# Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

*Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang *






*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 "Kommandogerat".





*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 !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Great post Soren - I'm going to "borrow" it for another post...


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

Be my guest FLYBOYJ


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2006)

Soren nice but the Dora did not have Flettner tabs.



> -Bubble-canopy Flettner Tabs.



If you want to see Flettner tabs look at the rudder of late model Me109s.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

maybe Soren you should follow up on the operational aspects on the Dora, the poor craft got it's nose very bloodied by P-51's. giving the Mustang a handful it did not. the German pilots were never able to prove themselves with their new toy even back in the Fall of 44 while with the first operational gruppe III./JG 54. 

Agaisnt the Soviets it was another story altogether and the Dora reigned supremem over every Soviet fighter pitted against it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Erich said:


> maybe Soren you should follow up on the operational aspects on the Dora, the poor craft got it's nose very bloodied by P-51's. giving the Mustang a handful it did not. the German pilots were never able to prove themselves with their new toy even back in the Fall of 44 while with the first operational gruppe III./JG 54.
> 
> Agaisnt the Soviets it was another story altogether and the Dora reigned supremem over every Soviet fighter pitted against it



But was it becuase it was outnumbered, tactics or pilot skill? Or all the above?


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

all three above it was- the Dora not up to par at high altitudes with the P-51. It was a superior at mid range with all Soviet fighter types.

I know the stats and that's all they are will say otherwise and the Dora was much better suited in fighter vs fighter with US craft than any of the Anton variants but still was not ultimately suited for "coming on up" to higher flying P-51's

overpowered by the odds, too few good pilots, underfuled, never quite having the upper hand in combat except on very few times


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 1, 2006)

Great Post.

Do you have any acceleration data for them both?


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 1, 2006)

Good post Soren, great info and Erich for the extra info, good stuff.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2006)

Interesting stuff, Erich. Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Great stuff Erich, thanks!


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 1, 2006)

> Agaisnt the Soviets it was another story altogether and the Dora reigned supremem over every Soviet fighter pitted against it



IIRC it was deployed in greater quantities in the Western front. In the eastern front the fights took place at low altitudes where the A versions were ok. The main reason for the D9 was to get a good performance at high altitudes, which the Fw-190A lacked.

http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=lw40&page=fw190d

In that link you can read an assesment by the Soviet AF Scientific Research Institute. Note that it's very likely that the MW-50 kit was not used.

Regards.


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

You are quite right Krazi, it was a mistake I wrote that, the Dora used a fixed tab. My mistake.



> maybe Soren you should follow up on the operational aspects on the Dora, the poor craft got it's nose very bloodied by P-51's. giving the Mustang a handful it did not. the German pilots were never able to prove themselves with their new toy even back in the Fall of 44 while with the first operational gruppe III./JG 54.



However that doesn't really reflect the performance of the aircraft itself. In the hands of a good pilot the Fw-190D-9 was a nightmare for any P-51 pilot.

Also the Dora-9 was infact designed to have better performance at high alt than its predecessor, however the cabin design wasn't able to provide adequate pressurization. 

The fact that the Fw-190's suffered high losses was entirely due to the fact that their pilots were ill trained and that they were outnumbered approx. 10 to 1, it cannot be blamed on the aircraft itself, it was a marvel of a machine.



> Agaisnt the Soviets it was another story altogether and the Dora reigned supremem over every Soviet fighter pitted against it



Absolutely.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

no the Dora was flown at mid altitudes to low altitude many times by JG 51 and IV./JG 3 pilots as described in their flugbuchs and in the Geschwader log-buchs. As well as II./JG 301 Doras while in the last battles for Berlin.

Soren do you see my point, you can explain away all the stas you want for both Luftw and US machines and it will do no good, the Dora was slaughtered in the skies over the Reich in all the units that it was destined for. it never gave the Mustang a hard time in the sky. True some of the noted aces in the 109/Fw 190A flew the Dora in JG 26 but racked up few kills in late 44-45 to even reflect that their bird coudl take out the Mustang at will.

the big deal was it never conclusively replaced the existing Luftw arsenal, if it had in late 44 then a better and overall tribute could be made on it's performance against all Allied "western' fighters.

in spring of 45: Doras in

JG 2 equipped
part of the ex-sturm IV./JG 3
stab in JG 4
part of II./JG 6
JG 26 equipped
several units in II./JG 300 more like about 8 a/c
II./JG 301 the 5-7th staffels, the 8th had A-9's

v/r Alt ♫


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2006)

Didn't Yeager say the only LW fighter that gave him fits was the Dora?

A little trivia. Slightly more Doras were produced than Kurfurst 109s.


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

> no the Dora was flown at mid altitudes to low altitude many times by JG 51 and IV./JG 3 pilots as described in their flugbuchs and in the Geschwader log-buchs. As well as II./JG 301 Doras while in the last battles for Berlin.



Erich I never claimed they didn't, so what is your point ?



> Soren do you see my point, you can explain away all the stas you want for both Luftw and US machines and it will do no good, the Dora was slaughtered in the skies over the Reich in all the units that it was destined for. it never gave the Mustang a hard time in the sky.



Erich the Dora-9's were mainly flown by inexperienced pilots with very few flight hours, against P-51's with properly trained pilots which outnumbered them 10 to 1. Thats why they got slaughtered Erich. Had the P-51 been in the same situation, it would've done even worse.



> True some of the noted aces in the 109/Fw 190A flew the Dora in JG 26 but racked up few kills in late 44-45 to even reflect that their bird coudl take out the Mustang at will.



"Take out the Mustang at will" ? what do you mean Erich ?
You don't just take out another aircraft at will, it takes skill to do such a thing, nomatter how superior your aircraft is. 

You could be flying the best aircraft of the war, and still get your ass kicked by a vastly inferior aircraft flown by a better pilot.



> the big deal was it never conclusively replaced the existing Luftw arsenal, if it had in late 44 then a better and overall tribute could be made on it's performance against all Allied "western' fighters.



It probably would've if the Germans have had the resources, but they didnt.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

soren you are off mark. my first comment you quoted was not directed at you but the poster before you concerning the Ost front.

the second point is that you are not quite correct the Dora was flown by many experienced pilots.

as to the comment take out at will maybe that was a bit sloppy but look at my earlier postings it is alle xplained and you have just repeated my comments for good measure, it is all explained in this thread and the past ones archived over the last 2 years on the A-8 Sturms, me 262 and the Dora about the overwhelming power of the Us might and even the RAF as Jg 26 experienced.

I really feel you guys are making the Dora out to be a super a/c against the P-51. Reality here it wasn't. I have said it so many times it will have to be repeated again, the Dora was not to replace the front line units the TA and the Me 262 had the war continued. I posted the stats twice in older threads about what unit was going to be replaced by what in June/July of 45 with the inkiling of newer equipment such as jets taking complete control.

The Lufw in 45 had literally too many experimental a/c in service with trained/untrained pilots eager to take them up against Allied escorts and Heavies. there was plenty of craft and boys to fly, BUT no fuel. that was proven even in the Nachtjagd. Had fuel reserves been available then we would of seen an RAF horro like in march of 44 when over 100 RAF heavies bit the dust 

just a side note the Dora 9 was even considered to be used as a night fighter


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2006)

Erich not to send the thread OT but do you have stats for German fuel availability for 1945? For each command district would be a bonus.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

that would be nice if anyone had that..........so much materials were lost in Berlin in late 44 till wars end when the Soviets destroyed the city.

as we have all chatted in the past of something we thought was quite easy : confirmed kills or even claims by the Luftwaffe for fall of 44 till wars end and the command did not process them anymore so what is available to us is what is in logbooks from the pilots/crews and the wing histories. this is obvious why we just do not see much written about the nachtjagd or some of the day fighter units, the information is lost forever.

_____________________________________________________________

getting back to the Dora 9, Jerry Crandalls new work on the a/c and some of the pilots might be worth a check this summer; and then this thread can go further as needed info will be available. I have some info unpublished on my cousins outfit in II./JG 301 but I have no intention of releasing it in the near future except for a dribble or two.

I did release friend and ace Oskar Romm's acct of his kills and flying the Dora 9 on the Ost front earlier I thought..... ?


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

> soren you are off mark. my first comment you quoted was not directed at you but the poster before you concerning the Ost front.



Sorry, I did not realise that.



> the second point is that you are not quite correct the Dora was flown by many experienced pilots.



How do you define "many" Erich ? Cause the vast majority of Dora-9's were flown by VERY green pilots, pilots who in no way were prepared to engage the swarms of allied fighters which opposed them. 

Experienced pilots managed to to make a good number of Allied fighter pilots piss their pans out of sheer terror, as they demonstrated the real potential of the Dora-9. 

The fact that Fw-190's were slaughtered in late 44-45, is entirely due to the shortages of properly trained pilots and fuel, the fighter itself simply cannot be blamed. 



> I really feel you guys are making the Dora out to be a super a/c against the P-51. Reality here it wasn't.



Again you make the mistake of blaming the aircraft itself, something you simply cannot do Erich. As I said ealier, the P-51 would've done an even worse job had it been in the same situation. 

The Fw-190D-9 was a superior fighter to most Allied fighters, except for the Spitfire XIV which would be a real handful for the Dora-9, but it goes both ways. 



> I have said it so many times it will have to be repeated again, the Dora was not to replace the front line units the TA and the Me 262 had the war continued. I posted the stats twice in older threads about what unit was going to be replaced by what in June/July of 45 with the inkiling of newer equipment such as jets taking complete control.



I agree, the Ta-152 and me262 was the way to go for Germany, as these two aircraft would've totally dominated the skies over europe had they been produced ealier and in larger numbers, with adequate amounts of properly trained pilots available for them. 



> The Lufw in 45 had literally too many experimental a/c in service with trained/untrained pilots eager to take them up against Allied escorts and Heavies. there was plenty of craft and boys to fly, BUT no fuel.



Properly trained pilots were few and far between in 45, and the fact that Germany was experimenting with so many aircraft designs didnt make the situation any better.



> that was proven even in the Nachtjagd. Had fuel reserves been available then we would of seen an RAF horro like in march of 44 when over 100 RAF heavies bit the dust



Fuel shortages were certainly hugely to blame for the LW's defeat, but lack of properly trained pilots was certainly also a factor.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

Soren look at III./JG 54 for starts and then the cadre formed Iv./JG 26, the JG 26 geschwader was the leading Dora unit very experineced , read some details from the many books covering the unit. Iv./Jg 3 pilots from FW 190A-8/A-9's took on the Soviet a/c and slaughtered them in the Doras they finally go something more powerful in the way of speed and turn.

what do you mean blame the a/c ?

you have proof of course of the individual "experienced" or non experienced Luftw pilots that made the Allied pilots piss in their pants correct ?

the slaughter had nothing to do with a/c or poorly trained pilots. think radar detection in late 44 -45. there was none, the Us P-51's in 9 out of 10 cases were alwasy flying higger than ALL German prop driven a/c coming to mee them or the bombers. the log books state this over and over, second volume JG 300 shows it clearly, the Fw 190 and 109 pilots never had a chance and it did not matter what type of expereince you had.

and finally you are just repeating my statements to prove what type of point if you have any and you don't.........so quit it now please.

the Dora was not superior to the P-51 D or K period.

The RAF for one allowed a JG 51 ace to fly his Dora in combat in mock combat after war with an RAF fighter, the RAF was not impressed.

On another note I feel the Dora was substantially better looking tha ll the Luftw fighters seeing service except it's cousin the Ta 152H but that is a motto matter

artist Claes Sundin's example of a 7./JG 301 Dora 9 1945


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 1, 2006)

I thought the lack of experienced pilots was more due to a lack of fuel to train them.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

a but fuel depending just where was available to some extent. Ill trained pilots was due to shortness of daylight hours; due to the time in the Schulen, the reason they postponed their flights for late afternoon when Allied fighters had already made the turn for home. Also le's realize the US had ill trained pilots up and going over the Reich, just as scared as the German boyz.

gents check this book out through friend Peter Kassak via Mushroom publications.

the March 2, 1945 massacre which I have much detail on. Read about the Dora 9's taking on P-51's in this small book. you can enver have too few a book I feel. In fact I need to nab a copy of this for my files.....

http://mmpbooks.biz/books/normal_covers/8389450224.jpg


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2006)

Lange flew a Dora, some say a 9 and others say it was a 13, against a Tempest and beat the Tempest in a low level (under 3000m) dogfight.

ref. Hermann's Dora book


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

Fine Erich, what exactly made the Dora-9 such a lousy fighter, a fighter which stood no chance on a individual basis against the P-51 according to you ?

I suppose Chuck Yeager and Eric Brown, as-well as countless others, were all wrong when they called the Dora-9 "One the best fighters of WW2" ?


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 1, 2006)

I made the speed and climb charts based on real data










The turn stuff are my calculations based on drag, power, etc. data






IMO below about 7000m the P-51D and Fw190D-9 are fairly evenly matched with initial combat conditions and pilot skill being the primary deciding factors.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Very Cool!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 1, 2006)

Good stuff Paul, welcome to the forum.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

my gosh Soren you're such a pussy

if I were to say the Dora 9 was such a lousy fighter then I would say so. you read my comments on the useage in a brilliant pattern in brief detail in the past and recently on the thread we are debating. maybe you did not It was not superior to the Mustang and I don't care what type of graphs anyone puts up over the upteen years the net has been in service. Geezo guys why does this aways happen ? I've seen these graphs on every serious WW 2 Luftw site 

Chuck is full of himself I doubt 1/2 the stuff he says, the master bullshitter as a good research friend has called him and chuckie knows it quite well and Eric Brown I actually know and the guy was not a combat pilot in WW 2. anymore you want to add guys ....... ? I still wait Soren your findings of RAf and US fg pilots pissing in their pants. Sadly you won't find any. 

ok lets now change gears and put up some action reports because this IS simply genltmen what everyone should be posting, first person accounts not just guess work and what ifs which seem to carry here for nearly 1/3 of the existing threads. How about some intelligent questions asked and lets work together to find the answers instead of pointless debate which gets us nowhere. some of you guys love the Dora series and some the Mustang series of craft. Any concellation to all of you and it probably isn;t but I really don't care for either of them, so I am remaining forever truthful, not taking a side for either. presenting existing facts given to me through research an first hand experience ~ accts of pilots since 1968


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 1, 2006)

Soren,

Under the P-51 you left out:

1) Much superior range and endurance.

2) Berger G-Suit for much superior G-tolerance while maintaining an optimal combat seating position (leaning back makes fighting harder).

3) 395 mph + sustainable cruising speed.

4) Much easier to mass produce.

And the Kommandogerat was an advange... right up to the point it got the divide by zero error and stopped working.

And the weight figures are based upon full fuel, where in actual combat the P-51 would have a lower proportion of its full fuel load than the D9.

Vision from the D9 was good (compared to many other WWII fighters), but it was not nearly as good as that from the P-51 both because of the canopy design and the pilot position (try reclining and then looking back over your shoulder while strapped in).

Also, actual top speed of the P-51D was 448 mph. For the P-51B it was 451 mph. 437 mph is under Military Power, not Combat Power (WEP). (Source - Kit Carson amoung others)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

in additon to what Lunatic informed us.........get the book on March 2, 1945 with the 352nd fg taking it to II./JG 300 especially.

Mustang had better gunsight optics, although quite a unique sight was being tested with Fw gruppe II.Sturm/JG 300.

largest factor and maybe the prime one of importantce is the Mustang had the better altitude ceiling. As I have said countless times, the US pilots could say with ease.........come on up, whether Dora 9's or Bf 109G-10's


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

Oh dear  



> my gosh Soren you're such a pussy



Go ahead Erich, resort to insults if that helps you.



> if I were to say the Dora 9 was such a lousy fighter then I would say so. you read my comments on the useage in a brilliant pattern in brief detail in the past and recently on the thread we are debating.



Huh ? Where, what, when ?????!!! 

Whats with the sudden outbreak Erich ? 



> I still wait Soren your findings of RAf and US fg pilots pissing in their pants.



You certainly take things litterally Erich!  

But ok, I'll dig out some comments from P-51 vets.



> Soren,
> 
> Under the P-51 you left out:
> 
> ...



Im sure I left out alot of things about the Dora-9 as-well. How about up to 10min of boost ?  

And about #3, no the cruising speed for P-51D was much lower at 275mph, and that is also what vets say it did.



> And the Kommandogerat was an advange... right up to the point it got the divide by zero error and stopped working.



Example perhaps ?



> And the weight figures are based upon full fuel, where in actual combat the P-51 would have a lower proportion of its full fuel load than the D9.



Would it really ? I think not, as the P-51D first dropped its main source of fuel, its drop tanks, when engaged by enemy fighters, having to fight with full internal fuel load. On the other hand many 190's and 109's flew on low fuel, partly because of the trip to engage their target and because of fuel shortages. 



> Vision from the D9 was good (compared to many other WWII fighters), but it was not nearly as good as that from the P-51 both because of the canopy design and the pilot position (try reclining and then looking back over your shoulder while strapped in).



Agreed, however forward vision was better in the Fw-190.



> Also, actual top speed of the P-51D was 448 mph. For the P-51B it was 451 mph. 437 mph is under Military Power, not Combat Power (WEP). (Source - Kit Carson amoung others)



Kit Carson ?! Now THAT's a guy which is full of it, and I think most people will agree with that ! I personally believe nothing he says, what so ever, and Im surprised if anyone does.


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

Paul, nice charts but the CL-max figures are too high, especially for the P-51 which according to NACA themselves peaked at 1.28. You can read it yourself in Naca Report 829, Page 26 in the PDF of the Naca Report server.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

Soren lets bury this crap between us right now ..............

I am though curious if you have other US vets that feel the Dora was a hot ticket.

I ask this because as a US 352nd fg member I have interviewed many of that group, some of them on the 2 march 45 mission that I have mentioned above. None of them were impressed except to say that is one of those new long nose/long tailed Fw's. Because of this possible excitement many were looking for Doras to pop.

You guys have read about Herr Pierre's acct of his wingman shot down and his holyier than though Tempest Le Grande Charles or something another holed so bad he almost went down with his craft. Rudi Wurff of 6./JG 301 Dora 9 PC's shot his companion down and almost P. C. in process with a fine jump out of the clouds on a perfect bounce. In Pc's book he claims that Rudi had over 7 kills, he really had only 3. He is pictured with his Dora in W. Resckes book JG 301/302

get this book as well, I know Les has the English version


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2006)

Soren, the sop for the Mustang was to burn off at least 1/2 of the fuselage tank before switching to the dts.

As for fuel in the LW fighters, the typical combat radius of the the 190A and 109 was 130-150mi. with internal fuel. Cripes, even during Bodenplatte many ran out of fuel dispite carrying dts.


Erich, the Yeager comment was tongue in cheek.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

KK I know that but I have first hand experience from this twit. Excellent pilot he was he makes no bones about being the best rough tough sob in the air over the Reich in his mind.

the man is offensively brutal even today when he appears


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2006)

yes I have heard he is an obnoxious sob.


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

> Soren lets bury this crap between us right now ..............



Im glad you said that, cause I really don't understand what all the fuzz was about. 



> I am though curious if you have other US vets that feel the Dora was a hot ticket.



I'll dig out some comments for you.



> I ask this because as a US 352nd fg member I have interviewed many of that group, some of them on the 2 march 45 mission that I have mentioned above. None of them were impressed except to say that is one of those new long nose/long tailed Fw's. Because of this possible excitement many were looking for Doras to pop.



My experience is often the same, however since the LW pilots were facing the odds they were, it is understandable that many US fighter pilots found them to be easy prey. According to many US vets, 109G-k or 190A-D, it made no difference, they were all equally easy to shoot down, and the reason is simple, as it doesn't take long for 2-3 a/c together to bring down 1 enemy a/c. The odds were simply too great for the LW pilots, and it made no difference if they were flying 109's or 190's cause they were simply too few.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

Just to add, I have read where many LW aces (top aces) were very scared to engage the bomber flights and their escorts b/c they knew the odds were so bad that not even a great pilot can take on 5 or 10 planes and win, maybe once or twice but that sort of odds is going to catch up to you sooner or later. LW pilots knew the war was over which did not help their motivation any to engage such huge odds on a daily basis. All I am saying that can you imagine how the green pilots felt when they saw those huge odds if even the "old hands" were scared.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

Alt Hasen were really not so much afraid, as why bother the war is lost. The kids they knew were going to get plastered like my young cousin on his second mission trying to defend his Staffelkäpitan on 26 Nov. 44. My cousin must have proven himself adequately on 21 Nov 44 mission agasint B-17's and Mustangs evidently to be chosen to be the 5th staffel Stkpt. wingman, but to no use both he and his Kapitän were shot down by Mustangs and KIA.

sadly the Luftw. radar and intercept systems knew in approx. how many US bombers and fighters were taking off from England and enroute before they reached the shores of the Reich

my cousin now lies peacefully one of the many vanquished pilots


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry to hear that about your cousin. I am sure he fought for his country and his people and did them proud.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

slightly OT ........... thanks Hunter, 

and yes another cousin and ace Hans Baer flying in II./NJG 5 he went down with his Bf 110G-4 with one engine seizing and the a/c dropped according to eye-wintesses like a stone. Buried at the Speyer Friedhof. lost another 3 cousins on my mothers side all in the Heer and on the Ost front, one coming back to Germany after surviving the gulags, he died enroute home.

geez do you think I have a little bitterness


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 1, 2006)

My Grandfather thought that the Dora was the second best prop job the Germans produced, behind the -152H, and I still agree with him... I also feel that the Dora was a better combat aircraft than the Mustang below 30,000 feet...

But I will say this, not many of the American fighter jocks were scared of anything the Germans put up in the air to intercept them...


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

I've had a laugh about this for years ...........

II./JG 301's Dora 9's on bombing missions over the Ost front protected by Ta 152's of III./JG 301 and later the Stab./JG 301.

why do I get a chuckle you ask ?

think about the waste of a good high alt. job carrying bombs on ground attack and then high alitidue Tanks brought down to low level to ward off Soviet Migs and Jaks.

Frickin idiotic but that is the way it was in 1945. One of the many unknowns on the Ost front the closing months of the war


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

Scale Aviation Modelling produced in the UK has Neil's article on the Dora, pick it up NOW ! some great materials and rare pics of the bird


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 1, 2006)

Erich said:


> in additon to what Lunatic informed us.........get the book on March 2, 1945 with the 352nd fg taking it to II./JG 300 especially.
> 
> *Mustang had better gunsight optics, although quite a unique sight was being tested with Fw gruppe II.Sturm/JG 300.*
> 
> largest factor and maybe the prime one of importantce is the Mustang had the better altitude ceiling. As I have said countless times, the US pilots could say with ease.........come on up, whether Dora 9's or Bf 109G-10's



Do you mean the Akania EZ42 Adler...? I read some statement of Oskar Romm wich said that he had a "giroscopical gunsight" in his aircraft..but I tough he was wrong.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 1, 2006)

I found or rather calculated the P-51D CLMAX from the ASI stall speeds at various weights given in the pilot's manual. I then corrected the ASI to CAS by using the correction factors found at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html. That is the site I got the speeds and climbs, too.

I found the Fw190D-9 CLMAX on a FW sheet that gives detailed drag data for each aircraft component. 1.58 also matches up well with the general rule of thumb that an aircraft CLMAX = 0.9 cos (leading edge sweep angle) * airfoil CLMAX.

Interestingly the F6F-3 Hellcat was found to have a CLMAX of 1.4 in turns - it was higher at 1-g stalls - based on tests done by the USN. The F6F and the Fw190 used the same NACA23015 series airfoil at the root and 23009 at the tip. I found that Hellcat report at the NACA site, too, under the War Time Reports section. No table of contents of the WRs. I had to go through them one by one.

I admit that in a turn that CLMAX isn't the same as a straight 1-g stall speed but I figured it was close and that since I did it "wrong" for both then relatively both would be penalized the same or similar amount. I meant the turn perf chart to show relative performance rather than absolute to prove/disprove the often cited statement that the D-9 and P-51D were at least performance wise below 7km very close.

Also note that in the sustained turn I used 67" Hg for the P-51D and Start-u-Notleistung power for the D-9. I felt this would be more representative of a power used in a sustained turn rather than the 72" or Sondernotleistung (1900PS or 2100PS w/ MW50) which I believe we not really sustained for very long, maybe 10-15 minutes. I guess I could look at those higher power settings but I doubt that they would really change the relative positions much.

It certainly isn't perfect but I have better than 75% confidence that I am close to correct.

I totally agree with others comments that above 7km that the P-51D had better performance since it's power didn't drop off as much as the Jumo213A in the D-9. Ever been to the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio USA? If my memory serves correct the D-9 is right next to the P-51D. Both beautiful airplanes.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 2, 2006)

> think about the waste of a good high alt. job carrying bombs on ground attack and then high alitidue Tanks brought down to low level to ward off Soviet Migs and Jaks.



I fully agree. The point of developing the Fw-190D-9 is to get a good performance at medium and high altitudes. It doesn't make much sense to use it against the Lavochkins and Yaks at low levels.

Other points that could be discussed:

- Vulnerability of radiator? the P-51 and Fw-190D-9 had liquid-cooled engines. In the P-51 it was quite vulnerable, any comments on the D9?

- Roll rate: IIRC the D9 was inferior to the A in this, in actual fact it was the only parameter in which the D9 was inferior to the A8.

- By the way, what is the basis for deciding that the Mustang was cheaper than the D9? configuration, actual data?



> My Grandfather thought that the Dora was the second best prop job the Germans produced, behind the -152H, and I still agree with him... I also feel that the Dora was a better combat aircraft than the Mustang below 30,000 feet...



I agree with you.

Regards.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

Was the D-9 inferior to the A series in roll? The D-9 is basically and A8 with a Jumo 213A, longer fuselage forward to accomodate it, longer aft fuselage to balance it all out, and two less MG151/20s outboard. All of the modifications are basically along the roll axis except for the deletion of the outboard 20mms which should increase roll rate rather than decrease it. Do you have any data to support that belief?


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 2, 2006)

I had a few references but at the moment the only one I can give is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190

I know it's not extremely reliable but I have to remember where I found it. There were also some pilot quotes stating that the D9 was superior in everything except roll rate, and most references mention that the Dora would be better in climb dive but never in roll rate.

I hope this helps.

Regards.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

Thanks. I guess from an engineering standpoint I don't see how the mods to get from A8 to D9 would decrease roll rate. Maybe the larger vertical tail added some roll inertia? Seems odd that same wing structure, decreased outboard wing weight from taking out the outboard cannons, and all the new weight added mostly along the centerline would decrease roll rate.


----------



## NR61 (Feb 2, 2006)

Perhaps they meant the D was superior in every way except roll rate - roll rate could have been the same?


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul, the Jumo 213A-1 could maintain 2,240 HP in 10min at a time at low altitude. So if the fight is down low, the Fw-190D-9 will definitely prove superior to the P-51D, and thats in every aspect of flight. 

However the bombers which striked Germany didn't fly low.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

but look at the armament, and although II./JG 301's Dora 9's went after the US heavies they expended way too much ammo to try and bring down a bomber, something their III. gruppe A-8/R2's had much better success at. It had been proven in the fall of 44 that the D-9 was better suited to the fighter vs fighter role.

Ale your comments about rates could of been from Oskar Romms staements while on the Ost front in February 45. He flew at least three different D-9's while in Stab./JG 3 finding the craft superiror in his feelings that the earlier A-8 in combating Soviet craft


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

somethng to make your mouth water as I have been talking about ....... from EE's web-pages and released this year


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

It is an error somewhere in history that the Jumo213A could output 2240 HP. The only document I could find, a series of power curves at different altitudes, on the Jumo213A with MW50 clearly says that the output was 2100 *PS* at sea level dropping to 1900 *PS* at the MW50 full throttle height of about 5400m.

1 PS (Pferdestaerke) = 0.986 hp = 542 foot-pounds per second
1 HP (horsepower) = 550 foot-pounds per second

I have one set of power curves that indicated that Jumo was working on what is termed a 1900-basis engine that gave 2240 PS at sea level, but as far as other more knowledgeable people who has studied the subject have told me the 1900 basis Jumo 213 never got off of the test bench. And that document doesn't even have Jumo213 on it any where.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

by the way the lat chap on the sig list was II./JG 301 Gruppenkommandeur flying yellow 1 at times, a former Bomber pilot. another page to stimulate, some technical aspects will be covered for you doraphiles. It would be safe to say a pre-order from EE should be on your wish list(s). I'll wait this summer


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2006)

WOW!!!


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

there is one volume out right now by Eric Larger and two other Czech ? authors, going to be a two volume set, and Jerry C. said they would delay their massive single volume until the second Czech ? volume would be released. Jerry was hoping all three books would aid one another though it is pretty obvious that photo quality will overlap as Dora pics are limited, amny still in the hands of private parties. I actually have 1-2 that I am keeping for self preservation until I feel time will permit to release them. Had my cousin lived to see the day in December 44/januar 45 he would of flown a D-9 in 5th/JG 301, but alas

the Czech ? volumes are released through, and I hope this is correct, JaPo publications which have done some exciting things-books on the Bf 109g and K series machines. JaPo has a web-site if anyone cares to further their interests


----------



## Udet (Feb 2, 2006)

Mr. Paul Karchurnak:

Sorry, but I am somewhat confused here.

The P-51D was better than the 190 D above an altitude of 7km?

7 kilometers=23,000 ft.

The cousin of the Dora, the Fw 190 A-8, began losing its full value above 25,000ft (or 7.6 km). Beneath that point, the Fw 190 As were very troublesome and lethal beasts. 

Now, the Dora had as one particularly interesting feature, the ability to bring the Fw190 to the realms of high altitude combat and tangle with the dreaded Mustangs while the Ta 152 was still being cooked.

Yes, better high altitude performance than A series.

So what you are basically saying there is the Fw 190 Dora began losing power at an altitude where its predecessor, the Butcher Bird, was just about to commence losing its own. 

Seems quite incorrect.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

Take a look at the plots of speed and climb that I posted back on page 2 of this thread. See how far apart the P-51D speed-wise is from the Fw190D-9 at 7km even with the P-51D using 67" MP. Climb rates are close. If the P-51D uses 72" then it is much better than the D-9 at even 6000m.

Also on there is a plot of the A8. And that shows that the D-9 had better performance. The D-9s full throttle altitude with or without MW50 was about 6800m. The P-51D FTH is about 7500m with 67" MP.

Yes the D-9 had better higher altitude performance than the A-8 but it was not as good as the P-51D. I think those plots which were taken from relevant FW (D-9 and A-8 ) and USAF (P-51D) document speak for themselves and are not incorrect. In fact I think the D-9 maybe a little on the optimistic side but I don't have any hard data to prove that.


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2006)

There is no error in history about the Jumo 213A-1 Paul..

Jumo 213A-1 "Sonder Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor" 2240 HP at sea level.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 2, 2006)

Soren said:


> And about #3, no the cruising speed for P-51D was much lower at 275mph, and that is also what vets say it did.



Jeeze Soren, I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise. P-51's often cruised at lower speeds to extend their filght time, but cruises up to 395 mph were used while hunting/patroling ahead of the bomber groups. There was almost no actual range penalty for doing so (~50 miles less at 395 than at 275 TAS).



Soren said:


> > And the Kommandogerat was an advange... right up to the point it got the divide by zero error and stopped working.
> 
> 
> 
> Example perhaps ?



Again, in the past I've posted the NACA documents regaurding this. When the Kommandargat reaches a critical altitude, the ambient pressure drops to an unmeasureable level. Since it is used as an effective divisor in the hydrolic analog computer, this results in a divide by zero error condition. In the A series, this caused the plane to go into a safe mode - running rich and at low power. I believe but am not positive that in the Dora there was a bypass to allow manual operation when altitudes exceeded the system capabilities, at around 24,000 feet.



Soren said:


> > And the weight figures are based upon full fuel, where in actual combat the P-51 would have a lower proportion of its full fuel load than the D9.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it really ? I think not, as the P-51D first dropped its main source of fuel, its drop tanks, when engaged by enemy fighters, having to fight with full internal fuel load. On the other hand many 190's and 109's flew on low fuel, partly because of the trip to engage their target and because of fuel shortages.



You seem to want to play games with the facts. When it suits you you want to talk about a likely historic encounter situation of your choosing. Yet in the same argument you will use theoretical "fair" encounter conditions where it suits the outcome you support. For instance you wish to totally ingore the fact that the P-51's had the advantage at high altitude and would most likely initiate an egagement from an altitude advantage.

Yes, certailnly if the enemy fighters were encounted while the P-51's still had their drop tanks they'd have a fair bit of fuel. Something on the order of 70% or so since it was common practice not to fill the rear tank to capacity and then to burn it off before switching to the drop tanks on the climb out for stability reasons.

On the other hand, usually P-51's flew in a relay system. The bombers would take off, the Britis would escort them part of the way to the target, the P-47's would pick it up from there, and then 3 or 4 sets of P-51's would rendevous with the formation handing off the tight escort duty. By this point the P-51's being relieved were finished with their external fuel, and still had around 750 miles of range to play with, and only a less than 300 mile trip to a safe landing field. At this point they started doing high sweeps, and if no enemy planes were encountered they'd go down and look for targets to strafe before heading home. Up to being relieved from tight escort after dropping tanks they'd have about 70% internal fuel. After that point they'd have less and less until they got down to about 30% and had to turn for home.

The likely encounter would have the P-51 at about 50% fuel, and the Dora9 would probably have more than 50% (since it went directly into the combat rather than patrolling for it). So for sake of argument lets assume both had 50%. Since the P-51 carried more fuel as a % of its total takeoff weight, it would loose more weight to get down to that 50% level.



Soren said:


> > Vision from the D9 was good (compared to many other WWII fighters), but it was not nearly as good as that from the P-51 both because of the canopy design and the pilot position (try reclining and then looking back over your shoulder while strapped in).
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, however forward vision was better in the Fw-190.



Why? The Dora pilot sits lower in the cockpit, and the distance between the dash and the brim of the front canopy section is smaller. The Dora pilot also sits further back of the wing, limiting his forward and down view, but improving his down and behind view slightly. The nose of the Dora is broader and also the panel in front of the cockpit is higher. Finally, the P-51 flies with a more nose down rake to it allowing the pilot to see even better to the front.

Look at your own posted images!

In just about every respect the P-51D and beyond had the best pilot vision of any plane in WWII.



Soren said:


> > Also, actual top speed of the P-51D was 448 mph. For the P-51B it was 451 mph. 437 mph is under Military Power, not Combat Power (WEP). (Source - Kit Carson amoung others)
> 
> 
> 
> Kit Carson ?! Now THAT's a guy which is full of it, and I think most people will agree with that ! I personally believe nothing he says, what so ever, and Im surprised if anyone does.



Well, his quoted speed figures are strait from the Maryland US Naval Air Station flgiht tests conducted in January 1944 and are verifiable. The P-51B pulled 451 mph TAS at 29000 feet, not the 440 mph top speed typically quoted - the USA made a practice of quoting MP rather than WEP performance throughout this period. The P-51D was about 3 mph slower than the P-51B.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul it appears your stats at full throttle for the Mustang and D-9 are too low.

combats between P-51's and even 109G-6/AS took place in spring of 44 at or above 33,000 feet. Yes I know pretty frickin high on the scale but it happened. the current alt. figure I give is reported in after action Luftw reprots from pilots in I./JG 3 in April and the month of May 44 when the G-6/AS was dutied for Höhenjäger. The MW 50 even with it's 10 minute duration saved a few Luftw boyz butts with 2-3 Stangs on their heels


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 2, 2006)

> I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise.


 Is that with or without dts?


