, a centerline rack was not fitted and the aircraft even had center wheel fairings according to the description of repairs. As stated earlier, this FW 190A was set up to represent an armed photo recon aircraft as the designation would suggest.

Also, if one compares the tested version (captured April 1943) against the current version (probably FW 190A-8), one gets perhaps 80-100 more HP, but also gets Take Off weights in the 4300 kg to 4400 kg range which is about 1000 pounds heavier than what was tested here,


Hello Peter Gunn,
Yes, you stirred the pot!
Another indication of priorities and performance standards is the fact that the P-40 was completely obsolete as a fighter in Europe while it was still in front line service as a fighter in the Pacific.

- Ivan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2018)

A poster complained about this discussion being civil yet I see some pretty snarky remarks being thrown around. I'm watching this closely and if it continues I'll shut this thread down and send folks to the beach. I hope I'm coming through crystal clear!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> No dog ever got close to a US bomber formation



Hi pbehn,

I can confirm that this is in fact not true:
My neighbor flew B-26 Marauders mostly in Italy during the war.
He told me that his dog sat behind his seat during missions. I suppose that this was an "Allied" dog and thus not a threat, though the dog's name was "88".

This discussion came about when I was building a model for him and found an object the size of a watermelon behind he pilot's seat and could not identify its purpose. He told me there was nothing there in his plane because his dog sat there.
It turns out that it was supposed to be an oxygen tank but apparently they never flew with it.


- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hi pbehn,
> 
> I can confirm that this is in fact not true:
> My neighbor flew B-26 Marauders mostly in Italy during the war.
> ...


What type of dog? Snauser? Alsatian? Dachshund? Was it Italian? Can foreign dogs be trusted on a mission?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to stir the pot too much, but Tomo is right, Japan was never going to be in a position to dictate anything to the United States, there never was a real chance for them after starting the war the way they did ( sneak attack ) and with the limited resources they had or could hope to garner through conquest.
> 
> Nazi Germany on the other hand, was a valid threat to the civilized world, so _*yes*_, WWII _*was*_ going to be decided in the skies over Europe, not the Pacific. To say this is not belittling anyone, it's simple fact, and I say this with the full backing of two uncles ( now gone West ) that served in the Air Corps in the Pacific, one flying out of New Guinea and the other the Solomon's.





Ivan1GFP said:


> <sigh>
> 
> That isn't really what the report says.
> Reading Sections K and L of the report is quite revealing:
> ...



This has been a great discussion guys, but when it's all said and done we will just have to agree to disagree. And it's probably a better idea to start another thread concerning the importance of the Pacific War because it has no place in this thread. I think we all can at least agree on that point, right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Please create another thread if you are hell-bent on starting another debate that has nothing to do with the thread's original purpose....



And you can let the moderators do the moderating.

Play nice...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 11, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And you can let the moderators do the moderating.
> 
> Play nice...



Yes, my comment was only a suggestion, yours is what counts...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 12, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Oops. Almost forgot to mention:
> If anyone has a clear photograph of the FW 190A used for this test, it is fairly easy to tell whether this was a A-4 or A-5 variant.
> The A-5 is 15 cm longer and this can be seen at the junction of the Cowl and Wing Root.
> I have a very very grainy photograph on the first page of my report but can't tell without doing a bunch of comparisons with other photgraphs and even then I may not be so sure.
> ...





Ivan1GFP said:


> Oops. Almost forgot to mention:
> If anyone has a clear photograph of the FW 190A used for this test, it is fairly easy to tell whether this was a A-4 or A-5 variant.
> The A-5 is 15 cm longer and this can be seen at the junction of the Cowl and Wing Root.
> I have a very very grainy photograph on the first page of my report but can't tell without doing a bunch of comparisons with other photgraphs and even then I may not be so sure.
> ...



Will these do? Not sure if it is the actual aircraft mentioned in the report but it's referenced as one that was flown by the US Navy in 1944.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2018)

The 1st photo is excellent, it shows the 'insert' between te engine cowl and wing root, so it should be and A-5 or later model. Also note how the side of fuselage, right in front of air slots is longer sheet metal. Comparison of Fw 190A-4 and A-5: picture
The front Dzus fasteners are also tell-tale signs.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 12, 2018)

After looking closely at the photo I thought that was the difference but thanks for confirming it.

What would be the latest model of FW-190 in use by late '43/early '44?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2018)

I've also noted the doors for the radio compartment feature vertical pair of fasteneres, so again pointing to A-5 (or later).
The latest in 1943 was probably the A-6 (main difference that all canons are of same type, bar the anti-bomber versions). By early 1944 the A-7 is there, main visible difference switch from cowl LMGs to HMGs for negligible increase in total firepower, and increase in drag.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 12, 2018)

Good observations. So would you say then that the apex of the A series as a pure air-to-air fighter was with the A-5, after that the airplane was increasingly engineered as a heavy bomber destroyer and ground attack machine?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 12, 2018)

Hello DarrenW, Tomo Pauk,

I agree with Tomo Pauk that this is certainly a FW 190A-5 or later.
Between the A-4 and A-5 there are perhaps 2.5 fairly prominent differences:
1. The Leading Edge of the Wing Root Fairing has an extension. This can be seen by the two scalloped panel lines on the A-5 as versus one panel line as on the A-4.
2. The Front Latch on the cover for the Cowl Armament Bay is much closer to the cowl edge on the A-4 than on the A-5.
3. On the A-4 and earlier, the vents to the engine accessory area were simple slots. On the A-5 and later, the vents are covered by adjustable plates. This feature I call the 1/2 recognition feature because this is right behind the engine exhausts and often so grimy that it is hard to tell exactly what is there and because I have also heard that some of the last A-4s had the type of vent usually seen on later aircraft.

Of the FW 190A series, this was probably one of the better performing models made even more so by the light ballasting as I mentioned earlier. It is ballasted as a Photo Recon while a real "Fighter" would have had a couple 20 mm MG FF cannon in the outer wing.

Characterizing later variants as all fighter bombers and bomber killers doesn't really do them justice.
There were quite a few fighter variants as well. The problem was that additional equipment added quite a lot of extra weight.
The cowl guns were changed from 7.92 mm to 13.2 mm and outboard cannon were changed to MG 151/20 and an extra fuel tank was added behind the cockpit bringing the normal loaded weight up to around 4380 KG or 9652 pounds.
Note that this number varies from 4300 KG to 4400 KG depending on the reference.

Note also that although the engine designation remained BMW 801D-2, there were improvements that brought take-off / sea level power up to about 1750 HP and increased Emergency Power and power at altitude.

As for the hottest pure air superiority version of the FW 190A, my vote goes to the FW 190A-9. It had a significantly more powerful engine and often deleted the two outboard wing cannon but unfortunately there were very few built. The FW 190A-9 still was not quite as good as the FW 190D which had even more power, a better supercharger and weighed less.

- Ivan.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 13, 2018)

Is this becoming a paean to the FW190?


It was a good fighter, but not quite so superior as some seem to think.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

Hello Swampyankee,

Just attempting to answer a question that was posted.

Just like any other fighter of the time, the FW 190A was a balance of characteristics.
In my opinion it was a great all around fighter for the time, but had its weaknesses.
Many of the Russian fighters had better low altitude performance and maneuverability.
Most of the US and British fighters in Europe had better high altitude performance.

I already commented that my own vote in this Poll was for the Spitfire XIV, but that aeroplane hat its faults as well.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Good observations. So would you say then that the apex of the A series as a pure air-to-air fighter was with the A-5, after that the airplane was increasingly engineered as a heavy bomber destroyer and ground attack machine?



My vote for the apex will probably go to the A-6, it sported more firepower than earlier versions (and cannon fire was of same muzzle velocity), while not as draggy as the A-7 and later. Though I'd delete the cowl MGs and install the external air ram intakes to improve high alt performance, that was an easy expedient. 



Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> Note also that although the engine designation remained BMW 801D-2, there were improvements that brought take-off / sea level power up to about 1750 HP and increased Emergency Power and power at altitude.
> 
> As for the hottest pure air superiority version of the FW 190A, my vote goes to the FW 190A-9. It had a significantly more powerful engine and often deleted the two outboard wing cannon but unfortunately there were very few built. The FW 190A-9 still was not quite as good as the FW 190D which had even more power, a better supercharger and weighed less.
> ...



Thanks for the pic, it is a handy reference.
The D-9 have had less power at altitude than A-9, it's supercharger was not better. The weight was less if it didn't sported outboard cannons. The hi-alt power of the BMW 801D2 remained the same from late 1942 to late 1944 (unless GM1 was used), by what time the 801S entered production.



swampyankee said:


> Is this becoming a paean to the FW190?
> It was a good fighter, but not quite so superior as some seem to think.



It as a very good fighter, superior was perhaps between late 1941 to mid 1943, with Spitfire IX and Typhoon sharing the accolade in that time, plus P-38 in some instances. That is before we account for reliability problems and other issues of all the named A/C. After mid 1943, Allies were coming in with better mounts that degraded Fw 190s into average class.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 13, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Swampyankee,
> 
> Just attempting to answer a question that was posted.
> 
> ...




No aircraft was perfect, but their relative superiority can't be quantified unless a lot of externals are factored out, like pilot quality and tactics.

Bluntly, a lot of the critcism of the tests of the FW190 vs Allied aircraft shrieks of special pleading. And don't get me started about the "brilliant fan-cooled engine." If everybody else manages without a power-sucking fan, why is it so smart to add one?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> My vote for the apex will probably go to the A-6, it sported more firepower than earlier versions (and cannon fire was of same muzzle velocity), while not as draggy as the A-7 and later. Though I'd delete the cowl MGs and install the external air ram intakes to improve high alt performance, that was an easy expedient.
> 
> Thanks for the pic, it is a handy reference.
> The D-9 have had less power at altitude than A-9, it's supercharger was not better. The weight was less if it didn't sported outboard cannons. The hi-alt power of the BMW 801D2 remained the same from late 1942 to late 1944 (unless GM1 was used), by what time the 801S entered production.
> .



Hello Tomo Pauk,

Thanks for pointing out the deletion of the outboard cannon on the FW 190D-9. I had completely missed that factor in the quotes for loaded weights.
FW 190A-8 - 4395 KG
FW 190A-9 - 4420 KG but it works out to only 4150 KG without the outboard guns
FW 190D-9 - 4270 KG

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Bluntly, a lot of the critcism of the tests of the FW190 vs Allied aircraft shrieks of special pleading. And don't get me started about the "brilliant fan-cooled engine." If everybody else manages without a power-sucking fan, why is it so smart to add one?