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

I'd love to see some documentation of 2240 hp. As I have said I have one Jumo doc that shows 2100 PS with MW 50 that is clearly marked as a Jumo213A. I have another doc that doesn't even say what it is but looks like a Jumo 213 based engine that goes up to 2240 at sea level. But again I have been told and I believe that this is a 1900-bases Jumo that never left the test bench.

Unfortunately I cannot post these per direction of the source I got them. I can e-mail them though.

Please provide the documents to back that up, if you can.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

1st of two volumes by Eric larger and the gang

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D camouflage markings – Part I
The Focke-Wulf Fw 190D was one of the most elegant and powerful birds of prey in the European skies at the end of WW II. Similar in conception to “Messerschmitt Bf 109K, camouflage marking”, this new work provides a thorough insight in the aircraft’s camouflage and marking schemes.
Part I explains the common rules used for camouflaging and marking of the type, and describes in great detail the various colour patterns applied to the different Focke-Wulf built Fw 190D-9 and D-11 production batches.
The book is fully documented with extracts from original documents, black white, and colour photographs, as well as colour schemes and colour profiles. It is completed with a comprehensive loss list of the entire Focke-Wulf production.
Highly recommended for all students of WW II aerial warfare, Fw 190 fans, and modellers.
Hardback, 208 pages, approx. 240 photographs, numerous colour schemes, and camouflage profiles of 32 aircraft. English text.

.........this maybe more a techincial book that EE.'s effort ...........1st volume has nothing on II./JG 301 sadly as I have been in touch corresponding with Eric larger


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

Per testing the MW50 system on the Jumo213A at about 6800m put out the same power as the start-und-notleistung setting. This is confirmed in the Jumo213A power curves that I have.

I have no doubt that combat took place up at 33000 feet, but the speeds I have posted and the climb rates are from FW documents. Those aren't my stats or data. The only part I did was calculate the turn performance.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul are these from some of the A. Hafner data books via Deutschland ?? in other words what FW doc-hand books are your ratings atested ? Handbook ~ Numerations as it maybe beneficial to our forum members to look into these for their own personal data base... ? if they are handy of course ......

will have to do some more spec checking but the Jumo related Ju 88G-6 was a hot plug mostly unknownst even to it's own crews


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

I don't know where all this came from exactly. I got a lot in e-mails and from other forums. I don't think any of it came from Hafner books but I can't say that for sure

I have:

Widerstandsdaten von Fleugzeugen dated Dec. 1944 which means "drag data for airplanes" which gives detailed drag data for the A-8, A-9, D-9, D-12, Ta152C-1, 152E-1, and 152H-1. It also has CLMAX.

Three sheets from FW dated 3 March 45 that gives speeds at different altitudes and different power settings. You may remember Bryan Bury's D-9 web site that is now defunct. These sheets are where he got his speed data from. I see in the lower left had corner under the column "aufgestellt von" a name, "Haache".

One sheet marked Jumo213A Motorleistunen nach Jumo Bl 2610 dated 9 Oct 44. Handwritten in the upper left hand corner is AIR 90174 or 40174 it's hard to read. Perhaps it came from some captured RAF document? It gives power in PS, exhaust thrust, and fuel consumption for different power settings.

I have one document that have no markings on it at all, no date, nothing that says what engine it is from. The person who gave it to me said it was a Jumo. Since then others have told me it is a 1900-basis Jumo. It does show that with MW50 reaching 2240 PS. But it is kind of odd with a dashed line. You'd have to see it to understand what I mean by odd.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 2, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> > I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise.
> 
> 
> Is that with or without dts?



Cruise speeds are always dependant on range issues The P-51 cruised at about 260mph for max endurance/reasonable speed and according to a P-51 pilot who flew out of England durring the war thats what they flew at. However a pilot that flew with the checkertails out of Italy said that they frequently flew at 350/360mph cruise but NEVER faster than that unless they were in attack mode "It used to much fuel" Quote and italics are his.

My TO-1 states Max endurance at 140mph CAS
Max range Wing racks only 35,000ft 66gph 367mph but at 10,000ft its 261mph and 42gph. Our checkertail friend stated they used 55/60 gph to define/limit/optimize their cruise speeds.

My TO-1 Mustang handbook states Full Throttle (military) for a P-51D is 424mph. All stats and tests I've seen rate the P-51 D at 420s in military or 1,590hp and 437mph at 1,650hp in WEP. The P-51B/C was about 3 mph faster. The 1 test I've seen with a P-51 in the 450mph range was 'cooked' The aircraft was well over 1,000 lbs lighter than normal test weight and probably prepared in other ways because this was a max possable test not a comparison test.

wmaxt


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 2, 2006)

The ~50gph is about what the Spit (M66) got at fast cruise. (rpm were 2650)

What was the speed loss with dts?


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 2, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> The ~50gph is about what the Spit (M66) got at fast cruise. (rpm were 2650)
> 
> What was the speed loss with dts?



The numbers in the first post are in a clean configuration. With a load Drop tanks, rockets, bombs at full load and max range is at 15,000ft and 245mph 63 gal/hr (Highest shown).
Middle loading is two 500lb bombs or to 75gal tanks w/tanks max range is 1,380mi at 65gal/hr 327mph at 35,000 FT and 2450rpm.

I'm not sure what your asking dts?

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2006)

paul.kachurak said:


> I'd love to see some documentation of 2240 hp. As I have said I have one Jumo doc that shows 2100 PS with MW 50 that is clearly marked as a Jumo213A. I have another doc that doesn't even say what it is but looks like a Jumo 213 based engine that goes up to 2240 at sea level. But again I have been told and I believe that this is a 1900-bases Jumo that never left the test bench.
> 
> Unfortunately I cannot post these per direction of the source I got them. I can e-mail them though.
> 
> Please provide the documents to back that up, if you can.



So you don't believe the Jumo 213A could reach 2240 HP at sea level by the help of a "Compressor"(Which in itself should make you believe it), eventhough you've got the evidence right under your nose ?



> Jeeze Soren, I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise. P-51's often cruised at lower speeds to extend their filght time, but cruises up to 395 mph were used while hunting/patroling ahead of the bomber groups. There was almost no actual range penalty for doing so (~50 miles less at 395 than at 275 TAS).



Yes ofcause Lunatic your right, all the P-51 vets I've been talking to were apparently just talking crap, right ?  

Jesus christ man !

Also tell me, how would the P-51 which atleast has 450 less horsepower and is atleast 650 - 700 lbs heavier than the Dora-9, be cruising at such a significantly higher speed ? Sure the P-51 has a low drag wing, but the Fw-190 has a higher aspect ratio wing which also lowers drag, so what then could be the reason ? The body ? No, the Fw-190's body drag coefficient was just as good, or atleast very close to the P-51's. So then what could it be ? I sure as hell can't see what it could be.



> Again, in the past I've posted the NACA documents regaurding this. When the Kommandargat reaches a critical altitude, the ambient pressure drops to an unmeasureable level. Since it is used as an effective divisor in the hydrolic analog computer, this results in a divide by zero error condition. In the A series, this caused the plane to go into a safe mode - running rich and at low power.



Oh yeah, the tests with the A-4 which had a *malfunctioning engine*! Yeah sure thats a real good basis for which to determine the functionality of the kommandogerat !  

I wonder why everyone else loved the Kommandogerat, and thought it was brilliant. Funny the LW boys didn't complain about it either, don't you think ? Surely it most have been a real peace of junk then, right ?  



> You seem to want to play games with the facts. When it suits you you want to talk about a likely historic encounter situation of your choosing. Yet in the same argument you will use theoretical "fair" encounter conditions where it suits the outcome you support.



Oh thats rich coming from you !  



> For instance you wish to totally ingore the fact that the P-51's had the advantage at high altitude and would most likely initiate an egagement from an altitude advantage.



Not at all, but what if the Dora has the alt advantage, then what ? 

We're comparing two a/c here Lunatic, fairly(In real life there's no such thing, I know!, but for the sake of comparison there is), so there shouldn't be given an alt advantage to any of them. 

Sure the P-51 might be better up high at 30,000ft, but below that the Fw-190D-9 is better in every aspect. Both a/c have there ups and downs. 



> Finally, the P-51 flies with a more nose down rake to it allowing the pilot to see even better to the front.



For Christ sake Lunatic, so does the Fw-190 ! And even more so than the P-51 !


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2006)

LMFAO...


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 2, 2006)

Soren,

I am not going to get into an argument. I have the documentation for a Jumo 213A w/ MW50 giving 2100 PS. If you want I will e-mail that to you or anyone who wants to see. I do not have documentation at all for a 2240 HP Jumo 213A with any boost. If you have documentation that shows without a doubt that a Jumo213A was capable of providing 2240 HP not PS horsepower then please show me. I want to believe. But after three years of looking, and asking, and analyzing it I need to see the documentation.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

deleted

Erich ~


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2006)

intersting just checking through data on the engines of the Ju 88G-6. not bad for an old hunk of bolts. 2 Jumo 213E's with 1,880 h.p. up to 2,250 h.p. rating when needed...............

E ~


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 3, 2006)

Came across this site, http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/HandlingNotes/

Many, many pdf files of 'Pilot Notes'.

Soren, there is an extensive American report on the Kommandogerat which says the same as what Lunitic says. http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/index.cgi?thumbnail1#start


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 3, 2006)

...Great reading guys. 
paul.kachurak welcome.

As some of you may know, I've posted a fighter comparison table containing much of this data, although it is data presented rather differently, it is contained within the best fighter thread, paul please download it here, http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=962&start=520, look for the .pdf

I run a lighting automation technology integration division by trade, so this is a hobby for me; I’ve loved WW2 aircraft since seeing an F4U Corsair as a tot. I bought Microsoft CFS-1 in ’99, then CFS-2 in 2000. After about a year of tinkering, the discovery of a marvelous spread sheet designed by Jerry Beckwith, I decided to acquire as much data as possible to generate as close as the CFS-2 platform would allow, ‘air’ files for as many aircraft as possible. You will find post upon post of how and where information was acquired if you decide to go backwards from where I pointed you above, you may also find a great deal of additional data on a ‘dead’ thread F4U-4 Vs P-47N acknowledgements in the spread sheet, so I will end the description here with regard to ‘validation’ issues that may arise from this point forward.

One of the great things, I’ve come to learn, about this site is that these forums can really open your mind, as ‘peer’ pressure can at times be a great motivational force generating the momentum needed to gather data you might otherwise let go by, accept viewpoints never before entertained.

With regard to viewpoints: According to my tables the variance in my ‘weighted’ performance charts shows the aircraft (the 51 190 Ds) to be real darn close overall. I believe, as you seem to, that the two are two close to call, if combat were to start with neither aircraft at an advantage, the contest would be decided by ‘human’ factors, the pilot’s skill, knowledge, his (or her) application of them, his (or her) composure.

I would like however to mention, your charts are beautifully done, that you are applying your data incorrectly. For example, the turn charts although at 1st pass they looked good, and the planes seem able by math to do what your tables suggest, but at 340 MPH, you’ll rip the wings off these birds, even if empty, as you have exceeded the airframe’s stress ratings. I also need some clarification please… CL is a dimensionless quantity – the lift coefficient – which relates mostly to the angle at which the wings meet the airflow or flight path, but also to the shape of the wings particularly in cross section – the aerofoil. What exactly is CLmax? I calculated CL for the P-51 as 1.476 the 190D9 as 1.766 for my tables… But I’m not looking to split hairs here, I just want to know what CLmax is.

With this in mind please have a look below… (Graph images derived from spread sheets created by Jerry Beckwith; Other tables from P-51 flight manuals)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2006)

JonJGoldberg said:


> I would like however to mention, your charts are beautifully done, that you are applying your data incorrectly. For example, the turn charts although at 1st pass they looked good, and the planes seem able by math to do what your tables suggest, but at 340 MPH, you’ll rip the wings off these birds, even if empty, as you have exceeded the airframe’s stress ratings.



Nice information guys and nice to see you posting again JJ. When you say his charts are wrong are you speaking in terms of True Air Speed vs Indicated Air Speed? For example in the portions of the P-51 -1 JJ posted it shows Indicated Airspeed limiatations at altitude, have you done an example to see what the "True Air Speed" would be at sat 25,000 feet with the outside air temperature at -20F? It could be done with one of these....


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 3, 2006)

Great info right there guys, good one Jon...


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 3, 2006)

when all these numbers for airspeed are cited are they all using the same criteria like humidity and temperature on the charts there is no reference given to these important variables


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 3, 2006)

Jon,

Thanks for the information.

I use true airspeed for all my calculations not indicated airspeed.

I guess I don't understand why you say I will exceed the aircraft limitations when I purposefully limited the max g to 6 not to represent the limits of the aircraft but rather the limits of a human without a g suit.

Here is what I used for the Fw190D-9
gross weight = 9147 lb (68% fuel, full ammo)
CLMAX = 1.58
wing area = 197 sq ft

I don't see in your graphs what the weight, wing area, or CLMAX is. You do need all those things. Further I don't know what altitude you are looking at because all that will change with altitude.

But let me run through and example...

First to let you know my background I am an aerospace engineer who works for the USN. I have been involved with aircraft mass properties for about 15 years. I don't do aero performance but it is my hobby, too.

So using the above data for the D-9 and using sea level (soory for not knowing how to du greek symbol on a forum like this)
air density (rho) r = 0.002376 slugs/ft^3

We know that Lift (L) = load factor (n) * weight (W)

And we know that L = 0.5 * r * V^2 * S * CL so we have all we need to solve for speed in ft/s for any load factor at the CL we want to use CLMAX. This will give us for the peak n the instantaneous load factor from which we can find instantaneous turn rate, which is what your chart shows.

So
n = 6
W = 9147
S = 197
r = 0.002376
CLMAX = 1.58

6 * 9147 = 0.5 * 0.002376 * V^2 * 197 * 1.58

Solving for V we get 385.25 ft/s = 262.67 mph = 422.7 kph

In the plot I show at 5000m. Here's the numbers I used for that:
n = 6
W = 9147
r = 0.001428 (std atmosphere air density at 5000m)
S = 197
CLMAX = 1.58

Solving for V = 496.9 ft/s = 338.8 mph = 545.2 kph

I repeated this same process for other altitudes I never went over 6 gs for either the Fw190D-9 or the P-51D. If you'd like to see my Excel file I would be more than willing to send it to you. It's not so user friendly. No two engineers think a like. 

Those plots look a lot like the ones that the CFS2 1% group make. Is that where you got them? I have those, too. In fact I'm looking at them right now and I can't tell what weight they use. Take a look in the upper left hand corner of the Turn Performance spreadsheet and you'll see CLMAX of 1.58. In that CFFS2 1% workbook you'll see that those guys also calculate the airplane CLMAX from the airfoil CLMAX. Very cool stuff and I was glad to see their calculations match the FW number of 1.58. I have the P-51D-30 CFS2 1% stuff too and they calculate a CLMAX of 1.48.

CLMAX is the maximum lift coefficient that an airplane or airfoil can produce before the wing stalls and the lift drops off. It is so hard to find a good definition of what the lift coefficient is. I understand what it is but giving a good definition is hard. None of the texts I have from college really give a good layman's definition. Lift coefficient CL is most simply put it is the non-dimensional (meaning it has no units like feet or meters) measure of lift capability. CLMAX is the upper bound on this capability. You get different CLs at different angles of attack given a constant speed. Make any sense? If you are really interested I recommend picking up some texts like "Theory of Wing Sections" by Abbott and vonDoenhoff, "Aerodynamics for Engineering Student" by Houghton and Carruthers, or "Aerodynamics for Engineers" by Bertin and Smith. All will put you to sleep in 3 minutes. But that's what I have from school.

Oh here's one "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators". I'll bet they make it so simple even a nugget pilot can understand .



> "Lift coefficient" would be the ratio between the lift pressure and dynamic pressure;...The use of the coefficient form of an aerodynamic force is necessary since the force coefficient is:
> (1) and index of the aerodynamic force independent of area, density, and velocity. It is derived from the relative pressure and velocity distribution.
> (2) Influenced only by the shape of the surface and angle of attack since these factors determine the pressure distruibution
> (3) an Index which allows evaluation of the effects of compressibility and viscosity. Since the area, density, and velocity are opbviated by the coeffcient form, compressibility and viscosity effects can be separated for study."



CLMAX occurs at the minimum speed for a given lift requirement.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 3, 2006)

once I receive the Jumo stuff I will delete my thread.

if you would please.... ?

many thanks

Erich ~[/quote]

Erich,

I will-do tonight when I get home.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 3, 2006)

Erich said:


> intersting just checking through data on the engines of the Ju 88G-6. not bad for an old hunk of bolts. 2 Jumo 213E's with 1,880 h.p. up to 2,250 h.p. rating when needed...............
> 
> E ~



I agree. I have a Jumo213E1 power plot, too. But the Jumo213E1 was not installed in the Fw190D-9. It was installed into the Ta-152.

One must remember that Kurt Tank considered the D-9 as an interim solution until he could get his real high altitude plane developed. If you don't have it I recommend "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Long Nose" by Dietmar Hermann available at Schiffer Books http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764318764

It is chock full of great development history. The seemingly painful situations that the RLM put Focke Wulf through. Good pilot accounts. IMO a great book for the Longnose 190 enthusiast.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 3, 2006)

Aww hell I am 99.99% sure I got these off of the internet so I'll post them. The first is the drag data. Also on there is camax aka CLMAX. You will also see about 2/3 of the way down under the D-9 column and on the Nstart row that with MW50 the power is 2100 PS. I have a power curves for a Jumo213A that show 2100 PS that I cannot post that IMO confirm this power. The second has speeds and climbs. This second matches well with the 11 Mar 45 sheets I have which I also cannot post.


----------



## Erich (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul yes I have the Dietmar book, nice tech book, not the best for personal accts in my opinion. I was fortunate to chat with Will Reschke, quite an outstanding pilot and gentleman. Quite the stories too. E.E was suppose to have a book out just on JG 301 with unpublished info on the Tank but it appears it will be at leat the Tank info in EE's book on the Dora that I have placed in an earlier thread in this section ............

can you post the power plot on the Jumo E maybe in a new thread as I do not want this interesting thread to go off topic ?

thanks in advacne for the information via e-mail

E ~


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 3, 2006)

It would be great if the charts were translated to english using US weights and speeds.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 3, 2006)

1kg = 2.2lb
100kph = 61mph


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 3, 2006)

Syscom3,

Yes it would be nice but it is also nice to see it in German because IMO it enhances it's authenticity. Do you have any questions on those two? I've used this site http://dict.leo.org/?lang=en&lp=ende&search= to translate a lot of it and the rest I've figured out what it is on my own. German is a tricky language.

To convert from kilograms to pounds mulitply kgs by 2.204623
To convert from meters to feet multiply meters by 3.28084
To convert from square meters to square feet well multiply by the square of 3.28084
To convert from kilometers per hour to miles per hour multiply kph by 0.6213712

I can tell you this from my school days it is a heck of a lot easier working in metric than in US units.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 3, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> > I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise.
> 
> 
> Is that with or without dts?








As you can see, the P-51 was capable of a 425 mph cruise with a range on internal fuel (as specified) of 850 miles.

What is dts?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> As you can see, the P-51 was capable of a 425 mph cruise with a range on internal fuel (as specified) of 850 miles.
> 
> 
> =S=
> ...



Great chart, but are you saying that the -51 "cruises" at this setting (at 30,000 feet)? The way I read that chat it's showing Max. Continous, (97GPH) 2700 RPM. "Cruise" or an econmical setting would be on the far right and a lot lower, and the airspeed is TAS not indicated. If converted to indicated, (depending on temp density altitude) it would be a lot lower....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 3, 2006)

The Spit has a TAS of 314mph @ 20k' which is 235mph IAS turning 2650rpm.

If my math is correct, then the P-51 had a IAS of 318mph at the same altitude, some 72mph slower than the shown TAS.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 3, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > > I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise.
> ...



That's BS. I have the test report and the P-51B tested, AAF serial # 37050, was at 9423 lbs takeoff weight - fully loaded clean condition. The only change from production on the plane was a reworking of the radio antenna which was a standard field change usually applied before the planes were delivered to combat units. Maximum speed, 351 mph TAS, was determined at 3000 rpm and 67" of manifold pressure at ~29000 feet.

And if anything the USN report is biased against the P-51B and in favor of the F4U-1 and -1a used in the test.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see, the P-51 was capable of a 425 mph cruise with a range on internal fuel (as specified) of 850 miles.
> ...



The chart is right out of the P-51D pilot handbook. The brownish highlighting with rounded boxes is the handbook example, which shows a 325 mph cruise at 10,000 feet yeilds an 1100 mile range, after climbout (which is covered on the previous page). The left column shows the maxium speed continous cruise possible, and each colum to the right shows a progressively longer range cruise at a lower power rating.

Notice that at 30,000 feet at 2450 rpm and full throttle hight in the run condition the P-51 can managed 1220 miles after climbout.

Of course indicated air speed would be lower at altitude, but that is true for every plane equally right? Top speed and cruise speed figures are almost always given in TAS.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> The Spit has a TAS of 314mph @ 20k' which is 235mph IAS turning 2650rpm.
> 
> If my math is correct, then the P-51 had a IAS of 318mph at the same altitude, some 72mph slower than the shown TAS.



That sounds about right at standard temperature/ pressure (59F at seal level, 29.92).


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 3, 2006)

[quote="Lunatic]
That's BS. I have the test report and the P-51B tested, AAF serial # 37050, was at 9423 lbs takeoff weight - fully loaded clean condition. The only change from production on the plane was a reworking of the radio antenna which was a standard field change usually applied before the planes were delivered to combat units. Maximum speed, 351 mph TAS, was determined at 3000 rpm and 67" of manifold pressure at ~29000 feet.

And if anything the USN report is biased against the P-51B and in favor of the F4U-1 and -1a used in the test.[/quote]

No BS (which I resent) the data is right out of the Pilots Handbook for the P-51D 1947 edition.

Then I haven't seen the report you are refering to. The report I'm refering to had the P-51 at a weight listed below 8,000lbs and was not being compared to anything. I have looked but not found any tests or specs on the P-51 that indicate otherwise - that does not mean they don't exist - I haven't found or seen them. The other thing is that specs on the P-51 are very consistent even from Mustang advocates, if the P-51 was normaly faster (and 10/12mph is significant) than reported surely we would be hearing about it?

Flyboy, is also correct, Max Continous, is not cruise and according to the pilots I contacted they flew cruise at 55/60gal/hr 250/260IAS ~360TAS (I think thats high for TAS) @ ~25,000ft, and he made a point of stating, in italics, that anything faster than that used to much fuel for anything but actual combat. Three-sixty is substantial and better than almost every one else. I also posted the max range numbers which lists 367mph @ 35,000ft 66gph and 261mph @ 10,000ft both numbers TAS. The Pilot I contacted that flew out of Britian flew 250mph (I assume IAS) on missions over Germany including sweeps.

I repeat, I've only shown or commented on data I have, with no additions, modifications or adjustments.

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Feb 3, 2006)

Mr. Lunatic:

I´ll get back to you later on this, sorry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> The chart is right out of the P-51D pilot handbook. The brownish highlighting with rounded boxes is the handbook example, which shows a 325 mph cruise at 10,000 feet yeilds an 1100 mile range, after climbout (which is covered on the previous page). The left column shows the maxium speed continous cruise possible, and each colum to the right shows a progressively longer range cruise at a lower power rating.
> 
> Notice that at 30,000 feet at 2450 rpm and full throttle hight in the run condition the P-51 can managed 1220 miles after climbout.



Correct! I thought you were suggesting that the chart on the lower left (where you got the 425 mph) was a cruise chart. Big difference in fuel flow!!!


Lunatic said:


> Of course indicated air speed would be lower at altitude, but that is true for every plane equally right? Top speed and cruise speed figures are almost always given in TAS.
> Lunatic


Actually indicated airspeed would match closer to TAS at lower altitudes if air temp and pressure a standard (29.92, 15C).

here's some rough examples.
Pressure Altitude S/L OAT +15c IAS 300MPH TAS 300
Pressure Altitude 5000' OAT 0c IAS 300MPH TAS 319
Pressure Altitude 10000 OAT -20C IAS 300MPH TAS 332
Pressure Altitude 20000 OAT -40C IAS 300MPH TAS 395
Pressure Altitude 30000 OAT -60C IAS 300MPH TAS 463


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 3, 2006)

2700 RPM and 46" manifold are the "maximum continious" settings according to the P-51 Pilots Operations Handbook. That means that as long as the coolant and oil temperatures stayed within parameters (100-121 degrees for coolant and 70-105 degrees for oil) the engine could be held at that setting indefinately.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> 2700 RPM and 46" manifold are the "maximum continious" settings according to the P-51 Pilots Operations Handbook. That means that as long as the coolant and oil temperatures stayed within parameters (100-121 degrees for coolant and 70-105 degrees for oil) the engine could be held at that setting indefinately.


Yep, but you wouldn't want to stay there if you're trying to save gas!


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 3, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > That's BS. I have the test report and the P-51B tested, AAF serial # 37050, was at 9423 lbs takeoff weight - fully loaded clean condition. The only change from production on the plane was a reworking of the radio antenna which was a standard field change usually applied before the planes were delivered to combat units. Maximum speed, 351 mph TAS, was determined at 3000 rpm and 67" of manifold pressure at ~29000 feet.
> ...



My appologies, I didn't mean to offend you wmax, "BS" is considered very mild in my current environment.

Here's the report... (these are gifs so they should be small enough not to take too long to upload).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 3, 2006)

Erich said:


> intersting just checking through data on the engines of the Ju 88G-6. not bad for an old hunk of bolts. *2 Jumo 213E's with 1,880 h.p. up to 2,250 h.p. rating when needed...............*
> E ~



Yeah, and if im not entirely mistaken the Dora-13 (Which saw service btw), used just that engine. 

Suddenly 2,240 HP from the Jumo 213A doesn't seem so unreal anymore, huh Paul ? You'd be surprised how much, switching from 87 to 100 octane fuel and adding a Compressor, actually increases the horsepower of an engine. (Not to mention having methanol sprayed into the engine at the same time as-well !)

Anyway Paul, I'll get back to you about the Jumo 213A later, as Im in abit of a hurry right now.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 3, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> My appologies, I didn't mean to offend you wmax, "BS" is considered very mild in my current environment.
> 
> Here's the report... (these are gifs so they should be small enough not to take too long to upload).
> 
> ...



Thanks for the test. Though I try hard to be both correct and neutral, I do make mistakes once in a while, I also understand a little fanatisim too (Obviously I'm suseptable sometimes to).  

I see the 450mph but I also note the wing was prepped "sanded smooth" If it was sanded then it would also have been buffed giving it a polished finish easily increasing speed of the aircraft. 

I would like you to reference this site: 
http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html
which sums up what I've come to understand as the real life results of the P-51s unique features and performance. Included is a test of the P-51B @ 448mph but again its noted that the aircraft is not quite field standard.

IMHO, the P-51B/C/D/K was a very good aircraft by 1944/45 standards but not really a stand out except for range. Tactics and numbers made it a great plane. It traded Climb, and maneuvering for range and speed not to say the compromise wasn't good but it was compromised somewhat to do that. Like all planes it had some weaker points, but better training, support, and tactics compensated for those points quite a lot.

wmaxt


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 3, 2006)

Erich,

Check your PMs here. I missed getting your e-mail address.

R,
Paul


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 4, 2006)

Hey guys... 1st thing, my last post, silly me, I copied numbers for CL, not images, from the wrong fields of the data sets, ‘my bad’; corrections below... Way below. 
paul.kachurak in the beginning of this I thought as you... I built a safety margin that seemed to be reasonable, actually concluded as you, that 6 Gs should about do it, also concluding that even if the aircraft is rated to 7.5 – 8 Gs this had to be sufficient; then I stumbled upon my 1st flight manual and out the window went my comparison table version 1. I was reminded that the aircraft had a negative G rating of -4 G. When we (I) applied our safety margin we right off the bat exceeded by -2 Gs the airframe’s capability.
Things grew from here, as I acquired more data I stared reading that the aircraft’s loading effected what the aircraft can do, for example the 51’s manual advises the following (my synopsis): With the fuselage tank at 40 gallons or more CG moves so far back that it is next to impossible to trim the aircraft for hands off level flight, also, more importantly, as soon as you enter a tight turn (no actual definition of ‘tight’ given) or attempt a pull out, stick forces reverse. The same thing happens in a dive, the manual goes on. These factors do not lie within your (our) ‘reasonable’ conclusion that applying an under G rating to the ‘turn rate figures’ provides a sufficient margin of error to provide an accurate envelope of our targeted aircraft. There are also bank angles, power-plant anomalies, induced drag (not from the airfoil) and ‘prop thrust’ factors that are involved, that the G force safety margin can not even begin to address...
I also use an excel spread sheet, designed by Jerry Beckwith. It was designed to build ‘1% flight models’ for Microsoft Flight Simulators, the version I use is accurate to CFS-2 / FS-2000 flight envelope programming. The spread sheet has an NACA airfoil database ‘engine’ built into its macros, I rely a great deal on this engine, as it can ‘extrapolate’ for me, as I’ve got to admit, after some four years I still don’t fully understand all of the math, but I’m still ‘learning’, cool stuff... As the output of the sheet is an ‘air file’ I use my MS Access pivot table to ‘re-bias’ and my own Excel sheet to convert to ‘normal’ units of measure, so I understand both the desire to send, the need to explain your data sheet, I only wish I had the time to do something with it. I would like you to send it to me, if you’d like, as I know someday I’ll remember, look it up. This is how I am, not at all to be misunderstood as neglect, think of it as passion, only anally focused to one thing at a time; for example with most of my free time now I’m back to paying attention to things of interest at www.ww2aircraft.net, not flying my sim, or modifying one of it’s aircraft models, or damage profiles, another ‘hobbie’ requiring mega-time, or re-painting them, mega mega time. 
So that you (all) may understand me a bit better, we have data differences, but that is not my point at all, what I’m trying to display is not my version of the numbers, but some of the figures used to determine ‘turn rates’ as insight to my thoughts on building them, as it would be quite silly to explain either Jerry’s or my spread sheets, I’m ashamed to admit I understand this stuff, to most, much less express it... again. I'll find the posting if your intrested.

FW190D-9

CL = 1.5794 @ 20.10 degrees (my reference weight = Empty Weight}
Empty Weight (No Fuel Or Ammo): 8605 Lbs
Combat Weight (Full Fuel Ammo, Clean): 9822 Lbs
Max Weight: 10670 Lbs
Wing Span: 34 ft 5.5 In
Root Airfoil: NACA 23015
Tip Airfoil: NACA 23009
Root/Tip Area Ratio: 66% 
Wing Twist (Washout): -1 Degree
Aspect Ratio: 5.98
Wing Dihedral: 5 Degrees
Wing Area: 197 Sq Ft
Wing Stall Speed: 145.47 Ft Per Sec (Aircraft Stall = 99.18 MPH)
Tail Surface: 31.6 Sq Ft
Tail Span: 151.97 inches
Tail Distance (CG): 20.832 Ft



P-51D30

CL = 1.4794 @ 19.95 degrees (my reference weight = Empty Weight}
Empty Weight (No Fuel Or Ammo): 7959 Lbs
Combat Weight (Full Fuel Ammo, Clean): 9600 Lbs
Max Weight: 11400 Lbs
Root Airfoil: NACA 63-415
Tip Airfoil: NACA 65-215
Root/Tip Area Ratio: 66%
Aspect Ratio: 5.77
Wing Dihedral: 5 Degrees
Wing Area: 235.8 Sq Ft
Wing Stall Speed: 132.01 Ft Per Sec (Aircraft Stall = 90.01 MPH)
Wing Twist (Washout): -1.25 Degrees
Tail Surface: 41 Sq Ft
Tail Span: 158 inches
Tail Distance (CG): 15.9 Ft CG


…bored yet? K. On to other things…

This cruising speed thing will be resolved with the images provided below. My comment on some of your postings, with regard to sustained cruse speeds in the 400 MPH range is LOL. Realize that here the table shows a ‘clean’ aircraft with wing racks a bit of numerical theory; as for example, you can not operate a P-51 above 300 MPH @ 30,000 Ft, as for the wing tanks, attached to the ’51 until the last minute, due to the mass of internal gas, the need to burn it off 1st, who of you believe they were designed to say attached at those speeds? The gentleman, who posted the table he posted as evidence, did not post the whole story. I won’t post that table again, just the following; See Images below…

Glad to have had this exchange with you!


----------



## Magister (Feb 4, 2006)

*Prohibited Manuevers 

No abrupt pull ups with more than 25 gallons in fuselage tank.

No aerobatic flying with fuel in the fuselage tank.*


Sounds like seriously debilitating restrictions in combat. Maybe the Mustang wasn't all that hot after all.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 4, 2006)

...As I was trying to tell you guys, these planes seem to have very narrow sweet spots, they were designed to operate best at specific weight ranges, too little being as bad as too much.

The fuel thing was not a draw back as much as it appears, as this tank as I'm reading was only filled for long range missions and burned 1st.

Finally, unfortunately for me, as I was a very STRONG supporter of the '51, it seems it was really best suited for the role it served, escort fighter.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 4, 2006)

Lunatic,
What is it with the Navy, and their comparison testing? I would just love to see the compelling reason for this test. How in the world can we base anything on it? Bad intelligence for certain.
A bunch of Navy pilots gathered round, took a comparison Army test aircraft, to get closer to... reality modified the radio installation, sanded the wings ...which in turn required the fitting of a smaller prop to the navy plane to balance out the performance gain... Nope nothing suspect there!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2006)

Magister said:


> *Prohibited Manuevers
> 
> No abrupt pull ups with more than 25 gallons in fuselage tank.
> 
> ...



No not at all - it was SOP to use the fuselage tank first, usually in cruise on the way to the target. I've seen this spoken about on several documentaries...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Magister said:
> 
> 
> > *Prohibited Manuevers
> ...


Not all the fuselage tank was used, About a 1/3 was left as a safety margin just incase the dts had to be dropped earlier than was expected.

The fuselage tank could not have been that overly restrictive on combat as the 487th FS was sitting on the runway preparing to take off with *full* tanks, but no dts, as the Germans began to attack Asch on Jan 1 45. Now the pilots said they had to watch their manuevering at low altitudes til ~50gal had been used but they still were in combat with full tanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Does anyone have any kind of info als on the 190D. That would be interesting to see.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 4, 2006)

Jon,

I think at one time the USN was considering making a carrier-capable version of the P-51. I seem to remember seeing a picture of a Mustang on a CV deck.

All,

You guys should realize that the requirements for the USN are different than the USAAC/F. Carrier suitability drives the design. In the Pacific the combat was lower and more broad in terms of territory covered. Not up at 25000 feet like in the ETO with the VIII Fighter Command protecting B-17s and B-24s. They were down protecting the dive bombers and torpedo bombers and intercepting the enemy dive bombers and torpedo bombers and doing attacks on shipping and airfields and rudimentary close air support. It was a different type of air combat. Just like the combats in Western Europe were different than those between the LW and VVS.

So any comparison done by one service of another service's aiplane is going to be tainted by:
1. their knowledge and opinions on what fits their bill
2. the plane is already built to some specification was not their requirements

Interesting comparisons but like all comparisons they need to be taken with a grain of salt and viewed through the eyes of the comparators.


----------



## Fatale (Feb 4, 2006)

paul.kachurak said:


> I made the speed and climb charts based on real data
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what was your sources?


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 4, 2006)

The source of the P-51D data can be found here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ look under the Mustang testing pages

The source of the FW190D-9 data are:

three FW sheets datad 11 March 1945 that gives speeds for different power settings
a Jumo 213A power versus altitude curves dated 9 November 1944 report number Jumo Bl. 2610 v. 9.10.44
a FW climb chart dated 24 March 1945

Unfortunately I cannot post these since the person I got them from specifically said that I cannot. Out of respect for him and the help he has given to me I won't. I can however e-mail them with the same requirement/promise that the receiver will not post them on a forum.

The sustained turn performance I calculated using the a standard atmosphere table, the above power curves, and drag data found on "Widerstandsdaten von Fluegzeug" which means Drag Data for Airplanes dated December 1944.

R,
Paul


----------



## Fatale (Feb 4, 2006)

ok, tx man 8)


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet... 

German
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9testgerman.html

English
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html

A very informative sight paul.kachurak refers to, but I thank wmaxt who sent me a lead for this site some time back. To date, this sight http://www.airpages.ru/eng/index.html seem to have the best FW-190D stuff on the web I've seen. PS if the link above does not work just use www.airpages.ru navigate from there.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 4, 2006)

The gentleman, Lutz Naudet, mentioned at the bottom of that page, is the person from whom I got a lot of D-9 data. We've traded e-mails discussing the D-9 and Jumo.

Here is an interesting thread on the Jumo by Naudet: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=832&hl=jumo


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 4, 2006)

paul.kachurak... Can't get in, as I don't 'belong'; the page asks for a 'sign-in' password


----------



## Erich (Feb 4, 2006)

so Jon what do you think you should do ? ......... Olivier has some excellent materials posted all through the forum(s) listed there on other subject matters

another one might be of use is to look through the listings in www.airwarfareforum.com


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 4, 2006)

Thanks Erich  but I don't think I'll join, yet; as for me, I'm still playing here, in these forums, not quite 'setteled in' yet. Besides remembering two screen names, passwords would be taxing... PS > You are correct about the Stuka's markings. I'll fix this soon, thanks again.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 4, 2006)

Here is a little more information on the P-51 and some of it's teething and lingering problems. http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

As Jon notes all these planes had strong points and weaker points and its the pilot that gets the advantage, and by using his strong points to his opponents weaker points is the winner. The P-51 with numbers and tactics made up for many of its weaker points to do a great job.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Does anyone have any kind of info als on the 190D. That would be interesting to see.



Yes Adler, it also seems to me that people have forgotten them. Here they are:

Fw-190D-9 statistics:

Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lbs)

Fully Loaded weight *Clean*: 4,293 kg (9,464 lbs)

Maximum loaded weight: 4,839 kg (10,670 lbs) 

Internal fuel capacity: 524 L + 111 L auxiliary - 635 L total.

Ammunitions weight total: Ca. 145 - 150 kg. (319 - 330 lbs)

Fw-190D-9 dimensions:

Wing span: 10.50 m (34.44 ft)

Wing area: 18.3 m2 (197 sq.ft)

Length: 10.20 m (33.46 ft) 

Height: 3.35 m (10.99 ft)

Fw-190D-9 aerodynamic statistics:

Wing aspect ratio: 6.02

Airfoil profile: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009

Wing thickness ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% 

Wing Cl-max *Freeflow*: 1.58 

Jumo 213A-1 engine power output: 

Normal takeoff: 1,755 PS 
Takeoff w/ increased boost pressure : 1,900 PS (Start u. Notleistung)
Emergency w/ MW50 and B4: 2,100 PS. (Notleistung mit MW50)
Special emergency w/ MW50 and C3: 2,100 + PS (Sonder Notleistung)
Special emergency w/ Compressor, C3 and MW50: 2240 PS (Sonder Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor) 

Additionally I remember some time ago, a German mechanic who talked about how they could quite easily get 2,300 HP out of the Jumo 213, it only took abit of tinkering with the engine. And these field modifications weren't a rare occurrence, it was done quite often he said. Has anyone else got any info one this ?

______________________________________________________

And about all of those turn charts and so on, well has even a single one of them figured power-loading figures into their calculations ? Cause you know power-loading is a critical factor to how well a plane turns.

The greater the power, the steeper the bank angle an aircraft can turn at a given speed. This is why the FW-190D9 outturns the FW-190A. (Along with the Dora-9's significantly lower body drag ofcause!)

Also the P-51's wing has a CL-max of 1.28 *Freeflow*, at idle that is probably 1.47, while the Fw-190's is probably around 1.80.

There's no doubt what so ever that the Fw-190D-9 will outturn the P-51D, although not by a whole lot, but the Dora-9 does turn tighter nonetheless. The reason being that the Dora-9 has both a lower lift-loading and power-loading, as-well as lighter elevator stick forces at high speeds.

Oscar Boesch from Sturmstaffel 1, also stated that in a very tight and high speed turn the Fw-190 only required one hand on the stick. This allowed the pilot to get a much better feel for what the aircraft was doing, allowing him to fly at the edge of the envelope at all speeds. As a matter of fact, the FW-190 experienced an almost dangerous reduction of stick forces at high speeds. No loss of control, just an increased chance to stress the airframe.

The P-51 however experienced stability issues in dives and compressed at any speed above the POH limits. In fact the P-51 exhibited stability issues in high-speed level flight that were never completely eliminated. Other than that, the Merlin powered P-51's have stall characteristics very similar to the FW-190's but lacks the instant recovery. Typically a P-51 lost 7000-9000 feet in recovery. The source for many P-51 pilots death when stalled at low altitude. It still gets modern P-51 pilots, causing quite a few tragedies: http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51news/shuttleworth.shtml

_____________________________________________________

*The Kommandogerät*



> Soren, there is an extensive American report on the Kommandogerat which says the same as what Lunitic says. http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/index.cgi?thumbnail1#start



I know Krazi, but those are with an Fw-190A wich has a malfunctioning engine, and since the Kommandogerät controls both engine settings and prop pitch, that effectively renders those tests worthless. And thats not all that was wrong with the Anton tested by the US, the ailerons on that aircraft were badly out of adjustment exhibiting aileron flutter and reversal leading to premature stalling in turns.(It was the same story with Faber's A-3 btw) It is written about in this report as the first peculiarity of the FW-190(Below). And despite having both engine troubles and ill adjusted ailerons leading to premature stalling, the Navy's Fw-190A (Which wasn't a fighter version btw) turned just as well as the light P-47 it was pitted against. (Quite impressive..) 

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/aleirons.jpg

And to answer many people's questions about the Kommandogerat:

No, a pilot could not manage the engine and propeller as well as the Kommandogerät. This is backed up by both allied and Luftwaffe pilots who have flown with the system. 

And about the US Navy test pilots who at first disliked the kommandogerat, their reasoning was: "because they felt manual control gave better engine response". Those same pilots who flew those tests reversed their position 60 years later. In their words: "Perhaps we had an overinflated opinion of our abilities". 

The Kommandogerat was really an ingenious device, for example if the pilot wanted to dive, all he had to do was to shove the throttle to the firewall and point his nose down. The Kommandogerät adjusted the engine and prop to optimum setting based on real world real time conditions, and all the pilot had to do was to sit back and enjoy the ride. 

In the P-51 however, "the pilot had to yank and pull levers working his prop and engine, so as not to burn up a crank bearing by over speeding the prop. The auto function on the CSP simply did not take into account all the environmental factors. It adjusted based off a manifold pressure relationship. The Kommandogerät on the other hand, took into account everything from spark advance to fuel delivery. It did it according to the actual altitude and airspeed as measured by barometric sensors. It was not a "recipe" calculator. Inputs did not happen according to a preset table but rather changed based on real world conditions to optimum performance considering multiple factors. These settings were calibrated at sea level and checked according to a chart by the pilot before takeoff."

Some pictures of this engineering marvel:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2006)

Great information Soren! I've posted info on that before. In the 1970s Beech Aircraft actually stumbled on this technology and incorporated into its Bonanza (I think around 1975).

Having to manipulate mixture and prop contols is no big thing, and I really think it wouldn't be an issue in combat, even it the pilot only has a few hundered hours. After about 10 or 20 hours of flying in an aircraft with a constant speed propeller, it becomes second nature, but this thing still makes it easier....


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 4, 2006)

Great information! Really interesting stuff.


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 4, 2006)

I will explain as plainly as I can how I arrived at "those turn charts and so on". Thanks for the back-handed remark.

In a sustained turn thrust equals drag. For a prop airplane thrust T = Power / Speed = P/V. Drag D = zero lift drag + lift induced drag. I have P-51D and Fw190D-9 zero lift drag coefficient and Fw190D-9 induced drag coefficients. The 190 came direct from a FW document. I had to estimate the lift induced drag coefficient for the P-51D. We have all we need we have power we have the drag coeficients. We know the L = load factor times weight. So we have all the ingredients. You pick a speed, iterate on load factor until thrust = drag. Simple. Power is in there. Weight is in there. Power loading is accounted for. You take n plug it into the turn rate equation and voila "those turn curves."

To go further I took the power curves, which represents uninstalled power by the way, and analyzed the max level speeds. Again in that situation thrust = drag. I created a set of correlation factors so that I could get from uninstalled power - also accounting for exhaust thrust, you forgot about that, well you probably didn't know about it, again obvious - to installed power correlated to known historic values for speed. I used those correlation factors when doing the turn performance. I have different values for both planes, especially since the P-51D engine power curves don't give exhaust thrust.

Is there another way to go about it?

As far as no doubt about plane A out-turning plane B. I ask that you prove it analytically because I never have found anything that shows a German flight test or aero analysis of turn capability.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2006)

paul.kachurak said:


> I will explain as plainly as I can how I arrived at "those turn charts and so on". Thanks for the back-handed remark.
> 
> In a sustained turn thrust equals drag. For a prop airplane thrust T = Power / Speed = P/V. Drag D = zero lift drag + lift induced drag. I have P-51D and Fw190D-9 zero lift drag coefficient and Fw190D-9 induced drag coefficients. The 190 came direct from a FW document. I had to estimate the lift induced drag coefficient for the P-51D. We have all we need we have power we have the drag coeficients. We know the L = load factor times weight. So we have all the ingredients. You pick a speed, iterate on load factor until thrust = drag. Simple. Power is in there. Weight is in there. Power loading is accounted for. You take n plug it into the turn rate equation and voila "those turn curves."
> 
> ...



What about bank angle?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2006)

Several years ago, I read an article in the Smithsonian Air Space magazine about the P51's radiator arrangement. It produced quite some "free thrust" from its design. Wouldnt that boost its speed at a seemingly lower power rating?


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 4, 2006)

Bank angle is not part of the equation per se. A plane banks to an angle required by the desired load factor. The key is load factor. Bank angle is found by the arc-cosine of the inverse of load factor or bank angle = acos(1/n). So that means every airplane, every single one, regardless of airfoil, wing design, etc. in order to turn at a load factor of n does it at the same bank angle.

For example to turn at a load factor of 2 the bank angle is 60 degress. Every single airplane from a B-52 to an F-16 to a Cessna 182.

Read this: http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/load.htm

For those of you so inclined I recommend "Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance" by Jan Roskam. He is a professor at the University of Kansas. I took his class about 9 years ago.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2006)

paul.kachurak said:


> Bank angle is not part of the equation per se. A plane banks to an angle required by the desired load factor. The key is load factor. Bank angle is found by the arc-cosine of the inverse of load factor or bank angle = acos(1/n). So that means every airplane, every single one, regardless of airfoil, wing design, etc. in order to turn at a load factor of n does it at the same bank angle.
> 
> For example to turn at a load factor of 2 the bank angle is 60 degress. Every single airplane from a B-52 to an F-16 to a Cessna 182.



Perfect!


----------



## Udet (Feb 4, 2006)

My view on the Dora remains exactly the same, a great aircfrat, a lethal toy.

Everyone will agree the Luftwaffe endured prohibitive losses in some days during the final weeks of the war.

Erich pointed the fact of high losses, which is correct. Also that British were not impressed with the Dora. I ask, did the British ever admit being impressed by anything the German fielded against them?

Perhaps by the time of the Dora reached service in numbers they were not Erich, for the brunt of the fight was being carried out by the gentlemen of the USAAF. But you bet they were not only impressed, but also shocked -when facing other German weapons- when they were still alone in the fight in the air.

Mr.Soren, I am glad you came along with the information on the flawed test carried out with that Fw 190 A (another flawed testing of German hardware for the allies).

Although I had no technical evidence to back this up, I was sure Mr. Lunatic´s claim of the Kommandogerat entering a "divided by zero error condtion" was not correct. I will explain why a few lines ahead for I have combat evidence which discards that comment.

Not only that, I quote Lunatic´s comment that followed: 

*"I believe but am not positive that in the Dora there was a bypass to allow manual operation when altitudes exceeded the system capabilities, at around 24,000 feet." *

Some examples to substantiate my full confidence on how erroneous the sources of Mr. Lunatic regarding the Kommandogerat issue are:

JG 2 and JG 26 are some of my "specialties". Have many books, articles and printings on both units. The Kanaljäger which pounded the hell of the RAF when they got fitted with the Fw 190 A´s.

Some useful combat data:

I can tell you of a victory of Luftwaffe experten Sigfried Lemke (I./JG 2)over a P-38 above the 7,500 meter level flying precisely a Butcher Bird, attained on May 9th, 1944.

Two more victories of pilots of the Schlageter geschwader, especifically from 1./JG 26, Georg Kiefner and Waldemar Soffing, each shooting down P-51s in the 7,500 meter altitude on May 20th, 1944, flying what? A Butcher Bird.

7,500 meters=24606 feet

Those were only 3 cases of victories over USAAF craft over 24,000 ft for the guys of JG 2 and JG 26 during 1944, but there are several more.

Lunatic said he believes the "capabilities of the system were exceeded" at 24,000 ft; the victories cited here show the assertion is clearly incorrect.

What you are basically suggesting there Lunatic, is that the Germans were stupid people. Have you seen the data sheets of the Fw 190 A´s? What do you think the service ceiling of the Antons was? Certainly not 24,000 ft, but even more.

What about 37,000 feet? That about such altitude would not be a very good fighter is a different tale; what I can assure you is the fact the computer did not entered a "divided by zero error mode".

You are saying the plane -Fw 190 A- was rated to fly at an altitude where the Kommandogerat would for sure get screwed.

Not to mention the fact, that from all the accounts of German pilots who flew the Butcher Bird, not for once I am able to recall anything that might be related to any sort of "problems" with the Kommandogerat.

Now, the service ceiling of the Fw 190 Dora, you bet it came to surpass the Butcher Bird in this particular department.

I digress, the Dora was a clear improvement over his predecessor. Superior high altitude performance for sure. 

That the swarms of Mustangs arriving way from above when the Doras were still climbing inflicted them ugly damage is another story. It does not mean the Dora could not more than tangle with the Mustang.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Soren said:


> Yes Adler, it also seems to me that people have forgotten them. Here they are:



Thanks Soren, but I already have that information. I was talkinga bout stuff like was posted for the P-51 here like on the prohibited manuevers and what not. Even if they are in German, I can translate them.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 5, 2006)

The British were impressed with the Dora, possibly a 13, which flew a mock combat with a Tempest V, Udet.  

Service ceiling is not FTH, which, for the A-8 was ~6000m. The FTH of the Dora was not much more than that.

Service ceiling of the Dora 9 was 10.7km which is 1.9km lower than the Dog Pony's. FTH of the Dog Pony was 1.0km higher than the Dora's 6.6km.

Lt Ossenkop of I./JG26, on the P-51: _ "the two a/c were about equal in normal combat, which was an advantage for us comapred to the A-8. The Mustang was faster in a dive."_

Compared to the Anton 9, the Dora was not much better, if any. Many Anton 8s got the A-9's motor.

The Kommandogerat of the Antons was not the same Kommandogerat as used in the Doras.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 5, 2006)

Flyboy... I gotta love ya! Your one line questions during my table construction were great; you have not lost your 'touch'. You beat me to the punch. Bank angle is one question, tail distance from CG is another; I have more but, let’s look at bank angle.
paul.kachurak answered you by saying (wrap-up) it has nothing to do with turn rate. paul.kachurak I'm surprised at you, Flyboy I'm disappointed in your acceptance of paul's answer, when 1 page ago, out of the '51s flight manual is a bank angle chart. paul.kachurak, If I were to tell you I would be performing a series of ‘load factor of 2’ turns, I would only be telling you of my ‘feeling’ during the occurrence, my acceleration; I would be describing nothing about my turn radius, my ‘airspeed’. Bank angles greatly effect turn performance, as your speed, turn rate angle of attack react with the ‘fixed’ optimal bank angle for any given wing loading. In other words, if paul.kachurak were correct, turn data would be readily available, as we all know it is not, both paul I have had to calculate it. Anyway what paul refers, known bank values for any given loading, is shown below for some common angles... 

Bank angle___Cosine_____W/S increase [g]	______Vs1 multiplier
_10°_________0.98_______1.02___________________1.01
_20°_________0.94_______1.06___________________1.03
_30°_________0.87_______1.15___________________1.07
_40°_________0.77_______1.30___________________1.14
_45°_________0.71_______1.41*__________________1.19
_50°_________0.64_______1.56___________________1.25
_60°_________0.50_______2.00___________________1.41*
_70°_________0.34_______2.94___________________1.71
_75°_________0.25_______4.00___________________2.00




My understanding of the forces of a turn… Sorry for the length…

When an aircraft is airborne at a constant velocity altitude the load on that aircraft’s wings is the aircraft's mass, expressed as being equivalent to '1g'. When the aircraft is parked on the ground the load on the aircraft wheels is a 1g load.

Any time an aircraft's velocity is changed there are positive or negative accelerative forces applied to the aircraft. The resultant maneuvering "load factor" is normally measured in terms of "g" load which is the ratio of the forces experienced during the acceleration to the forces existing at 1g.

Describing a ‘2g turn’ or by saying "I pulled 2gs"; what is being implied is that during the maneuver a ‘radial’ acceleration was applied to the airframe the load on the wings doubled. This is 'radial g', or centripetal force. It applies whether the aircraft is changing direction in the horizontal plane, the vertical plane, everything between.

It is conventional to describe g as positive when the loading on the wing is in the ‘normal’ direction. When the load direction is ‘reversed’ it is described as negative g. Negative g can occur momentarily in severe turbulence but an aircraft experiencing a sustained 1g negative loading is flying in ‘equilibrium’, but upside down, such as during an ‘outside’ loop (i.e. the pilot's head is on the outside of the loop rather than the inside) when the aircraft will be experiencing various negative g values all the way around the maneuver.

The structures of the aircraft we are concerned with are required to withstand in-flight load factors not less than +5g to –3g at COMBAT WEIGHT without any malformation – temporary or otherwise. In addition, to allow for less than optimum craftsmanship, a 'design safety factor' of, at the time, 1g was added typically, thus the aircraft should normally cope with load factors of +6g to –4g.

It should not be thought that aircraft structures are significantly weaker in the negative g direction. Remember the normal load is +1g, not 0g.

When an aircraft turns, an additional force must be continuously applied to overcome inertia, as inertia’s normal tendency is to continue in a straight line; this is achieved by applying a force towards the centre of the curve or arc, the centripetal force, which is the product of the aircraft mass and the ‘overcoming’ acceleration required. Remember that acceleration is the rate of change of either speed or direction or both. The acceleration, as you know from driving a car through an S curve, depends on the speed at which the vehicle is moving around the arc and the radius of the turn. At a slow speed in a sweeping turn there is very little acceleration, holding the turn is easy, but at high speed, holding a small radius involves high acceleration with consequent high radial g or centripetal force that makes it difficult to hold the turn. 

The acceleration towards the centre of the turn is V²/r meters per second per second and the centripetal force required to produce the turn is m × V²/r newtons where r is the turn radius in meters and m is the aircraft mass in kilograms. Remember we are using aircraft mass not weight.

*Please refer to the illustration below...*

In a level turn the vertical component of the lift [Lvc] balances aircraft weight and the horizontal component of lift [Lhc] provides the centripetal force.
An aircraft’s mass is 400 kg. In a 250 meter radius horizontal turn at a constant speed of 97 knots or 50 m/s:- 

Centripetal acceleration = V² / r = 50 × 50 / 250 = 10 m/s² 
Centripetal force required = m × V² / r = m ×10 = 400 × 10 = 4000 newtons
The centripetal force of 4000 N is provided by the horizontal component of the lift force, from the wings when banked at an angle from the horizontal, the correct bank angle being dependent on the velocity and radius: much like a motorbike taking a curve in the road. During the level turn the lift force must also have a vertical component to balance the aircraft's weight, in this case also 4000 newtons. But the total required force is not 4000 + 4000 N, rather we have to find the one, and only one, bank angle where Lvc is equal to the weight and Lhc is equal to the required centripetal force.
What then will be the correct bank angle [ø] for a balanced turn? If you have access to trigonometrical tables (I use Jerry’s Beckwith’s spreadsheet tables) this is easy, if not...
In a level turn requiring 4000 N centripetal force with weight 4000 N the tangent of the bank angle = 4000/4000 = 1.0 and thus the angle = 45°. Actually the bank angle would be 45° for any aircraft of any weight moving at 97 knots in a turn radius of 250 metres provided the aircraft can safely fly at that speed, bank angle. Now what total lift force will the wings need to provide in our level turn if the weight component is 4000 N and the radial component also 4000 N?

Resultant total lift force = weight divided by the cosine of the bank angle or L = W / cos ø. Weight is 4000 N, cosine 45° is 0.707 = 4000/0.707 = 5660 N. 
So the load on the structure – the wing loading – in the turn, is 5660/4000 = 1.41 times normal or 1.41g.
We know that lift = CL × ½rV² × S = Weight
thus W = CL × ½rV² × S 
or W / S = CL × ½rV² = the wing loading

From this we can see that if wing loading increases in a constant speed maneuver then CL, the angle of attack, must increase. Conversely if CL , the angle of attack, is increased during a constant speed maneuver the lift, and consequently the wing loading, must increase. Now this is where paul.kachurak, I believe, gets this stuff confused...

It can be a little misleading using terms such as 1.41g or ‘load factor of 1.41’. For instance if an aircraft has a mass of 340 kg and if you do the preceding centripetal force calculation using that mass you will find that the centripetal acceleration is 10 m/s², centripetal force is 3400 N, weight is 3400 N and total lift = 4800 N, i.e. the actual wing loading is 20% less but it is still a 1.41g turn, i.e. 4800/3400 = 1.41. 

Thus rather than thinking in terms of g equivalents, it may be more appropriate to consider the actual loads being applied to the aircraft structures, and the norm is to use the wing loading as the primary structural load reference.

Aircraft designed with higher wing loading are usually more maneuverable, are less affected by atmospheric turbulence, but have higher minimum speed than aircraft with lower wing loading. Wing loading is usually stated in pounds per square foot.

How does an aircraft increase lift if it maintains the same cruise speed in the level turn? Well the only value in the equation - Lift = CL × ½rV² × S - that can then be changed is the lift coefficient, which must be increased by the pilot increasing the angle of attack. Note that increasing AoA will also increase induced drag, so that the pilot must also increase thrust to maintain the same airspeed; thus the maximum rate of turn for an aircraft will also be limited by the amount of additional power available to overcome induced drag. 

For a level turn the slowest possible speed and the steepest possible bank angle will provide both the smallest radius and the fastest rate of turn, but there are limitations... 

If you consider an aerobatic aircraft weighing 10 000 N and making a turn in the vertical plane, i.e. the loop described earlier, and imagine that the centripetal acceleration is 2g; what will be the wing loading at various points of the turn? Actually the centripetal acceleration varies all the way around because the airspeed and radius must vary but we will ignore that and say that it is 2g all round. If the acceleration is 2g then the centripetal force must be 20000 N all the way round. 

A turn in the vertical plane differs from a horizontal turn in that, at both sides of the loop, the wings do not have to provide any lift component to counter weight, just lift for the centripetal force, so the total load at those points is 20 000 N or 2g. At the top, with the aircraft inverted, the weight is directed towards the centre of the turn and provides 10 000 N of the centripetal force and the wings need provide only 10 000 N. Thus the total load is only 10 000 N or 1g, whereas at the bottom of a continuing turn the wings provide all the centripetal force plus counter the weight, so the load there is 30 000 N or 3g. 

This highlights an important point: when acceleration loads are reinforced by the acceleration of gravity, the total load can be very high.

If you have difficulty in conceiving the centripetal force loading on the wings, think about it in terms of the reaction momentum, centrifugal force which, from within the aircraft, is seen as a force pushing the vehicle and its occupants to the outside of the turn; lift (centripetal force) is counteracting it. Centrifugal force is always expressed as g multiples.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 5, 2006)

...As for other things:

I didn't even know about 'Kommandogerat' before I became a member here. So far as I can tell, I would have to agree with the postings that tell of it's outstanding ability, as opposed to it having a fatal flaw; as I agree about not having ever read about it's failure. Great postings by the way.

Indeed under certain conditions, the installation of the radiator on the P-51 provided positive thrust, not enough to wright a letter home to mama, but it signifies that its installation caused little, very little drag.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

JonJGoldberg said:


> Flyboy... I gotta love ya! Your one line questions during my table construction were great; you have not lost your 'touch'. You beat me to the punch. Bank angle is one question, tail distance from CG is another; I have more but, let’s look at bank angle.
> paul.kachurak answered you by saying (wrap-up) it has nothing to do with turn rate. paul.kachurak I'm surprised at you, Flyboy I'm disappointed in your acceptance of paul's answer.


Thanks John, but I quickly accepted his answer becuase for the most part he was correct and showed that bank angle table...











What I was looking for was the statement "at a load factor of 2 the bank angle is 60 degress. Every single airplane from a B-52 to an F-16 to a Cessna 182." Now with that 60 degree 2G bank, start discussing the actual turn radius for the given aircraft - that I haven't seen here....

The site also showed "the formula"






I think we're all saying the same thing, but the real "mea"t here is to show 30-45 degree bank angles turns at say 10,000 feet at say 300 knots, I'd like to see a chart like that comparing these aircraft...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 5, 2006)

...To put it much much more simply, a desired turn (turn rate) has a load factor that affixes a bank angle. I've not seen anyone approach turning by looking at a load factor as the turn solutions point of origin, nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance. For example the FW-190 is stressed to, memory now, I'm not looking it up right at the moment, 9 g, where the P-51 is rated for 8 g. We should be able to conclude that the FW-190 easily outperforms the 51, as it is able to maintain higher bank angles, load factors, and now from here turn performance (data) can be assessed based on airframe stress values alone. I do not agree with this approach.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

So youre saying the FW190 can handle 9G turns? Wouldnt the pilot black out before then?


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 5, 2006)

[quote="FLYBOYJI think we're all saying the same thing, but the real "mea"t here is to show 30-45 degree bank angles turns at say 10,000 feet at say 300 knots, I'd like to see a chart like that comparing these aircraft...[/quote]

Here is a site that has a table showing turn rates and times. I think some parameters were assumed (such as a 9g limit) so that all aircraft would be compared on an equal basis.
http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/corner
There are other charts to but I'm not sure if these were derived to incorporate into a sim or taken, at least partialy, from a sim.

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 5, 2006)

> So youre saying the FW190 can handle 9G turns? Wouldnt the pilot black out before then?


Without a G-Suit, yes, he will be out before 9G's...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

JonJGoldberg said:


> ...To put it much much more simply, a desired turn (turn rate) has a load factor that affixes a bank angle. I've not seen anyone approach turning by looking at a load factor as the turn solutions point of origin, nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance.


Well it is - you'll know by looking at some of the charts for the aircraft that if you enter a 30 degree bank turn at 400 knots Indicated for example, you'll load up the plane and start benting it. For aircraft I've flown it bolis down to slowing down or lessening the bank angle.



wmaxt said:


> [quote="FLYBOYJI think we're all saying the same thing, but the real "mea"t here is to show 30-45 degree bank angles turns at say 10,000 feet at say 300 knots, I'd like to see a chart like that comparing these aircraft...



Here is a site that has a table showing turn rates and times. I think some parameters were assumed (such as a 9g limit) so that all aircraft would be compared on an equal basis.
http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/corner
There are other charts to but I'm not sure if these were derived to incorporate into a sim or taken, at least partialy, from a sim.

wmaxt[/quote]

My point....

You go beyond that you'll bend the airplane...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> > So youre saying the FW190 can handle 9G turns? Wouldnt the pilot black out before then?
> 
> 
> Without a G-Suit, yes, he will be out before 9G's...



YEP!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Several years ago, I read an article in the Smithsonian Air Space magazine about the P51's radiator arrangement. It produced quite some "free thrust" from its design. Wouldnt that boost its speed at a seemingly lower power rating?



What it really did was by slowing the air before passing it through the radiators allowing it to absorbe a greater percentage of the heat from the radiator. The Only thrust generated, or can be generated, was by the heat expansion caused by the transfer of heat from the radiator. This helped reduce the drag of the cooling system but never came close to a positive thrust situation.

Heres a site that deals with both the "Merideth effect" (again a British therory) but the laminar flow and high speed tests of the P-51.
http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html
This summs up what I've learned about the P-51s main atributes.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 5, 2006)

Flyboy... 1st I'm sorry I used a double negitive... "nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance." so I probably screwed up what I was saying, bank angle is very relevant in the comparison of two aircraft.

The charts you lead me to belong to a sim; regardless all the aircraft were rated at 9 g why; to make the table easier to create, or the sim easier on your computer? Either way this aids my point most clearly. If it is so darn easy to base turn performance on airframe loading, why choose to distort that loading, then create a table based on that distortion.

Or I might ask which you would choose, in a turn fight, the Zero or a T-bolt. Remember the T-bolt has a higher g rating...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

I didnt think the gee suits available in the 40's were rated for those high G turns.

It seems to be an academic question about what aircraft can handle the higher gee's......... if the pilot is blacked out, then hes going to be shot down even by a pilot in a sopwith camel thats conscience and and coherant. And if his airplane falls apart in midair because of the Gee stress's, it doesnt matter cause hes already blacked out and/or unconscience.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 5, 2006)

Its like the same thing with the F-22... That bird could pull 12 G's or more, but the human sitting in the cockpit cant pull em with the plane....


----------



## paul.kachurak (Feb 5, 2006)

Jon,

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Honestly I can't follow it.

So what I'll do is write down the formulae, I'll scan it and I'll post it here. This really isn't that hard from an aero performance standpoint. What are you not understanding so I can help? The forumlae I used are standard aero performance stuff straight out of text books.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

JonJGoldberg said:


> Flyboy... 1st I'm sorry I used a double negitive... "nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance." so I probably screwed up what I was saying, bank angle is very relevant in the comparison of two aircraft.
> 
> The charts you lead me to belong to a sim; regardless all the aircraft were rated at 9 g why; to make the table easier to create, or the sim easier on your computer? Either way this aids my point most clearly. If it is so darn easy to base turn performance on airframe loading, why choose to distort that loading, then create a table based on that distortion.


Sometimes as a dumb pilot (like myself) its easier to remember  


JonJGoldberg said:


> Or I might ask which you would choose, in a turn fight, the Zero or a T-bolt. Remember the T-bolt has a higher g rating...



At what speed?


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 5, 2006)

...I know, I know, what the plane can handle exceeds what the man can. But the on assembly line of 'man' no two molds are the same, each pilot blacks out within a similar range, but at different times. Part of your 'skill' as a pilot is that you must be able to gage your own individual capabilities, or tolerances if you will, against those of your piers and adversaries, learn how to apply them.

Of the many flaws in current sims, this to me is the biggest one; that their can be no pilot differences such as mentioned, as the screen blacks out at the same time for each player, if indeed the feature is available used. So the teenager, as he observes this grandpa show him how he used to fly his FW-190D9 back in the day, will experience the screen darkening at the same point as his mentor, even though this obviously would not be the case. Therefore, for this reason more than any other, no matter how many hours I spend at the computer as pilot of my pixilated aircraft, I can only get so close. Missing sensations, such as wind, or gravity are not nearly as critical, to me, as the fact that a sim knows nothing of the 'machine' that operates it, and therefore can not reproduce the world as if it were being seen though the operators 'eyes'.

Back to the thread; given what was said above, about the fact that the machine can handle more than the man... Today, once again, we build cars that exceed the 'limits' imposed by law or reason. Drivers of these machines routinely 'comfortably' exceed these limits. We all enjoy exercising controlled excursions into the realm of the forbidden. We relish the fact that our car can allow us to do this sometimes, those times being times of our choosing... The fighter pilot in his F-22, or P-51, having flown this bird for a while, should have a trick or two, or a series of 'moves' that if he his lucky, or diligent, or both, that he has learned how when to apply, that others can not usually implement or counter as well as he. For example, maybe he has learned that he recovers faster than most after being 'blacked out', and has 'honed' a maneuver that takes him to his personal limit. This can not be done in in aircraft that does not exceed the operators limits.

Obviously there are serious risks involved, and at times, even the best of the best do not recover from their mistakes made during the exploration of the limit of man machine.

So I guess we are all standing on line at Burger King, as we are all ordering our Woppers, some with cheese, some no onions, *our way*; as the friendly clerk takes our money, issues our own personal snadwich of satisfaction.

I Love This Place!!! ...oh no that's a McDonalds slogan, I think. Is a Whopper better than a (actually two) Big Mac (s)?


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 5, 2006)

hey paul.kachurak,
Thanks, post it here or send it to [email protected]. I thank you for your offer to help, maybe I'm not seeing something as plain as the light of day but... being as I never went to 'school' for any of this, I graduated High School went into the Air Force, became a sheet matal mechanic due to color blindness I didn't know I had; two years later trained for electronics, 'till medical records forced me out back to tin knocking. From there I sold electronics then High End Stereo, now I sell, design, program, and manage lighting system automation for a large company. Being 'self learned' my approach to many thimgs goes across the grain of the educated norm. My CAD guys for example hate my drawings, as they do not follow some 'conventions' they feel I should. My contractors however love them, as for them the 'drawings' clearly represent the tasks at hand. They also have won an award from the manufacturer whoes product they show how to install, for being the best available of thier type; still the CAD guys gripe about 'CAPITAL LETTERS' that I don't use, and they have other valid points of form I'm learning to correct. But it was/is my 'non-standard' approach to the installation drawings and support materials that is being followed, within in which I'm now learning to conform to convention. I believe my approach to 'turn data / performance' is of the same mold, and we are experiencing a similar circumstance. However I'm defenitily willing to learn of, and accept any of my errors as errors.

Lastly, I believe that we must be very very close to one another in our personal 'overall' assessments of this issue, as we agree that the '51 '190D9 are really too close to call; victory being matters of circuimstance, pilot skill luck, much more than any imbalance in aircraft capabilities. 

I've enjoyed this exchange paul, but feel it has run it's course on this thread. I welcome your data and would like to digress about this turn stuff further; please start a new thread we will explore this together with the rest of the intrested members there.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 6, 2006)

> .........'51 '190D9 are really too close to call; victory being matters of circuimstance, pilot skill luck, much more than any imbalance in aircraft capabilities. ....../quote]
> 
> I agree. The planes are so close in performance to each other that in the real world, slight differences are inconsequential.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 6, 2006)

...Hey Flyboy, are you picking a fight with me?  You are the man! I'm kidding, really, no offense taken or meant...

At your chosen speed height as long as it is less than 225 knots, and below 20K Ft (choose any color you wish, as long as it is black). Oh and one other thing, the BATTLE does not start 'head to head' rather it will stat with the aircraft approaching the same point from the same altitude at a 90 degree off-set from one another. Fair? Thought not! 

But what about the bank angle loading numbers? How come I need no limits here? Is this where you are going? This proves your paul's point about their relative unimportance. Smart guy (pilot), as I said you are the man, I greatly respect your prowess in the art of one line comments, as I seem to need volumes of verbiage to properly express myself.