Hello Swampyankee,
There are actually a couple memos of the time commenting about how flight performance tests of captured aircraft were not a good idea because of the lack of spares and lack of ability to maintain the aircraft. The particular "FW 190A-5/U4" tested in this report was at best a "well-used" aircraft. It was captured April 1943 and had gone through testing in England before transfer to the United States.

Regarding the "Brilliant Fan-Cooled Engine":
It allowed for good cooling under all conditions (once other issues were worked out) even with a very close cowling and a small cowl opening. At low speeds, it would require about 70 HP to spin but at high speed the airflow through the cowl opening was driving the fan and the actual power cost was negligible.
Another "Brilliant Idea" that turned out to be not so brilliant was the mounting of the oil cooler in a ring at the front of the cowl. It made for a very low drag assembly but also proved to be quite vulnerable to weapons fire and leaking oil directly onto a hot engine did not usually turn out well.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...The particular "FW 190A-5/U4" tested in this report was at best a "well-used" aircraft....



But weren't the speeds attained during these tests at least commensurate with the tests performed by the Germans on new production machines? I'm talking without any type of added emergency boost system of course, as it wasn't utilized during the testing (I didn't notice it mentioned anyway). If this is true then it wouldn't be stretch to believe that it was in decent enough condition and could provide a reasonable example of an operational machine in current use by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> But weren't the speeds attained during these tests at least commensurate with the tests performed by the Germans on new production machines? I'm talking without any type of added emergency boost system of course, as it wasn't utilized during the testing (I didn't notice it mentioned anyway). If this is true then it wouldn't be stretch to believe that it was in decent enough condition and could provide a reasonable example of an operational machine in current use by the Luftwaffe.



The speeds quoted here are pretty consistent with the typical specifications given for the type and with reports by the Germans themselves.
The question is whether or not the Germans normally measured maximum speed with emergency power. I believe that they did not.
The Americans typically quoted maximum speeds with emergency power and that is pretty much what we are seeing here.
Japanese, FWIW, did not use emergency or take-off power for their performance tests.
The way I interpret this is that if you have three aircraft with identical book performance from their respective nations' specifications, in actual combat when everyone was running emergency power, the Germans and Japanese aeroplanes would actually have an advantage.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The speeds quoted here are pretty consistent with the typical specifications given for the type and with reports by the Germans themselves.
> The question is whether or not the Germans normally measured maximum speed with emergency power. I believe that they did not.
> The Americans typically quoted maximum speeds with emergency power and that is pretty much what we are seeing here.
> Japanese, FWIW, did not use emergency or take-off power for their performance tests.
> ...



German fighter aircraft were always using emergency power (usualy called 'Notleistung') for maximum performance, tests included, eg. 5 min worth for DB 601A/E/605, 3 min for BMW 801C/D, 5 min for 801S. The only time period they will not do it was when it was explicitely banned, for example on DB 601E (~6 months), or 605A (~15 months). Engine setting that improved boost (over-boosting), and thus power, was called 'Special emergency power' ('Sondernotleistung', used MW 50, worked both on 87 and 100+ oct fuel) and 'Increased emergency power' ('Erhoehte Notleistung') that took advantage of high oct fuel resistance for detonantion. For the BMW 801D, the 'Increased emergency power' went to 1.58 ata in low S/C gear and 1.65 in high gear, power rising up to 1900 and 1700 PS for low and high gear respectively.

Hopefully we'd get Japanese A/C test reports translated, in order to better understand how they actually tested their fighters. I myself don't believe they didn't make tests with max engine power.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2018)

Hi Ivan and Tomo,

So in a nutshell, if the testing of this particular FW-190 were performed with boost it would have been even faster. I fully agree with this assumption. However this doesn't take away the fact that this particular airframe hit speeds similar to what one would expect from a A-5 model, without the application of some form of emergency boost. I have heard that a typical war emergency injection system will add about 10 - 15% more engine horsepower and in most cases will increase the speed of the airplane by 10-15 mph (15 to 25 kph). To me this proves that the aircraft tested by the US Navy was in decent shape and was not a worn-out machine as implied earlier in this thread. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 13, 2018)

IMO- FDR and George Marshall had a real tough call to make. Granted, Hitler had a two-front war in the ETO, after June 1941 and the ill-advised operation Barbarosa- but the USA had a two-front war with the two oceans between Europe and Japan to contend with. All of Hitler's war production in the early era of WW2 was centralized in Germany and neighboring countries. Japan's needed raw materials (iron ore, coal, rubber and petroleum) had to be shipped to the Japanese mainland. I can't say whether the USA from Dec 1941 until May 1945-then Sept. 1945, "favored" an emphasis on the ETO efforts, or the PTO. I do believe that Winston Churchill highly influenced FDR, and was a bit underhanded in his dealings with Stalin, probably believing that Stalin would bleed Russia of military manpower (soldier's lives sacrificed) to a much greater extend than would FDR, in sacrifice of American lives to gain the ultimate victory in both Theaters.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hi Ivan and Tomo,
> 
> So in a nutshell, if the testing of this particular FW-190 were performed with boost it would have been even faster. I fully agree with this assumption. However this doesn't take away the fact that this particular airframe hit speeds similar to what one would expect from a A-5 model, without the application of some form of emergency boost. I have heard that a typical war emergency injection system will add about 10 - 15% more engine horsepower and in most cases will increase the speed of the airplane by 10-15 mph (15 to 25 kph). To me this proves that the aircraft tested by the US Navy was in decent shape and was not a worn-out machine as implied earlier in this thread. What are your thoughts on this?



The ww2 aircraft always use boost duing any flight test that is to determine performance. Boost was provided by supercharger, and all military engines in ww2 and decade before were outfitted with supercharger of that or this layout and capability (Hellcat and Corsair used much better superchargers than Fw 190As, thus they were competitive despite the bigger form factor and weight). US engines also used greater boost during the test, all 3 engines pushed 'by the book'.
The problem I see with speed vs. power of the Fw 190 in the test is that it should be going faster on the stated boost & RPM, 1.42 ata and 2700 RPM. German data shows easy 370 mph between 5000 and 10000 ft, and 360 mph at SL. Or, some 15 mph faster than it was the case with USN test.
The Fw 190A did not used water/alcohol injection for oveboost (going beyond 1.42 ata). It took advantage of the ever-improving octane/performance rating of the fuel* so the throttle will be held open under the rated altitudes, thus the engine will get more air supplied by supercharger. Power increase of ~200 PS was gained under the rated altitudes, speed went up by up to 15 mph.

*feature used by Allied angines, too


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 13, 2018)

The US has a long history of being isolationist regarding Europe but being quite the opposite in South and Central America and China. Despite this, the US had significantly more trade with Europe than with China or Asia, in general. 

There were a lot of reasons why the relations between the US and Japan got progressively worse until the start of WW2; some of these almost certainly involve US racial prejudices, but the main reason was a quite proprietary relationship the US had with China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 13, 2018)

A "war on two fronts" is an old military nightmare, not only for Germany. However increasingly Germany had a war on multiple fronts. Stalingrad and El Alamein were at about the same time, as were Kursk and the invasion of Italy. Rome fell at the same time as D Day and Bagration, while through all of this there were the wars on the sea and in the air. That is the major conflicts there were many others in places like Greece Norway, the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> A "war on two fronts" is an old military nightmare, not only for Germany. However increasingly Germany had a war on multiple fronts. Stalingrad and El Alamein were at about the same time, as were Kursk and the invasion of Italy. Rome fell at the same time as D Day and Bagration, while through all of this there were the wars on the sea and in the air. That is the major conflicts there were many others in places like Greece Norway, the Balkans and Eastern Europe.




And Germany voluntarily put itself into that very situation twice in a generation.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 13, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> And Germany voluntarily put itself into that very situation twice in a generation.


I worked in Germany and it goes back much further than the two world wars, in fact back to before the Thirty Years War. If you had a mind to you could call the Napoleonic wars a World War and Prussia was on the side of Great Britain in that, while in the Franco Prussian war, France declared.

This has nothing to do with WW"s best dogfighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I worked in Germany and it goes back much further than the two world wars, in fact back to before the Thirty Years War. If you had a mind to you could call the Napoleonic wars a World War and Prussia was on the side of Great Britain in that, while in the Franco Prussian war, France declared.
> 
> This has nothing to do with WW"s best dogfighter.



Absolutely true. Neither does the War in the Pacific, which was brought up by others. The only political concern is that the FW190 and Bf109 benefited by Germany's intervention in the Spanish Civil War, in development of tactics and basic specifications of their fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2018)

I never realized that the "normal" speeds attained by most A-5 aircraft was so high. But then again it was a relatively light aircraft with a wing of minimal area and fuselage that had much less wetted area than either the Hellcat or Corsair. And given that the Hellcat weighed pratically fifty percent more than the German machine and had a much larger wing area, I would actually expect the FW-190A-5's speed to be even higher than the numbers quoted in the last post. It leads one to believe that the it wasn't as aerodynamically advanced as either the F6F or F4U.....


----------



## pbehn (Jan 13, 2018)

After the F6F aircraft design started to reverse and never recovered.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> German fighter aircraft were always using emergency power (usualy called 'Notleistung') for maximum performance, tests included, eg. 5 min worth for DB 601A/E/605, 3 min for BMW 801C/D, 5 min for 801S. The only time period they will not do it was when it was explicitely banned, for example on DB 601E (~6 months), or 605A (~15 months). Engine setting that improved boost (over-boosting), and thus power, was called 'Special emergency power' ('Sondernotleistung', used MW 50, worked both on 87 and 100+ oct fuel) and 'Increased emergency power' ('Erhoehte Notleistung') that took advantage of high oct fuel resistance for detonantion. For the BMW 801D, the 'Increased emergency power' went to 1.58 ata in low S/C gear and 1.65 in high gear, power rising up to 1900 and 1700 PS for low and high gear respectively.
> 
> Hopefully we'd get Japanese A/C test reports translated, in order to better understand how they actually tested their fighters. I myself don't believe they didn't make tests with max engine power.