But please consider 'bank angle' loading as it affects the following: AOA, Twist Wash-Out. Another set of numbers I show was something I though others would pick up on, they are Tail Distance from CG, and area. After we finish rolling, and achieve a proper bank angle do we not apply 'Rudder elevator to speed up or retard our turn, and roll rate, by effecting AOA, power delivery thrust lines, torque balancing if needed. In certain 'maneuvers' I've learned to 'trick' my sims, as I see the g scale climb, and the screen darken, I know I'm going to loose it if this maintained any longer. As I can not change line, for if I do I die, or lose my opportunity, I've learned in my sim world to pull my nose up as much as possible, increasing my bank angle to above that at which there is 'equilibrium' forcing a climb during an inside loop turn, in effect slowing me down by increasing the distance traveled for each degree of the turn, storing my speed with altitude, and allowing me to lower the loading due to the aid of gravity, as I approach an inverted flying position, regardless of my climb.

Most planes of the time, WW2, are good for about 10 to 20 seconds of this, not due to airframe limits, but to engine limits, or human limits all of which I'm not sure are solved even today. Inverted, or near inverted flight played havoc on the engines ability to lubricate itself; as most every pilots manual warns. So where I go with this is that even though the optimal bank angle of all winged aircraft from a rock to an F-22 for turn of 2g is 60 degrees, the law effects the rock differently than the F-22, as 2g for each is achieved at different 'points' within each ones performance envelope.

Please see below the bank angles for the P-51 P-38


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2006)

Why are you using the standard rate turn as far as I know it is not a combat maneuver but an instrument procedure that you a measured rate of turn 180 degrees per minute or 3 degrees a second using 3 instruments needle/ball clock and altimeter it is very early instrument procedure but still very valid I can't see g forces being a part of this turn and if you used this turn in combat you would more then likely end up in a crater impaled on your engine if I'm misreading your post my apology


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 6, 2006)

pbfoot, thank you. 

The illustrations are to show that although the math that proves 60 degrees is the proper bank angle for a 2g turn for every aircraft from a rock to an F-22, we implement turns not by loading but by rate of change; that a 'load factor 2' turn, or saying "I pulled a 2g turn", signifies a different rate of change in each aircraft, a different turn performance: That bank angle is relevant to turn performance. 

As shown in the pages from the manuals, this difference increases as speed increases, as each aircraft is at a different loading, therefore different bank angle, while flying at the same speed, and implementing the same rate of change turn.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 6, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Several years ago, I read an article in the Smithsonian Air Space magazine about the P51's radiator arrangement. It produced quite some "free thrust" from its design. Wouldnt that boost its speed at a seemingly lower power rating?
> ...



That is an interesting article. However I would point out that:

1) Argument 1 is falacious because the P-51 wing, inside the prop arc (at the crook for the P-51A/B/C/D) is conventional, not lamiar flow.

2) Argument 2 is invalid because on a twin engine aircraft the engines are mounted on the wings and transmit much more vibration to the wing than on a single engine plane. Also, the prop wash covers a larger proportion of the wing area.

3) Argument 3 is true, but only for an older P-51. For the first 50-100 hours of a P-51's life the wing was generally in good shape. Also, care was taken to keep the wings in good shape, and they were even often sanded to promote laminar flow. It is certainly true that no P-51's flying today (or even by Korea) had laminar flow performance, but in WWII the average combat life of a P-51 was about 50 hours, and most did have laminar flow.

4) Argument number 4 is picking nits. It is true the P-51 wing never exhibited "true laminar flow", but neither do modern wings. Even so, most jets today used laminar flow wing designs. The P-51's and modern jets utilize what's known as "near laminar flow", which is still superior to conventional flow.

5) Argument 5 ignores the facts. For the P-51 B, extensive in flight testing with aifoil measurement gear was conducted and the wing was re-designed to account for in-flight surface distortions.





LAL- 52638
_"This P-51B was used at NACA Langley to conductin-flight
investigations of wing sections, including therevolutionary near
laminar-flow airfoil. The device located behind the white (test) section
of the wing is an air pressure rake which registered details of airflow
over the section."_ -- http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/WWII.html

As for the cooling system generated thrust. First off, if you study the genisis of the P-51 it is pretty clear that Meredith's 1935 paper on the subject of cooling system based thrust had very little if anything to do with the system on the P-51. If you read the Meredith paper it is very short on details and does not discuss the significance of the pre-radiator expansion chamber nor the post-radiator compression chamber, nor the pressure controlled exit nozzle. In short, it is simply stating that if properly designed a small amount of thrust can be gained from a conventional radiator design.

The whole "Meredith" association was created by Lee Atwood, who, after Edgar Schmued's death (I believe in 1989?), started trying to claim a significant roll in the P-51's design and development. In fact, as pointed out very bluntly by Ed Horkey neither he nor Irv Ashkenas could recall Atwood's having had any part in the P-51's cooling system design (or anything else for that matter). Lee Atwood was in charge of the B-25, a plane that clearly lacks imagination or significant innovations. In studying the P-51 and NAA's history it becomes very very clear that Atwood was jelous of Schmued's accomplishments (the P-51 and F-86). It is sad that Atwood waited until after Schmued's death to try to steal credit for his work.

Generally speaking, the radiator thrust system negates between 90 and 100% of the P-51's cooling system drag at speeds above about 200 mph IAS. To give pespective to this number, at 85% of the P-51's mach rating (based upon 90% of cooling system drag being canceled by radiator thrust):

1) At 400 mph TAS @ 25,000 feet the P-51 was using only about 40 HP to overcome cooling system drag. The radiator thrust system was generating about 360 HP of engine equivalent thrust.

2) At 25,000 feet at 445 mph TAS, which is 85% of the P-51's mach speed limit, the radiator thrust generates approximately 530 HP of engine quivalent thrust.

3) At 15,000 feet at 454 mph TAS, again 85% of Mach limit, the P-51 generated about 630 HP of engine equivalent thrust.

This is one of the reasons why the P-51's dive acceleration and zoom climb were so good. The radiator thrust increases with the square of the speed, just like drag. So, as the speed increases the amount of thrust increases in proportion to the drag. Other planes must overcome this drag with engine power if they can, but even this is problematic because at such high speeds the prop begines to encounter its own mach effects and becomes somewhat useless as a source of additional thrust.

90% of cooling system thrust is not at all insignificant - the cooling system was responsible for well over half the drag on a slick WWII fighter.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I didnt think the gee suits available in the 40's were rated for those high G turns.



The Berger G-Suit was quite effective. In the years following WWII only slight improvments have been made in the design, and most of these have to do with pilot comfort (they ramp up more smoothly) not suit effectiveness.

Today, there are a new class of hydrolic G-suits under development which may provide much superior performance, but until they are developed, the pneumatic Berger type G-suit is still the standard type and it has changed very little since WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Why are you using the standard rate turn as far as I know it is not a combat maneuver but an instrument procedure that you a measured rate of turn 180 degrees per minute or 3 degrees a second using 3 instruments needle/ball clock and altimeter it is very early instrument procedure but still very valid I can't see g forces being a part of this turn and if you used this turn in combat you would more then likely end up in a crater impaled on your engine if I'm misreading your post my apology



Very true, those charts are showing turns related to instrument procedures, but it clearly shows the more speed, the higher the bank angle, then refer back to the original chart that shows how G loading increases with bank angle...


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 7, 2006)

Lunatic,

The site I referenced is what I belive after seeing a large number of descriptions of both systems including post war AAF and NAA descriptions which stated, True laminar flow was not achievable due to manufacturing tolerances available at that time. To keep the surface smooth on a B-47 required slippers, How many times have I seen people riding the wing or walking in boots on a P-51 wing? I viewed these several years ago but will try to find them again.

How much speed added, are we talking here
P-51D 9,000lbs/1650hp = 5.4 lbs/hp and 437
P-47N 16,000lbs/2800hp = 5.7lbs/hp and 460mph
F4U-4 12,000lbs/2200hp = 5.3lbs/hp and 446mph
P-38L 18,000lbs/2850hp = 6.3lbs/hp and 414mph
Bf-109K 7348lbs/2,000hp = 3.7lbs/hp

The P-51 doesn't show anything special here, infact the F4U-4 is doing as good with higher drag cloth wings and a radial engine. The P-38 is giving up a full pound per hp for 23mph. AND the N is not only 23mph faster but is carrying more weight for each horse and that terrible radial engine.

I'm not sure where your numbers come from but that level of extra thrust isn't showing up in the performance of the P-51. The Placement of the cooling scoop/plenum in a high drag area and the resultant smoothing of the airflow provides most of the effect your seeing.

The Merideth Effect is a minor jet engine just without the open flame, the same rules of thermodynamics apply. The only thrust is that provided by the expansion of the air caused by the radiator heat. If that wasn't true every aircraft we fly today would have a big scoop under the wing to get free horse power. The P-51s system slowed the air more than any other giving a. better cooling system performance and b. a little thrust many of the estimates I've seen were from 50lbs to 150lbs

I have also seen the speed of the P-51 creditted to either the laminar flow or to the cooling system without mention of the other, which is it?. The P-51 was a very good aircraft but it wasn't perfect nor was it as good as its press.

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 7, 2006)

> The P-51 was a very good aircraft but it wasn't perfect nor was it as good as its press.


I think thats true of every aircraft thats ever flown... I dont think there was ever a perfect aircraft.... Hmmmm....


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 7, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> [
> I think thats true of every aircraft thats ever flown... I dont think there was ever a perfect aircraft.... Hmmmm....



I agree 100%.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 7, 2006)

The P38 also had some thrust from its exhaust.

Im also curious, are these figures with a painted surface? Ive read somewhere that by skipping the paint on your aircraft, you can gain a few mph.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2006)

the paints weight alone will cause lost of speed airliners that are painted usually have less useful cargo capacity I once heard that a 747 has over a ton of paint on it these numbers of top speeds are always in a/c that are highly waxed (xtra duty from personal experience) and access panels would probably be sealed and streamlined after all the numbers have alot to due whether the manufacturer gets a contract


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 also had some thrust from its exhaust.
> 
> Im also curious, are these figures with a painted surface? Ive read somewhere that by skipping the paint on your aircraft, you can gain a few mph.



Thats true at least to the extent of weight and paint finish. I read recently that it was estimated that the paint on a C-18 (twin Beech?) added up to about 91 horsepower penalty.

The numbers for the P-51, P-38, P-47 can be assumed to be without paint as they hit the lines in mid 44 or later. The F4U-4 and 109 had painted surfaces.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2006)

Well said Les.



Lunatic said:


> It is true the P-51 wing never exhibited "true laminar flow", but neither do modern wings. Even so, most jets today used laminar flow wing designs. The P-51's and modern jets utilize what's known as "near laminar flow", which is still superior to conventional flow.



Lunatic the reason modern fighters use a laminar flow airfoil design is purely because it allows them to go faster, thats it. If modern jet fighters were using conventional airfoils their speed would be decreased considerably, and going supersonic would be more difficult. However low speed maneuverability would be alot better with the conventional airfoil. 

One thing that is worth knowing about laminar flow wings is that they stall earlier and more violently in turns than conventional type wings. This is why modern day fighters use automatic slats and flaps, to prevent these early stalls in banking maneuvers. And this is also why laminar flow wings weren't particularly efficient on WWII fighters, because of the low speeds the a/c were flying at, speeds where a conventional type wing will provide much better maneuverability. 

However there are two good points about the Laminar flow wing which WW2 fighters could benefit from, and that was an increased speed when flying straight and a better acceleration in dives. Both things which are good to have if your only going to rely on B&Z tactics.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2006)

They stopped painting B-17s because of the increased weight, didn't they?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> They stopped painting B-17s because of the increased weight, didn't they?



Yep - like other aircraft late in the war...

It also eliminated another process during assembly.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 7, 2006)

Painting an aircraft makes quite a large difference in speed. Not only from its weight, but also from its drag. British testing of the Mustang I showed that when standard British camoflage and markings were painted on speeds dropped by around 8 mph.

The matte black paint originally used on Mosquito night fighters was abandoned because it had significantly more drag than the RAF standard semi gloss finish. Apparently the speed loss was on the order of some 22 mph.

Speed trials on an underperforming Spitfire Mk V (EN946) showed that rubbing down, repainting and polishing just the wing leading edge increased speed by ~6 mph. With some other fairly simple modifications, they later got the same Spitfire Mk V up to 385 1/2 mph, or about 15 mph faster than a standard Mk V. 

The official speed and range for a Mk XI PR Spitfire was suppose to be around 420 mph and around 2,300 miles with a 170 gallon overload tank. However, ground crews and even pilots would regularly strip, fill, wax and polish all the aircraft leading edges, which reportedly gave another 10-15 mph speed and add up to 200 miles range over the by the book numbers. When speed is your only defence, you do everything you can to maximise the advantage.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 8, 2006)

Have heard that German paint was finer a 'grain' when applied than Allied paint, and thus smoother. True/false?


----------



## Soren (Feb 9, 2006)

Something that might be of interest: http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 9, 2006)

An interesting note:

- Cooling drag: 16%

- Fuselaje: 30%

- Wings: 31%

- Various: 4%

- Horizontal tail: 6%

- Interference drag: 9%

- Induced drag: 1%

- Vertical tail: 9%

What are the usual values for these parameters? I had come accross some information in a book but it was on jet aircraft. Somebody mentioned the cooling drag being up to 50% of the total drag...

Regards.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

Very cool info!


----------



## Soren (Feb 9, 2006)

The comparisons are very well explained and precisely calculated, using NACA's own aerodynamics program, thats what I like about it.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 9, 2006)

alejandro_ said:


> An interesting note:
> 
> - Cooling drag: 16%
> 
> ...



Interesting, it would be great if we had the same info for the rest of the planes.

Here are a few overall drag coefficents (C/D) and Lift over Drag (L/D) numbers to compare (by NACA/NASA

Plane -- C/D -- L/D
B-17G - .0302 - 12.7
B-24J - .0406 - 12.9
B-29A - .0241 - 16.8
B-26F - .0314 - 12.0
P-51D - .0163 - 14.6 the article above puts the C/D of the P-51D at .019957 which fits better with its relative performance.
P-38L - .0268 - 13.5
F6F-3 - .0211 - 12.2
PBY-5A .0309 - 7.73

wmaxt


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 9, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Lunatic,
> 
> The site I referenced is what I belive after seeing a large number of descriptions of both systems including post war AAF and NAA descriptions which stated, True laminar flow was not achievable due to manufacturing tolerances available at that time. To keep the surface smooth on a B-47 required slippers, How many times have I seen people riding the wing or walking in boots on a P-51 wing? I viewed these several years ago but will try to find them again.
> 
> ...



But the problem is you are referencing info based upon old released data. For instance, top seed on the F4U-4 was not 4446 mph, it was 464 mph TAS at ~20,700 feet! That number is right out of the F4U-4 pilot handbook. For most US planes, immeadiately following WWII, the top speed figures given reflect Military Power, not WEP.

Also, in your figures for the P-51 power where is the radiator thrust? Yes, it does not overcome the drag of the plane, but it does cancel out 90-100% of the cooling system induced drag, which does not occure for any of the other fighters you've listed (actually the F4U-4 cooling system does generate some thrust, but much less than that of the P-51).



wmaxt said:


> I'm not sure where your numbers come from but that level of extra thrust isn't showing up in the performance of the P-51. The Placement of the cooling scoop/plenum in a high drag area and the resultant smoothing of the airflow provides most of the effect your seeing.



I took the numbers given from various sources, and the fact that, at any speed over ~180 mph IAS the P-51 cooling system cancels out at least 90% of the cooling system induced drag. Cooling systems accounted for between 10 and 20% of the drag on WWII prop fighters, I used 12% which I am confident is low for the P-51 since it was a slick design, and extrapolated the numbers from there - somewhere there is a figure for how much equivalent HP the radiator thrust system is making at a given speed (I'll try to find it when I have time - IIRC it's 340 hp @ ~ 400 mph at 20 or 25K). The key point is that drag increases with the square of the velocity, and so does the radiator generated thrust. So at higher speeds the effective power provided by the system becomes quite large.[/quote]



wmaxt said:


> The Merideth Effect is a minor jet engine just without the open flame, the same rules of thermodynamics apply. The only thrust is that provided by the expansion of the air caused by the radiator heat. If that wasn't true every aircraft we fly today would have a big scoop under the wing to get free horse power. The P-51s system slowed the air more than any other giving a. better cooling system performance and b. a little thrust many of the estimates I've seen were from 50lbs to 150lbs



And just how much thrust do you think was being generated by the prop? Cruising at 400 mph, 150 lbs of thrust is probably more than 10% of the prop thrust. Another thing is the fact that as the reaches increasingly higher speeds the prop thrust becomes limited because the tips cannot exceeding mach, thus prop efficiency is dropping off, where the radiator thrust is not effected by such concerns. As for the cooling system effectiveness, sheer size of the radiator core (which is why I believe my figures are low - on the P-51 the cooling system was huge so the drag was probably closer to 20%, not 10%) ensures exceptional cooling which was one reason the P-51 didn't benefit much from water injection.

As for every plane today having such a system... they would if they used conventional engines and flew at high speeds. However, any modern plane that is going to stustain these kinds of speeds is going to be using a jet or a turbo-jet engine. It's a solution to a problem that is no longer really relevant. At the speeds of modern civilian piston powered prop's the expense of routing the cooling system in a manner similar to that of the P-51 is not justified for the meager gains achieved at the speeds these planes fly.



wmaxt said:


> I have also seen the speed of the P-51 creditted to either the laminar flow or to the cooling system without mention of the other, which is it?. The P-51 was a very good aircraft but it wasn't perfect nor was it as good as its press.
> 
> wmaxt



Some of both. Personally, I think the laminar flow wing was more about providing room for fuel than anything else. Having the maximum thickness at the center rather than 25% back from the front of the wing makes for a lot larger tanks. Some advantage when cruising was achieved vs. a conventional wing of the same thickness, but there were conventional wings that were thinner, provided the same lift, and induced less drag - they just had no room for fuel. So I'd say the radiator thrust system not the laminar flow wings was the bigger contributer to its speed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 9, 2006)

Lunatic:

My October 1944 and April 1945 charts for F4U-4 both have 446 mph as max speed for military power and 452 mph as max speed for War Emergency Power at 70" HG and 20, 300 and 20,800 feet respectively.

Configuration was clean and T/O weight was ~12,500 lbs 

This is the first time I have run into the 464 mph figure. Are you sure it isn't just a typographic error?


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 10, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Lunatic:
> 
> My October 1944 and April 1945 charts for F4U-4 both have 446 mph as max speed for military power and 452 mph as max speed for War Emergency Power at 70" HG and 20, 300 and 20,800 feet respectively.
> 
> ...



Check for yourself... 

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/

Notice the "clean configuration" figures in the notes and convert KNOTS to mph.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 10, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> Jabberwocky said:
> 
> 
> > Lunatic:
> ...



Thanks for the link. Great stuff.  My Broadband is going to be worked overtime tonight!  

Looking at the F4U-4 link, I think it possible that one of us has made a mistake in our calculations.

Max speed is given as 393 knots @ 20,500 feet.

1 knot = 1.1508 miles

393 kph = 452.25 mph

So, by my calculation, the max speed of the F4u-4 is 452 mph.

Also, check the knots to mph conversion chart on the side of the 1.6mb F4u-4. 393 knots is pretty much bang on 452 mph.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> So youre saying the FW190 can handle 9G turns? Wouldnt the pilot black out before then?



Yeap but that does not mean that the aircraft can not handle the 9Gs.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2006)

If the pilot is unconscience, then it doesnt matter if the plane can handle 9 gee's or 20 gee's. Its going to be shotdown.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2006)

well if the pilot's unconscience then the plane's going down weather it's shot down or not, unless the pilot recouvers..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2006)

Thats was not my point sys.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 20, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Jabberwocky said:
> ...



No, look at the notes on the last page:

*"Clean Condition: Same as Combat Condition except pylons removed. At combat power, Vmax/SL = 333 knots and Vmax/ACA = 403 knots/20600 ft."*

403 knots = 463.7724 mph

Now, you might want to argue that removing the capped pylons is somehow "unfair", but I'd point out that maximum speed figures for European aircraft were without such accutriments even though actual combat aircraft almost never flew without them. In fact, some of the German and British figures are even sans radio antenna.

Regardless, the point is that the generally accepted figures for US aircraft, published during the early cold war years, are military power figures, not Combat power figures.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If the pilot is unconscience, then it doesnt matter if the plane can handle 9 gee's or 20 gee's. Its going to be shotdown.



Not necessarily. Some manuvers may involve very short duration high G levels. A human can sustain very high G's for a couple of seconds, but if the plane cannot withstand them then.....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

The couple seconds he is blacked out is a couple of seconds he has lost situational awareness, with potentially fatal results.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The couple seconds he is blacked out is a couple of seconds he has lost situational awareness, with potentially fatal results.



No disagreement there. But lets say the pilot puts the plane through a 9G cornerning manuver. G levels are over 5G's for less than 5 seconds. The pilot will not black out from this, however if the wings rip off the plane that really does not matter.

The point I'm trying to make is that G tolerance is also time dependant. People can withstand up to well over 10 G's for brief periods and not pass out. If you are in good health and the G's do not come on instaneously and drop off quickly you can take a surprising high G load. On the other hand, much lower G loads over extended periods will make you pass out. 4G's is probably enough to make 95% of pilots pass out after 30+ seconds.

Taller men also tend to have less G-tolerance. For best G tolerance you want short squat men with high blood pressure! Robert Johnson looked like a beer barrel with arms and legs!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

I can only dream of what 10Gs must feel like. We did a 3 G maneuver the other day on a training flight and the weight on my legs and body felt crazy. I have experienced higher than 3 but never anything higher than 4. 10 must be fricken amazing!


----------



## Lunatic (Mar 8, 2006)

It certainly won't be comfortable. But my point is that for a couple of seconds you can withstand 10 G's w/o passing out. Imagine sitting in a chair that takes a 10 foot fall and lands on firm grass. That'd be 10+ G's instantaneous decelleration.

Remember, I'm not saying the pilot could do much under such G forces, simply that the plane's ability to survive such instantaneous G loads is important becasuse if the wings come off there is no possiblity of recovery or continuing to fight. To humans, sustained G loading leads to physical failure, but to machines, instaneous G loading is what leads to catastrophic failure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> It certainly won't be comfortable. But my point is that for a couple of seconds you can withstand 10 G's w/o passing out. Imagine sitting in a chair that takes a 10 foot fall and lands on firm grass. That'd be 10+ G's instantaneous decelleration.


I've taken 5 and 6 Gs for limited periods WITHOUT a G suit and besides from being grayed and blacked out it felt like I got flattened by a bus while my stomach was being lifted into my throat. After the flight and into the next day I felt like I spent 3 days in the gym on every weight machine - and I'm in decent shape - 5'10" 185 pounds...

I've flown with a G suit and pulled about the same in an F-4 and in a T-33. It helps but you still feel it....

You ain't taking 10Gs without passing out unless you're in olympic shape or Superman.....


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 8, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > It certainly won't be comfortable. But my point is that for a couple of seconds you can withstand 10 G's w/o passing out. Imagine sitting in a chair that takes a 10 foot fall and lands on firm grass. That'd be 10+ G's instantaneous decelleration.
> ...



Thats probably true. I find it interesting that the US AF requires a fighter pilot to be able to tolerate 9g for a specified period (I think without a G suit) before they are even accepted for a fighter training slot. I'll try to get the specifics but I don't have them handy.

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (Mar 8, 2006)

Wow.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 12, 2006)

wmaxt I'd love to see that, 2nd elmilitaro...


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 12, 2006)

JonJGoldberg said:


> wmaxt I'd love to see that, 2nd elmilitaro...



I first heard it on a documentary and have seen it elsewhere since then, unfortunately I did not save the source I'm not even sure it was on line. I think the time was 10 seconds and that was in a centrafuge so they had to deal with the acceleration to that point.

I will keep trying to find the info.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

Ive heard the same thing, but I am not sure about it.


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2006)

Its true alright, I know for a fact that a F-16 pilot must be able to withstand 9 G's without a G-suit for x amount of time, before being accepted for further training. This precaution is needed in-case of a G-suit failure in a combat situation, where you need to be sure the pilot can take these forces regardless. Pilots also train vigorously to be in shape if such a failure should happen as their lives may come to depend on it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2006)

I've done 7 when I new it was coming - there were times when "playing photographer" I got yanked into 5 or 6 Gs and easily grayed or blacked out.

I've also confirmed the 9 G requirement with some of the pilots at the academy - most of them do it through the centrifuge so its slowly applied and you know its coming, its the quick G load that gets you and could even pull muscles or worse if you're not prepared for it.


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2006)

Yep, thats why its always nasty being the passenger in a fighter.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 13, 2006)

I've greyed out at about 5 Gs in the backseat of an L-39 during an aerobatics routine. 

Anything more than about 4.5 Gs is really tough. You start to lose colour from your vision and your develop progressive tunnelvision. 

It's no surpise that I'm not exactly a G monster though - I'm 193 cm/ 86 kg (thats 6'4", 190 lbs to all you heathens still on imperial). Most g-resistant pilots are lighter, stockier and MUCH smaller than me.

NASA did some interesting studies in the 50's and 60's with regard to women pilots and astronaughts. Very fit women are physiologically capable of handeling more G forces than very fit men are, because of their size and different body shape. Men seem to have better spacial orientation in violent manouvering flight but women are less likely to make mistakes and think more clearly and clinically in a dogfight situation. Apparently this is because estrogen is a better primary stimulant under some kinds of stress conditions than testosterone.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 13, 2006)

> Apparently this is because estrogen is a better primary stimulant under some kinds of stress conditions than testosterone.


This is quite true....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2006)

Soren said:


> Yep, thats why its always nasty being the passenger in a fighter.



Yep - when i got to go up fron in an L-29, it seemed I could take more Gs.

The few times I got to fly in the F-4 our chief pilot always had to come over the field fast and do the over head to land - a few times he caught me and I recovered as the wheels were touching the runway...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 6, 2006)

In the best fighter polls, the FW beat the Spitfire and the Mustang as top fighter plane. 

In the best Fighter poll of all time the Spitfire beat the FW and the P-51.

Here it seems like some people think the Mustang is on par with the FW which means the spit is as well. Whats really the case?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 6, 2006)

In the hands of equally capable pilots, the Dora was the better machine....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 6, 2006)

I guess the British lost one poll and won the other poll to make the Spit the best fighter aircraft. 

And the FW fans didn't work as hard on the all time fighter poll as on the WWII best fighter poll to make the FW supreme. 

Which goes to show polls can be out of balance I guess.

And of course all the P-51 got going for it agains't the FW is speed and maybe firepower and even those are only on par. The Mustang has the 6 hour Drop tanks. Buts that not much in dealing with FW fighters. Except it could attack from a farther distance than a FW good because of range. Whats given it the universal title of "best fighter plane of WWII" anyway? 

One thing though. One this Warbird Forum poll of "Best fighter plane of WWII" the Corsair should have been next to the Spit or above it. Maybe it wasn't as good as the FW, but the Corsair was certainly as close to a Spitfire in beating it. And on the poll it's way near the bottom.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 6, 2006)

Was the P-51 better at higher altitudes than the FW say on the B-17 high altitude bomb runs when they fought each other?

Or did the FW beat it on that too? 

And was the Spitfire XIV better at high altitude dogfights than the FW?


----------



## Erich (Apr 6, 2006)

yes and it also beat out the Dora, the Ta 152C and H which the Stang never met would of reigned over the p-51. what made the Stang so special ......... the endurance of long range which no other Allied escort fighter had. this from interviews of many many 8th AF fighter jocks


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2006)

The P-51 had good high altitude performance, the Dora didn't, simple as that. 

At the altitudes where the bombers were flying the Dora-9's power had dropped significantly, and while the Dora-9's were climbing to engage the bombers the P-51's had a relatively easy time picking them off. 

On the Eastern front however, where the fights were mostly down low, the Fw-190 Dora-9 enjoyed tremendous succes by virtue of its excellent low altitude performance, out-performing any adversary it met. And it was lucky for the Mustang pilots that they rarely had to tangle with the Dora-9 down low, where it was distinctly superior to the P-51 in every aspect of flight.

There really wasn't a fighter down low the Dora-9 couldn't beat.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 7, 2006)

Combat Aircraft of World War Two 

Spitfire Mk. XIV versus FW190A 

Early in1944 the Air Fighting Development Unit flew a Mk XIV Spitfire in a comparative trial against a captured Focke-Wulf 190A. The following are extracts from the official report. 

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Maximum Speed: From 0-5,000 feet [0-1525 metres] and between 15,000-20,000 feet 
[4573-6100 metres] the Spitfire XIV is only 20 mph [32 km/hr] faster than the FW190; 
at all other heights it is up to 60 mph [97 km/hr] faster. 

Maximum Climb: The Spitfire XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb at all altitudes. 

Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage. 

Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced. 

Rate of Roll: The FW 190 is very much better. 

Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive. 
If this maneuver is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close 
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive. 

From http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v190.htm


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2006)

You do realise that you're comparing a Fw-190A3 with a Spitfire Mk.XIV right ?  And that the Fw-190's engine isn't running properly, as-well as the fact that the ailerons aint adjusted properly either...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 7, 2006)

This is by one who calls himself Crumpp, who is part of the White 1 Foundation. He is a wealth of knowledge on the Fw190.

Posted on the CWoS board:

_"That would be the ailerons when properly adjusted. *Even the Luftwaffe had a difficult time in keeping the ailerons adjusted*. Of all the great engineering found on the aircraft, the aileron adjusting blocks are certainly not one of them!"_

So it would seem, the RAF's test a/c was not so far removed from a typical LW 190.


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2006)

It is well known that up until the A-6 the Fw-190 had problems with its ailerons, and even the LW mechanics (The only ones who could properly correct this) sometimes found it hard to get right. This problem was solved with the introduction of the A-6 however.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 7, 2006)

Yup...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 7, 2006)

Soren said:


> It is well known that up until the A-6 the Fw-190 had problems with its ailerons, and even the LW mechanics (The only ones who could properly correct this) sometimes found it hard to get right. This problem was solved with the introduction of the A-6 however.



Nope it was still there, just not as bad as before.

Anyone could make the correct adjustments if they had the manual that told them how to do it.


Crumpp:
_The FW-190A6 and above mounted the Type III. The aileron types were interchangeable but the standard for the FW-190A6 and above was the Type III._

_The hinge geometry and a stiffening of the internal structure._


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> Nope it was still there, just not as bad as before.



To my knowledge the problem was eliminated with the introduction of the A-6, where have you heard otherwise ?



KraziKanuK said:


> Anyone could make the correct adjustments if they had the manual that told them how to do it.



- and the right tools plus experience.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 7, 2006)

Soren said:


> To my knowledge the problem was eliminated with the introduction of the A-6, where have you heard otherwise ?
> 
> - and the right tools plus experience.



Then if it was eliminated, why were there Allied pilots saying they saw late model 190As snap/spin? Hardly indicative of the problem being completely solved.

- tools and experience is a given.

Join the White 1 Foundation.


----------



## alejandro_ (Apr 7, 2006)

> There really wasn't a fighter down low the Dora-9 couldn't beat.



The La-7 was quite an opponent at low altitudes.

Regards.


----------



## Soren (Apr 8, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> Then if it was eliminated, why were there Allied pilots saying they saw late model 190As snap/spin? Hardly indicative of the problem being completely solved.



Come on ! Is that your proof ? 

I guess this is the quote your clinging to:
"_Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. *Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control*_"

Well first off all most late war 190A's were flying with bomber-interceptor setups, heavily armed and loaded(The ones P-51 pilot's were most likely to meet), so for one of those dogfighting with the lighter allied fighters would most likely end in a stall at some point. Secondly even when the ailerons were properly adjusted stall warning was still not very pronounced, so a green pilot could quite easily miss it and pull abit too hard abruptly stalling the aircraft. (Remember the Fw190 had very sensitive controls) 

So that Hayes saw several 190's stall doesn't indicate at all that it was because of a problem with the ailerons, infact all it indicates is that the 190's in question were most likely heavily armed carrying one of the many Rüstsätze's available and/or piloted by a green pilot. And that he even saw some crash can be attributed to a long number of other things before the ailerons. (That it was an earlier version Anton amongst other things perhaps  )

Also if you look up the post-war allied tests with the Fw-190 Dora you'll notice how gentle its stall was, and that no problem regarding the adjustment of the ailerons is mentioned(Unlike in ealier reports regarding the Anton), again disproving that there should be any problem with the ailerons.

I'm not saying that with the introduction of the A-6 it was now piece of cake adjusting them, not at all, but that the problem with them not being properly adjusted was over.

But to be on the safe side you could perhaps ask this guy "Crumpp" about it ??



KraziKanuK said:


> - tools and experience is a given.



Perhaps, but a technical manual is not, and the only info the Allies had on the Fw190 was pilot testimonies.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2006)

There were also MANY engagements where the German pilots, in both the -190 and the -109, would purposely put their planes into stalls and spins to disengage from an overwhelming situation, to great effect I might add....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 8, 2006)

> first off all most late war 190A's were flying with bomber-interceptor setups, heavily armed and loaded



Where does your info come from that almost all late war 190As were heavily armoured? Proportion wise to the number of 190s produced, the number of FW 190 A-8/R2, FW 190 A-8/R7 and FW 190 A-8/R8 was very small.

The only unit that flew /R8s was IV.(Sturm)/J.G. 3. The FW 190 A-8/R2 had no special armour but had the outboard cannon replaced with MK 108 30 mm cannons. The /R7 got the cockpit fuselage armour.


----------



## Soren (Apr 8, 2006)

Krazi, I said "Armed" not "Armoured".


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2006)

This is true, he did say armed....


----------



## Erich (Apr 8, 2006)

I think I need to make some clarification here on the knights of the Sturmgruppe........

first one was the A-6/MK then the A-7MK or R2 that it was known later in I./JG 11.

The A-8/R2 came into play and was the standard SturmFw with all armor and with or without the mg cowling faired over the the mg 131's removed.

There was never an R7 varinat on operations.

The R8 variant was just like the R2 except in November 44 end it was to replace the R2 which it never did, and the R8 hads the mg 131 fairings as standard.

IV.Sturm/JG 3 kept the canopy Scheuklappen or blinkers as we call them, but II.Sturm/JG 4 removed them after their second air battle in September 44 due to sever icing and II.Sturm/JG 300 removed them from the start for better visibility. All 3 Sturmgruppen had the R2 and later the R8's in their line-ups.

E ~ remember the R2 had ALL the armor in place just like the R8. Early shots of JG 3 Sturms show four 2cm weapons and no canopy armor in June of 44 due to jabo missions in Normandie, when withdrawn from those and into the Reich they immediately were outfitted with all the heavy steel plating. JG 300 Sturms did not get this till July 44's end. Some pilots at their wishes still preferred the outboard 2cm weapons to be left in place........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 8, 2006)

Oops Soren, that is what happens before one has that 1st cup of morning coffee.


----------



## Soren (Apr 8, 2006)

Hey, no worries.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 18, 2006)

Sometimes when you think about it the FW the allies faced the most was the FW190-A version. It's top speed was below 400 mph. That means the P-51 had a large advantage in speed. That's the FW the P-51 pilots had to worry about most, and thats why the P-51 can have the reputation of being faster and better at high altitudes than the FW in records and logs of American pilots of WWII. If the FW-D faced them in the same numbers in 1942, 43' 44' with a top speed equal to the P-51 Mustang, they might have had a rougher time. The FW-D didn't start doing much until the air war for Germany was half lost in late 1944. 

Sure it's just running over the mill again, but I still hold that the P-51D was superior to FW-A. It outperformed it in many ways. And thats what counted since the Bombers were attacked mainly by the FW 190A and the 
p-51D was the one that had to do it.


But lets not forget the good old P-47 in 1943. They also did great agains't the FW 190A.