Hello Tomo Pauk,
I had started writing a different post and then decided to do a lot more poking around in the images of test reports that I have collected. Many of them are quite hard to read unless you are looking for something very specific such as 'Start u Notleistung". Turns out that the speed tests do show "Take-Off and Emergency Power" as you stated. What is even more interesting is that the manifold pressure for "Start und Notleistung" for the A-5 is listed as 1.42 ATA and the speed depending on the particular graph is anywhere from just over 640 KPH (just under 400 MPH) to 670 KPH or 416 MPH. It is hard to tell which is correct....

The FW 190A-5 tested in this report was using 1.42 ATA or 42.5 inches Hg.
Problem is that 42.5 inches Hg is 1.46 ATA and 1.42 ATA is 41.3 inches Hg....

On some models there was also C3 injection which gave around 2100 PS.

- Ivan.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> A "war on two fronts" is an old military nightmare, not only for Germany. However increasingly Germany had a war on multiple fronts. Stalingrad and El Alamein were at about the same time, as were Kursk and the invasion of Italy. Rome fell at the same time as D Day and Bagration, while through all of this there were the wars on the sea and in the air. That is the major conflicts there were many others in places like Greece Norway, the Balkans and Eastern Europe.


Points well taken. I suppose one could also argue that Japan was fighting on multiple fronts as well in the PTO- all of the Allied "island hopping" campaigns, plus China, Burma, and after May 5th 1945, the potential threat from Russia as well.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I never realized that the "normal" speeds attained by most A-5 aircraft was so high. But then again it was a relatively light aircraft with a wing of minimal area and fuselage that had much less wetted area than either the Hellcat or Corsair. And given that the Hellcat weighed pratically fifty percent more than the German machine and had a much larger wing area, I would actually expect the FW-190A-5's speed to be even higher than the numbers quoted in the last post. It leads one to believe that the it wasn't as aerodynamically advanced as either the F6F or F4U.....



I think that something like this can be demonstrated by an _objective_ comparison between the steady state climb performance (for piston aircraft, rate of climb is frequently a better indicator of aircraft drag than is top speed), maximum, and cruise speeds and payload/range performance. American aircraft, like the P-40, were consistently heavier than many, not just German, contemporaries and had much closer performance than would be the case if the general level of aerodynamic "cleanliness" was similar. I don't think US aerodynamicists were that much better than German (or British, Japanese, Italian, Soviet, etc: aerodynamics were an international community pre-WW2); 

Incidentally, I don't think it's so much being aerodynamically advanced as having greater effort spent on a lot of gritty, low-level details, and taking more benefit from NACA airfoil research.

As an aside, NACA had at least four families of airfoils produced by systematic variation of thickness and camber:

The four-digit airfoils, like the 44xx series
The five-digit series, like the 23012 (used on the Bonanza, among other aircraft), which were modified for somewhat lower pitching moments; the FW190 used the 23015.3 at the root and the 23009 at the tip

The 1-series, which were not used for many aircraft, but were used on propellers

The 6-series, like the 64A212, which were designed around pressure distributions to get some region of laminar flow
Earlier families, like the 2R1 series (used by the Bf109) and the Clark Y (and YH; the latter used on the Hurricane) were also used.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I never realized that the "normal" speeds attained by most A-5 aircraft was so high. But then again it was a relatively light aircraft with a wing of minimal area and fuselage that had much less wetted area than either the Hellcat or Corsair. And given that the Hellcat weighed pratically fifty percent more than the German machine and had a much larger wing area, I would actually expect the FW-190A-5's speed to be even higher than the numbers quoted in the last post. It leads one to believe that the it wasn't as aerodynamically advanced as either the F6F or F4U.....



I'm not sure where it came from that F6F and F4U were that aerodynamically advanced. 
The reason why the F4U was capable to keep pace with Fw 190, and F6F barely so in performance figures, was the engine that provided 15-20% more power at any choosen altitude.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I never realized that the "normal" speeds attained by most A-5 aircraft was so high. But then again it was a relatively light aircraft with a wing of minimal area and fuselage that had much less wetted area than either the Hellcat or Corsair. And given that the Hellcat weighed pratically fifty percent more than the German machine and had a much larger wing area, I would actually expect the FW-190A-5's speed to be even higher than the numbers quoted in the last post. It leads one to believe that the it wasn't as aerodynamically advanced as either the F6F or F4U.....



Hello DarrenW,

Judging by the standards of the European Theatre, the FW 190A-5 wasn't particularly fast for the time.
From the standpoint of advanced aerodynamics, it actually wasn't bad. The closely cowled engine with a spinner worked quite well as compared to American attempts to do similar things. Note that the F4F Wildcat prototype had a spinner but discarded it because of cooling issues. The fairly thin fuselage used engine exhaust to make up for the cross sectional change at the cowl and was an idea that was later copied by the Kawasaki Ki 100 when it switched from an inline to a radial engine.
The F6F is actually a much better example of lack of aerodynamic refinement. It was a great fighter and had all the necessary features to fight its intended opposition, but ease of construction (such as with lap joints) took priority over aerodynamics which is probably why it was so slow for the amount of power that it had. No matter what Grumman claimed, the Corsair was a bit faster on the same power.
Note that in this test, the F4U-1D had the stock propeller which had issues. In the field, they were often replaced with the propeller used by the Hellcat and performance was improved. This was specifically mentioned at the end of the report.

- Ivan.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I worked in Germany and it goes back much further than the two world wars, in fact back to before the Thirty Years War. If you had a mind to you could call the Napoleonic wars a World War .



Many contemporary writers did call the Napoleonic Wars The World War. The first truly global conflict though was the 7 Years War (1756-63) with fighting in Europe, Africa, North and South America, India and Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> After the F6F aircraft design started to reverse and never recovered.



Excellent Point!


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

,


Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello DarrenW,
> 
> Judging by the standards of the European Theatre, the FW 190A-5 wasn't particularly fast for the time.
> From the standpoint of advanced aerodynamics, it actually wasn't bad. The closely cowled engine with a spinner worked quite well as compared to American attempts to do similar things. Note that the F4F Wildcat prototype had a spinner but discarded it because of cooling issues. The fairly thin fuselage used engine exhaust to make up for the cross sectional change at the cowl and was an idea that was later copied by the Kawasaki Ki 100 when it switched from an inline to a radial engine.
> ...



Thanks Ivan, those are very good summations and I agree with most of them but not all. I hope you didn't confuse my statement concerning the aerodynamics of these two airplanes. When you look at the sheer size and weight of the F6F and F4U one would think that such a small and powerful airplane like the FW-190A would walk all over them in ever flight regime but it didn't (power to weight ratio being one of them). That's because they were a combination of just the right aerodynamic qualities and power, no more and no less.

And it's easy to be deceived by the general appearance of the Hellcat, being that it wasn't graced with the sleek lines of the Spitfire or P-51. It's drag coefficient wasn't really all that bad, especially for a navalized fighter. There are many references that give figures which are in the ball park of other fighters of the era which at first glance you'd think would be aerodynamically cleaner, such as the BF-109 series, but they really weren't.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ,
> 
> Thanks Ivan, those are very good summations and I agree with most of them but not all. I hope you didn't confuse my statement concerning the aerodynamics of these two airplanes. When you look at the sheer size and weight of the F6F and F4U one would think that such a small and powerful airplane like the FW-190A would walk all over them in ever flight regime but it didn't (power to weight ratio being one of them). That's because they were a combination of just the right aerodynamic qualities and power, no more and no less.
> 
> And it's easy to be deceived by the general appearance of the Hellcat, being that it wasn't graced with the sleek lines of the Spitfire or P-51. It's drag coefficient wasn't really all that bad, especially for a navalized fighter. There are many references that give figures which are in the ball park of other fighters of the era which at first glance you'd think would be aerodynamically cleaner, such as the BF-109 series, but they really weren't.



Hello DarrenW,

Tomo Pauk has already commented about the power differences between the R-2800 in the Corsair and Hellcat as compared to the BMW 801D-2 in the FW 190A. The 190 weighs less but also had less power. I don't see the point of pointing out the rest of the differences.

Regarding drag coefficients and just aerodynamics, comparing to another contemporary, the Corsair, is better.
Both were large fighters quite similar size and weight with basically the same engine. The wing area wasn't very different at 340 feet^2 to 314 feet^2. Regardless of the claims of Corky Meyer and Grumman, the Corsair was the faster aeroplane as was also confirmed in this test report. I have come across memos detailing how the USN could not duplicate the performance and especially the range claims made by Grumman for the Hellcat.
The roll rates were not even close regardless of whether it was a -3 or -5 Hellcat.
When the same engine was again fitted to the F6F-6 and F4U-4, the Corsair ended up about 20 MPH faster which again suggests inferior aerodynamics of the Hellcat.
The Hellcat was in service at the right time against the right enemy. Even toward the end of the war the latest Japanese fighters were performing better.
At the end of the war, the Corsair remained in service while the Hellcat did not. In fact many of the F6F-3s were expended as target drones and guided missiles.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

You seem very knowledgeable about German aircraft, in particular the FW 190 series, and I've learned much from what you have said about it but I'm just not getting any new facts about these two premier Naval fighters from our conversation thus far which is fine because this thread is about the best dog fighting aircraft.

We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW 190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....


----------



## wuzak (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....



Power is more important for maximum speed than power-to-weight.

Power-to-weight has more an effect for climb rate and acceleration.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....



But science can make a fool out of power to weight ratios, they are aeroplanes not cars. Consider an aerofoil that produces lift with no drag with a propeller that is 99% efficient versus a wing made out of house doors and a propeller from a windmill. In an aircraft, for maximum speed weight is much less important than drag, the maximum take off weight and HP of the Do 17 bomber and a P 47 fighter were not far removed but the performance was completely different.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

But weight does effect the movement of any object in any plane of movement. The only way to overcome a disadvantage is either add power, decrease weight, or improve the shape or surface of the object. 

I'm going to ask a question about how aerodynamically clean the FW-190 series was on the thread which is currently focusing on that particular airplane. If it's at all possible I'd love to read inputs on the subject from both of you distinguished gentlemen....


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> But weight does effect the movement of any object in any plane of movement. The only way to overcome a disadvantage is either add power, decrease weight, or improve the shape or surface of the object. QUOTE]
> 
> In terms of speed, drag is a much bigger factor than weight.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Lol since when did this conversation become a debate about the virtues of the Hellcat versus the Corsair? And you really haven't told me anything I already didn't know about the arguments for and against the F6F. I've heard it all.