Frankly, if WWII had dragged on, and the Germans had managed to keep their Luftwaffe intact, and had bought in the Ta-154, and the P-51H was having a tough time, the US Air Force could have just bought a couple of Bearcats from the Navy. The Bearcat was equal to the German Ta, and had a faster speed. Thanks to our pirating of the FW design, the Bearcat wouldn't have been inferior to the Ta. Logically though, everyone would have switched to fighter jets by 1946. And there the germans had an advantage in jet aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 19, 2006)

The Bearcat wouldnt have had the legs for escort missions...


----------



## davparlr (Nov 20, 2006)

Wow! I've missed a great thread. I wonder where I have been. Fighting the P-51H-Ta-152H battle, I guess.

So many questions to address. I did a little comparison of the performance of the P-51D, from spitfireperformance data, and the Fw-190D-9 from Soren data and I came up with this comparison chart. Some of the charts were difficult to read and there maybe some interpretation error but I think it is pretty accurate.

At 25k feet
P-51 max airspeed 420 mph, rate of climb 2100 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 max airspeed 428 mph, rate of climb 2208 ft/min

At 30k feet
P-51 max airspeed 440 mph, rate of climb 1700 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 max airspeed 406, rate of climb 1476 ft/min

At 33k ft(10km)
P-51 max airspeed 418 mph, rate of climb 1250 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 max airspeed 391, rate of climb 984 ft/min

At 35k ft
P-51D max airspeed 408, rate of climb 1000 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 max airspeed 385, rate of climb 690 ft/min

Service ceiling
P-51D 41,600ft
Fw-190D-9 39,370ft

And since turns are really horizontal climbs, it is probably likely the P-51D could out turn the Fw-190D-9 at the higher altitudes, as has been asserted in previous entries.

So, examining the data, it appears the two aircraft are pretty well equivalent at 25k feet but the Dora was starting to run out of wind. Above 25k feet, the Mustang clearly had advantage in speed and climbing ability and could engage and disengage at will and, therefore, could control the battle. 

The Dora was clearly superior to the P-51D below 25k. But surrendering the high ground is tough way to win a battle, even in the air. The Sabres were able to do that in Korea but they did it with superior training and superior pilots.

Inconclusion, I assert that, until the advent of the Ta-152H, the P-51 dominated the skies over Germany above 25k feet (but not below) and certainly did its share in opening the German skies to horrendous calamity, and would have done so even if the sides were equal in quantity and training. To me, that is what the tape says.

And the real greatness of the P-51 was that it could do this after flying a looong way.

I know you guys think the Dora is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it certainly had a weakness at higher altitude. So like many other aircraft, including the P-51D, it was great in a certain envelope and vunerable out of it.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 21, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Thanks to our pirating of the FW design, the Bearcat wouldn't have been inferior to the Ta.



That answers a question I have always had. Why did Grumman changed to a rugged radial engined fighter instead of just developing a aircraft like they had before? Oh wait, THEY DID!

If this is pirating, then look at the Hughes H-1. The may have been inspired but I doubt that there was any significant pirating. At least none worse than any other manufacturer, Allied or Axis.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 21, 2006)

True. But you gotta give some credit to the Germans for the Bearcat while not at all (I think?) for the P-51 Mustang which was an American invention out of American minds.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2006)

The Brits had a lot to say about the P-51 as well Welch...


----------



## davparlr (Nov 21, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> The Brits had a lot to say about the P-51 as well Welch...



Little to the airframe, other than ordering it, but the Merlin certainly was the key to its success.


----------



## Chingachgook (Nov 21, 2006)

davparlr,

That makes sense of the situation. The Stang had control. Even if it had to go below 25k it would carry a lot of E with it (but I would not want to be a 51 level @15k if there was a Dora @ 20k.

Alt is everything - or so says many a dead spitfire pilot.


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Wow! I've missed a great thread. I wonder where I have been. Fighting the P-51H-Ta-152H battle, I guess.
> 
> So many questions to address. I did a little comparison of the performance of the P-51D, from spitfireperformance data, and the Fw-190D-9 from Soren data and I came up with this comparison chart. Some of the charts were difficult to read and there maybe some interpretation error but I think it is pretty accurate.
> 
> ...




While I agree completely with almost all of what you have said Davparlr, I must contest your claim that the P-51D ruled the skies over 25k before the advent of the Ta-152, for it certainly did not. The Bf-109K had a considerable performance advantage at both low and high alt over the P-51D.

Bf-109K performance at alt:

25k ft = 720 km/h (447 mph) / Rads open: 13.5 m/s (2,657 ft/min) - Rads closed: 15.5 m/s (3,051 ft/min)

30k ft = 702 km/h (438 mph) / Rads open: 9.7 m/s (1,909 ft/min) - Rads closed: 11.7 m/s (2,303 ft/min)

33k ft = 690 km/h (431 mph) / Rads open: 7.5 m/s (1,476 ft/min) - Rads closed: 9.5 m/s (1,870 ft/min)

35k ft = 679 km/h (424 mph) / Rads open: 6 m/s (1,181 ft/min) - Rads closed: 8 m/s (1,574 ft/min)

Service Ceiling: 12.7 km (41,6k ft)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2006)

davparlr said:


> So like many other aircraft, including the P-51D, it was great in a certain envelope and vunerable out of it.



That I completely agree with. The Dora was superior below 25K but was only supposed to be a stop gap until the Ta-152 came on board, which was a true high altitude fighter.


----------



## Chingachgook (Nov 21, 2006)

Hi Soren,

Which 109K and at what ata? What time period? Last 2 weeks of the war or start of K service from Oct '44?

"Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist. The following 109 K curves were produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau... ...simplistic estimates... " (from Williams) 

P-51B running 18lbs boost pretty fast at all alts. 25lbs they are just wicked fast. Did P-51 run 150octane like the Spits did in last year of war?


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Hi Soren,
> 
> Which 109K and at what ata? What time period? Last 2 weeks of the war or start of K service from Oct '44?
> 
> ...




Simplistic estimates ?! Only Mike Williams could put it that way 

I'd advice you to take any of his comments and claims on German fighter performance with a BIG grain of salt.

Fact is the estimates are most probably far more advanced than any British estimates, as the Germans were pretty far ahead in aerodynamics.

Oh btw, the estimates are also most like very conservative, an underestimate of true performance, as even in 43 with even less power and aerodynamic cleanliness available, a Bf-109 F-4 achieved 670 km/h during test-flights;


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 22, 2006)

Little to the airframe, other than ordering it, but the Merlin certainly was the key to its success.

How stupid of me. Without the Merlin the Mustang would have been just on the level with the P-39 and P-40. Thank you Brits!


It's pretty interesting how the P-51 went the fastest at just about the altitude the B-17 needed it. Coincidence or did the designers have in mind that the Merlin engine worked best at the altitude of 30,000 feet?


----------



## Chingachgook (Nov 22, 2006)

Soren, 

Sorry that I came off critical of your post - was not my intent. Just asking questions.

Full disclosure; Mike is a friend. Maybe there is some bias there, but there is also some good info on his site - pilot reports/test data that I can not find easily elsewhere - But I will look for truth where ever I can find it. I do not think Mike was questioning the info - just stating that there was no flight test data. Yes perhaps the estimates were conservative, but who knows? ( *lots of variables there*) but they were still estimates - and so even you question if they show the K in the best light. 

In any event, there is a big picture story behind these birds - bigger than any test data or performance estimates.

I agree wholeheartedly on the F-4. I fly in FighterAce (don't laugh please), and I know that the F-4 was undermodel'd there - kinda wrecked the game for me. If you kill an F-4 with a Vb Trop in FA you really don't prove anything because the climb and speed of the F-4 are way off. 
btw, notice that Mike never did a comparison of the Vb to the F-4. I think because the F kicks the Vb's butt! > (sorry Mike!)

Truth is far more poignant and compelling than any of our bias - That is why I am here - I want the truth! What else is there?


----------



## davparlr (Nov 22, 2006)

Soren said:


> While I agree completely with almost all of what you have said Davparlr, I must contest your claim that the P-51D ruled the skies over 25k before the advent of the Ta-152, for it certainly did not. The Bf-109K had a considerable performance advantage at both low and high alt over the P-51D.
> 
> Bf-109K performance at alt:
> 
> ...




Can't argue with you here. I don't have a lot of data. I could only find data for the K-6, which shows a speed of 441 mph at 25k, about the same as the P-51D. Ceiling was 38,700 ft, lower than the Mustang. Climb to 20k was 9 minutes, quite a bit slower than the Mustangs 6.7. I have nothing else. If you have data on the Ks, I would like to see it. I am building a quick reference spreadsheet of the main fighter players of the war.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 22, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> davparlr,
> 
> That makes sense of the situation. The Stang had control. Even if it had to go below 25k it would carry a lot of E with it (but I would not want to be a 51 level @15k if there was a Dora @ 20k.
> 
> Alt is everything - or so says many a dead spitfire pilot.



If you were in a P-51D at 15k and you met a Fw-190D-9 at 15k, you would want to start figuring out a way to get higher. At 15k the Fw has a 16 mph airspeed advantage and a 1200 ft/min rate of climb advantage, which also means it could easily turn inside of you. You could probably dive away, but things don't get better at lower altitude.


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2006)

*Chingachgook*,

It wasn't my intention to put you down at all, so I apologize if thats what I achieved. My intention was to tell you not to rely on Mike Williams for German fighter performance data, as he's got the habbit of showing the worst possible figures he can find while trying to acquire the best possible for Allied a/c. That having been said, Mike's site is a good resource for data on Allied a/c.

*Davparlr*,

Eventhough the 109K-4 is superior to the P-51 over nearly the whole height band, its still interesting to note that they've got almost exactly the same ceiling, having only 66 ft between them. 

Fact is the reason for the 109K-4's superior performance was its light weight and small size, cause engine wise the Merlin certainly did better at the extreme altitudes.

PS: If you're interested in 109 performance I can PM you the charts you need.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 22, 2006)

Soren said:


> *Chingachgook*,
> 
> It wasn't my intention to put you down at all, so I apologize if thats what I achieved. My intention was to tell you not to rely on Mike Williams for German fighter performance data, as he's got the habbit of showing the worst possible figures he can find while trying to acquire the best possible for Allied a/c. That having been said, Mike's site is a good resource for data on Allied a/c.
> 
> ...




I am certainly interested although I don't know what PM is.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2006)

PM is short for Private Message...


----------



## davparlr (Nov 22, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> PM is short for Private Message...



Ah, so. Thanks


----------



## dtshedd (Dec 5, 2006)

The statistics don't explain why the P-51, which not only fares worse at the factors below (with the exception of the thickness), but was also heavier (Fw-190 Max. Weight: 4,839 kg versus P-51D Max. Weight: 5,489 kg) and had less power (Fw-190 2,240 HP versus P-51D 1,790 HP) , able to fly at roughly the same max speed (Fw-190 Max. Speed: 704 km/h. versus P-51D Max.Speed: 703 km/h), and rate of climb (Fw-190 Max. Climb: 1110 m/min versus P-51D Max. Climb: 1011 m/min)?

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Fw-190: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
P-51D: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.

Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.
Fw-190: 6.02. 
P-51D: 5.81 .

Lift-loading - Lower is better.
Fw-190: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.) 
P-51D: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)

Power-loading - Lower is better.
Fw-190: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)
P-51D: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)


----------



## davparlr (Dec 6, 2006)

dtshedd said:


> The statistics don't explain why the P-51, which not only fares worse at the factors below (with the exception of the thickness), but was also heavier (Fw-190 Max. Weight: 4,839 kg versus P-51D Max. Weight: 5,489 kg) and had less power (Fw-190 2,240 HP versus P-51D 1,790 HP) , able to fly at roughly the same max speed (Fw-190 Max. Speed: 704 km/h. versus P-51D Max.Speed: 703 km/h), and rate of climb (Fw-190 Max. Climb: 1110 m/min versus P-51D Max. Climb: 1011 m/min)?
> 
> Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
> Fw-190: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
> ...



I'm not sure what your question is. The Fw-190D-9 is clearly superior to the P-51D at altitudes below 25000 ft. After that, power drops off significantly and the P-51D has both airspeed and climb superiority over the Fw-190D-9.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 6, 2006)

Soren said:


> While I agree completely with almost all of what you have said Davparlr, I must contest your claim that the P-51D ruled the skies over 25k before the advent of the Ta-152, for it certainly did not. The Bf-109K had a considerable performance advantage at both low and high alt over the P-51D.
> 
> Bf-109K performance at alt:
> 
> ...




Still looking for the Me-109K data. I got some from spitfireperformance and also a contradicting argument. The K-4 does seem to have some pretty good performance capability, especially at higher altitudes.


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Still looking for the Me-109K data. I got some from spitfireperformance and also a contradicting argument. The K-4 does seem to have some pretty good performance capability, especially at higher altitudes.




Sorry Davparlr, I havent had the time lately to PM you the documents - I'll correct that soon. Infact if I get some spare time later I'll PM you them today


----------



## davparlr (Dec 6, 2006)

Soren said:


> Sorry Davparlr, I havent had the time lately to PM you the documents - I'll correct that soon. Infact if I get some spare time later I'll PM you them today



Thanks, I would appreciate that.


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 6, 2006)

One thing left out in the discussion is the effect on inertia coupling by the radiator placement on both aircraft.

The Fw-190D, with the radiator out front (causing the nose extension) plus the rear fuselage plug adds to inertia coupling. The P-51’s layout with the radiator below the wing and close to the cg actually slightly counters inertia coupling.

So in a high speed, high AoA, violent rolling fight the Fw-190D is at a major disadvantage.


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 6, 2006)

Sarge714 said:


> One thing left out in the discussion is the effect on inertia coupling by the radiator placement on both aircraft.
> 
> The Fw-190D, with the radiator out front (causing the nose extension) plus the rear fuselage plug adds to inertia coupling. The P-51’s layout with the radiator below the wing and close to the cg actually slightly counters inertia coupling.
> 
> So in a high speed, high AoA, violent rolling fight the Fw-190D is at a major disadvantage.



.. but the 190 had weapons and ammo close to the centeline, while P51 had all this weight in the wings, so the inertia should put her at major disadvantage in every roll...


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2006)

Sarge714 said:


> One thing left out in the discussion is the effect on inertia coupling by the radiator placement on both aircraft.
> 
> The Fw-190D, with the radiator out front (causing the nose extension) plus the rear fuselage plug adds to inertia coupling. The P-51’s layout with the radiator below the wing and close to the cg actually slightly counters inertia coupling.
> 
> So in a high speed, high AoA, violent rolling fight the Fw-190D is at a major disadvantage.



Sarge714,

The radiator placement has no effect on enertia coupling. And besides this phenomenon only occured at VERY high speeds, speeds unaccesable to any WWII prop fighter.

And btw, the Dora's nose extension was a result of a switch from a radial to an inline engine. The radiators take up little space, and the weight isn't much either.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2006)

Gotta agree with Soren and Parm on this one....


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 7, 2006)

ReRead up on what Inertial Coupling is. It’s really interesting reading as they tried to figure out what was going on in the early 1950’s.

Speed is an important contributor because the faster you go the faster the roll rate, until you run out of stick force for the WW2 aircraft. It was more noticeable on aircraft like the F-100 because it had a 3000psi irreversible hydraulic control system so the pilot could obtain very high roll rates at high subsonic speeds. The key is a majority of weight distributed along the fuselage and a high roll rate at max AoA.

I’ll try to explain it. Put the aircraft at max AoA. Now add full aileron and roll the aircraft while maintaining max AoA. As the aircraft rotates, the nose traces a circle about the axis of rotation. The weight in the nose spinning around this circle is creating a centrifugal force that is countered by the tail surfaces. The faster you roll, the greater the centrifugal force, which can surpass the ability of the tail to over come it. Likewise, adding weight to the nose increases the centrifugal force. The resulting accelerated stall could (and has been) cause of in flight breakup.

The P-51 has around 800lbs of water and plumbing for the radiator. Having a larger engine most likely the Fw190D would need just as much if not more to help cool the engine. 

The Fw190D with a heavier engine, radiator and possibility ballast in the tail to offset the nose weight all along the fuselage is a very good candidate of an aircraft with an inertia coupling issue.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2006)

Sarge714 said:


> ReRead up on what Inertial Coupling is. It’s really interesting reading as they tried to figure out what was going on in the early 1950’s.
> 
> Speed is an important contributor because the faster you go the faster the roll rate, until you run out of stick force for the WW2 aircraft. It was more noticeable on aircraft like the F-100 because it had a 3000psi irreversible hydraulic control system so the pilot could obtain very high roll rates at high subsonic speeds. The key is a majority of weight distributed along the fuselage and a high roll rate at max AoA.
> 
> ...


I think you're confusing inertia coupling with torque roll. Inertial Coupling is a phenomena that occurs at higher mach numbers with aircraft with real heavy fuselages and light wings (F-100, X-1A, X-2 and F-102 all had inertia coupling problems). The 190D didn't come close to the speeds required to induce inertial coupling.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 7, 2006)

So endeth the lesson...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2006)

Thats why he is the forum tech guy...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2006)




----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2006)

FLYBOYJ has got it exactly right.


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 8, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you're confusing inertia coupling with torque roll. Inertial Coupling is a phenomena that occurs at higher mach numbers with aircraft with real heavy fuselages and light wings (F-100, X-1A, X-2 and F-102 all had inertia coupling problems). The 190D didn't come close to the speeds required to induce inertial coupling.



I don't think you understand what Inertia Coupling is. Calc the physics involved and I think you'll be surprised what you see with the Fw190D. 

From High Speed Flight

A few of the experimental aircraft encountered a new type of behavior known as inertia coupling, a behavior that was not fully appreciated until the F-100 and F-102 also encountered it. *Inertia coupling resulted from the tendency of the new generation of high-speed aircraft to concentrate most of the weight in a long thin fuselage, a departure from the distribution of subsonic fighters. The X-3 configuration is an excellent illustration. Even though its high-speed performance was disappointing,* the X-3’s unanticipated susceptibility to loss of control from inertia coupling contributed to understanding the problem. With much less weight in the wing and tail, the dynamic motion in a maneuver could cause the inertia of the fuselage to overpower the aerodynamic stabilizing forces of the wing and tail. In the worst cases the pilot lost control and the resulting abnormal air loads caused airframe structural failure. The early F-100A models are remembered as a classic example of susceptibility to inertia coupling, although the initial F-102A models also encountered the problem. 

From Cornell tam.cornell.edu/~tuhin/Aesi.prn

The prediction and analysis of airplane spin characteristics and design of recovery strategies has been of great interest to designers since the beginning of aviation. This problem has assumed more importance in recent years on account of significant losses that have occurred to military and general aviation aircraft because of out of control motions associated with spin. Modern day combat aircraft are required to perform maneuvers at high angles of attack. The aerodynamics at high angles of attack is nonlinear. *In addition, there are nonlinearities due to inertia coupling during rapid roll. These nonlinear phenomena can cause stall and then spin departure.*

From NASA Report NASA-TP-1538 1979-12

A real-time piloted simulations has been conducted to evaluate the high-angle-of-attack characteristics of a fighter configuration based on wind-tunnel testing of the *F-16*, with particular emphasis on the effects of various levels of relaxed longitudinal static stability. The aerodynamic data used in the simulation were based on low-speed wind-tunnel tests of subscale models. The simulation was conducted on the Langley differential maneuvering simulator, and the evaluation involved representative low-speed combat maneuvering. Results of the investigation showed that the airplane with the basic control system was resistant to the classical yaw departure; *however, it was susceptible to pitch departures induced by inertia coupling during rapid, large-amplitude rolls at low airspeed.* The airplane also exhibited a deep-stall trim which could be flown into and from which it was difficult to recover. Control-system modifications were developed which greatly decreased the airplane susceptibility to the inertia-coupling departure and which provided a reliable means for recovering from the deep stall.

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

There are more tech reports out there in Inertia Coupling. It's a real interesting area and something that can be applied to WW2 aircraft in predicting their performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2006)

I could assure you I know what Inertial Coupling is, I worked at a flight test facility for 3 years. Links are Interesting, but the point here is the -190D was never a subject of Inertial Coupling and your sources never discuss WW 2 aircraft. The low speeds spoke about in the article are still high mach numbers when compared to WW2 aircraft. The 190D was never reported to experience this is any form, even at altitude, and for that matter any WW2 aircraft. Here is a copy of the USAAF flight test report from Wright Patterson on this aircraft, not even a hint of anything related to Inertial Coupling is remotely mentioned.

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

Again, Inertial Coupling came to the forefront during the development of early turbine aircraft where they had large heavy fuselages with large engines coupled with little or light wings...

Here....

Dryden Online Education - Introduction to Flight Testing - Aileron Roll

"Fighter aircraft with high roll rate capability often experience another coupling phenomenon known as "inertial coupling". Inertial coupling may occur if there is a large difference between the roll moment of inertia and the yaw or pitch moments of inertia for the airplane. This is often the case for fighters which have short stubby wings (low roll inertia) and long fuselages with heavy engines, electronics, fuel, etc. (high pitch and yaw inertia). When such an airplane is exposed to high roll rates along the fuselage axis, the high mass concentration along the fuselage may cause it to behave like a "dumbbell". The centrifugal force due to the roll will cause the nose and tail to try to swing out perpendicular to the rotation axis. "

The X-3, one aircraft notorious for Inertial Coupling didn't experience the condition until mach .92

NACA X-3 supersonic research flight

My father in law is a retired test pilot and actually worked at Edwards AFB for a number of years - I'm going to get his take on this...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2006)

OK - Just got off the phone with my father in law - just for the record he was a production test pilot on the F-15, F-5 and was the chief production test pilot on the B-1B. he also did other flight test work at Edwards...

"Dad" told me that Inertial Coupling usually happens at higher mach numbers on aircraft with wingspans matching or smaller than the fuselage length. Jet aircraft could experience this at lower speeds if an extremely high roll rate was induced at a very high angle of attack - he pointed out the F-16 and Mirage could be made to experience this, with the Mirage being a bit more unforgiving. He did state that in his experience with a recip or propeller driven aircraft, this condition would certainly have to be induced especially at lower speeds and high AoA as engine torque tends to prevent this from happening. With that said, one could INDUCE Inertial Coupling on a recip aircraft at lower speeds (He pointed out that aerobatic performers do this all the time in Pitts). 

In the case of uncommanded Inertial Coupling on a recip aircraft, he stated he doubts it would be a factor unless the aircraft is at a high altitude and is configured to do so (small wings, long fuselage).

I brought up the 190D and his feelings is the aircraft would have to be close to a high mach number (high altitude). He did ask "didn't that thing have guns in the wings?" When I told him yes he went on to say that the weight in the wings would probably help in preventing Interial Coupling, even if induced. His feelings were that even though the 190D had a short wingspan when compared to its fuselage, uncommanded Inertial coupling would be unlikely.

BTW - he said he doesn't recall hearing about any recip, propeller driven or WW2 aircraft with any Inertial Coupling tendency, in fact he confirmed, in the test pilot community Inertial coupling is thought of as a "Post WW2" thing. The first theoretical publication addressing Inertial Coupling wasn't published until 1948 (William Phillips of NACA).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2006)

You know what I think is funny. Someone who bases there whole knowledge on how an aircraft flies is telling a real pilot (FBJ) that he does not understand Inertial Coupling. Sim Pilots....


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 9, 2006)

DerAdler you finally put into text what I, too, have been thinking...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 9, 2006)

we've covered this already - sims are just as real as flying real planes. In fact, they are more realistic


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 9, 2006)

You can feel the joy of flying without having to worry about bodily harm.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 9, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> You can feel the joy of flying without having to worry about bodily harm.



Who worries about bodily harm? I am more scared when flying commercial than when I am at the controls. That's when I worry about getting hurt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

Oh come on guys... when your flying a Sim you can feel the forces of the wind, you can feel the vibrations, you can feel the control, you are the king and master. Real Pilots suck!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)




----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh come on guys... when your flying a Sim you can feel the forces of the wind, you can feel the vibrations, you can feel the control, you are the king and master. Real Pilots suck!!!!!!!!!!!!



Chris - don't forget about the sweet smell of jet exhaust! You know - I can't even land a plane in microsoft flight simulator. I crash the F'ing thing EVERY SINGLE TIME.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Chris - don't forget about the sweet smell of jet exhaust! You know - I can't even land a plane in microsoft flight simulator. I crash the F'ing thing EVERY SINGLE TIME.



You need to put a kerosine lamp next to your computer!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Chris - don't forget about the sweet smell of jet exhaust!



Yeap everytime we cranked up the engines and the wind was blowing in my direction I would allways saw over the ICS "I love the smell of burning JP8 in the morning." 

Okay okay it is not as funny as the famous line from Apocolypse Now...



mkloby said:


> You know - I can't even land a plane in microsoft flight simulator. I crash the F'ing thing EVERY SINGLE TIME.



Neither can I.


----------



## Glider (Dec 10, 2006)

I'm glad that I am not the only one who has trouble landing the plane on a sim, but manages it well enough for real.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

You can not compare landing a sim plane to a real plane. I dont care how realistic sim fans think it is.

Oh well I dont want to get into this whole discussion again sim vs. flying. We have covered it eneogh.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 11, 2006)

Remember when you were 14 and you kept that Penthouse under your bed?
That's a sim. And when you finally got Debbie Sue into the backseat of your Trans Am? That was real...


----------



## Jank (Dec 11, 2006)

Yeah. Definitely no comparison.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2006)

twoeagles said:


> Remember when you were 14 and you kept that Penthouse under your bed?
> That's a sim. And when you finally got Debbie Sue into the backseat of your Trans Am? That was real...



That is an interesting comparison but why does it have to be Debbie Sue?


----------



## Jank (Dec 11, 2006)

I'm hearing general agreement that the Fw-190D-9 was clearly superior to the P-51D at altitudes below 25000 ft. 

It is also generally accepted that at altitudes over 25,000ft (certainly 30,000ft), the P-47D was superior to the Mustang. 

Was the P-47D superior to the Fw-190D-9 over 30,000ft?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 11, 2006)

The P-47D went the fastest at 30,000 feet with a maximum speed of 429 mph. Like the Mustang, it didn't go so fast at lower altitudes. The P-47M, if it had been around in large numbers, certainly would have given the FW pilots the shivers. A regular P-47D pilot talks of about the new coolness of the P-47M.

yank7
These P-47M were real screamers. They added over 500 more horsepower under the hood. The 56th Fighter Group had gotten some of these, and we lucked out as well. Unfortunately they were not fitted with under wing racks so we had to use them in a strafing role only. We flew them along with 3 other P-47D's as a sort of an escort for the strafing unit. 

I immediately laid claim to one. Performance of the P-47M-1-RE included a maximum speed of 400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 560 miles at 10,000 feet. Armament was six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 267 or 425 rpg. Weights were 10,432 pounds empty. 13,275 pounds normal loaded, and 15,500 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 308 square feet. 

After my first or second combat mission with ``Wonderful Winnie" number three I met up with some P-51 Mustang pilots. By this time of the war escort planes were often freed from escort duty after their bombers had headed home. This left them available to attack ground targets and enemy planes heading back their bases. These guys thought they were real ``Hot Shots" and some of them were. A lot more were rookies in a hot plane that the Mustang certainly was. It did have a deficiency in the ground attack role. It had a water-cooled Rolls Royce engine. If it took any kind of hit in the cooling system, you had better look for a place to land or check your parachute. The engine would overheat and seize up in no time. Our P-47's had to be practically blown apart to go down. Guys, including me, came back with pistons shot out and the engine still kept going.

This group of guys came over as we headed back to our field. We gave them a wave and I got them on the radio. My sense of larceny got the best of me again and I challenged them to a race. There were four of them in this flight and I said, `` I `ll bet you $50.00 buck a piece I can beat you to the next town?" These guys thought I was nuts and immediately agreed. We exchanged particulars so someone could collect the debt. My Wingman climbed up along with me to 10000 feet to call the start of the race. We lined up as best we could and my Wingman gave the go. The P-51s's jumped out in front as I crammed the throttle forward. Slowly but inexorably I started to gain and pass these guys. I saw the look of incredulity on their faces as I pulled along side and passed each one. By the time we passed the outskirts of the town I was way out front. These guys were about ready to chew nails when they caught up to me again. No one had told them about this new plane and I certainly wasn't going to enlighten them. To their credit, a week or so later I got a letter in the mail with 200 clams in it. I managed to pull this trick several more times before guys got wise. I sent the money home to Winnie we put it to good use.

So, to the Mustang pilots out there, many thanks. Winnie and I appreciated your generosity.


----------



## thor (Jul 8, 2009)

soren this is great stuff where do you find this information, i have need of it for some discussions in other forums ...

thanks in advance 

rich



Soren said:


> *Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

Books books and books Rich 

But I must mention that I made a couple of mistakes in the post which by now is 3 years old 

First of all the max power output allowed on the Jumo 213A's in frontline service was 2,100 PS, not 2,240 PS. Second, the max climb rate of the Dora-9 *clean* was 22.5 m/s (4,380 ft/min). 

Other than that everything is fine.


----------



## thor (Jul 10, 2009)

can you recommend a book/books that list the aerodynamic statistics most completely for the 1930s-1950s aircraft ...

basically spanish civil war > korean conflict ...

this information would be most helpful ...

thanks again,

rich


----------



## Soren (Jul 11, 2009)

Not many books list aerodynamics statistics, that is mostly derived from NACA documents as well as other German documents, which btw are mostly available on the internet  

But there are a few, such as Dietmar Hermann's books on the Fw190 Ta152 series, in them are German documents on the aerodynamics of the a/c as-well as much useful physical information such as load limits etc etc.

But usually if you really want all the techinical details then go look up the documents of the subject in the NACA archive and when buying books make sure they are very technical, which they usually are if they are about a single aircraft.

Anyway this forum is a great place to ask for anything you might need on the subject, we've got a wealth of really knowledgable people on here who know a lot of this stuff and can provide all the specs data you need.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 11, 2009)

I think the P-51D and Dora were well matched, with the 190 having the advantage of roll rate and better armament, and the P-51 having the advantage of long range and a better high altitude performance.


I wonder if cannons in the wings of the P-51 would have helped it any. I think there was a discussion about this somewhere.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 11, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I wonder if cannons in the wings of the P-51 would have helped it any


Unlikely
not fighter vs fighter anyway. 6 x .50 cals would make a mess of any Luftwaffe single-engined fighter, they were more than up to the job. Wondering whether cannons would do the job better is a bit like cracking walnuts with a 2lb sledge hammer and wondering if you couldn't improve things by using a 4lb sledge hammer.

Cannons WOULD do the job better but the difference fighter vs fighter would be largely academic.


----------



## vanir (Jul 11, 2009)

Most armaments experts tend to agree a good example of a 20mm outlay is the best overall choice for ballistics, effective range and effect.
Other weapons were chosen for various reasons. Browning .303 early in the war for Britain due to its proven reliability and the untested nature of either the heavy Browning or Hispano types at the time as far as the Ministry was concerned.
For the US six fifties were found to be more than adequate for virtually all fighter roles, whilst eight fifties an excellent interceptor and ground attack armament. Postwar however they did switch to the 20mm, perhaps this was due to the lack of reliable guns with good ballistics and low weight in the 20mm class in local production any earlier. Even when GB adopted the Hispano for the Spitfire they kept either four .303 and later two .50 Brownings perhaps for fire rate and general reliability, though certainly some a/c like the Typhoon/Tempest had only four Hispano.

During the war probably the best 20mm design was the upsized Beresin used by the Soviets, which was effectively a rechambered .50 cal machine gun. The adaption had almost no effect on gun weight, so generally three were placed in the nose of Soviet fighters making for an accurate and deadly package with a high projectile rate. It fired the same round and had the same ballistics as the highly successful ShVAK.
The MG-151 was good in the early war, being uber-reliable with a good fire rate but was pase by latewar, if at least the standard. Both the ShVAK and MG-151/20 are fairly comparable to a late war Hispano.
The real revolution came with British and French copies of the revolver cannon being developed by Germany. These became the DEFA and Aden, and were originally designed in both 20mm and 30mm variations.

The Browning fifty certainly did suit US fighter training doctrine well. One point rarely considered is that different nations trained their pilots differently, well obviously due to different aircraft types in general use.
American pilots I'd give as having an emphasis of "laying down fire on the target" where Luftwaffe pilots were taught aerial marksmanship (the easiest form of which letting the target fill your windscreen before firing), for obvious reasons. Often they used centrally mounted single cannon.
Even the Lightning originally mounted the Oldsmobile cannon and a couple of defensive thirties, but this was switched almost immediately to a set of fifties with a Hispano for extra punch, maintaining that US fighter training doctrine I think. But even so some P-38 pilots have said they liked the way firing at a target was a different thing than in another fighter type, you shot differently and some preferred the difference. But I think the other way was quicker to teach rookies, faster proficiency with lower expertise perhaps.

So I'd say in conclusion: centrally mounted cannon or wing mounted heavies was either/or very good.


----------



## LWulf (Jul 12, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Unlikely
> not fighter vs fighter anyway. 6 x .50 cals would make a mess of any Luftwaffe single-engined fighter, they were more than up to the job. Wondering whether cannons would do the job better is a bit like cracking walnuts with a 2lb sledge hammer and wondering if you couldn't improve things by using a 4lb sledge hammer.
> 
> Cannons WOULD do the job better but the difference fighter vs fighter would be largely academic.



IMHO, the difference was very practical... Punctured aircraft from tracking shots vs aircraft heavily damaged with good snapshots is a very distinct difference actual combat pilots surely appreciated. The 6 x 12.67 mm package was adequate, not ideal. Just like the british machinegun package was adequate/did the job at the time, but was not ideal.
So in terms of firepower I see the Fw 190 D-9 as the better armed fighter.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 12, 2009)

LWulf said:


> IMHO, the difference was very practical... Punctured aircraft from tracking shots vs aircraft heavily damaged with good snapshots is a very distinct difference actual combat pilots surely appreciated. The 6 x 12.67 mm package was adequate, not ideal. Just like the british machinegun package was adequate/did the job at the time, but was not ideal.
> So in terms of firepower I see the Fw 190 D-9 as the better armed fighter.


Again
I'm not arguing the point
There is no question the Fw190 was more heavily-armed, I don't think more heavily-armed necessarily implies better-armed, certainly in fighter vs fighter combats; a solution from a Fw190 onto a P-51 would be highly likely to blow large pieces off the aircraft and result in its disintegration in mid-air - the P-51 has left the fight. A solution from a P-51 onto a Fw190 however, would cause catastrophic damage to enough systems to force the 190 out of the fight too. I've seen gun-cam footage of P-51s blowing the wings off Fw190Ds, I think the 6 x .50 cal P-51, fighter vs fighter, hit plenty hard enough.


----------



## LWulf (Jul 12, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Again
> I'm not arguing the point
> There is no question the Fw190 was more heavily-armed, I don't think more heavily-armed necessarily implies better-armed, certainly in fighter vs fighter combats; a solution from a Fw190 onto a P-51 would be highly likely to blow large pieces off the aircraft and result in its disintegration in mid-air - the P-51 has left the fight. A solution from a P-51 onto a Fw190 however, would cause catastrophic damage to enough systems to force the 190 out of the fight too. I've seen gun-cam footage of P-51s blowing the wings off Fw190Ds, I think the 6 x .50 cal P-51, fighter vs fighter, hit plenty hard enough.



I am sorry, but you are indeed arguing the point. Of course the P-51 is perfectly able to down a 190. Nobody contradicts this. Cannons are simply more effective at shooting down enemy aircraft. The Fw 190 is the better armed fighter of the two. LW fighter aircraft were effective due to a combination of factors and the cannon is surely among them. Both aircraft's weapons could do their job, but the Fw 190 had the edge. Do you agree?