This conversation became one about the Corsair versus the F6F when you started claiming the drag coefficient of the Hellcat was not that bad for a Naval Fighter. You discounted the performance differences from the FW 190 because of the difference in physical size of the aircraft. The Corsair was a very good comparison because of nearly identical size and weight and power and very similar wing area which makes performance differences mostly a matter of airframe design differences.
If you already know tall his, then why do you keep trying to claim that the Hellcat was such a superior fighter when compared to other aircraft?

One of the issues we have conveniently ignored thus far is that if you can design an aircraft to have the same performance and perform the same mission with an airframe that weighs less, then you have done a better job. Yes, I recognize that the FW 190 wasn't a Naval Fighter so this isn't really a fair comparison either. Then again, the typical FW 190 carries significantly greater firepower.



DarrenW said:


> We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....



Power to Weight Ratio is just one measurement. Usually it determines acceleration and not speed.
There is also Wing Loading and that typically determines turn performance.
There is also Thrust in relation to Drag and it determines maximum speed.
Unless you have done a lot more research, I don't think you actually have all the facts because they are not in this report.

So far, I have not seen anyone post weight data on the actual fighter variants of the FW 190A / A-5 and I have already told you that if you are using the numbers from the report, they are misleading because the folks conducting the test were attempting to simulate a Photo Recon aeroplane instead of a real fighter. Real fighters carry more armament and are heavier.

Take-Off Weights and Sea Level non Emergency Power
From the Test Report
F6F-3 Hellcat ---- 12406 pounds 2000 HP
F4U-1D Corsair - 11988 pounds 2000 HP
FW 190A-5/U4 -- 8690 pounds 1685 HP

Note that during this test, the F6F was carrying the same ammunition load as F4U (703 pounds) while its full ammunition load would have been 720 pounds.

From Rodeike book et al.
FW 190A-4 ------- 3985 Kg (8785 pounds) 1677 HP
FW 190A-5 ------- 4106 Kg (9052 pounds) 1677 HP
FW 190A-6 ------- 4186 Kg (9228 pounds) 1750 HP
FW 190A-7 ------- 4213 Kg (9288 pounds) 1750 HP
FW 190A-8 ------- 4392 Kg (9683 pounds) 1750 HP
FW 190A-9 ------- 4419 Kg (9742 pounds) 1973 HP

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

The drag coefficient is not as bad as you and other Hellcat detractors claim it to be. I would go as far as to say it may well have well been better than that afforded to the FW 190A-5. Using a well established formula for calculating Cd0 and data supplied by both Tomo and yourself, I came up with a figure of 0.0242. Tomo's calculations weren't too far off with a Cd0 of 0.0265 for the FW 190A-8 and A-9, and the D-9 at 0.02426. Short of placing them in the same calibrated wind tunnel for real word testing, this formula is the only yardstick we have to measure the perspective drag coefficients of each aircraft in question.

From NASA's Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft, Chapter 5 page 9:

_*"In spite of its bulky appearance, the Hellcat was a clean aircraft having a zero-lift drag coefficient of only 0.0211...."*_



Ivan1GFP said:


> Note that during this test, the F6F was carrying the same ammunition load as F4U (703 pounds) while its full ammunition load would have been 720 pounds.



That's only a 17 pound difference. I'm sure that would have had a huge effect of the overall flight qualities of the F6F. Anyway, the loaded weight of the machine under test was typical for an F6F-3 in an "overload" condition. 

And the weight figures that you provided have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about the A-5 model that was present during the tests and not the entire line of FW-190As. I suggest that you post this enlightening information here:

FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?

As anyone who has studied aviation history knows, the overall performance of the later A models suffered greatly due to the increased weight of added armor and weapons. That's why they required BF 109s to fly cover for them during intercept missions. They were considered "easy meat" by most if not all allied fighter pilots.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 15, 2018)

Hello DarrenW,



DarrenW said:


> Why do you at every turn continually attack the F6F as a credible fighter design, while consistently defending the virtues of the FW-190? I wish you could be as impartial as Pbehn, but apparently your love affair for this Nazi fighter far outweighs any desire to get the record straight. This has NEVER been a comparison between the Corsair and Hellcat. You're making it such so as to deflect the focus off your beloved aircraft, the FW-190.



<sigh>
WHERE do you see an attack in my last post?
You made claims about power to weight ratios and I provided some numbers so that you could make a more informed comparison. Sheesh!
You made claims about the aerodynamic qualities of the Hellcat and I made a comparison with the Corsair to illustrate how the Hellcat wasn't quite the aerodynamic marvel you believe it to be.
You are characterizing me as a "Hellcat detractor" when I really am not. These were just airplanes and all had their good points and bad points.
I just get annoyed when folks start making claims and conclusions that are not justified or just plain incorrect.



DarrenW said:


> Wow, a whopping 17 pounds! I'm sure that would have had a huge effect of the overall flight qualities of the F6F. Anyway, the loaded weight of the machine under test was typical for an F6F-3 in a "overloaded" condition. If you are trying to imply that it was a "stripped down" version than you just experienced an epic fail.



I am just noting what discrepancies I am seeing in the report. I saw an odd statement in the report about the Hellcat carrying the same ammunition load as the Corsair and decided to chase down WHY they would make such a note.
In case you didn't know, the "overload" condition just means it has full internal fuel and full ammunition as opposed to the non-overload condition in which it would be carrying a partial fuel and partial ammunition load.



DarrenW said:


> And the weight figures that you provided have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about the A-5 model that was present during the tests and not the entire line of FW-190As. I suggest that you post this enlightening information here:
> 
> FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?



If you are making comparisons of power to weight ratios and excuses about performance based on those comparisions, don't you think it would make sense to actually have some more accurate numbers than were provided in the report?
The fact that you were making those claims clearly shows that you did not have the data to make the comparison, so I provided some data along with a note as to its source.



DarrenW said:


> As anyone who has studied aviation history knows, the overall performance of the later A models suffered greatly due to the increased weight of added armor and weapons. That's why they required BF-109s to fly cover for them during intercept missions. They were considered "easy meat" by most if not all allied fighter pilots. I'm almost certain that the Hellcat would have had an even easier time of dominating these later, rather bloated, flying machines.



The fact that you are posting this as a "historical summary" and your posts in the "How God Was It Really" thread shows you clearly have less of an understanding of the history of the FW 190 series than you think you do. ....and No, I am not all that knowledgeable about the FW 190 either.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

I never stated that the Hellcat was an "aerodynamic marvel". I just wanted to shed some light on a common misunderstanding of the F6F's overall airframe efficiency. Looks can be very deceiving, especially in the case of this airplane. And yes, I agree with you that the Corsair was overall a cleaner airframe (with a drag coefficient of around 0.020). But again, this has never been a discussion about it verses the Grumman airplane.

The P-51 Mustang on the other hand had probably the cleanest shape of any fighter plane of that era but in this case it definitely looked like it.

Small grammar error on my part. I know what overload means. The F6F-3 under test was right at it's normal "fighting weight" of 12,400lbs. I don't think the subtraction of 17 pounds that you mentioned is worth being concerned about.

And I stand by my statement regarding late war FW-190As. You can't be loaded down with more armor than the original design allowed for and armed to the teeth with large caliber cannon and rockets and expect to stay competitive.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Swampyankee,
> There are actually a couple memos of the time commenting about how flight performance tests of captured aircraft were not a good idea because of the lack of spares and lack of ability to maintain the aircraft. The particular "FW 190A-5/U4" tested in this report was at best a "well-used" aircraft. It was captured April 1943 and had gone through testing in England before transfer to the United States.
> 
> Regarding the "Brilliant Fan-Cooled Engine":
> ...


70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> 70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.



70 PS at low level vs. 1930 for the prop for the BMW 801S. linky
Less engine power (espeially less RPM) = less power used for the fan. For the BMW 801D at 5700m (no ram) it was 1440 PS for the prop, 50 PS for fan, or some 3% loss. 
Fan cooling probably enabled narrow cowling to 'work', meaning less drag. So it's a trade-off.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I never stated that the Hellcat was an "aerodynamic marvel". I just wanted to shed some light on a common misunderstanding of the F6F's overall airframe efficiency. Looks can be very deceiving, especially in the case of this airplane. And yes, I agree with you that the Corsair was overall a cleaner airframe (with a drag coefficient of around 0.020). But again, this has never been a discussion about it verses the Grumman airplane.
> 
> The P-51 Mustang on the other hand had probably the cleanest shape of any fighter plane of that era but in this case it definitely looked like it.
> 
> ...



What were the equivalent flat plate areas for the Hellcat and Corsair? Coefficient of Drag isn't the entire story either
What value do you have for the Take-Off weight for the F6F-3 in "Fighter Overload" condition and what is the source?

You are certainly correct that looks can often be quite deceiving. The Spitfire looked quite beautifully shaped and sleek but had much worse drag than the Mustang. The Mustang Mk.II has always been one of my favourites.

Regarding the late model FW 190A:
"Loaded down with armour and weapons" is somewhat of a relative thing and things are not quite that simple.
Sturmbock aircraft were certainly loaded down and needed escorts, but they were very specialized types.
I believe Tomo Pauk replied to an earlier question with the FW 190A-6 being the best air superiority version and I believe his choice is pretty good if limited to the very common versions.

If you look at a version of the FW 190A-9 (which wasn't very common) with the outer wing guns removed, what you would be getting is an aircraft lighter than the A-6 but running a lot more engine power. There is also the FW 190F and FW 190G models which carried less gun armament but more armour. Without their bomb load and at lower altitudes, they were quite deadly.
Another factor is that the Emergency Power of the BMW 801D-2 series of engine changed quite a bit with later versions of the FW 190A.
These engine improvements could easily be fitted to earlier airframes
Basically the way to make up for added equipment weight was to add more power.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> 70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.



Hello Swampyankee,

I did some poking around last night and what I found was a description that stated that by around 170 MPH, the fan was already driven by the airflow.
The optimum climbing speed stated for the FW 190A5/U8 in this test was 160 Kts which works out to 184 MPH.
Perhaps this was the reason why the best climbing speed of the 190 seems unusually high by comparison.
I believe the designers made some less than optimal choices in some place but they basically did their homework.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> What were the equivalent flat plate areas for the Hellcat and Corsair? Coefficient of Drag isn't the entire story either
> What value do you have for the Take-Off weight for the F6F-3 in "Fighter Overload" condition and what is the source?....



I have been referring to Flight Test Data that was collected from 1943 through 1945 at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland. The average "Fighter Overload" weight reported was roughly 12,400 lbs, with small variations depending on the specifics of the test and that day's particular parameters. One test actually states this weight to be as high as 12,680 lbs. Again, there are variances but most references I have seen quote a normally loaded F6F-3 with a weight pretty darn close to 12,400 lbs.

By "flat plate" do you mean drag area?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> And I stand by my statement regarding late war FW-190As. You can't be loaded down with more armor than the original design allowed for and armed to the teeth with large caliber cannon and rockets and expect to stay competitive.


 True but you're forgetting one thing, what was the primary mission of these aircraft? To dogfight and shoot those rockets at P51s???

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> True but you're forgetting one thing, what was the primary mission of these aircraft? To dogfight and shoot those rockets at P51s???



I agree with you that under this guise it was configured as a bomber interceptor but once airborne the added weight of additional armor and heavy cannon could not be removed (even the jettisonable rocket tubes left some drag provoking hardware still in place), which would leave them much more vulnerable to the accompanying escort fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I agree with you that under this guise it was configured as a bomber interceptor but once airborne the added weight of additional armor and heavy cannon could not be removed (even the jettisonable rocket tubes left some drag provoking hardware still in place), which would leave them much more vulnerable to the accompanying escort fighters.


So consider how the aircraft is loaded and it's mission.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> By "flat plate" do you mean drag area?



"Flat plate" is the area of a square, flat plate with the same drag as the aircraft. I tend to think it's a lousy measure, because a small aircraft with the drag profile of a barn door will have a smaller equivalent flat plate area than an efficient, larger aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So consider how the aircraft is loaded and it's mission.
> 
> View attachment 479255
> 
> ...



The Hellcat could be configured as a ground attack aircraft but it still carried the same armor plating as one that wasn't. But after "disposing" of it's bombs and rockets during flight it would be in it's more familiar guise as a pure air superiority fighter, with no added weight or drag, and able to perform as such.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> "Flat plate" is the area of a square, flat plate with the same drag as the aircraft. I tend to think it's a lousy measure, because a small aircraft with the drag profile of a barn door will have a smaller equivalent flat plate area than an efficient, larger aircraft.



Ah, I think I read something like that before somewhere. I understand that the P-51 had a larger "flat plate" drag than your average piston-engine Luftwaffe fighter but of course it was aerodynamically superior to them all, as far as most other measurements of drag were concerned anyway....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Those are very sexy pictures, thanks for posting them!  And yes, the Hellcat could be configured as a ground attack aircraft but it still carried the same armor plating as one that wasn't. But after "disposing" of it's bombs and rockets during flight it would be in it's more familiar guise as a pure air superiority fighter, with no added weight or drag, and able perform as such.


 As with a "stock" Fw 190.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As with a "stock" Fw 190.


Yes, without these devices, but again the Luftwaffe pilot didn't have the same luxury because he couldn't dispose of the added weight accorded to the extra armor and weapons in flight like that Hellcat pilot, or for that matter most allied fighters, could.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Yes, without these devices, but again the Luftwaffe pilot didn't have the same luxury because he couldn't dispose of the added weight accorded to the extra armor and weapons in flight like that Hellcat pilot, or for that matter most allied fighters, could. If he were jumped he'd be a sitting duck.....



I think the point that Flyboy is making is that those Fw 190s with additional armour were specialised variants built for a specific task. 

The regular variants could be configured to carry the same weapons, but with less armour, and would obviously perform better than the specialised variant once the weapons were expended.

It's OK to use a regular fighter for the occasional ground attack mission, but if it was to be the primary use for the aircraft additional armour would have to be a good thing. After all, anti-aircraft defences could have substantially more firepower than is carried in an average WW2 fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 15, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello DarrenW,
> The Hellcat was in service at the right time against the right enemy. Even toward the end of the war the latest Japanese fighters were performing better.
> At the end of the war, the Corsair remained in service while the Hellcat did not. In fact many of the F6F-3s were expended as target drones and guided missiles.
> - Ivan.



I agree with all this. 

Toward the end of the war, the Japanese were producing some very competent fighters that equaled or exceeded some of the performance attritbutes of the F6F. These were fighters that were just being placed into service in 1945 when the F6F had been fighting since mid 1943. The Japanese never had enough of them, and certainly didn't have the pilots that could exploit the capabilities of their new planes. 

The F6F was the right plane at the right time. Easy to fly, fast enough, rugged as hell, low stall speed, great deck handling characteristics. The Navy had a metric sh*t-load of them, and a huge quantity of pilots able to fly them. *It met the Navy's need until the end of the war.* So there was no need, like the Germans and Japanese had, to rush better and better planes into service. But there is no denying the F6F was obsolete in August 1944 when the first XF8F flew. Indeed, its obselence was anticipated in 1943 when the requirement for the F8F was issued.

As far as the F6F not remaining in service after the war, except in the roles you mentioned - It's true. There was no future in the F6F except as a reserve aircraft, trainer, or drone. It shouldn't have remained in service. Its replacement, the F8F, was already a developed fighter and making its way to more and more squadrons. The F8F is arguably the best piston engined _fighter_ to see service with any nation. But even it couldn't compete with the F4U in meeting the Navy's need. The F4U-4 was as fast or faster, carried a larger load further. 

Maybe Grumman didn't know it then, but once the F4U flew, the handwriting was on the wall for Grumman piston engined fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I think the point that Flyboy is making is that those Fw 190s with additional armour were specialised variants built for a specific task.
> 
> The regular variants could be configured to carry the same weapons, but with less armour, and would obviously perform better than the specialised variant once the weapons were expended.
> 
> It's OK to use a regular fighter for the occasional ground attack mission, but if it was to be the primary use for the aircraft additional armour would have to be a good thing. After all, anti-aircraft defences could have substantially more firepower than is carried in an average WW2 fighter.



Fair enough. I guess the next question would be is how many were configured for a fighter vs fighter role and how many as interceptors? I suspect the answer is hard to determine but as the war progressed the German High Command correctly realized that enemy bombers, not fighters, were the primary threat and started to focus their energy on bringing as many of them down as possible. Hence they selected the poorer altitude performing FW-190 as bomber "killers" and left the lighter and more maneuverable Bf-109 to handle the escort fighters.

Didn't mean to the focus so much on the skies over Germany. Are we also including the Eastern Front in our discussion as well???


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

*SkyChimp* said:


> I agree with all this.
> 
> Toward the end of the war, the Japanese were producing some very competent fighters that equaled or exceeded some of the performance attritbutes of the F6F. These were fighters that were just being placed into service in 1945 when the F6F had been fighting since mid 1943. The Japanese never had enough of them, and certainly didn't have the pilots that could exploit the capabilities of their new planes.
> 
> ...



Very well put. But I just want to add that all fighters eventually become obsolete. The Hellcat wasn't the only casualty of time....


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 15, 2018)

Yep, they all do. These polls about what's best usually devolve into "what's your favorite" type discussions. For all our favorites, there is almost always something better. My favorite was the F4F Wildcat. No one would ever pick that plane as best at anything. But it fought the Japense and achieved something like a 6-7:1 kill ratio in the Pacific.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Yes, without these devices, but again the Luftwaffe pilot didn't have the same luxury because he couldn't dispose of the added weight accorded to the extra armor and weapons in flight like that Hellcat pilot, or for that matter most allied fighters, could. If he were jumped he'd be a sitting duck.....



Hello DarrenW,

Actually you are incorrect as several folks have already pointed out.

There were specialized variants with a LOT of armour and different weapons that Wuzak mentioned.
Those were made to cruise right up behind a B-17 formation and getting shot at all the way in.
Those were the Sturmbock aircraft. Regardless of armour protection, survival rate was not very high.
They were pretty useless in fighter versus fighter combat and required protection from enemy fighters.

There were the fighter bomber or Jabo / Jabo-Rei. Jabo-Rei was the term for the "Long Range" versions.
The captured FW 190A-5 that we have been discussing was probably one of those, most likely a FW 190A-5/U8 in original configuration.
They were not "fast" when carrying a lot of ordnance and carried a bit more armour than the fighters but once the ordnance was dropped, they were quite credible low altitude fighters. In fact, because of the lesser gun armament, they were typically lighter than the equivalent fighter.
The engines were tuned a bit differently than for fighters which is why there was not as much performance at altitude.

There were other bomber interceptor versions or ground attack versions that carried such heavy loads of cannon as to compromise maneuverability and Aufklarer (reconnaissance) that carried reduced armament and probably a zillion other versions for very specific purposes.

The there were the pure fighter versions which were pretty comparable in equipment to those from the United States.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello DarrenW,
> 
> Actually you are incorrect as several folks have already pointed out.
> 
> ...


 Ivan, how the heck are you!  Haven't heard from you in hours and was worried but I'm much better now. Yes, I knew you'd pounce on the opportunity to prove me wrong. There's strength in numbers so who could blame you?

Anyway you're just regurgitating what myself and others have been discussing while you took a break. We all understand the different "packaging" allotted to the FW-190 so you're a little late for the show as they say.

There is one thing you could help us with though. Did you happen to see my latest question, asking about the numbers of FW-190As that were dedicated fighters and dedicated bomber killers? Have any factoids to add that would enrich the discussion? I surely hope so because I've thoroughly enjoyed today's lessons and hope that tomorrow will bring even more sharing of knowledge amongst like minded people.....


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

The FW 190 with additional armor and extra heavy weapons was a formidable bomber killer indeed.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

*SkyChimp* said:


> ... My favorite was the F4F Wildcat. No one would ever pick that plane as best at anything. But it fought the Japense and achieved something like a 6-7:1 kill ratio in the Pacific.



It was a fairly competitive fighter once the right tactics were employed.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The regular variants could be configured to carry the same weapons, but with less armour, and would obviously perform better than the specialised variant once the weapons were expended



Aircraft will normally perform better once their weapons are expended.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2018)

Someone needs to stop being so damn pompous...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 16, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> And just to clarify, ALL aircraft will normally perform better once their weapons are expended. This includes heavy bombers, such as the B-17, B-24, and B-29. The FW-190 didn't have the monopoly on this feature.