[edited for clarity]


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 12, 2009)

LWulf said:


> Of course the P-51 is perfectly able to down a 190. Nobody contradicts this. Cannons are simply more effective at shooting down enemy aircraft. The Fw 190 is the better armed fighter of the two. LW fighter aircraft were effective due to a combination of factors and the cannon is surely among them. Both aircraft's weapons could do their job, but the Fw 190 had the edge


Which is pretty much what I said


----------



## The Basket (Jul 12, 2009)

Cannon armament was for the bombers which did the P-51 wasn't troubled with.

Such discussions are good but you are forgetting the big picture...how many were produced?

And how many Yaks and Spitfires and Tempests and Thunderbolts and Mustangs and Las and so on.

Pointless to say the D-9 is better if it is always outnumbered and about to be wreckage.


----------



## LWulf (Jul 12, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Which is pretty much what I said



Ok, I guess this part of your message misleaded me:



> There is no question the Fw190 was more heavily-armed, I don't think more heavily-armed necessarily implies better-armed, certainly in fighter vs fighter combats;


----------



## LWulf (Jul 12, 2009)

I just need to clarify this further. What I understood from your post, Colin1, is that you compared the final result of a successful attack with the P-51 and Fw 190 D-9, concluding that any of the two could put the other out of a fight. Tho with the "not necessarily better armed" part I thought you simplified things and overlooked that for a kill the Fw 190 D-9 will usually need a snap shot, while the P-51 will generally need a tracking shot. This in turn gives the P-51a lower chance for the kill, more time on target and more time exposed to enemy attack.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2009)

LWulf said:


> I just need to clarify this further. What I understood from your post, Colin1, is that you compared the final result of a successful attack with the P-51 and Fw 190 D-9, concluding that any of the two could put the other out of a fight. Tho with the "not necessarily better armed" part I thought you simplified things and overlooked that for a kill the Fw 190 D-9 will usually need a snap shot, while the P-51 will generally need a tracking shot. This in turn gives the P-51a lower chance for the kill, more time on target and more time exposed to enemy attack.



Most scores were 'tracking' shots from 5 to 7 o'clock. Anecdotally, they were also inside 300 yards when the shooting started. I agree the 51 would have been better served with 4x20 and 250rpg than 4 or 6 50 cal - but also agree w/Colin that it would be hard to make the case that a battery of 50 cal guns was not as useful as 20's in fighter to fighter battles.

It is interesting to me that there were no 'ace in a day' claims by LW pighter pilots in Tony Woods List (either 109 or 190) against USAAF fighters but there were more than 20 such days for US pilots vs German fighters.

Pilot skill of the German a/c is certainly a factor and also many German pilots bailed out w/o havin a shot fired at them - so no conclusions can be positively drawn from that comparison either.. Nonetheless there were many, many 'triples' for a single mission in which 280-330 rounds per gun were 'adequate'.

On the D-9 there are anecdotal references in Caldwell's books on JG 26 and other books that the LW pilots receiving the D-9s were happy that it was better than the Anton - but were somewhat disappointed in combat performance against Mustangs. As Dan and Erich and others pointed out this was a period in which the average pilots skills were less than the Allied pilots - and after mid January the numerical odds were terrible - meaning tactical situation AND pilot skill were unfavorable in the West.

My father flew the Dora 9, respected it and felt it was the equivalent of the Mustang with trade offs between them and summarized by saying he could easily project flying the Dora in combat. All anecdotal comments. He was not as favorable re: Me 109, particularly at high speeds and altitude.


----------



## renrich (Jul 12, 2009)

I see we are back into the debate of which guns should a fighter be armed with. To me, it is not necessarily indicative of the performance in combat of gun armament to say cannon are better because a hit by a cannon shell is more destructive than a hit by a kintic energy round like the 50 BMG. A lot of other issues play a role such as the amount of rounds carried, the hit probability of six or four 50 BMGs taking into account the rate of fire, down range velocity, ballistic coefficient and resulting trajectory. This to be compared to the 20 MMs ( or 30 MMs) with the same factors. An extreme example would be in the Korean War, the Mig 15 carried two 20 MMs(23 MMs?) and one 30 MM. A hit by the 30 MM would probably be very destructive to an F86 but it is my understanding that the F86 seldom was hit by that 30 MM because of slow rate of fire, poor trajectory and not many rounds were carried. If a fighter with four 50 BMGs and 400 rounds per gun can expect to get hits more easily than a fighter with four 20 mms, because the 20 mms have a slower rate of fire or don't have as many rounds to expend, then I would hardly call the 20 MM armed fighter better armed. In WW1, most fighters could rather easily be shot down by 30 cal. MGs. In WW2 most fighters, particularly with a liquid cooled engine like the D9 and P51 had, could rather easily be shot down by a 50 cal. MG. Heavy bombers were another story. To me, it is kind of like elk hunting. There is no question that a 458 Win Mag will ruin a bull elk's day. But if I have a better chance of hitting him in a vital spot with a 270 Win, because he is on a ridge 350 yards away, I am better off with the lighter caliber. Some D9s were armed with four cannon and two MGs. Did that weapons load degrade it's performance any? I would be surprised if the D9 with that load performed as well as the one with two MGs and two cannon.


----------



## LWulf (Jul 12, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Most scores were 'tracking' shots from 5 to 7 o'clock. Anecdotally, they were also inside 300 yards when the shooting started. I agree the 51 would have been better served with 4x20 and 250rpg than 4 or 6 50 cal - but also agree w/Colin that it would be hard to make the case that a battery of 50 cal guns was not as useful as 20's in fighter to fighter battles.



If most kills were achieved with tracking shots within 300 yards all the better if you have those 2 x 13 mm and 2 x 20 mm firing on target. If all you needed was a snap shot, with a tracking shot you could destroy effectively the target in a very short time. Even a poor shot would've made critical damage with just a few hits.
I am not sure what you mean with „more useful“, but I've stated that while the 6 x .50 cals were adequate for the job, the 20 mms were more effective. Both could do the job, the 20 mm cannons were just more effective at it. You don't agree with that?


----------



## Soren (Jul 12, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Most scores were 'tracking' shots from 5 to 7 o'clock. Anecdotally, they were also inside 300 yards when the shooting started. I agree the 51 would have been better served with 4x20 and 250rpg than 4 or 6 50 cal - but also agree w/Colin that it would be hard to make the case that a battery of 50 cal guns was not as useful as 20's in fighter to fighter battles.
> 
> It is interesting to me that there were no 'ace in a day' claims by LW pighter pilots in Tony Woods List (either 109 or 190) against USAAF fighters but there were more than 20 such days for US pilots vs German fighters.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you say here Bill, but I can't say the same for what Caldwell writes. He has written some very odd stuff in his book on the JG 26, things which go against everything the pilots have said themselves. Some of this is listed in Dietmar Hermann's book.


----------



## thor (Jul 13, 2009)

i think it is mostly to do with the mission, the US never faced incoming bombers over their homeland ...
every country that did face bombers and needed to defend against them resorted to cannons. 

the USAAF was an offensive force throughout the war so here is the question, do you want your ESCORT fighter to have heavy cannon when a heavy MG is more than adequate to deal with the bomber interceptors you are facing? clearly a stray .50 cal or two is much less of a threat to a bomber than a stray 30mm or two ...

imo the USAAF not using cannon was as much about what they did not want to shoot down as anything. 
lethal FF can erode the bombers confidence in their escort pretty quickly. 

had we ended up facing the IL2 in order to restore the pre-war governments in eastern europe i have a feeling we would have adopted cannons pretty quickly.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 13, 2009)

I know that the IL-2 was heavily armored but I don't think such a slow, lumbering aircraft could have stood up to a hosing of 6 or 8 .50's.


----------



## thor (Jul 13, 2009)

pretty sure the weight of fire of many german aircraft is superior to 6 - 8 .50s and by all accounts the IL2 was very difficult to bring down ...


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 13, 2009)

thor said:


> pretty sure the weight of fire of many german aircraft is superior to 6 - 8 .50s and by all accounts the IL2 was very difficult to bring down ...


The Luftwaffe shot them down in droves
what the Luftwaffe couldn't do was shoot them down in _enough_ droves
There's only so much armour you can sling around an aircraft before it becomes a barge hauling scrap iron - with all of the inherent handling characteristics.
I don't know how the P-51 would have fared against the Il-2 but I'm pretty certain in a fighter vs Il-2 scenario the weight of fire of the cannon-armed German bird would have weighed heavily in its favour vs the P-51's chances against the same aircraft.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 13, 2009)

I may be wrong but it is my understanding that the so called "flying tank" was the subject of a fanciful myth with respect to being extremely difficult to bring down. I seem to recall that it was a dog - a very slow, very unmanueverable dog. It's slow speed and inability to manuever gave attacking aircraft lots of opportunities for long, sustained hose downs of machine gun and cannon fire such that being able to take three times the amount of damage was offset by taking three times the offensive hits.

Am I incorrect?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 13, 2009)

Yes and no Davidicus.... It WAS a hard plane to take down for the Germans, if u didnt know where to aim.... The Experten quickly figured out the Sturmoviks main flaw, the unarmored oil cooler under the engine...

One single rifle calibre round and the plane is done.....

Once the Luftwaffe boys realized this, thats where they aimed and the Sturmoviks started falling in droves.... Theres a reason why they decided to add a backseater, and it wasnt to take pictures...


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 13, 2009)

I imagine they tried to stay on the deck to keep that soft white underbelly safe.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 13, 2009)

I just saw that IL-2 video you did to commemorate your grand dad. Very impressive.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2009)

vanir said:


> The Browning fifty certainly did suit US fighter training doctrine well. One point rarely considered is that different nations trained their pilots differently, well obviously due to different aircraft types in general use.
> American pilots I'd give as having an emphasis of "laying down fire on the target" where Luftwaffe pilots were taught aerial marksmanship (the easiest form of which letting the target fill your windscreen before firing), for obvious reasons. Often they used centrally mounted single cannon.
> Even the Lightning originally mounted the Oldsmobile cannon and a couple of defensive thirties, but this was switched almost immediately to a set of fifties with a Hispano for extra punch, maintaining that US fighter training doctrine I think.
> 
> ...



Tow targets, skeet shooting, aircraft as targets of Frangible bullets (plus skeet shooting) were all part of each US Service Doctrine.

What was different about LW training?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> I agree with everything you say here Bill, but I can't say the same for what Caldwell writes. He has written some very odd stuff in his book on the JG 26, things which go against everything the pilots have said themselves. Some of this is listed in Dietmar Hermann's book.



Soren - The problem with accepting (or rejecting) anecdotal discussions - whether Caldwell, Rall, Galland, Carson, Brown, etc is that you have to accept the first hand experience as true for the individual quoted and then frame in context of other opinions at variance .

Ray Toliver, Trev Constable and Caldwell were accepted into the LW fighter pilot community and gained wide access to first hand perspectives as 'intermediaries'.

I am not saying Hermann is wrong, or that Georg Genth (Caldwell 109K-4) quoted 'control' issues were correct about handling qualities of the 109K anymore than I accept Kit Carson's dismissal of the 109 (at variance with my fathers observation) as an equal to the Mustang.

The problem is that it is unfair to cite one block of anecdotal comments over others at variance with opposite conclusions - or equally to dismiss one auther for his reproduction of interview comments because we don't like the implication?

You are a smart guy - you can take all of them and synthesize your own truth.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Bill,

We agree. But I wasn't really refering much to the things said about the 109, more those said about the Fw190 Dora 9 in the book. One of Caldwell's summaries go completely against all that any Fw190 Dora pilot has ever said, including the Rechlin testing results. 

In his book Caldwell claims that the Dora featured worse turn performance than the Anton 8, which is at odds with all that is said by the pilots who flew both types. One of the true improvements according to the pilots to went from the A-8 to the Dora-9, was the much better turn climb performance of the Dora, and this opinion is mirrored by the Rechlin tests where both a/c were pitted against each other.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> We agree. But I wasn't really refering much to the things said about the 109, more those said about the Fw190 Dora 9 in the book. One of Caldwell's summaries go completely against all that any Fw190 Dora pilot has ever said, including the Rechlin testing results.
> 
> In his book Caldwell claims that the Dora featured worse turn performance than the Anton 8, which is at odds with all that is said by the pilots who flew both types. One of the true improvements according to the pilots to went from the A-8 to the Dora-9, was the much better turn climb performance of the Dora, and this opinion is mirrored by the Rechlin tests where both a/c were pitted against each other.



You might recall that the same anecdotal recollection was caveated by stating that many of the early Fw 190D-9s were delivered initially without MW-50 tanks. He also noted on page 338 that the Dora climbed and dove and accelerated better than the Anton, while some expressed disappointment regarding turn and high altitude performance.

Dad (IIRC) remarked that 15-20K was 'no man's zone' where the P-51D and the Dora (only one available) were very close in turn and climb and acceleration - both ships were flown by each pilot in the unofficial four pilot review team. All remarked the climb at those altitudes were very close to each other but a 51B-15 had a better initial climb rate and seemed to turn better with the Dora. He was equally firm that the Dora fell way off at 25-30K and further as the altitude increased...

He said the Dora was a little bit faster on the deck and had a better initial climb rate than also the 51B.

25 hours will get you all you need to know on everything except wringing the last ounce out of turns in comparison... so the turn comparisons may be suspect based on long hours in a Dora. On the other hand - not very many Dora pilots had too many hours in the ship - lol!


----------



## davparlr (Jul 14, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Dad (IIRC) remarked that 15-20K was 'no man's zone' where the P-51D and the Dora (only one available) were very close in turn and climb and acceleration - both ships were flown by each pilot in the unofficial four pilot review team.



Flight test confirm this report. 15-20k was not a great altitude for the P-51D. I think it was kind of like in-between gears. The P-51D pilot best avoid these altitudes when fighting late ’44 German fighters, like the Dora. At fighter weight, below 15k, the P-51D and the Dora were very equivalent in airspeed, swapping advantages about every 5k. The P-51D had a disadvantage to the Dora, ranging from slight to significant, in climb up to 20k. Above 20k the P-51D had an increasing edge in speed and climb. 




> All remarked the climb at those altitudes were very close to each other but a 51B-15 had a better initial climb rate and seemed to turn better with the Dora. He was equally firm that the Dora fell way off at 25-30K and further as the altitude increased...



The P-51B flew pretty much nose-to-nose in airspeed and climb from SL to 15k. Above 15k, the P-51B had increasingly better performance. At 20k the P-51B had about 15 mph edge and equal climb. The Dora performance fell away rather quickly after that, particularly in airspeed.



> He said the Dora was a little bit faster on the deck and had a better initial climb rate than also the 51B.


Test indicate that the P-51B had a SL speed of 386 mph with the Dora at 385 mph. Both of these speeds are well within the error of the test equipment. The probable winner would be the plane that was feeling better on the test day. The Dora had a slight climb advantage over the B up to 15k


----------



## Soren (Jul 15, 2009)

drgondog said:


> You might recall that the same anecdotal recollection was caveated by stating that many of the early Fw 190D-9s were delivered initially without MW-50 tanks. He also noted on page 338 that the Dora climbed and dove and accelerated better than the Anton, while some expressed disappointment regarding turn and high altitude performance.
> 
> Dad (IIRC) remarked that 15-20K was 'no man's zone' where the P-51D and the Dora (only one available) were very close in turn and climb and acceleration - both ships were flown by each pilot in the unofficial four pilot review team. All remarked the climb at those altitudes were very close to each other but a 51B-15 had a better initial climb rate and seemed to turn better with the Dora. He was equally firm that the Dora fell way off at 25-30K and further as the altitude increased...
> 
> ...



I agree, it also sounds about right. Do you know wether MW-50 was used ?

Btw I was wondering, the Dora tested, might that have been the same Dora-13 as tested by the British? They didn't use MW-50, that I know, and the Dora outperformed the Tempest in their tests.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2009)

Soren said:


> I agree, it also sounds about right. Do you know wether MW-50 was used ?
> 
> Btw I was wondering, the Dora tested, might that have been the same Dora-13 as tested by the British? They didn't use MW-50, that I know, and the Dora outperformed the Tempest in their tests.



Soren - I do have pics of the FW 190A two seater and the Me 109 two seater but not the Dora at Gablingen. I have no clue regarding the MW 50 but AFAIK it would have been up to date. There were several LW Ground Crew which kept the a/c in 'good shape' (whatever that means). He was certain it was a D-9 but who knows.

This wasn't a test vehicle - just one of several scattered all over Gablingen airfield when the 355th got there in July 1945. My guess is that the best one was rigged for flying and the others were used for spares. He also mentioned getting the correct fuel required some creative 'scrounging' by his crew chief.

He liked the Dora but felt the two seater 190A was more fun to fly, even if slower.

Anybody have a notion regarding specific model number for these two?


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Jul 25, 2009)

Overall I think the p-51d was superior to the dora: it was faster, had a better dive, better armament, and was probably just as maneuverable. If the dora came in earlier in the war like in 1943, it would have dominated the skies the main reason being that the german pilots were much more experienced than the american or british. And also Soren, the maximum speed of the dora was 426 mph.

Other fw190ds such as the D-12 were more superior to the p51d and would have conquered the skies until planes like the p-51h and spitfire xiv entered serivce.


----------



## butcher bird (Mar 9, 2010)

my favorite airplane of ww2! mustang pilots were very barbaric flyers. they must have been terrified of
the german flyers. they made a habit of shooting the poor fellows hanging in the silk.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2010)

butcher bird said:


> my favorite airplane of ww2! mustang pilots were very barbaric flyers. they must have been terrified of
> the german flyers. they made a habit of shooting the poor fellows hanging in the silk.



*That is about the 3rd dumbest post I've ever seen on here. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and review the rules of this forum before you go off making ignorant post like this - and I'm only going to give you one warning!!!

For that gem of a post, you get an avatar*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2010)

Why do I see a dim future here?


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 9, 2010)

This one seems to be a real winner here.........


----------



## Njaco (Mar 10, 2010)

Bill, didn't find a wk number but 2 more pics of Bf 109 2 seaters. One might be a different angle of the pic you posted?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Bill, didn't find a wk number but 2 more pics of Bf 109 2 seaters. One might be a different angle of the pic you posted?



The one I posted had a "60" on the Fuselage in front of cross...nothing aft... plus a white spiral on the spinner. Doesn't seem to be a match


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 10, 2010)

looks like almost the same canopy configuration as the me 108...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2010)

No it is actually not even close. The Bf 108 has tandem seating and the canopy is a different layout.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 10, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it is actually not even close...


Was thinking that


----------



## drgondog (Mar 11, 2010)

butcher bird said:


> my favorite airplane of ww2! mustang pilots were very barbaric flyers. they must have been terrified of
> the german flyers. they made a habit of shooting the poor fellows hanging in the silk.



Pilots and crews were shot in their chutes from both sides, as well as murdered by civilians when they landed safely -

The USAAF pretty much understood that there were more bomber crews in chutes than German fighter crews at any one time... so a 'shooting war' against a man hanging in his chute was not in their best interests.

Having said this I believe you need to consider which group of fighter pilots were always eager to engage the enemy fighter pilots - and which ones weren't - before making a silly statement like the one you made.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2010)

Yugoslavian G-12  Nice find, Adler.


----------



## jim (Mar 13, 2010)

With all respect to the rules of the forum i must say that shooting german pilots after paqachuting was a quite common practice for american pilots. It is supported by several books. Me 262 Arrow to the future ,JG26 war diary, Luftwaffe fighter Ace (by Norbert Hanning),jg301/302 by Reschke , The war diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert , ( Heinz Ewald among those attacked in parachute) to name a few .Many accomplished german pilots are known to have died this way .We can not equal the many cases of american attacks with the sporadic cases of the Luftwaffe (i know an oblt. of I/JG27 in Africa being suspect of such behavior) The argument that there were much more us bomber crews in danger by susch tactics proves nothing .Further proof is the fact that it was standard procedure for german crews bailing out to open their parachutes as late as possible to minimize their exposure to such americans attacks .
Also i have readen that during the Dresden bombing american escort fighters strafed fire brigades and rescue teams that were trying to approach the burning city. Source: History of WW2 , Paris-Match I miss the author although is extremely famous. 
Please dont accuse me of hating americans . The helped most for victory , but they had their dark times too.
A comment about the main subject. D9 when fuctioning properly in my opinion is clearly superior in 1vs1 to p51 but 1) its production was very late ordered without reason b) was not given the proper engine -DB603- so above 7000m was in disadvantage .AS a result its presence did not influenced at all the events. I see no reason why a DB603A FW190 could not be in production from the summer 1943
I apologise for my english


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2010)

Your point being? Luftwaffe pilots were just as likely to shoot down allied pilots in their parachutes.



jim said:


> Also i have readen that during the Dresden bombing american escort fighters strafed fire brigades and rescue teams that were trying to approach the burning city. Source: History of WW2 , Paris-Match I miss the author although is extremely famous.



And the Luftwaffe was not guilty of this? It has been documented on many occasions that the Luftwaffe strafed civilians during the invasion of Poland and the Battle of Britain and throughout the war. 

Neither side was "innocent". It was total war and both sides did such things. One can not point the finger at one side however when the other is just as guilty. The allies may have been less likely to do such things had the Luftwaffe not started it first!


----------



## jim (Mar 13, 2010)

my point is that americans had their dark moments too and must admit them . Of course luftwaffe is guilty too. Is guilty of Warsow , Amstrrntam ,Pireus and dozens other bombings. But i can not accept that shooting chutes was as often in Luftwaffe as in Usaaf . Not even close. During all the years that i study the period have met many times reports of american chute shootings. The opposit extremely rarely. Even Goering had spoken against such actions . I repeat that german were guilty for many other cases. My country suffered greatly from their war.What bothers me is that us do not recognise their -few-mistakes . RAF too. Bomber Harris is recognised as an Hero .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2010)

jim said:


> my point is that americans had their dark moments too and must admit them . Of course luftwaffe is guilty too. Is guilty of Warsow , Amstrrntam ,Pireus and dozens other bombings. But i can not accept that shooting chutes was as often in Luftwaffe as in Usaaf . Not even close. During all the years that i study the period have met many times reports of american chute shootings. The opposit extremely rarely. Even Goering had spoken against such actions . I repeat that german were guilty for many other cases. My country suffered greatly from their war.What bothers me is that us do not recognise their -few-mistakes . RAF too. Bomber Harris is recognised as an Hero .



Spellcheck, it works wonders....


----------



## drgondog (Mar 13, 2010)

jim said:


> With all respect to the rules of the forum i must say that shooting german pilots after paqachuting was a quite common practice for american pilots. It is supported by several books. Me 262 Arrow to the future ,JG26 war diary, Luftwaffe fighter Ace (by Norbert Hanning),jg301/302 by Reschke , The war diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert , ( Heinz Ewald among those attacked in parachute) to name a few .Many accomplished german pilots are known to have died this way .We can not equal the many cases of american attacks with the sporadic cases of the Luftwaffe (i know an oblt. of I/JG27 in Africa being suspect of such behavior) The argument that there were much more us bomber crews in danger by susch tactics proves nothing .Further proof is the fact that it was standard procedure for german crews bailing out to open their parachutes as late as possible to minimize their exposure to such americans attacks .
> Also i have readen that during the Dresden bombing american escort fighters strafed fire brigades and rescue teams that were trying to approach the burning city. Source: History of WW2 , Paris-Match I miss the author although is extremely famous.
> Please dont accuse me of hating americans . The helped most for victory , but they had their dark times too.
> A comment about the main subject. D9 when fuctioning properly in my opinion is clearly superior in 1vs1 to p51 but 1) its production was very late ordered without reason b) was not given the proper engine -DB603- so above 7000m was in disadvantage .AS a result its presence did not influenced at all the events. I see no reason why a DB603A FW190 could not be in production from the summer 1943
> I apologise for my english



Your english is better than my german so no comment there.

Only three points. Fighter pilots strafing fire brigades and rescue teams would have no clue what they were, ditto trains unless red crosses were present. Too bad they got shot up, if true, but easy to mistake for trrop carriers at 400 mph and 1000 feet above them. The same applies to a Mustang chasing a 109 or 190 on the deck and shooting at it over a city - he would not let it get away, or even consider what the 50 caliber rounds would do ut ahaed of his prey - ditto the German pilot chasing a Mustang.

Second, as you implied - killing civilians in a factory or a city or a school or a church is not what most soldires strived for.

Last - The Numerous accounst of B-17 and B-24 crews shot in their chutes and/or hung by German civilians or executed by their German captors. Not exactly Geneva conventions - nor was shooting a German pilot in a chute.. 

I suspect a riddled body dangling in the chute could also have been that way before or during bail out as much as helpless in a chute.

Last - I personally am not too bothered by strafing an airplane on the ground with the pilot still in it - I have seen combat film from both sides showing the act and the results.

I don't think anybody here thinks American soldiers and airmen and sailors were 'pure and noble' - but once you were captured by Americans you were better off than your 'free countrymen' back home.

PS One of my uncles was shot in his chute at Nijmegen (dangling in a tree) during Operation Market Garden by SS - and another one of my uncles was a 5th Ranger who liberated Dachau... you can imagine the fate of the German guards there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2010)

jim said:


> my point is that americans had their dark moments too and must admit them . Of course luftwaffe is guilty too. Is guilty of Warsow , Amstrrntam ,Pireus and dozens other bombings. But i can not accept that shooting chutes was as often in Luftwaffe as in Usaaf . Not even close. During all the years that i study the period have met many times reports of american chute shootings. The opposit extremely rarely. Even Goering had spoken against such actions . I repeat that german were guilty for many other cases. My country suffered greatly from their war.What bothers me is that us do not recognise their -few-mistakes . RAF too. Bomber Harris is recognised as an Hero .



Goering is not a good source for such things. The man is a fat ignorant drug abusing piece of ****, who got off easy by committing suicide!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 13, 2010)

jim said:


> A comment about the main subject. D9 when fuctioning properly in my opinion is clearly superior in 1vs1 to p51 but 1) its production was very late ordered without reason b) was not given the proper engine -DB603- so above 7000m was in disadvantage .AS a result its presence did not influenced at all the events. I see no reason why a DB603A FW190 could not be in production from the summer 1943
> I apologise for my english



Since you quoted JG26 War Diary you wish to go back and read the comments from the Dora pilots that expected to sweep the skies of Mustangs with it - and didn't.

As to 'clearly superior'?? in what way. They were two evenly matched fighters with the Dora ending on the short end because of lack of pilot skills, maintenance issues and poor training at that stage of the war.

But reflect backward in time when the Me 109 and Fw 190 should have been 'superior' against the P-47 in 1943. Didn't work out well then either. There is more to air combat than performance of the aircraft but you are invited to enumerate the points that make the D-9 clearly superior to a P-51D (or B) operating with 150 octane fuel at up to 75" boost.


----------



## jim (Mar 14, 2010)

Sir drgondog , i disagree almost always with your posts but i respect everyones opinion and i will try to back my opinion with facts.
1) In 1943 Fw 190 and Bf109 were generaly superior to P47 especialy before the advent of paddle propellers.The reason that they did not scored heavily against P47 was the mission profile of the Jug. High altitude (30000 ft) sweeps denying combat at lower altitude.German fighters controllers simply ignored them .As long as they did not involved in the lower batlles between Raf and germans they were harmless. Occasionaly did dived and scored some surprise victories. In late 1943 the main target of Luftwaffe were the bombers and did not engaged the escort( a wrong tactic in my opinion ) In the crusial months of winter and spring of 1944 P47 was clearly superior. By the time DB605AS and MW50 were intriduced it was all over
2) Reading carefully JG26 war diary can somene find that there are controversial opinions about FW190D9 flight performance. Some confirme the officials datas, some indicate under performing machines. Thats normal. In my original post i wrote "when Dora was factioning properly" . I add hear decent building quality and availability of equipment. I consider D9 superior if built ,equiped ,maintained as its designers planned. NO doubt in real life many examles were not up to specifications. If you add youngsters pilots, broken communications codes, bad tactis from Jagdwaffe divisional commanders, numerical inferiority, burned out staffel, gruppe, and geschwader commanderst, and of course inadequate performance over 7000m the results were normal.
3)Generally speaking P51 and Dora are in the same performance class. P51 is superior as escort fighter. D9 is superior as general air superiority fighter up to 7000m (D13 with jumo 213f is superior at all altitudes, with 213EB ,db603L even challenges P51H performance without sacfificing armor ,armour, and structural strength as -H did (the reason that did not see Korea service)
P51 has the lower aerodynamic resistance in level flight (as long as its wings are in perfect condition to achieve near laminar effect)but D has good aerodynamics too. The belly oil cooler of P51 is excellent performing but is vulnerable. D9s annular radiator is a good choise from aerodynamic point of view and heavily protected by 11mm armor ring (15mm in D13 and Ta152s) D9 wing produces more lift,and is much stronger with massive front spar. D9 has better power loading=better acceleretion+ wing loading (not much of a difference)+ ,wide blade propellers =better roc, guns on and near the cental axe of the aircraft , inclined seat, large ammo capacity , cannons, automatic engine controls=less pilot work load, EZ42 gyroscopic sight (okay, just a few examples), very good visibility(P51 too) , high speed manouverability ,was a good gun platform,wing fuel tanks in some sub variants, violent high speed stall characteristcs that while generaly is undesirable ,provided (by mistake) in the hands of experten a invaluable tool as last measure defence manouver. Had much more development potential ,in Ta 152 approached the limits of piston engined fighters without sacrificing anything .In addition of methanol -water had the choise of GN1 as well. Most important . The MOST important characteristic for air combat manouver is the rate of rall . Any fighter pilot of any era can confirm this . In this respect unquestionably Fw190D was superior. Was the summit. True, the pilot must be well trained to take advantage of superior roll but otherwise should not fly combat missions anyway. Boosted ailerons in future subvariants would further increase the rate. The myth that D had lower RoR than A is just that.A myth. The wing is the same minus the exterior cannons. Eric Brown tested a D9 without MW50 (no german aircraft was tested in captivity with MW50) and evaluatedit equal to Spit XIV just because of his much superior rate of roll.And he was in love with the handling of all Fws.
In the subject of high boost pressures in late war allied fighters i fully adupt the arguments of Kurfust. In additon i say that is not that simple to increase piston engines output.Just bring improve fuel and raise the boost pressure in a ALREADY operating engine. There are technical points and limitations .Dont forget we dont speak about racing cars, If break down just pull over. If break down you most propably die. If we accept your claims about 72" HG there was answer in form of C3+MW50 213A=2240ps, 213EB, 213F,DB603EC, DB603LA ,DB603L , 222E/F , all these engines ready for productin but the boys of B17s had other opinion . Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.
But P51 is the winner in the most crusial way: Was in the wright place ,in THE WRIGHT TIME. The hesitation of luftwaffe to introduce new types in order no to interupt production meant that Dora never had the chance to face the mustang in somewhat better odds.
Just my thouhts , if i wrote any inaccurancy please correct me.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 15, 2010)

jim said:


> Sir drgondog , i disagree almost always with your posts but i respect everyones opinion and i will try to back my opinion with facts.
> 1) In 1943 Fw 190 and Bf109 were generaly superior to P47 especialy before the advent of paddle propellers.The reason that they did not scored heavily against P47 was the mission profile of the Jug. High altitude (30000 ft) sweeps denying combat at lower altitude.German fighters controllers simply ignored them .As long as they did not involved in the lower batlles between Raf and germans they were harmless. Occasionaly did dived and scored some surprise victories. In late 1943 the main target of Luftwaffe were the bombers and did not engaged the escort( a wrong tactic in my opinion ) In the crusial months of winter and spring of 1944 P47 was clearly superior. By the time DB605AS and MW50 were intriduced it was all over
> 
> *I agree - the root points. The mission envelope was however the bomber envelope and most fighter escort altitudes for USAAF was 24,000 -28,000. Water injection coupled with paddle blades boosted the Jug climb rate but it was still lower than the 109G until ~ 30,000 feet and the turbo supercharger made a significant difference. However battles were not often fought above 25-27K and most frequently went down hill*
> ...



We generally agree - and I admire the Dora as a superb fighter. 

Mike Williams website has USAAF reports on all the subjects we have touched on. The reports he publishes are true copies - not propaganda. Some express personal and subjective opinions but those are easily identifiable.

I think both of us are technically astute and well read on the topics - and objective enough to concede certain debatable points.

My conclusions remain the same. The Mustang and the Dora were equivaelt fighters in the same vein that the Spitfire and the Me 109, generation to generation, were equivalent - as the Mustang and the Me 109G/Fw 190A until high altitudes were the battlefield. The Dora engine enabled it to compete at all altitudes

The Dora introduced high altitude capability that the 190A did not possess and improved the speed and climb - but suffered slightly with increased weight in manueverability. 

Having stated my opinion I also re-affirm that the difference between these two ships was largely the guy in the cockpit.

PS - I personally had a long running and respectful debate with Brown on certain topics like Mcr on Mustang vs Fw 190 and simply, he was wrong in believing that the 190 had a higher Mcr.

At any rate I enjoyed ther debate and not too concerned that you don't agree my opinions.

BTW the two members who used the phrase 'clearly superior' when discussing the 190 Dora versus the Mustang were Ho Hun and Soren.. it brings back memories.


----------



## jim (Mar 15, 2010)

Sir drgondog ,
1) eyesight is certainly more important than any technical parameter of any fighter
2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?
3) I have not the slightest respect for M.Williams and his site. The man is biased ,cooks up evidences and documents , compares aplles with oranges. Kurfust has exposed him many times , has proven his in purpose wrong statements .
4) Kurfust is a well known researcher mainly of Bf 109 . He has presented evidence that 150octane fuel and high boost pressure in alleid fighters had many problems and sporadicaly used. Every Luftwaffe fun ,me included, who respects himself accept his arguments. I consider the 75" P51D against standard Jumo 213A +Mw50 D9 fully equal at all altitudes. (and much superior above 7000m)
5)Rate of roll important only for defence??? No sir ,i disagree . Aileron turns are most important in most offensive combat manouvers. It requires skills ,yes, e.g. deflection shooting capabielities.
6) The dominant factor in acceleration is power loading and propeller profile. Drag is secondary factor . Must be a huge diference in drug to see noticable results. P51 had a front plate equivelant surface 4,10ft2 ,d9 4,78ft2 , 190a 5,22ft2 .P51 a total wer area of 885ft2 ,d9 721 ft2 .Do you consider these diferences huges? Yes they affect speed, but not acceleration.
7) If you see 190s front wing spar you wiil understand
8) I respect your opinon .I respect ten times your father and i am certain that he reported exactly what he found. However i must notify that his impressions are in direct contradiction with dozen of reports from german pilots, both test pilots and operational pilots.As well as technical rules. Every german who flew the aircraft reported better turning than A model with normal propeller . Techically it make sense because D is slightily heavier but more powrful,have some exhaust thrust, and better aerodynamics. At least sustained turn rate must be better. 
Give me a single techical reason why D should have notifiamble reduced RoR with the same wing minus external guns. Also while all accounts report that ailerons did decame heavier above 400mph all Fw had excellent high speed manouverability.
Your father reported exactly his founds but: He did not use Mw50 , ailerons were most propably not adjusted correctly, and general aircrafts situation acceptable for flights but not optimized.YOU CAN NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS OUT OF CAPTURED MACHINES . We dont even know if that particular example was properly built. Did your father had the knowledge to fly the aircraft to its limits? British test pilots reported poor turning for Bf109 but the were getting out of the turn as soon as slats started to deploy!!!!!Was he willing to take the risk of pushing an unKnown machine? Had the german flight instructions? Who maintenaid the aircraft? US personnel? Captured black men? Were they happy and cooperative ? Brown was sabotaged in a Ar234 by an prisoner black man. What kind of fuel they used ? I dont mean octanes , if it was cooperative with german injection and lubricants.( In no way i am saying if he was a good pilot i am sure he was excellent pilot, i ask if he was familiar with german equipment)
Anyway you are wriht after all Its close enough to consider pilot ability and tactilal situation and deploypment the desicive factors.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 15, 2010)

Jim, please be careful, you are getting close to disparging someone's family and war record. I hope thats not your intention.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 15, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Jim, please be careful, you are getting close to disparging someone's family and war record. I hope thats not your intention.



i don't think so, jim write
"I respect ten times your father and i am certain that he reported exactly what he found." and "no way i am saying if he was a good pilot i am sure he was excellent pilot, i ask if he was familiar with german equipment"


----------



## jim (Mar 16, 2010)

I did not have any intention to insult anyone, specially a war veteran from my safe PC .I dont know how that face appeard in my post. I am not very accastomed to blog postigs.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 16, 2010)

No problem Jim. The smiley face appears sometimes because a character that was typed is meant as a smiley. In other words - as an example in some cases the number '7', when posted, may trigger a smiley face. Sometimes its better to spell out the word.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 16, 2010)

was clear that 8) was 8 )


----------



## drgondog (Mar 16, 2010)

jim said:


> I did not have any intention to insult anyone, specially a war veteran from my safe PC .I dont know how that face appeard in my post. I am not very accastomed to blog postigs.