You misrepresent what I said.

An equivalent for the B-17 would be the YB-40.

The YB-40 performance was similar to the regular B-17 when heading to the target, when the regular B-17s had their bombs and the YB-40s had their ammo. But when the B-17s had dropped their bombs and the YB-40s shot off their ammo, the YB-40s could not keep up with the B-17s.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 16, 2018)

wuzak said:


> You misrepresent what I said.
> 
> An equivalent for the B-17 would be the YB-40.
> 
> The YB-40 performance was similar to the regular B-17 when heading to the target, when the regular B-17s had their bombs and the YB-40s had their ammo. But when the B-17s had dropped their bombs and the YB-40s shot off their ammo, the YB-40s could not keep up with the B-17s.




I respect what you are trying to say here and I'm sorry if you feel misrepresented. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. My point from the beginning has always been not that there weren't different versions of the FW 190A which carried varying weapons and equipment, but that those configured for the bomber interceptor role were becoming increasingly vulnerable to allied fighter attacks. And once they left the ground they remained vulnerable as the added equipment for this mission couldn't be removed until after it landed. This meant that the pilot was flying an aircraft of reduced performance and was at a greater disadvantage throughout the flight.

If someone could fill in some of the blank spaces regarding the primary roles played by the FW 190A series during the latter half of 1944 until VE day we would have a better understanding of the FW 190As abilities as a pure air-to-air fighter during this period. This in a nutshell is what I'm after. Maybe this isn't the best place to find it, but I was hoping that the collective knowledge found here on this forum may hold that answer to this question.


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 16, 2018)

> If someone could fill in some of the blank spaces regarding the primary roles played by the FW-190A series during the latter half of 1944 until VE day we would have a better understanding of the FW-190As abilities as a pure air-to-air fighter during this period. This in a nutshell is what I'm after. Maybe this isn't the best place to find it, but I was hoping that the collective knowledge found here on this forum may hold that answer to this question.



In the west? Primary role played by the Fw-190A during the latter half of 1944 to VE day? Easy. Target.

By this time, there were no safe airfields in Germany. All airfields in Germany from which any Luftwaffe fighters operated were being ravaged by ranging P-51s. Germany couldn't even train its pilots at this time without them being shot out of the air. What planes could get into the air were sent to intercept bombers. Others acted as fighter bombers. Bodenplatte was the Luftwaffe's last gasp and after that the Luftwaffe ceased to exist as a credible fighter force in the west. Whatever attibutes the Fw-190A had couldn't be exploited in the west at this time. Life expectancy of an experienced German pilot in the west was a fraction of what it was in the east. They had next to no fuel and some fighters had to be pulled to the runway for takeoff by horses so they wouldn't use fuel taxing. Some units were experiencing more that 100% aircraft losses per month. The Luftwaffe was desperate at this point and used their fighters almost exclusively to attack bombers. In fighter-on-fighter combat, German pilots were, by and large, simply trying to stay alive. The Fw-190A was dead as a credible defense against western fighters at this time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 16, 2018)

*SkyChimp* said:


> In the west? Primary role played by the Fw-190A during the latter half of 1944 to VE day? Easy. Target.
> 
> By this time, there were no safe airfields in Germany. All airfields in Germany from which any Luftwaffe fighters operated were being ravaged by ranging P-51s. Germany couldn't even train its pilots at this time without them being shot out of the air. What planes could get into the air were sent to intercept bombers. Others acted as fighter bombers. Bodenplatte was the Luftwaffe's last gasp and after that the Luftwaffe ceased to exist as a credible fighter force in the west. Whatever attibutes the Fw-190A had couldn't be exploited in the west at this time. Life expectancy of an experienced German pilot in the west was a fraction of what it was in the east. They had next to no fuel and some fighters had to be pulled to the *runway* for takeoff by horses so they wouldn't use fuel taxing. Some units were experiencing more that 100% aircraft losses per month. The Luftwaffe was desperate at this point and used their fighters almost exclusively to attack bombers. In fighter-on-fighter combat, German pilots were, by and large, simply trying to stay alive. The Fw-190A was dead as a credible defense against western fighters at this time.


Good post except in many cases "runway" could be substituted for "autobahn"


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 16, 2018)

That's a great summation Sky Chimp, you crammed a lot of good information into such a small space. 

Besides this however, I was also hoping for a listing of known FW-190 units and the types they had on hand, in whatever form that may be (by month, unit, version, numbers, ect.). I'm only interested in the last 12 months of the war or so, and primarily units that served within the confines of Germany proper. Does this data even exist, or am I asking way too much?

Lastly, I would also like someone who is fluent in the German language to help decipher these test documents:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg

I think I understand most of it but would like someone to verify exactly what is being expressed because I don't want to assume anything.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## pbehn (Jan 16, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Ooops! Be very careful mentioning the dreaded "kill ratio" as there are people lurking in the shadows, ready to challenge what actually constitutes an aerial victory and whether or not it even has a place when talking about which aircraft was the "best dogfighter".


I really must challenge this post. Firstly, I do not "lurk" I read posts, and this is a forum. Kill ratios are what they are, whether they are important or not becomes clear later when the war is over. In a war you have battles, you have conflicts and you have skirmishes then sometimes you have a rout.
This is an aviation forum and so importance is given to aviation operation but there were only a few cases where aviation was decisive. If the Me109 had its historic kill ratio over England (as the nearest part of UK to France) and Malta then history would have been much different. It didn't, so whatever it and the FW190 did is of no importance in the western war because the LW and Germany with the Axis powers as a whole lost those critical battles, and even though Malta was an air battle it was also a sea and submarine battle too. In the Battle of Britain on Fighter versus fighter kill ratios the LW won, but they didn't win because they achieved zero. At Malta the RAF losses were high and Malta was the most bombed place on earth at the time but LW air power did not prevail. The Axis military (remember Italy was also involved) were driven out of Africa eventually while Joachim Marseilles was becoming a legend. However the LW in Africa were only ever fighting their own private war and a rearguard action, their fighters were trying to stop RAF and later USA fighters, fighter bombers and bombers.......how many bombers did the LW have in Africa, despite their high kill ratio it was just desperate defence.

For the war in the east I have my own theories and ideas, here is the gist of it, though I have not read extensively. In the Battle of Britain (and many conflicts) the majority of kills were where the victim was caught "unawares". In Operation Bagration the LW had 600 aircraft while the Russians had 7,000 aircraft on a front that was well over 1000 miles long. Below on the ground the Russians had 6000 tanks and assault guns and the Axis had about 600. It may be callous but Stalin was callous, the loss of a fighter pilot was no more significant to him than infantryman or tank commander, he was concerned with winning ground not a kill ratio.

In the war in the Pacific, although in principle the Japanese were in a losing situation before Pearl Harbour, if Midway, Coral Sea and Leyte Gulf had run differently then history would be different. Those battles were not really won or lost by the aircraft performance but by decisions made. However, if you consider that the US torpedo attacks were unsuccessful because the torpedoes didn't work, imagine what would have happened if the dive bombers bombs did not explode either? Don't laugh, that is what happened in the Falkland conflict almost 30 years later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 16, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ....Oh and one more thing. How did the FW-190 pilots jettison the additional armor once they realized that they were "flying pigs" and needed to lighten the load so they didn't get waxed by an enemy fighter???? If any one knows the answer to this question it should be you...



Hello DarrenW,
You gotta figure out which planes had lots of armour or guns and which ones just carried a lot of ordnance.
It isn't hard from the descriptions I wrote and I am sure some folks could write about a few more variants.

You really need to read what was written rather than what you want things to be.
I don't claim to know all that much about the FW 190 series but I HAVE been reading things written by people who do.
If you didn't learn anything new from my last post, then obviously you know much more than I do regarding the various configurations and missions of the FW 190 series and are coming to stupid conclusions just to prompt more discussion.

My apologies for attempting to educate you because clearly it is not working.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 16, 2018)

Thanks Ivan and Pbehn, I appreciate your candid opinions. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings here. No offense but maybe this forum isn't the one for me. Caring for a wife with brain cancer for the past ten years has probably hardened me a bit, so I don't sweat the small stuff anymore. I should've known better than to think others can overlook the same things that I've learned overtime really don't amount to a hill of beans.

Again, I apologize for offending anyone's view of aviation history, or for that matter threatening their established beliefs on any topic, no matter how insignificant I may or may not think that topic to be......Adios Amigos.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2018)

Seriously?

First of all, I hope your wife is beating the cancer. My best wishes for a good outcome.

Secondly, the irony of the rest of your post. You come in here very pompous and on a high horse, and expect people to not react the way they did? You are not the only one who studies aviation history. Maybe it is you whose established beliefs are threatened...

Now it is obvious that you are a knowledgable person, but so is the majority of this forum. That however does not mean you know everything, nor does it mean that anyone else here does. 

The purpose of this forum is to exchange views, ideas and information, and most of all learn from each other. It is a place to debate, but debate is only valuable when you don’t try and dictate the terms to everyone else. 

You come across like this: _”Someone tell me about exhibit A. In reality though, it does not matter what you tell me, because I already know it all.”_

Lastly, debate is only functional when you don’t make subtle snide, and quite honestly insulting comments, then try and play it off as it not being your intent. No, it was obvious it was your intent. 

So it’s up to you. You can choose to stay (I hope you do.), and be productive, or you can go find a new home and probably get the same feedback there.

If not, take care...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## *SkyChimp* (Jan 17, 2018)

> Besides this however, I was also hoping for a listing of known FW-190 units and the types they had on hand, in whatever form that may be (by month, unit, version, numbers, ect.). I'm only interested in the last 12 months of the war or so, and primarily units that served within the confines of Germany proper. Does this data even exist, or am I asking way too much?



By mid 1944 there were a few German airbases outside "Germany proper" but as time went on they were all inside Germany. They had to move as they were getting over-run by the western allies and the Russians. By 1945, there was scarcely a difference between the air forces dedicated to the eastern front and the western front, as German planes could fly to one as easily as the other. In 1945, types that were still operating successfully (somewhat) in the east, ie Ju-87, were being seen in the west because the air front in the east and west had mostly converged.

It seems in late summer 1944 deliveries of Fw-190s were still brisk, about 1,000 per month. The principal types produced appear to be late model As, Gs and Fs. As 1945 drug on, these deliveries ever decreased as the Russians began overrunning manufacturing facilities. In late 1944 on, units appears to have been operating a mishmash of Fw-190Ds, A-5 and later, Gs and some Fs. I'm not sure many units had the luxury of having single types assigned to them, with some units flying Bf-109s and Fw-190s together.

From William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich," here's the principal Fw-190 units in April 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ...
> Lastly, I would also like someone who is fluent in the German language to help decipher these test documents:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
> ...



Are you still interested in those?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2018)

I am fluent in German, but unfortunately do not have the time at the moment. Sorry...

Having said that, I doubt he is still interested. He pretty much said we are not his cup of tea.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 17, 2018)

You don't have to be fluent in German to read what is on these graphs.
My German is quite poor and it is not difficult to figure out what is there.
It is hard to read the exact model designations but the weapons listed will give that information.

Regarding the recent events, I find it quite ironic that DarrenW was trying to give me a hard time for "not responding in hours" and has his own excuse for being such an a$$. Sometimes real life intrudes and takes precedence over online amusements.
My Wife and I spent basically the entire day yesterday taking my Daughter to doctors' visits and then dropping her back at school and getting her settled so no computer access until pretty late in the evening.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 17, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> You don't have to be fluent in German to read what is on these graphs.
> My German is quite poor and it is not difficult to figure out what is there.
> It is hard to read the exact model designations but the weapons listed will give that information.
> 
> ...


Best wishes for your daughter's recovery and her remaining school term. The graphs are well drawn and detailed, and I tend to think they detail performance curves. Many websites offer translation services at no charge- the only exception being Russian, with the cryllic (sic) alphabet. Viel gluck..


----------



## pbehn (Jan 17, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thanks Ivan and Pbehn, I appreciate your candid opinions. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings here. No offense but maybe this forum isn't the one for me. Caring for a wife with brain cancer for the past ten years has probably hardened me a bit, so I don't sweat the small stuff anymore. I should've known better than to think others can overlook the same things that I've learned overtime really don't amount to a hill of beans.
> 
> Again, I apologize for offending anyone's view of aviation history, or for that matter threatening their established beliefs on any topic, no matter how insignificant I may or may not think that topic to be......Adios Amigos.


Firstly best wishes to your wife and family including yourself at a difficult time.
Secondly I am not offended, I do get slightly irritated when emotive language like "unbridled adulation" and "lurking" are used on this forum. There are well read posters here who could easily be described as historians themselves as there are experts in air combat and aerodynamics, I am not one of them but I do enjoy their posts. When these posters give you their opinion and the facts that support them you still disagree and ask for more detailed information including translations, but a summary is too short and a full explanation is too long, and in any case you may consider the topic you introduced to be insignificant.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 17, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Best wishes for your daughter's recovery and her remaining school term. The graphs are well drawn and detailed, and I tend to think they detail performance curves. Many websites offer translation services at no charge- the only exception being Russian, with the cryllic (sic) alphabet. Viel gluck..



Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
Thanks for the good wishes. Actually the doctors' visits were just routine (orthodontist and allergist) so she is basically well. It was a matter of seeing the doctors now because the next time she will be back will be Spring break.

Both graphs are for FW 190A-8 and A-8/R-something variants.
The R number isn't very readable but the armament in the last column (outer wing position) gives an indication as to what variant is described.
I also can't read about half of the entries for number of rounds per gun under the weapons descriptions in the last column.

First graph gives climb rates and times (as one might gather from the file name).
All values are with "Steig u. Kampfleistung" or Climb and Combat Power - 2400 RPM & 1.32 ATA

Second graph gives Horizontal Speed (Maximum Speed)
All entries in the tabular data are for "Start u. Notleistung" or Take-Off and Emergency Power - 2700 RPM & 1.42 ATA

Note that at 8,000 meters altitude, there is a jag and an additional higher performance curve that seems disconnected and I do not know what that means. FWIW, the maximum speed with that short curve works out to about 409 MPH @ 26,250 feet for the FW 190A-8 which seems to be around the typical listed maximum speed in books but is at a much higher altitude.

Perhaps someone here knows the meaning of this short curve which exists in both graphs for all models?

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> 
> Note that at 8,000 meters altitude, there is a jag and an additional higher performance curve that seems disconnected and I do not know what that means. FWIW, the maximum speed with that short curve works out to about 409 MPH @ 26,250 feet for the FW 190A-8 which seems to be around the typical listed maximum speed in books but is at a much higher altitude.
> 
> Perhaps someone here knows the meaning of this short curve which exists in both graphs for all models?



The 'jag' is for GM1 use.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The 'jag' is for GM1 use.



Thanks for the explanation. That might explain why the weights are a bit lower than expected for A-8 with the Aft Fuel Tank installed.
I was thinking that this table for 1943 was early enough in the A-8 production that although there was provision for the third fuel tank, it was not installed by default. I believe the GM1 tank would have been in the same place as the fuel tank so it was one or the other.

That brings up a few more questions though:
The Emergency Power setting is still listed as 1.42 ATA and maximum level speed for the clean A-8 is not quite 400 MPH at 6200 meters (20,340 feet). I did not believe that the power adders were mutually exclusive.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Thanks for the explanation. That might explain why the weights are a bit lower than expected for A-8 with the Aft Fuel Tank installed.
> I was thinking that this table for 1943 was early enough in the A-8 production that although there was provision for the third fuel tank, it was not installed by default. I believe the GM1 tank would have been in the same place as the fuel tank so it was one or the other.



Yes, it was either the 3rd fuel tank or GM1 tank (item 50):






> That brings up a few more questions though:
> The Emergency Power setting is still listed as 1.42 ATA and maximum level speed for the clean A-8 is not quite 400 MPH at 6200 meters (20,340 feet). I did not believe that the power adders were mutually exclusive.
> - Ivan.



*With regard to the altitude of use*, power adders - GM-1 vs. MW 50 - were mutually exclusive. GM-1 was used when supercharger was inable to provide enough of boost, ie. at very high altitude. At 8 km, the supercharger of the BMW 801D was providing barely above 1 ata of boost ('Laderdruck', link), pilot was to activate GM-1 system that provided extra oxygen to the engine. At lower altitudes, the supercharger was providing plenty of boost (= plenty of air), indeed too much for engine to withstand unless means of supressing detonations were used. Those will be high octane fuel, or water spray, or both.

Fw 190A-8 performance with overboost (shaded, used under the rated altitudes) and GM-1 (at high altitude):




*edited part*


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 18, 2018)

Hello Tomo Pauk,

Perhaps my terminology "power adder" was incorrect. I was actually thinking of either C3 Injection or Erhoehte Notleistung though I don't remember when each was available. It was already clear that either a Fuel Tank or a Water Methanol Tank or a Nitrous Oxide Tank could be carried behind the cockpit and that only one could be mounted. Neither C3 Einspritzung or Erhoehte Notleistung should have needed equipment located in the same position as a GM1 tank.

Since the boost pressures are specified on your performance graphs, this graph would appear to cover at least the case of Erhoehte Notleistung. It surprises me that even with the increased boost pressure of 1.58 ATA / 1.65 ATA, the maximum level speed was only about 405 MPH with the A-8s. I had thought they were a bit faster than that.

Contrast that with the A-5 Jabo-Rei that reached 410 MPH with 1.46 ATA in the USN test we have been discussing and the G-3 that was tested at 415 MPH at Wright Field. Neither was a fighter variant as I presume these A-8 tp be. Both US tests had the aircraft ballasted to much lighter Take-Off weights than a typical A-8 but that should not make this much difference. Could the test protocols be that different?

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Perhaps my terminology "power adder" was incorrect. I was actually thinking of either C3 Injection or Erhoehte Notleistung though I don't remember when each was available. It was already clear that either a Fuel Tank or a Water Methanol Tank or a Nitrous Oxide Tank could be carried behind the cockpit and that only one could be mounted. Neither C3 Einspritzung or Erhoehte Notleistung should have needed equipment located in the same position as a GM1 tank.



You are right, of course. My line of thinking was that GM-1 was to be used where, ie. at what altitude, where the MW50 or simple over-boosting ('Erhoehte Notleistung') could not. I'll edit the previous post accordingly.



> Since the boost pressures are specified on your performance graphs, this graph would appear to cover at least the case of Erhoehte Notleistung. It surprises me that even with the increased boost pressure of 1.58 ATA / 1.65 ATA, the maximum level speed was only about 405 MPH with the A-8s. I had thought they were a bit faster than that.
> 
> Contrast that with the A-5 Jabo-Rei that reached 410 MPH with 1.46 ATA in the USN test we have been discussing and the G-3 that was tested at 415 MPH at Wright Field. Neither was a fighter variant as I presume these A-8 tp be. Both US tests had the aircraft ballasted to much lighter Take-Off weights than a typical A-8 but that should not make this much difference. Could the test protocols be that different?
> 
> - Ivan.



The A-8 was, along with A-7 and A-9, draggiest of the Antons. The over-boosting will add good deal of under the rated height(s), but since that includes flying at lower altitudes, the gain in max speed will not be that great. We can compare Spitfire I, II or V with emergency boost vs. normal boost. Granted, speed & climb gains will be noticeable at lower altitudes. 
There was a reason why people went on with ever better superchargers - those improve boost (thus improve power) at higher altitudes, where the air is thinner so gains in speed will be also higher.
Jabo Rei ('Jagdbomber mit vergrößerte Reichweite', or 'fighter-bomber with increased range') were armed just with a pair of guns (MG 151/20), so in clean state they will be faster than an usual 6-gun Fw 190A.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 19, 2018)

Hello Tomo Pauk,

I notice you started your list of "draggiest" with the A-7.
The big difference between A-7 and earlier was the MG 131 substitution for 7.92 mm cowl guns.
By eyeball, that looked to be a fairly clean installation.
The ETC 501 rack also became standard at about that time which would have cost something.

Besides those two external changes, there should have been very little difference between A-8 and earlier versions.
Weight was increased (about 400 pounds from the A-5 and 200 pounds from the A-6) but that should not have cost 15 MPH in maximum speed.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I notice you started your list of "draggiest" with the A-7.
> The big difference between A-7 and earlier was the MG 131 substitution for 7.92 mm cowl guns.
> By eyeball, that looked to be a fairly clean installation.
> The ETC 501 rack also became standard at about that time which would have cost something.