I didn't take it that way either.. have some work to do but will reply to your other questions soon. You have no problem with me.

Note - I am the current president of the 355th FG Association and have a lot of opportunity to question both the surviving pilots and crew chiefs... including one pilot (Bill Lyons 357FS/355FG) who shot a 190D down on February 9, 1945.

The only point I will make here and now is 'YES 150 Octane fuel was standard in July 1944 across the 8th AF - contrary to Kurfust's statements and in alignment with Williams - and YES there were problems with plugs fouling but no other performance reducing issues' - These are not statements from 'reports' they are statements from the individuals who lived and executed missions from Steeple Morden'


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 16, 2010)

eh, Contrary to what? 

I would rather represent myself, thank you... Besides just to make it clear, and short, my position being:

8th AAF FC had it, 
15th AAF FC did not (to my best knowledge)
the RAF FC/ADGB didnt, save for a handful of Sqns on anti diver missions, when that ended, even those didnt get it anymore
the 2nd TAF didnt get it either, not until jan/febr 45, and only for Spit sqns (tiffies/tempest wouldnt benefit anways). As per Berger, the stuff was troublesome and they reverted back to lower graded b4 the war ended.. in short in real operstional use, they had, for about two months at the wars end, at +25 a spit 9 that was equal to the boosted G6s and G14s the jerries had for a year by then, and were already phasing out by 1945... 

A couple of ironies I like to mention...

- Though the brits produced the stuff mostly, yanks used almost all of it for their fighters
- while MW and his bunch were campaigning for this 150 stuff for years, quite obviously in hope that this was the magic stuff Allied planes had and LW ones didnt, our research reveals the jerries had it a year before the brits, and produced and used the magic stuff in far greater quanties.. not that it would matter IMHO that much, just being a bit  here


----------



## drgondog (Mar 16, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> eh, Contrary to what?
> 
> I would rather represent myself, thank you... Besides just to make it clear, and short, my position being:
> 
> ...



Kurfurst - if my memory of your dispute with Mike Williams regarding the delivery of 150 fuel is correct you made several statements that the 8th AF did not have the fuel operational until the fall of 1944.

If my memory is not correct and you supported his claims that the fuel was delivered in June and operational in all 15 Fighter Groups then let me apologize. Are you now in agreement with the timing?

As to 8th had it and Jerries didn't - that isn't my thesis. Mine is the 8th had it and used it effectively to boost emergency power quite effectively and it was in service from late June through the end of the war. Period. The end.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 16, 2010)

To cut it short, I have no problem with the 8th AAF deliveries... the numbers are there (20 000 tons per month IIRC, and that through the conflict from about June 44.) 

The only thing I am unsure about are P-47s and esp. the P-38s - the latter were, more or less, withdrawn at around the time the new juice arrived. The other thing that is hazy is wheater 72" or 75" was the limit on Mustangs; that they used the fuel and enjoyed a significant boost in performance (and some maintance difficulties, re: spark plug life) is not.

The RAF otoh is another question though.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 16, 2010)

jim said:


> Sir drgondog ,
> 1) eyesight is certainly more important than any technical parameter of any fighter
> 
> *We both agree*
> ...



The aircraft was maintained by a former Luftwaffe crew chief that my father personally paid to keep the three servicable aircraft (Me 109G two seater, Fw 190A two seater, and Fw 190D-9) in excellent shape. I suspect he (Blackgang) was motivated by pride in the ships he maintained and may have had a vested interest in staying on the payroll by keeping them in good flying shape.

As to flying the airplane to its limits - hard to say and I would speculate 'no way of knowing' . He was motivated to beat Fortier's and Hovde's and Elder's butts in the rat races - he was extremely competitive. He was a 2200 hour pilot before leaving Training Command and joining the 355th. He only had 3 hours in a Mustang when he flew his first mission and shot his first german a/c down and had only 20 more hours when he downed two 109s and a probable over Bergen on June 20. 

He was regarded as the best 'stick man' by many that flew with him - so I would say in 25 hours he would have found most of the 'do's and don'ts' in the Dora but could not say whether a very good pilot could become very skilled in the Dora in that time.

Ditto the 109G and the 190A. They were rather unique with two seat config so who knows what the handling characteristics were. 

I have enjoyed this discussion - you are knowledgable about your subjects

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Mar 16, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> To cut it short, I have no problem with the 8th AAF deliveries... the numbers are there (20 000 tons per month IIRC, and that through the conflict from about June 44.)
> 
> The only thing I am unsure about are P-47s and esp. the P-38s - the latter were, more or less, withdrawn at around the time the new juice arrived. The other thing that is hazy is wheater 72" or 75" was the limit on Mustangs; that they used the fuel and enjoyed a significant boost in performance (and some maintance difficulties, re: spark plug life) is not.
> 
> The RAF otoh is another question though.



Kurfurst - let me do a little digging. First "72" was the recommended max boost for 5 minutes (max) and engines were blown.. there are documented examples of "75" but my father never used that much boost to my knowledge.

The 1650-9 in the P-51H was rated at 80" with the Simmonds boost control and 90" when WI (and all eles) functioned properly. The placard was 80" for WEP

I believe the 47D-25 and above used the 150 octane fuel but I am NOT certain


----------



## Milosh (Mar 16, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> eh, Contrary to what?
> A couple of ironies I like to mention...
> 
> - Though the brits produced the stuff mostly, yanks used almost all of it for their fighters
> - while MW and his bunch were campaigning for this 150 stuff for years, quite obviously in hope that this was the magic stuff Allied planes had and LW ones didnt, our research reveals the jerries had it a year before the brits, and produced and used the magic stuff in far greater quanties.. not that it would matter IMHO that much, just being a bit  here



The Germans had 150 grade C3 fuel in 1943?

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

Why was 150 octane not found in the test results?

See also Report No. 2197 dated Sept. 16 1943.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 16, 2010)

Milosh said:


> The Germans had 150 grade C3 fuel in 1943?
> 
> http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf
> 
> ...



as for i understand the docs give the impression the C-3 (after changes in '43) in rich mixture was around 150 octane or for precison around 120% of U.S. 130 grade


----------



## Milosh (Mar 16, 2010)

Where do you get that from Vincenzo?


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 17, 2010)

Just one quicky question, Milosh - have you been, by any chance, permanently banned twice from this discussion board..?


----------



## butcher bird (Mar 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Spellcheck, it works wonders....



flyboy,how well are you fluent in german? wandering minds would like to know. give jim a break! i vote to have you replaced as a moderator.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 17, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Where do you get that from Vincenzo?



so you don't read your link?
page 13 the alone full analisys of C-3, on page 9 there is a anticipation when spring '43 samples in rich mixture go over 125


----------



## Njaco (Mar 17, 2010)

Butcher, you're getting close to the edge. If you can't post something that contributes to the thread, don't post. If you have a beef with a Mod, I would suggest taking it up in a PM - not open in a thread.

verstehen Sie?


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 17, 2010)

butcher bird said:


> flyboy,how well are you fluent in german? wandering minds would like to know. give jim a break! i vote to have you replaced as a moderator.



I think that future just got dimmer.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 17, 2010)

I just read that post again and thats a flat out attack on Joe. He was already warned and hes gone.


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 17, 2010)

And the lights out!


----------



## Njaco (Mar 17, 2010)

Its one thing to have a problem and discuss it in a PM or an intelligent post but 4 posts of trash and he was warned.

Now back to the gasoline thread.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

jim said:


> With all respect to the rules of the forum i must say that shooting german pilots after paqachuting was a quite common practice for american pilots.



Trying to civilize war fighting is a mostly useless enterprise. Brutality occurs and to criticize one side or the other is usually a hypocritical effort by those who were not in the situation. As far as shooting airmen in parachutes, my thoughts are this, that airman in the parachute represents a deadly enemy asset who may climb into a plane tomorrow and shoot down a bomber or fighter and kill countrymen of mine, or me. I doubt anyone would blame a soldier for shooting a sniper in the back trying to flee a position because his gun jammed, he could get another gun. A pilot could do the same only be more deadly. He is not surrendering, only moving to another position. I am sure that most of the occurrences of shooting airmen in parachutes were over enemy territory where they could return to combat. In my opinion, it should be command policy if over enemy territory. If this sounds barbaric I am sorry, but war is barbaric.

This does not cover obvious atrocities that are even beyond the uncivilized nature of war like starving civilians to death or gassing them to eradicate a race, test chemicals or germs on civilians to determine effects, or to march POWs to collapse and then bayonet them because they fell. These had no contribution to the conclusion of the war. I won’t tell you I don’t have a problem with some of the fire bombings or the A-bomb, but I do believe they contributed to the shortening of the war, some more than others.

It bothers me that people sit back in an easy chair and pass judgment on events occurring sixty years ago in situations in the heat of battle where emotions and adrenalin generated from life-threatening battle may generate brutality. We’ve seen this with policemen in car chases. In the Pacific, there were no prisoners taken by the Japanese, or the Marines. That was the accepted nature of war there.




> 3)Generally speaking P51 and Dora are in the same performance class. P51 is superior as escort fighter. D9 is superior as general air superiority fighter up to 7000m



Based on test reports and German performance reports, the P-51B, at fighter weight, flies nose to nose with the Fw-190D-9 in airspeed and climb up to 4500m, but by 6000m, the P-51B was clearly superior in these areas, especially airspeed. The P-51D was slight less capable than the B, but not by a whole lot and slightly better than the Fw-190D-9 at 6000m and significantly so at 7600m.



> (D13 with jumo 213f is superior at all altitudes, with 213EB ,db603L even challenges P51H performance without sacfificing armor ,armour, and structural strength as -H did (the reason that did not see Korea service)



You need to justify your comment about the armor, the P-51H was lightened by using the Spitfire load factors for design and the Spitfire was not noted for being a weak design. I have no data that indicates reduction of armor was not part of this lightening. As far as the D13 is concerned, being a bit facetious, was there more than one?

I’ll comment on Korea later.



> D9 has better power loading=better acceleretion+ wing loading (not much of a difference)+ ,wide blade propellers =better roc



Actually, the ROC of the Fw-190D-9 was only better than the P-51B at 3000m and then only about 200 f/m better (4134 f/m to 3900 f/m). Below that they were equal, above that the P-51 was increasing in advantage.
The P-51D had a larger disadvantage, only catching up to the Fw at 6000m.




> In the subject of high boost pressures in late war allied fighters i fully adupt the arguments of Kurfust. In additon i say that is not that simple to increase piston engines output.Just bring improve fuel and raise the boost pressure in a ALREADY operating engine. There are technical points and limitations



I don’t understand the rationale behind this comment. It is well documented, in engineering test by USAAF and RAF, that increased boost allowed by improved fuel significantly improved performance. As result of these tests, the P-51 was cleared by AAF Materiel Command to go to 75” Hg although there was some operational limitations to 72". So you are saying the testers really didn’t know what they were doing? Sure, there were concerns, but apparently worth the effort.



> If we accept your claims about 72" HG there was answer in form of C3+MW50 213A=2240ps, 213EB, 213F,DB603EC, DB603LA ,DB603L , 222E/F , all these engines ready for productin but the boys of B17s had other opinion .



It is interesting to note that the Merlin 1650-9, a contemporary of the above engines was capable of 2240 hp and was still two thirds the size of the DB603 and 77% the size of the Jumo 213 and was 300 lbs lighter than either.

Some other contemporary allied fighter engines were the awesome Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57 which produces 2800 hp at 10,000 m (33k ft) in the P-47M/N, the P&W 3460 (powering the XP-72 and the F2G) producing 3000 to 3450 hp, and various British engines. All these engines, including the Germans, were obsolete.



> Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.



The 487 mph I believe is a North American calculation. I believe a more realistic number is between 470 to 480 mph.



> But P51 is the winner in the most crusial way: Was in the wright place ,in THE WRIGHT TIME. The hesitation of luftwaffe to introduce new types in order no to interupt production meant that Dora never had the chance to face the mustang in somewhat better odds.
> Just my thouhts



I agree with you completely. I have never understood why the Germans did not develop a dominating high altitude point defense fighter, a much easier job that a dominating escort fighter, in 1943 when they should have anticipated increasing American escorting aircraft. Even the P-47s and P-38s could have been expected to increase in performance and certainly in quantity, they already had very good high altitude performance. The Germans really needed a good high altitude fighter by early ’44. I do not think the Dora would have been the answer. It still could not out perform the allied escorts at bomber altitude and above. Maybe an early Bf-109K.



> 2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?



In my opinion there are probably two main reasons, first was the proliferation of P-51Ds and parts, and second, the P-51H was designed specifically to be a high performing air-to-air fighter based on the proven lighter Spitfire load factors. By 1950, the AF had abandoned prop planes for air-to-air and thus needed better air-to-ground capability which the heavier built P-51D would be a better selection.




> 3) I have not the slightest respect for M.Williams and his site. The man is biased ,cooks up evidences and documents , compares aplles with oranges. Kurfust has exposed him many times , has proven his in purpose wrong statements .



All the data I use from this site is data from flight test or military/contractor documents and I suspect drgondog does the same. So, if you have proof that these have been altered to benefit a side, present it. Otherwise, this comment adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

jim said:


> With all respect to the rules of the forum i must say that shooting german pilots after paqachuting was a quite common practice for american pilots.



Trying to civilize war fighting is a mostly useless enterprise. Brutality occurs and to criticize one side or the other is usually a hypocritical effort by those who were not in the situation. As far as shooting airmen in parachutes, my thoughts are this, that airman in the parachute represents a deadly enemy asset who may climb into a plane tomorrow and shoot down a bomber or fighter and kill countrymen of mine, or me. I doubt anyone would blame a soldier for shooting a sniper in the back trying to flee a position because his gun jammed, he could get another gun. A pilot could do the same only be more deadly. He is not surrendering, only moving to another position. I am sure that most of the occurrences of shooting airmen in parachutes were over enemy territory where they could return to combat. In my opinion, it should be command policy if over enemy territory. If this sounds barbaric I am sorry, but war is barbaric.

This does not cover obvious atrocities that are even beyond the uncivilized nature of war like starving civilians to death or gassing them to eradicate a race, test chemicals or germs on civilians to determine effects, or to march POWs to collapse and then bayonet them because they fell. These had no contribution to the conclusion of the war. I won’t tell you I don’t have a problem with some of the fire bombings or the A-bomb, but I do believe they contributed to the shortening of the war, some more than others.

It bothers me that people sit back in an easy chair and pass judgment on events occurring sixty years ago in situations in the heat of battle where emotions and adrenalin generated from life-threatening battle may generate brutality. We’ve seen this with policemen in car chases. In the Pacific, there were no prisoners taken by the Japanese, or the Marines. That was the accepted nature of war there.




> 3)Generally speaking P51 and Dora are in the same performance class. P51 is superior as escort fighter. D9 is superior as general air superiority fighter up to 7000m



Based on test reports and German performance reports, the P-51B, at fighter weight, flies nose to nose with the Fw-190D-9 in airspeed and climb up to 4500m, but by 6000m, the P-51B was clearly superior in these areas, especially airspeed. The P-51D was slight less capable than the B, but not by a whole lot and slightly better than the Fw-190D-9 at 6000m and significantly so at 7600m.



> (D13 with jumo 213f is superior at all altitudes, with 213EB ,db603L even challenges P51H performance without sacfificing armor ,armour, and structural strength as -H did (the reason that did not see Korea service)



You need to justify your comment about the armor, the P-51H was lightened by using the Spitfire load factors for design and the Spitfire was not noted for being a weak design. I have no data that indicates reduction of armor was not part of this lightening. As far as the D13 is concerned, being a bit facetious, was there more than one?

I’ll comment on Korea later.



> D9 has better power loading=better acceleretion+ wing loading (not much of a difference)+ ,wide blade propellers =better roc



Actually, the ROC of the Fw-190D-9 was only better than the P-51B at 3000m and then only about 200 f/m better (4134 f/m to 3900 f/m). Below that they were equal, above that the P-51 was increasing in advantage.
The P-51D had a larger disadvantage, only catching up to the Fw at 6000m.




> In the subject of high boost pressures in late war allied fighters i fully adupt the arguments of Kurfust. In additon i say that is not that simple to increase piston engines output.Just bring improve fuel and raise the boost pressure in a ALREADY operating engine. There are technical points and limitations



I don’t understand the rationale behind this comment. It is well documented, in engineering test by USAAF and RAF, that increased boost allowed by improved fuel significantly improved performance. As result of these tests, the P-51 was cleared by AAF Materiel Command to go to 75” Hg although there were some operational limitations to 72". So you are saying the testers really didn’t know what they were doing? Sure, there were concerns, but apparently worth the effort.



> If we accept your claims about 72" HG there was answer in form of C3+MW50 213A=2240ps, 213EB, 213F,DB603EC, DB603LA ,DB603L , 222E/F , all these engines ready for productin but the boys of B17s had other opinion .



It is interesting to note that the Merlin 1650-9, a contemporary of the above engines was capable of 2240 hp and was still two thirds the size of the DB603 and 77% the size of the Jumo 213 and was 300 lbs lighter than either.

Some other contemporary allied fighter engines were the awesome Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57 which produces 2800 hp at 10,000 m (33k ft) in the P-47M/N, the P&W 3460 (powering the XP-72 and the F2G) producing 3000 to 3450 hp, and various British engines. All these engines, including the Germans, were obsolete.



> Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.



The 487 mph I believe is a North American calculation. I believe a more realistic number is between 470 to 480 mph.



> But P51 is the winner in the most crusial way: Was in the wright place ,in THE WRIGHT TIME. The hesitation of luftwaffe to introduce new types in order no to interupt production meant that Dora never had the chance to face the mustang in somewhat better odds.
> Just my thouhts



I agree with you completely. I have never understood why the Germans did not develop a dominating high altitude point defense fighter, a much easier job that a dominating escort fighter, in 1943 when they should have anticipated increasing American escorting aircraft. Even the P-47s and P-38s could have been expected to increase in performance and certainly in quantity, they already had very good high altitude performance. The Germans really needed a good high altitude fighter by early ’44. I do not think the Dora would have been the answer. It still could not out perform the allied escorts at bomber altitude and above. Maybe an early Bf-109K.



> 2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?



In my opinion there are probably two main reasons, first was the proliferation of P-51Ds and parts, and second, the P-51H was designed specifically to be a high performing air-to-air fighter based on the proven lighter Spitfire load factors. By 1950, the AF had abandoned prop planes for air-to-air and thus needed better air-to-ground capability which the heavier built P-51D would be a better selection.




> 3) I have not the slightest respect for M.Williams and his site. The man is biased ,cooks up evidences and documents , compares aplles with oranges. Kurfust has exposed him many times , has proven his in purpose wrong statements .



All the data I use from this site is data from flight test or military/contractor documents and I suspect drgondog does the same. So, if you have proof that these have been altered to benefit a side, present it. Otherwise, this comment adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 17, 2010)

Dave - here is the 51H handbook - not NAA performance calcs..


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 17, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Dave - here is the 51H handbook - not NAA performance calcs..



your sorce give reason to Dave, the handbook speed it's around 475 mph...


----------



## drgondog (Mar 17, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> your sorce give reason to Dave, the handbook speed it's around 475 mph...



That is correct - and for a full load of fuel and ammunition and external racks. I wasn't disputing Dave's comment - I was giving him the USAF data for operational P-51H - not NAA data.

The question/doubt raised was whether the P-51H was capable of 487mph and the answer is 'yes' just by removing the fuel tank/bomb racks. There were P-51H racers that achieved nearly 500 mph at SL - but all stripped and light.

The SL speed is 413mph with full load of ammo and internal fuel and an initial climb rate at SL of 5480 fpm with full internal load out.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 17, 2010)

drgondog said:


> That is correct - and for a full load of fuel and ammunition and external racks. I wasn't disputing Dave's comment - I was giving him the USAF data for operational P-51H - not NAA data.
> 
> The question/doubt raised was whether the P-51H was capable of 487mph and the answer is 'yes' just by removing the fuel tank/bomb racks. There were P-51H racers that achieved nearly 500 mph at SL - but all stripped and light.
> 
> The SL speed is 413mph with full load of ammo and internal fuel and an initial climb rate at SL of 5480 fpm with full internal load out.



the speed is give to combat weight so with some fuel consumed, and for true the weight not influnce many the level speed as you can see in handbook the 51H go to 412 knts (474 mph) at 8275 pounds weight and go to 410 knts (472 mph) at 9430 pound of weight. 

the north american calculation at 9450 pounds give 471 mph (difference maybe only round) (the doc P-51H Performance it's one of two source of handbook)

a 1946 test give only a 451 mph at 9544 pounds, P-51H Performance Test


----------



## jim (Mar 17, 2010)

I am extremely hungry with your post . I will be polite in respect of the others readers. I dont care now about D9 ,i disagree with your comments so do the laws of physice but i dont care wright now.
How do you dare to claim that the crime of Dresden shortened the war even by a second?????????????????????
The burning of up to 500000 people , mostly refugees from Silesia , the strafing of fire brigades and ambulances , in a city of no heavy war industry was not an obvious autrocity? And the rail station was undamaged! Why? Because was comitted by alleis? The starvation to death of thousands german prisoners during the last months and the immediate after months of the war wasnt an autrocity? The forcing of prisoners to clear mine fields with bear hands ,the forced labor for years after the war ,was because" war is barbaric, what can we do?" Your Jabos roaring without resistance across germany strafing and bombing villages, cottages, farms , villagers , hospitals, cows ,sheeps, dogs were"" in the heat of the batlle" .B17s after destroying all big cities attacked 10000-20000 thousand population small towns that had not produced not one bullet, "in the heat of the battle"
If is justifiable to machine gun the enemy even when knocked out why was captain Eck , the only U boat commander known to have killed merchant survivors,was executed? And the commander of Wahoo ,the top American Ace who many times machined gunned survivors ,is a hero . Pt boats ,aircrafts, submarines machined gunned survivors, many times under orders, killed japanese at sea. Have you heard of the "LACONIA incident"?With that logic why gestapo executings of prisoners trying to escape was a crime , if they succeded they would fight germans Again (dont get me wrong ,of course i consider it a crime) .
What makes me mad is the diferent criteria of judging things. Crime is a crime, no matter who commeted it. Germany unfortunately along USSR and japan did the gratest Number .And recoghises it. And has paid the price. With the pogroms of populations of her eastern provinces , with the extreme rate of death of her new born children for years after the war due to bad feeding and lack of drugs, . Still she is most responsible
But everyone must admit his errors .Otherwise repeats them in future wars.
Davparir , now i am sitting in a safe chair. Tommorow morning my chair will not be safe at all. 
I am sorry if insulted all americans , my problem is with those few that have different criteria of judjing things . For the few thousands who made bad things there is the rest of America who helped all Europe to recover


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2010)

As far as shooting pilots in their parachute is concerned, I have a book, (somewhere) entitled "Horrido" written I believe by a Brit and an American that I am sure states that LW pilots were instructed not to fire on pilots in parachutes. Can anyone comment on that book or on it's veracity and accuracy? Dav, I agree with you that an enemy pilot in a parachute is no different than, say, a crewman fleeing from a tank which has been put out of action. However, I understand that both sides mostly refrained from shooting at tank crewman under those circumstances in N Africa. Is that a myth also?

One of my uncles in the Pacific during WW2 said that it was common to send DDs with depth charges to kill Japanese survivors from sinkings. However, they were known to resist surrender.


----------



## tango35 (Mar 17, 2010)

Please,Please,... stop this unfruitful discussion about warcrimes, etc..
The Thread is about P51 vs Fw 190 D9and not more. If you want to discussother things it make a new thread. 

And for this thread i think all important things are said, i have to thank the writers for the constructive statements.

T


----------



## Njaco (Mar 17, 2010)

Hey Jim, chill out!!! I have no idea where you get your info but can you give some sources for this??!!

Starving people AFTER the war? Where did you hear about this? Have you ever heard of the mercy flights into the Netherlands in the immediate months following VE day?

Strafing civilians? Bombing non-military targets? Ever hear of the Bournemouth attacks by the Luftwaffe? Or how about Coventry? How about the Baedeker Raids where the only choosing of targets was from a travel brochure!!!!!

There is so much disinformation that you've probably read or revisionist history.

I guess next you'll be telling us the Allies made brick ovens and sold them to Germany - oohhh those bad Allies!

Agree with Tango - lets stay on topic or make a new thread.


----------



## tango35 (Mar 17, 2010)

Hey NJACO,
calm down please. And there are enough evidences that both side bombed civilian targets like Hospitals , etc. ( e.g. alone here in Hannover 12 Hospitals, Churches, etc.) were bombed. And is under the law of combat a Hospital a target ? I and the law dont think so.
And if you need evidences than i would recommend you the archives of Hamburg, Dresden and other nice cities, of course to be neutral the german forces made the same mistakes not to bomb military targets.

For you arrogant comment about the ovens - yes thats a real and unique german thing; but for sterilizing disabled persons it was done as well in the States ( see Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck vs Bell 1927)

SO, both side did things they shouldnt, but this thread isnt the place for discussing it.

Thomas


----------



## Erich (Mar 17, 2010)

continue this silly banter gentlemen and this thread will be shut down. there is some useful information in the posts if you pick through it but at all cost do not GET OFF TOPIC discussing shooting of civilians, Dresden pilots in parachutes, etc...........if you will please note we have covered this in the past and if you must then go to those particular postings/threads

am hopeful you will understand and not stray off the subject manner again

I am having a kick-Ass day so be on your guard 8)


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

drgondog said:


> That is correct - and for a full load of fuel and ammunition and external racks. I wasn't disputing Dave's comment - I was giving him the USAF data for operational P-51H - not NAA data.
> 
> The question/doubt raised was whether the P-51H was capable of 487mph and the answer is 'yes' just by removing the fuel tank/bomb racks. There were P-51H racers that achieved nearly 500 mph at SL - but all stripped and light.
> 
> The SL speed is 413mph with full load of ammo and internal fuel and an initial climb rate at SL of 5480 fpm with full internal load out.



I could not determine if this data was with or without racks



Vincenzo said:


> a 1946 test give only a 451 mph at 9544 pounds, P-51H Performance Test



This is definitely with racks.

Max airspeed is difficult to nail down. Variations in manufacturing, maintenance, preparation, instrumentation, etc. all contribute to error. If the error is only + 1%, at these speeds you are looking at a 10 mph swing.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

jim said:


> I am extremely hungry with your post . I will be polite in respect of the others readers. I dont care now about D9 ,i disagree with your comments so do the laws of physice but i dont care wright now.
> How do you dare to claim that the crime of Dresden shortened the war even by a second?????????????????????
> The burning of up to 500000 people , mostly refugees from Silesia , the strafing of fire brigades and ambulances , in a city of no heavy war industry was not an obvious autrocity? And the rail station was undamaged! Why? Because was comitted by alleis? The starvation to death of thousands german prisoners during the last months and the immediate after months of the war wasnt an autrocity? The forcing of prisoners to clear mine fields with bear hands ,the forced labor for years after the war ,was because" war is barbaric, what can we do?" Your Jabos roaring without resistance across germany strafing and bombing villages, cottages, farms , villagers , hospitals, cows ,sheeps, dogs were"" in the heat of the batlle" .B17s after destroying all big cities attacked 10000-20000 thousand population small towns that had not produced not one bullet, "in the heat of the battle"
> If is justifiable to machine gun the enemy even when knocked out why was captain Eck , the only U boat commander known to have killed merchant survivors,was executed? And the commander of Wahoo ,the top American Ace who many times machined gunned survivors ,is a hero . Pt boats ,aircrafts, submarines machined gunned survivors, many times under orders, killed japanese at sea. Have you heard of the "LACONIA incident"?With that logic why gestapo executings of prisoners trying to escape was a crime , if they succeded they would fight germans Again (dont get me wrong ,of course i consider it a crime) .
> ...



Sorry I made you so hungry. You must have missed my two introductory sentences. I will repeat them.

Trying to civilize war fighting is a mostly useless enterprise. Brutality occurs and to criticize one side or the other is usually a hypocritical effort by those who were not in the situation.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 17, 2010)

the NAA calculation at 471 mph it's w/o racks, and at high quote and speed (relative) the loss 20 mph maybe normal


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2010)

jim said:


> I am extremely hungry with your post . I will be polite in respect of the others readers. I dont care now about D9 ,i disagree with your comments so do the laws of physice but i dont care wright now.
> How do you dare to claim that the crime of Dresden shortened the war even by a second?????????????????????
> The burning of up to 500000 people , mostly refugees from Silesia , the strafing of fire brigades and ambulances , in a city of no heavy war industry was not an obvious autrocity? And the rail station was undamaged! Why? Because was comitted by alleis? The starvation to death of thousands german prisoners during the last months and the immediate after months of the war wasnt an autrocity? The forcing of prisoners to clear mine fields with bear hands ,the forced labor for years after the war ,was because" war is barbaric, what can we do?" Your Jabos roaring without resistance across germany strafing and bombing villages, cottages, farms , villagers , hospitals, cows ,sheeps, dogs were"" in the heat of the batlle" .B17s after destroying all big cities attacked 10000-20000 thousand population small towns that had not produced not one bullet, "in the heat of the battle"
> If is justifiable to machine gun the enemy even when knocked out why was captain Eck , the only U boat commander known to have killed merchant survivors,was executed? And the commander of Wahoo ,the top American Ace who many times machined gunned survivors ,is a hero . Pt boats ,aircrafts, submarines machined gunned survivors, many times under orders, killed japanese at sea. Have you heard of the "LACONIA incident"?With that logic why gestapo executings of prisoners trying to escape was a crime , if they succeded they would fight germans Again (dont get me wrong ,of course i consider it a crime) .
> ...



Jim - please stay on topic and do not politicize your point - this thread and board is about aircraft. If you want to talk war actrocites and the horrors of war, take it to a political forum...


----------



## jim (Mar 17, 2010)

I read your very interesting pdf about P51h .I saved it already in my hard disk .However I have a question to ask you. IN the "Mission and Discription" sector it mentions: The structural strength was increased 10% over its predessor" .In one of your earlier posts you told me that -H was designed with 1/2 G ultimate limit lower than -D . Also -D empty weight is 7641 lb . -H empty weight is 7198 lb. 
Could you explain ? They managed to strengthened the airframe 10% and at the same time reduce its weight nearly 450 lb? What am i missing? Thank you


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2010)

Wow this thread is so far off topic now. Congrats gentleman, it was a good read and good thread for a while. I thought we might all learn something here. 

Now get back on topic!


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

jim said:


> I read your very interesting pdf about P51h .I saved it already in my hard disk .However I have a question to ask you. IN the "Mission and Discription" sector it mentions: The structural strength was increased 10% over its predessor" .In one of your earlier posts you told me that -H was designed with 1/2 G ultimate limit lower than -D . Also -D empty weight is 7641 lb . -H empty weight is 7198 lb.
> Could you explain ? They managed to strengthened the airframe 10% and at the same time reduce its weight nearly 450 lb? What am i missing? Thank you



Yes, I saw that also, and it confused me. It is possible to increase strength and reduce weight by better structual engineering.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2010)

butcher bird said:


> flyboy,how well are you fluent in german? wandering minds would like to know. give jim a break! i vote to have you replaced as a moderator.


And I vote to label you "idiot of the year." Oh wait, that already happened and you're banned too! Geez, who says the mentally diminished can't achieve great things!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 17, 2010)

jim said:


> I read your very interesting pdf about P51h .I saved it already in my hard disk .However I have a question to ask you. IN the "Mission and Discription" sector it mentions: The structural strength was increased 10% over its predessor" .In one of your earlier posts you told me that -H was designed with 1/2 G ultimate limit lower than -D . Also -D empty weight is 7641 lb . -H empty weight is 7198 lb.
> Could you explain ? They managed to strengthened the airframe 10% and at the same time reduce its weight nearly 450 lb? What am i missing? Thank you



I have examined the NAA plans, as well as flight test data - all in the 60's. I am CERTAIN that the P-51H was designed to 11.5 g Ultimate @ 8000 gross weight and that the P-51B/C/D/K was designed at 12g Ultimate (not yield) @ 8000 pounds gross weight.

Disregard the empty weight and remember the 8000 pounds as the basis for the design calcs.

The Mustang design team led by Schmeud worked with the Supermarine team to re-design the internal structure to take out the "D" weight while retaining nearly the same structural integrity. The P-51H also had a taller tail and 13" longer fuselage aft of the internal fuselage tank... (and completely re-designed with very, very few common parts.)

Because the D grew nearly 900 pounds, the P-51H was actually at or slightly above the D for most mission profiles when a similar amount of fuel had been burned away.

You missed 'nothing'..I believe the handbook to be in 'error' or failed to put it in the context that 8000 pounds for a P-51H was in fact quite a bit less than a similarly 'loaded' P-51D... and still have the same battle capability.

The standard US airframe design parameters for high performance a/c was +/- 8g (ip), 3g (negative) for YIELD (in the elastic range) and a 1.5 'x' load factor for ultimate in the worst case design condition... (like a high speed dive with rudder input or a high g pullout with rudder input)

I am trying to get a copy of both the NAA flight tests of February 1945, and the AMC tests of December 1946. The 11-46 calculations were made without a fully functioning Simmonds Boost control but the 487mph figure was extracted a.) by calculation w/o external rack (bomb/drop tank) and validated by the NAA flight test.

The test of the 51H at Wright Paterson as summarized by the 10-46 report had some substandard speeds and also had a reference to peak power anomalies from the bench tests of the engine - as well as variations in high blower critical altitudes... it also was not delivered with the Simmonds boost control but candidly I'm not sure what difference that should make relative to level speed runs - would make a difference on climb tests though.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I vote to label you "idiot of the year." Oh wait, that already happened and you're banned too! Geez, who says the mentally diminished can't achieve great things!



I wondered how long he was gonna last - but I had to remember my first 'airdrop' and our wonderful discussion on Chuck Yeager <grin>.. you and Dan were so wonderfully tolerant of my 'misconceptions'..

He still remains a 'friend' but I am not blinded to his personality charms.

Lol


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I wondered how long he was gonna last - but I had to remember my first 'airdrop' and our wonderful discussion on Chuck Yeager <grin>.. you and Dan were so wonderfully tolerant of my 'misconceptions'..
> 
> He still remains a 'friend' but I am not blinded to his personality charms.
> 
> Lol



LOL! Bill we know each other too well!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 17, 2010)

davparlr said:


> Yes, I saw that also, and it confused me. It is possible to increase strength and reduce weight by better structual engineering.



Dave - as I noted to Jim, I know what the design philosopy was on both the D and the H as I posted to Jim.