One test result pointed into 10 km/h loss when MG 131 installation (replacing MG 17 installation) was tested on the A-5 (link). The belly rack will cost some speed, indeed. You might check out illustration on your post #516.



> Besides those two external changes, there should have been very little difference between A-8 and earlier versions.
> Weight was increased (about 400 pounds from the A-5 and 200 pounds from the A-6) but that should not have cost 15 MPH in maximum speed.
> - Ivan.



Cost was not 15 mph between fighter versions powered with 801D engine, but 15 km/h from A-3 to A-8 (and probably already with A-7, that I don't have firm figures) 660 km/h down to 645 km/h. In clean condition, Jabo Rei versions should be faster than fighter versions due to lower weapon-related drag.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 19, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Are you still interested in those?



Hi Tomo yes I am. I see that the graph shows that while carrying _Werfer-Granate 21_ rocket launchers the aircraft reached a maximum speed of 594 km/hr (369 mph) at 6250 meters (20,505 feet), while with GM-1 a speed of 605 km/hr (376 mph) was reached at 8000 meters (26, 247 feet). Is this how you see it to be as well?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ...
> I see that the graph shows that while carrying _Werfer-Granate 21_ rocket launchers the aircraft reached a maximum speed of 594 km/hr (369 mph) at 6250 meters (20,505 feet), while with GM-1 a speed of 605 km/hr (376 mph) was reached at 8000 meters (26, 247 feet). Is this how you see it to be as well?



Yes, case '5' is when two 'Werfer-Granate 21' rockets launchers are attached under the wings ('u. d. Fl.' - unter dem Fluegel), gun armament was two MG 131s and two MG 151/20s for the case '5'.
The other cases are for different cannon set-ups for outer guns' positions, case '3' and '4' for under-wing cannons.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 19, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> "Flat plate" is the area of a square, flat plate with the same drag as the aircraft. I tend to think it's a lousy measure, because a small aircraft with the drag profile of a barn door will have a smaller equivalent flat plate area than an efficient, larger aircraft.



Hi Swampyankee,

Found this on the web. It seems to mirror what you were saying earlier.

World Heritage Encyclopedia


_Mathematically, zero-lift __drag coefficient__ is defined as C_{D,0} = C_D - C_{D,i}, where C_D is the total drag coefficient for a given power, speed, and altitude, and C_{D,i} is the __lift-induced drag__ coefficient at the same conditions. Thus, zero-lift drag coefficient is reflective of __parasitic drag__ which makes it very useful in understanding how "clean" or streamlined an aircraft's aerodynamics are. For example, a __Sopwith Camel__ biplane of __World War I__ which had many wires and bracing struts as well as fixed landing gear, had a zero-lift drag coefficient of approximately 0.0378. Compare a C_{D,0} value of 0.0161 for the streamlined __P-51 Mustang__ of __World War II__ which compares very favorably even with the best modern aircraft._

_The drag at zero-lift can be more easily conceptualized as the drag area (f) which is simply the product of zero-lift drag coefficient and aircraft's wing area (C_{D,0} \times S where S is the wing area). Parasitic drag experienced by an aircraft with a given drag area is approximately equal to the drag of a flat square disk with the same area which is held perpendicular to the direction of flight. The Sopwith Camel has a drag area of 8.73 sq ft (0.811 m2), compared to 3.80 sq ft (0.353 m2) for the P-51. Both aircraft have a similar wing area, again reflecting the Mustang's superior aerodynamics in spite of much larger size.[1] In another comparison with the Camel, a very large but streamlined aircraft such as the __Lockheed Constellation__ has a considerably smaller zero-lift drag coefficient (0.0211 vs. 0.0378) in spite of having a much larger drag area (34.82 ft² vs. 8.73 ft²)._
*
*
_
* 
*_


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 19, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Yes, case '5' is when two 'Werfer-Granate 21' rockets launchers are attached under the wings ('u. d. Fl.' - unter dem Fluegel), gun armament was two MG 131s and two MG 151/20s for the case '5'.
> The other cases are for different cannon set-ups for outer guns' positions, case '3' and '4' for under-wing cannons.



Thanks, I like this chart because it actually shows how the speed of the aircraft was affected by the different armaments it could carry.

Earlier you mentioned the 190F and G which I completely forgot about. I have always believed them to be used more for ground attack, and not so much for air to air combat. Have I been mislead at all?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ...
> Earlier you mentioned the 190F and G which I completely forgot about. I have always believed them to be used more for ground attack, and not so much for air to air combat. Have I been mislead at all?



The 190F was a fighter-bomber supposed to be employed as ground attacker, featuring many times increased armor. The 190F-8 featured the external air intakes so the air filters can be installed. Usualy the cowl guns were retained, outer guns deleted. Different combinations or extra armor, extra internal fuel tank and cowl guns were in use (one thing excuding another). 
190G were intended for long range work, being usualy outfitted with wing drop tanks facility, so the external payload might involve either on bomb + 2 tanks, or 2 bombs + 1 tank. The 190G-8 was also featuring the extra fuselage tank, carry-over from A-8. 

Both F and G versions were capable fighters once external payload was dropped (they were _fighter_-bombers, after all), for example Rudel claimed a number of Soviet A/C when he flew the 190F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 19, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The 190F was a fighter-bomber supposed to be employed as ground attacker, featuring many times increased armor. The 190F-8 featured the external air intakes so the air filters can be installed. Usualy the cowl guns were retained, outer guns deleted. Different combinations or extra armor, extra internal fuel tank and cowl guns were in use (one thing excuding another).
> 190G were intended for long range work, being usualy outfitted with wing drop tanks facility, so the external payload might involve either on bomb + 2 tanks, or 2 bombs + 1 tank. The 190G-8 was also featuring the extra fuselage tank, carry-over from A-8.
> 
> Both F and G versions were capable fighters once external payload was dropped (they were _fighter_-bombers, after all), for example Rudel claimed a number of Soviet A/C when he flew the 190F.



Thanks for the run-down on their use, and I was unaware that Hans Rudel flew an FW 190 in combat. So basically what I'm seeing is the extra armor did not overtly affect handling or performance of the fighter. For the most part was this armor easy enough to remove in order to put its weight somewhere around what one would find with the A-8 model?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ...
> So basically what I'm seeing is the extra armor did not overtly affect handling or performance of the fighter. For the most part was this armor easy enough to remove in order to put its weight somewhere around what one would find with the A-8 model?



Handling and climb were not that much affected, since it was most of the times 'item A out, install item B' procedure. However, speed was very much hurt when the 190F carried four wing racks and belly rack - a 35-40 km/h loss vs. 190A-6. Still can bag a mid-war Soviet fighter, or any 'frontline bomber' (Il-2, A-20, B-25 etc.) but will not cut it against the Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire IX or XII, or any later US or Soviet fighter.
The 190G was considerably faster than the 190F on same power, due to having less racks and less guns (= lower drag). 190G-8 was also much lighter than F-8 or A-8, by 300 kg, all for clean condition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 19, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The *109G* was considerably faster than the *109F* on same power, due to having less racks and less guns (= lower drag). *109G-8* was also much lighter than F-8 or A-8, by 300 kg, all for clean condition.



I assume these were all supposed to be 190 rather than 109?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I assume these were all supposed to be 190 rather than 109?


Whoops 
I'll edit that. The should've named the new fighter Fw 246, 311 or something

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 19, 2018)

The Fockerschmidt Anagram BfW 910 was a formidable machine


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 19, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Handling and climb were not that much affected, since it was most of the times 'item A out, install item B' procedure. However, speed was very much hurt when the 190F carried four wing racks and belly rack - a 35-40 km/h loss vs. 190A-6. Still can bag a mid-war Soviet fighter, or any 'frontline bomber' (Il-2, A-20, B-25 etc.) but will not cut it against the Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire IX or XII, or any later US or Soviet fighter.
> The 190G was considerably faster than the 190F on same power, due to having less racks and less guns (= lower drag). 190G-8 was also much lighter than F-8 or A-8, by 300 kg, all for clean condition.



As always excellent stuff Tomo.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The 190F was a fighter-bomber supposed to be employed as ground attacker, featuring many times increased armor. The 190F-8 featured the external air intakes so the air filters can be installed. Usualy the cowl guns were retained, outer guns deleted. Different combinations or extra armor, extra internal fuel tank and cowl guns were in use (one thing excuding another).



Hello Tomo Pauk,
Are you certain that the F-8 used external air intakes? There is a beautiful FW 190F-8 in the Udvar Hazy Smithsonian which appears to have normal intakes. Why would extra armour, cowl guns, and extra internal fuel tanks (behind cockpit?) be mutually exclusive?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far is that the F and G series were originally just factory Umrustbausatz special equipment versions of standard A series fighters.
The first F series fighters were just redesignations of ground attack versions of the A-4 series and continued through to factory modifications of the A-9 series
The first G series I believe began as a renaming of ground attack A-5 series.
The FW 190A-5/U8 that was in the USN test would be designated a FW 190G-2 later in the war.
The powerplants of these Jabo were calibrated differently and may have had different equipment but so far I have not been able to find anything that does a direct comparison between a fighter and a ground attack engine. Perhaps the A-5 in the test lacked a pressurized ignition system as I have seen described in other forums. That would explain the engine cut during service ceiling test.

- Ivan.


----------



## icepac (May 12, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> Are you certain that the F-8 used external air intakes? There is a beautiful FW 190F-8 in the Udvar Hazy Smithsonian which appears to have normal intakes. Why would extra armour, cowl guns, and extra internal fuel tanks (behind cockpit?) be mutually exclusive?
> 
> One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far is that the F and G series were originally just factory Umrustbausatz special equipment versions of standard A series fighters.
> ...



I think the one at the smithsonian was converted to F8 but, in times of war, they don't perform every detail modification in the conversion. They just needed it modded to perform a specific task.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 22, 2019)

The Spitfire had a good rate of turn, seemed to be a decent rate of roll for the most part, though not exactly the best. The XIV is best in climb from 15000-25000 feet, it's raw power would probably yield a good sustained turn rate.

I'm not sure how the A6M's climb rate is between 15000-25000 feet, though I assume much of it's performance would decay above 20,000 feet. It had a great rate of turn at low speeds, not sure about roll-rates (it seemed that at higher speeds it couldn't roll as good).


----------