Simply I believe the handbook reference is in error... but I do believe the two airframes are EQUIVALENT across the board as long as the load out of fuel and ammo are the same - simply because the H would be 400 pounds lighter across the load profile

The simple math would look like this..

at 8000 pounds at 12G, the B and D wing would be designed to fail with 96,000 pounds applied to each wing

at 8000 pounds at 11.5G the H wing would fail at 92,000 pounds

at 8400 pounds the D wing still fails at 96000 pounds - but the 'allowable G' at that weight is 96,000/8400 = 11.42 G Ultimate ------> same as the P-51H with same loadout but lower gross weight at 8000 pounds.

The difference in real life is negligible but I don't believe the P-51H was 10% 'stronger'. 

Part of stripping the weight was better design (straight leading edge/no strake, smaller main gear, etc), and pasrt was resizing caps and stringers after several years of failure history to better balance the structural integrity... so they a.) took out some unneccesary redundancy and b.) lowered the design limit and design ultimate accordingly based on reduced weights.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Dave - as I noted to Jim, I know what the design philosopy was on both the D and the H as I posted to Jim.
> 
> Simply I believe the handbook reference is in error... but I do believe the two airframes are EQUIVALENT across the board as long as the load out of fuel and ammo are the same - simply because the H would be 400 pounds lighter across the load profile
> 
> ...



Thanks for you excellent explaination!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 18, 2010)

davparlr said:


> Thanks for you excellent explaination!



It was pretty simplistic Dave.. the more esoteric discussion then leads to point by point comparisons along the spars, the skin shears,the torqu boxes, the wing/wing and wing/fuselage fasteners to look at the stresses on each component to make sure they are less than "Ultimate Stress (Failure)" 

and the internal wing designs were different enough that one may not 'assume" same loading conditions and load paths.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 18, 2010)

drgondog said:


> It was pretty simplistic Dave.. the more esoteric discussion then leads to point by point comparisons along the spars, the skin shears,the torqu boxes, the wing/wing and wing/fuselage fasteners to look at the stresses on each component to make sure they are less than "Ultimate Stress (Failure)"
> 
> and the internal wing designs were different enough that one may not 'assume" same loading conditions and load paths.



I am appreciatative of complexitive stress analysis. As responsible for generating impacts to upgrades for the B-2, I learned quickly that structual analysis was always important for any penetration of the composite skin of the bomber, like antennas. Load stress was carried by this skin and once interrupted by a penetration, detailed design was required to reroute the stress around the penetration. Since Boeing built most of the fuselage and wing, any antenna intallation was expensive!


----------



## Knegel (Mar 18, 2010)

Hi,

wasnt this about the P51D vs the 190D-9 and how can this be 4 years old and still no result?? lol

Thats not very effective. 

I saw so many different datas of the same plane, where the speeds did vary by 10-30km/h. How shal someone say what plane was better, if we even dont know the exact performence of one plane??

Specialy regarding the german planes we miss many datas. We even often dont know to what kind of "standard atmosphair" the measured or calculated TAS speeds relates to. Some tests are made with reduced weight and the different in the results with the same plane type indicate that also the test procedure must have been different. For example its a different how someone measure the speed. Is it dont out of a dive, or after the plane did accelerate?? Who ever did try to measure the Vmax in a simulation, without time acceleration, will know that it take a long time to find the exact Vmax and due to the shifting critical altitude(rated alt) due to a speed different, the Vmax and the related altitude tend to vary rather much. For example the Vmax records in the late 30th dont display the real Vmax of the planes. While this records the planes dive in as fast as they can and after a for that time much to short distance they zoom up dive dobe again and fly the short distance again(if i remeber right, just 2 miles). So swing is a important factor. 
The particular big discrepancys between german/british and US tests on the other hand make me believe that german and british tests often was rather conservative(accelerated Vmax test??), while the US test often seems to be rather optimistic(decelerated Vmax test??).
How a optimistic german Vmax test can look like we see, if we look to the 109F4 tests, where the plane reach 670km/h (416mph) in 6,3km and the 109G1 made 700km/h in 7000m.

I got a 190D data sheet where the plane reach 401mph at sea level(Bodenmotor) and a test of the P51D from after the war, where just 67hg get used as WEP. There are other tests showing the P51 with 80 or 90HG and the FW with just 595km/h. 

IMHO, and iam sure due to lack of datas we only can offer opinions here, both planes(like some other late war prop planes) touch the edges of what was possible with a propeller. Sure in highest alt the P51D is better, not cause its faster, but for the way the combat went in mid/late 1944 thats the most important factor. For sure their higher max ceilling wasnt the reason why they often was higher than the german planes. Also the mustangs seldom came in above 11000m hight. 
The problem was that the german main targets did fly mainly between 7000 and 8500m altitude and the Doras should cover the heavy groups and to do this they had to stay rather close with them, specialy cause the FW190A8 and A9´s had real trouble above 6500m. Actually the so called german top cover rather did act as bait to lure the escort into combat before the heavy groups came. In early 1944 this perticular did work, later, with the extreme numerical allied advantage, this was hopeless.

Even the best pilot of the world have just two eye´s, while the numerical advantage at that time was extreme. 

If we look in what way many of the german pilots at that time did die, we can get an idea how even the planes was in general. If we forget the rather number of sneaky kills, where no real comat took place and look to the fights where the german pilots saw their oponents, you will find that even the FW190A´s dont got outmanouvered by easy, in many cases the Mustangs and/or Jugs had to fight the enemy down, what wouldnt have been possible, if the number would have been even and still many pilots was able to escape, but not every day. 
In early 1944, when the Luftwaffe still had some units and more good pilots(at least the disadvantage wasnt that big), even the 109G6 was good enough to counter the P51´s. 
In Willi Reschkes book you can read how important the "Höhenstaffel" was and how important the as fighter pilot educated pilots was(most of the JG300, 301 and 302 dont had a dedicated fighter education, the "Höhenstaffel" of the JG302 specialy came from the JG51).
This "Höhenstaffel", flying 109G´s, dont got slaughtered, they lost their experienced pilots against a increasing number of enemys within three month. 

The question is how could they stand this for so long, with the old 109G?? And was the FW190D9 less good??

I always see the Vmax datas and sometimes also the climb performence(ceilling), what imho get forgotten when it comes to compare the dofight performence is the handling in relation to the altitude.

As higher the planes get, as slower is the "middle IAS"(we dont always fly Vmax). When a combat start in high alt, the planes are very fast down to stall speed. 

So we need to look much more to the slowspeed handlig then in low to medium alt, and here the FW190 most probably win, cause its advanced roll ratio, while the P51 suffer by its smal stall edge. 
On the other hand the P51 can climb higher and is faster up there. 

What i want to say is: If the enemys saw each other and if both enemys did know what they do and if it was a 1 vs 1, noone would have been able to shoot the other down until they did reach low level(appart from a lucky shot).

I cant see any good reason why someone would call one of this planes better than the other and its for sure nonsens to say one plane was better, cause the other got slaughtered, even the Me262 got slaughtered at that time. 

The datas show very similar results, with a speed and climb advantage for the P51 in high alt, but at same time it must have had handling problems. In low alt the 190D had more power(best climb i saw is 1350m/min , 22,5m/s, 4428ft/min with 300km/h speed), on the other hand the speeds(IAS) was often higher and here the P51 also had a good handling, though close to the ground the FW190D had 400-500HP more power. btw, the typical combat weight of a P51D in combat area(after dropping the tanks) was 9600lbs(4360kg), cause the rear fueselage tank ALWAYS got used 1st, cause the plane was terrible unstable with this full tank.

Another btw, the german planes didnt look that good in the east cause the russian planes or pilots was that bad, it was rather the tactical situation, cause the russian bombers got mainly raped as "flying artillery". As such their fighters field of operation was also mainly in low alt, where their bombers was. This brought them into a same bad tactical position like the german pilots in the west and the russian HQ absolutly undervalue(or didnt care for) the need for a good high alt fighter performence, although in 1940/41 they had the best high alt fighter in the world(Mig 3). The realy bad habit to organisate all skilled pilots in elite squads, also didnt help to mass of the pilots.

I think the early rather high losses of the US fighters(also P51), against older planes than the FW190D9, show how important the pilot skill was. Still the US escort fighters always had the tactical advantage, cause the LW HQ commanded the LW fighters to attack the bombers, no matter how and they did split their forces all over germany, instead to of big mass attacks like Galland wanted them. As result the numerical advantage of the US fighters in combat area was bigger than is had to be.

The LW fought like Wavell and Auchinleck vs the DAK, when Galland had his "1000" fighters, they got wasted in Bodenplatte. 

Would have been interesting to see, what would have happend, when 1000 german fighters would have attacked mainly the escort. Like its was, we have no good possibility to value the P51D vs the german 1944/45 planes. 

Maybe in the future we will see a combat between the new FW´s and a old P51?? I guess that would help. 

Greetings, 

Knegel


----------



## Erich (Mar 18, 2010)

just to point this out to you, JG 302 never had a high protection unit of any kind they flew on their own till dissolvement and the incorporation into the new III./JG 301in September of 44.

JG 301 only from November 44 when they received new A-9's did two staffeln of each the I. and II. gruppe provide high cover for their other two staffeln of each gruppe and in some ways when flying together as a whole Geschwader protect the Schwere gruppe the III. JG 301 many times did not fly entire ops together as a complete Geschwader. and just to back up a bit I./JG 300 really entered as the high squadron for it's 109G III gruppe and the ehavy Sturmgruppe the II.

even by December 44 with the 6./JG 301 having the inclusion of the Dora to the A-9 ranks it still could not keep up with speed, altitude and agility of the P-51D/K US escorts. nothing changed as the whole of II./JG 301 completed the transfer out of the A-9 to the Dora except for 8th staffel could they again keep pace with the P-51's. It just did not happen no matter whom wants to think otherwise. To make matters even more interesting Reschke states several times in his German/English work that their Doras really gave the P-51's trouble is a total mis-nomer. The only thing the Dora did for JG 301's pilots was give it a slight edge in the altitude department and then later meeting with Soviet fighters at mid range where it excelled.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 18, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I am appreciatative of complexitive stress analysis. As responsible for generating impacts to upgrades for the B-2, I learned quickly that structual analysis was always important for any penetration of the composite skin of the bomber, like antennas. Load stress was carried by this skin and once interrupted by a penetration, detailed design was required to reroute the stress around the penetration. Since Boeing built most of the fuselage and wing, any antenna intallation was expensive!



Composites are a whole new world from sheet and stringer analysis - my ONLY experience was on tailbooms of Huey's..


----------



## drgondog (Mar 18, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Even the best pilot of the world have just two eye´s, while the numerical advantage at that time was extreme.
> 
> In early 1944, when the Luftwaffe still had some units and more good pilots(at least the disadvantage wasnt that big), even the 109G6 was good enough to counter the P51´s.
> 
> ...



Glad to see you join the forum..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Mar 18, 2010)

one of the biggest problems Bill and we have discussed this privately as well as here was the present LW tacticians. Several Geschwader C.O.'s had to come up or so they tried with their own vantage/views on how to handle the US escorts, none of it worked, the simplification of tired and true attacks from the rear and slightly below seemed to work if no escorts were about but in 45 that was not going to happen except by some strange miracle in the help of the LW.

nothing would have changed for the LW in 44-45 if they had the P-51 and the US the Dora


----------



## davparlr (Mar 19, 2010)

Erich said:


> nothing would have changed for the LW in 44-45 if they had the P-51 and the US the Dora



The Dora would have needed an internal extended range tank, but otherwise I agree assuming the time line is the same, i.e. the Dora was available to the Allies in Dec. '43, and the P-51 available to the Germans in Sep. '44.


----------



## Timppa (Mar 20, 2010)

The safe wing load factor for the Fw190-D was 6.20 for wing ( 6.50 for engine mounts) and somewhat more more for the fuselage, according to Hermann. So the ultimate load would be 1.8*6.2 =11.2g. About the same as the P-51D.

Jim's posts are quite painful to read, because of the spelling, paragraphs, etc. So I cannot comment further.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2010)

Timppa said:


> The safe wing load factor for the Fw190-D was 6.20 for wing ( 6.50 for engine mounts) and somewhat more more for the fuselage, according to Hermann. So the ultimate load would be 1.8*6.2 =11.2g. About the same as the P-51D.
> 
> Jim's posts are quite painful to read, because of the spelling, paragraphs, etc. So I cannot comment further.



Timppa - was the German structural analysis design practice to use a 1.8 factor from Yield to Ultimate? 

From your post I infer that the design limit load (for elastic yield stress) was 6.2G? at what gross weight?

BTW - all the techniques and analysis approaches should be very close - and the design limit loads should be close simply because 'stroger = heavier'


----------



## Timppa (Mar 21, 2010)

German terms are simply "safe" (Sicher) load and "breaking limit" (Bruchgrenz):
"Die hierin aufgeführten 'Beanspruchungszustände' heißen 'sichere', weil bei ihnen noch kein Bruch auftreten darf, vielmehr noch ein vorgeschriebener Abstand von der Bruchgrenze eingehalten werden muss. Dieser Abstand ist die 'Sicherheit'. Die im Allgemeinen verlangte Sicherheit ist 1,8, das heißt erst beim 1,8 fachen der vorgeschriebenen 'sicheren' Belastung darf ein Teil der Konstruktion brechen."
LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe

See also "Leichtbau", page 31:
Leichtbau: Band 2: Konstruktion - Google Books

The designed gross weight for load factor of 6.20 was 4250kg.
For the Ta-152H the load factors were +5 to -2.5 at a design weight of 4500kg. (Hermann, p. 67)


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2010)

Timppa said:


> German terms are simply "safe" (Sicher) load and "breaking limit" (Bruchgrenz):
> "Die hierin aufgeführten 'Beanspruchungszustände' heißen 'sichere', weil bei ihnen noch kein Bruch auftreten darf, vielmehr noch ein vorgeschriebener Abstand von der Bruchgrenze eingehalten werden muss. Dieser Abstand ist die 'Sicherheit'. Die im Allgemeinen verlangte Sicherheit ist 1,8, das heißt erst beim 1,8 fachen der vorgeschriebenen 'sicheren' Belastung darf ein Teil der Konstruktion brechen."
> LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe
> 
> ...



Great link Timppa - it does appear that German design philosphy was either more conservative on yield or less conservative on failure than US and Brit counterparts.

The 'safe' for US and Brit was the stress level for which the material moved from 100% elastic to the 'yield point - (i.e the stress at the point where the material started to suffer permanent deformation). 

I suspect German was the same - but the US and Brit used 1.5 from that stress value to attain the point at which the aircraft material under analysis was expected to fail entirely.

Thanks, 

Bill


----------



## Knegel (Apr 6, 2010)

Erich said:


> just to point this out to you, JG 302 never had a high protection unit of any kind they flew on their own till dissolvement and the incorporation into the new III./JG 301in September of 44.
> 
> JG 301 only from November 44 when they received new A-9's did two staffeln of each the I. and II. gruppe provide high cover for their other two staffeln of each gruppe and in some ways when flying together as a whole Geschwader protect the Schwere gruppe the III. JG 301 many times did not fly entire ops together as a complete Geschwader. and just to back up a bit I./JG 300 really entered as the high squadron for it's 109G III gruppe and the ehavy Sturmgruppe the II.
> 
> even by December 44 with the 6./JG 301 having the inclusion of the Dora to the A-9 ranks it still could not keep up with speed, altitude and agility of the P-51D/K US escorts. nothing changed as the whole of II./JG 301 completed the transfer out of the A-9 to the Dora except for 8th staffel could they again keep pace with the P-51's. It just did not happen no matter whom wants to think otherwise. To make matters even more interesting Reschke states several times in his German/English work that their Doras really gave the P-51's trouble is a total mis-nomer. The only thing the Dora did for JG 301's pilots was give it a slight edge in the altitude department and then later meeting with Soviet fighters at mid range where it excelled.



Hi,

if i remeber right, according to Reschke they had a high alt unit, comming from JG51. At that time they still flew 109´s mainly. 

Greetings, 

Knegel


----------



## Knegel (Apr 6, 2010)

Hello



drgondog said:


> What is your definition "good enough to counter" the P-51s? I agree the relative merits of equality between the two ships but the German air force lost not because of inferior aircraft but because they lost their initiative to engage and fight the fighters. The relative ratios in air to air combat was very high in favor of the Mustang even before numerical superiority was existant. Remember, before June 1944 there were only two Mustang Groups (six total) to cover each of three bomb divisions (1500+ bombers total/300-500 each along a 20-30 mile tarck (each)..for target and withdrawal escort deep into Germany.



Good enough means that the 109G with a good pilot could handle the P51B/D, specialy in altitudes around 6-8000m. I agree, the lost of initiative was the main problem. They had to attack the bombers and while attacking the bombers they often lost their wingis, as result they fought alone in a tactical bad position. 
I think thats the reason why the P51 was that successsfull. When the P51 did arrive in bigger numbers, the german Airforce was already badly "thinned out", regarding the pilot skill. 
There wasnt only Mustangs as escort, the P38 also ha da good range and later the P47 as well. With the tactical situation, the US planes dont had to be that good, as fighter in general. Due to the german tactic to attack mainly the bombers, speed what what they needed and thats what they had. 
The big advantage of the US bomber and fighter groups was the possibility to communicate with each other. While it did need some time and skill for a german leader to bring the whole group into a good attacking position, the bombers could call the fighters. As result there was often a high number of US fighters in combat area. While seldom more than 1-2 JG´s did attack the Bomber stream at same time.
Of course sometimes they came through without to see the escort, but in many times latest after the 1st attack they came. The high number of tough 4Mots was the P51´s biggest advantage. If the USAAF would have had something like the Welli or He111, they woul have been slaughtered in the same way. But only with the heavy armned and tough bombers the german fighters had enough to do. Singe attacks was suecide and mass attacks was difficult and could get disturbed rather easy. 



drgondog said:


> probably zero difference in stall characteristics between the two aircraft


Afaik the FW190A could get recovered very easy, while the P51 was a hand full.



drgondog said:


> That probably accounts for 80-90% of successful encounters


I did read that around 70% of all WWII kills was made without that the attacked one saw the attacker(or much to late to evade).



drgondog said:


> What constitutes 'rather high losses in your opinion? And to the contrary, the LW controllers were VERY skillful at concentrating large numbers of fighters on smaller escort numbers all the way through 1944.



With rather high losses i actually mean lossed due to careless pilots or due to pilots with to few combat experiences. Several times i did read that the USAAF initially had rather high losses, due to this. This must have changed fast. The Luftwaffe controllers wasnt bad, but there was seldom more then 2 JG´s invulved at same time and a big disadvantage of the germans was the missing communication between different JG´s. Like you say, they brought the JG´s to the Bombers thoughout the whole way from the channel coast to berlin and back, instead to bring them all to the same area at same time. Like i say, like the britisch troops in Africa and the US fighters and bombers fought concentrated and vital like Rommel. If the JG´s near the coast would have attacked ONLY the fighters to make them dropping their tanks and to fight on even terms(no gunpods, with GM1 etc), it most probably would have been different. But strangewise very long time the JG´s had the oder to attack mainly the Bombers. 




drgondog said:


> No, but there was EXCELLENT opportunity to evaluate during the Novemberr 1943 through June 1944 for the P-51B/C


Imho not realy, cause there wasnt many situations, when the P51´s made sweeps and where the german fighters made sweeps, like it was common over russia. 

Most of the P51´s oponents was ordered and/or equipped to hunt 4Mots. Many overloaded FW´s and 109´s. Of course, vs the Heavy loaded 109 or FW190 the P51 had a "easy game", even when the initial situation was even. The D9 normaly wasnt loaded like that. Vs the clean 109G1 or G6AS it was different. But there was just to few units to fight the escort. At best they was enough to keep the escort buisy until the other group was able to make their attack, but that was far away from a even fight, regarding the numbers. 

I believe that the P51, same like the other escorting allied fighters, only could be that successfull cause the bombers could stand for its own rather good. If they got losses, the enemys as well. If the He111 in BoB would have had a sencefull firepower and even better protection, and the 109´s droptanks, the Spitfires and Hurris would have been in same trouble. Then even the 110 would have been good enough to escort the bombers. 
The Luftwaffe just had no good tactics and material for strategical air combat, not for the attack and not for the defence. Like the russian airforce the german airforce was full organized and trained for Blitzkrieg(close support). 



drgondog said:


> Glad to see you join the forum..
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill



Thank you for the welcome. 

Greetings, 

Knegel


----------



## billswagger (Apr 6, 2010)

My thoughts on the Mustang are that it was a very energy efficient aircraft with low drag characteristics. Its surprising to me to see that its power plant was only producing a mere 1695hp at the peak of the war, which tells me that much of its speed took some time build up and accumulate. 

By comparison, the Dora pushes 2100 hp with boost and normally i would think of German designs as very efficient. 

whats interesting, though, is that Germany, apart from being ahead or on par with most of their aircraft technology, was trailing the successes found with American propellor innovations. Much of even the late war German prop planes still retained the three bladed coned shape props from the beginning of the war. Of course they had made some improvements and from what it seems the shape offers lower drag at higher speeds. 

American propellors had actually gone from paddle blades to maximize climb to a sort of hybrid with the needle blades to allow for the best acceleration and retaining most of the top speed. In this light, its quite possible the lower powered Merlin produced more thrust than the Jumo, but even the Mustang took a lot of time to build up its top speed. 

I guess my point to readers is to not be decieved by horsepower because prop blades and other factors can actually determine how fast an aircraft actually ends up going. If the contrast in propellor type were not so different, then i would say more power generally translates to more acceleration, and a better top speed. 


Bill


----------



## Erich (Apr 6, 2010)

Knegel the high Alt. staffel from JG 51 was incorporated as a 4 staffel into one of JG 302's gruppen. nothing to do with JG 301

JG 301 flying Bf 109G-6's was so separated and did not function as a whole Geschwader till it's transformation in September of 44 when it received the Fw 190


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2010)

billswagger said:


> My thoughts on the Mustang are that it was a very energy efficient aircraft with low drag characteristics. Its surprising to me to see that its power plant was only producing a mere 1695hp at the peak of the war, which tells me that much of its speed took some time build up and accumulate.
> 
> By comparison, the Dora pushes 2100 hp with boost and normally i would think of German designs as very efficient.
> 
> ...



Bill - the 51 had excellent acceleration and compared well with the P-38 and F-4U on the US side despite their much higher horsepower (and gross weight). Reduced drag and perhaps combined exhaust thrust and Meridith effect may have contibuted significanty to its acceleration performance to other fighters with better Hp/weight ratios.

Additionally drag comparisons must be looked at very closely as this is one of the key reasons the 51 was so fast, particularly at altitude..


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2010)

billswagger said:


> My thoughts on the Mustang are that it was a very energy efficient aircraft with low drag characteristics. Its surprising to me to see that its power plant was only producing a mere 1695hp at the peak of the war, which tells me that much of its speed took some time build up and accumulate.
> 
> By comparison, the Dora pushes 2100 hp with boost and normally i would think of German designs as very efficient.
> 
> ...



Bill - the 51 had excellent acceleration and compared well with the P-38 and F-4U on the US side despite their much higher horsepower (and gross weight). Reduced drag and perhaps combined exhaust thrust and Meridith effect may have contibuted significanty to its acceleration performance to other fighters with better Hp/weight ratios.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 6, 2010)

Erich said:


> Knegel the high Alt. staffel from JG 51 was incorporated as a 4 staffel into one of JG 302's gruppen. nothing to do with JG 301
> 
> JG 301 flying Bf 109G-6's was so separated and did not function as a whole Geschwader till it's transformation in September of 44 when it received the Fw 190




Yes, 302, a part of , thats what i wrote. 

I dont want to seak the whole book now, but this is from page 45, 25. Feb 1944:
"For both JG´s this time period was the conversion from the single engined night fight to the day fight. Both JG´s (301 + 302) now was completely equipped with own planes of the Type 109G-6, only a few Fw 190A-6 got flown in some Gruppenstäben and Staffeln."

Page 70, 9.Juni 1944:
"In this mission 1st time the Staffel, former 12./JG51 Mölders, flew as Topcover" 
No losses in this mission, 6 4-Mots, 1 Mustang, 10 "Herrausschüsse"(badly damaged, leavng the formation).
According to Reschke this was due to the dogfight combat experienced Topcover.
He repeat this some times in his book.

The JG302 only flew the 109G6 till they got a part of the JG301(1./JG302 was then III./JG301) on 29th August 1944.

The seperation of the german JG´s to different frontiers was absolut common and just backup what i say. They fought splitted, if more than one JG took part in a battle, it was in most cases just one "Gruppe". 
Three complete JG´s already would have been more than 500 planes. But that just didnt happen at once.


Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Erich (Apr 6, 2010)

the August 44 date is for cadre only they did not accept the Fw 190A-8 and A-8/R2 till September of 44 - III./JG 30i. there are numerous errors/dated gaps in Reschke's book and I am working diligently to correct and those for another work in progress.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 6, 2010)

I hope you read other things more carefully, nowhere i wrote, neighter Reschke, they flew the Fw190A in August, that was the date when the JG302 did join the JG301 and stopped to fly 109´s, and afterward they started to train on FW190. Of course it took some time until they could go into combat on 190´s.

Before you already wrote that i wrote the former JG51 staffel was a part of JG301, but i did not. 

And before you wrote "just to point this out to you, JG 302 never had a high protection unit of any kind they flew on their own ".

And later you wrote: "Knegel the high Alt. staffel from JG 51 was incorporated as a 4 staffel into one of JG 302's gruppen". While, according to Reschke, the JG51 Staffel got used as high alt cover.

That dont make sence to me. Was Reschke wrong in this??


----------



## Erich (Apr 6, 2010)

we obviously have a communication problem here, first Reschke has errors all through his work which I am trying to correct. Second yes the Jg 51 component unit was the high altitude staffel and made up the 4th staffel-special in JG 302

as to Jg 302 becoming the so-called III./JG 301 the JG 302 pilots became idol in other words they did nothing except fopr a paper transfer into JG 301. JG 301 did not receive any Fw 190A's till September and then they and the other two gruppen were able to fly individually as well as a 3 gruppen Geschwader practicing Sturm like tactics.

Klar ? Knegel my cousin was a pilot in 5./JG 301 in November of 44.


----------



## billswagger (Apr 6, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Bill - the 51 had excellent acceleration and compared well with the P-38 and F-4U on the US side despite their much higher horsepower (and gross weight). Reduced drag and perhaps combined exhaust thrust and Meridith effect may have contibuted significanty to its acceleration performance to other fighters with better Hp/weight ratios.
> 
> Additionally drag comparisons must be looked at very closely as this is one of the key reasons the 51 was so fast, particularly at altitude..



Drag is lower across the board for every aircraft at higher altitudes. What made the 51 fast was its high altitude engine performance. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf

Level flight acceleration from 190IAS at 25,000ft using the Zeke 52 as a baseline aircraft:

Lead after one minute:

P-51D 300 yard 
P-38J 250 yard 
P-47D 400 yard 

Lead after two minutes:

P-51D 1000 yard 
P-38J 500 yards
P-47D 800 yards

It retains a similar performance gap at 10,000ft, where most of the P-51s speed is seen after a minute of flight. 

I think if pilots wanted to get going fast they would utilize a shallow dive, so this is not typical of a combat situation but it does illustrate the point about acceleration. 

Its one of those designs that utilizes a low drag profile more so than a high powered engine, not that 1695 is a shabby number of horses. 

Bill


----------



## Knegel (Apr 7, 2010)

Erich said:


> we obviously have a communication problem here, first Reschke has errors all through his work which I am trying to correct. Second yes the Jg 51 component unit was the high altitude staffel and made up the 4th staffel-special in JG 302
> 
> as to Jg 302 becoming the so-called III./JG 301 the JG 302 pilots became idol in other words they did nothing except fopr a paper transfer into JG 301. JG 301 did not receive any Fw 190A's till September and then they and the other two gruppen were able to fly individually as well as a 3 gruppen Geschwader practicing Sturm like tactics.
> 
> Klar ? Knegel my cousin was a pilot in 5./JG 301 in November of 44.




Hi,

for now i still dont have any idea why you did comment on what i wrote, nothing of what i wrote regarding the JG302 and thats actually what Reschke wrote, was wrong for now. All conform exact with what you also say at the end, but you write like its wrong and you tergiversate. 

According to Reschke his unit started to fight again only in Novemeber, this also fit to what you say, but actually dont matter here, it also dont matter that the book is full of errors, as long as i quote parts that are obvious correct, or where the timeline is not that important.
It also dont help that your cousin was a pilot in 5./JG 301, while we talk about the JG302.

Back to topic:
The only thing i wanted to and did say is that the high alt unit of the JG302 dont got slaughtered, flying the so outdated 109G-6. This smal unit lost its pilots in a tough fight throughout two month against a overwhelming number of enemys. It would have been interesting to see, if the 190D9 would have done it better.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## vanir (Apr 7, 2010)

my great uncle only flew 109's, from 42-45 and due to some family issues we never talked about the war much when I was young, except on the occasional drunken christmas get together, so I can't weigh in much except to say he did specifically mention some 109's were just as good as the Mustang over Germany in 45 for comparative performance, nothing more than anecdotal transcription, but he took quite a bit of exception to some of the books I had brought home from school that were published in the early 80's saying as a common theme the Mustang was the best fighter of the war, etc, and the Messerschmitt was no longer competitive by 1945

I should think if according to him some 109 examples were as good as a Mustang, and he did cite the Dora was superior to the 109, it should follow the Dora was perfectly competitive with the Mustang by and large.

I do trust much of what they said though, since for example the first time I ever heard of the specially modified Messerschmitt versions given to Galland was from my grandmother, it didn't appear in print anywhere I came across until many years later. She said he was very popular with the ladies and had the fastest Messerschmitt in the entire Luftwaffe, I think she kind of liked him


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2010)

billswagger said:


> Drag is lower across the board for every aircraft at higher altitudes. What made the 51 fast was its high altitude engine performance.
> 
> *Ah, No. What made the 51 fast is the combination of VERY low drag compared to Spitfire, Fw 190A, Me 109, P-47, F4-U, F6F, P-38 and an Adequate amount of horsepower combined with positive (theoretically) thrust via Meridith effect. The P-51H for example which was the same drag as the B/C/D but had a 1650-9 with up to 2200 hp at 90" was both very fast and very good acceleration because it had very low drag AND a very powerful engine*
> 
> ...


Bill - I am confused why you would extract a performance comparison from a USN report which has the P-51D-5 operating at 62" (WEP) and 3000 rpm when the spec 51D-5 w/1650-7 Merlin was 75" hg for WEP?

The 51s w/1650-7 were operating initially (apr 44) at 67" WEP and at 75" WEP (June 44).

The 47D-25 w/R2800-63 was operating at 70" WEP in June 1944 vs the 64" in the Navy Test for 1945!!

What you have are 'de-tuned' results for Hp available to the Mustang, P-38 and P-47 across the board and trying to make acceleration judgments?


----------



## Knegel (Apr 7, 2010)

Hi,

75HG was only allowed when 150 octan fuel was available, otherwise 67HG was WEP. There are some documents that say the 8th airforce used that fuel from June44 onward, while there are docus that claim that US units on the continent(9th airforce ??) dont use this fuel.

Like so often P51 is just not = P51. We also still dont know how many C3 fuel the 109´s could use. Clear is that WEP is what it is, its not Combat or Military rating and will decrease the range a lot.

We also dont know the exact power output of the Jumo213A, this also seamed to change. We also dont know how many Jumo powered 190´s was adjusted for low level(Boden Lader) or how many did use C3 fuel(common fuel in the FW units). 

Which plane was better just did depend to the altitude, what it should do, the used fuel, possible boost setting and time of usage of this boost. The 190D was the better ground attacker, the P51 the better high alt and escort fighter(>6500m), the 190D had a little better guns and they was more centered as well. Over Europe it wasnt a big different between the fighter performences, some times one side, some times the other side had a smal advantage. Against Japan it was much different, where already the P38G was like the 262 over europe and where the P40 was like a 109 vs Ratas. At the end not the planes or pilots won, rather the overwhelming masses of the Allieds in the west and east, where the red army most probably would have won the war alone.
Its increcible to see that the Ki43 and also the A6m was the backbone of the IJNA and IJAA till the end of war. Thats like using the SpitIa or 109E4 but without protection in 1944. Even the Ki66 was not much more than a 109F2 with better guns.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> 75HG was only allowed when 150 octan fuel was available, otherwise 67HG was WEP. There are some documents that say the 8th airforce used that fuel from June44 onward, while there are docus that claim that US units on the continent(9th airforce ??) dont use this fuel.
> 
> ...



Knegel - the US did not have 'overwhelming' air superiority in numbers of strategic fighters until perhaps Dec 1944 and certainly after Bodenplatte.

The US did have a much better supply of new pilots to introduce to the MTO and ETO in 1943, the LW failed to strike at US fighters and thus permitted the 8th AF FC to grow in confidence and experience - to develop the tactics and the leadership which was able to lead new pilots entering battle more effectively.

Remember the P-47 didn't have the range to go to east germany until summer 1944. The P-38 only achieved four active groups and the last one came in when the first 38 group was converting to Mustangs.

The Mustang groups number 1 in Dec 43, 3 in Feb 1944, 5 in March, 6 in April and 7 in may.

It wasn't until April the the 8th AF could protect 500 bombers of one Bomb Division (out of three) with two long range escort Groups and to cover that would spread six squadrons with many mechanical problems early to net ~ 75 to 80 fighters to protect against twice that number or more LW fighters directed by the controllers.

The LW was always able to concentrate 200 to 300 of LuftFlotte Reich in a small region to attcke with local superiority. It was the battles from February through May that broke the back of the LW over Germany - with Mustangs primarily. There were several 8th AF FG's that scored more aircraft destroyed in the air than all the 8th AF lightning groups combined.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 8, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The 51s w/1650-7 were operating initially (apr 44) at 67" WEP and at 75" WEP (June 44).



Was this 72" just a temporary boost level while transitioning to the P-51?







What is the corresponding boost for 75" in the British system?


----------



## Knegel (Apr 8, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Knegel - the US did not have 'overwhelming' air superiority in numbers of strategic fighters until perhaps Dec 1944 and certainly after Bodenplatte.
> 
> The US did have a much better supply of new pilots to introduce to the MTO and ETO in 1943, the LW failed to strike at US fighters and thus permitted the 8th AF FC to grow in confidence and experience - to develop the tactics and the leadership which was able to lead new pilots entering battle more effectively.
> 
> ...



If the fighters was there, they had in most cases the higher number than the few german topcover units, in many cases nothing more than one Schwarm.

Otherwise they just had to disturb the initial concentrated attack to the bombers, against single attacks the Bombers could hold its own rather successfull. 

Most german fighters from late 1943 onward actually cant be seen as fighters, they was armned and protected and as such did perform rather as destroyers(109 with gunpods, rocket tubes, extra amor, 190´s with many extra guns or extreme heavy guns). 

Like you say, they forgot about the fighters, the few fighters and here i still talk bout the top cover units(clean 109´s in that case), which was in theory able to make combat on even terms, was badly outnumbered. 

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## drgondog (Apr 8, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Was this 72" just a temporary boost level while transitioning to the P-51?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Milosh - the 72" WAS the recommended, 75" was the Not to Exceed threshold and mechanical stops were placed on the throttle.

IIRC th equivalent was 25 pounds in Brit System?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 8, 2010)

Knegel said:


> If the fighters was there, they had in most cases the higher number than the few german topcover units, in many cases nothing more than one Schwarm.
> 
> Otherwise they just had to disturb the initial concentrated attack to the bombers, against single attacks the Bombers could hold its own rather successfull.
> 
> ...



Knegel - what you say is largely true but in each case, specific to a period in the air war over Europe.

The war eveolved with standard armament in early to mid 1943 with no particular changes to the standard clean single engine fighter, and the destroyer role was performed by the Me 110 and occasional Ju 88. From Fall of 1943 through December the LW started introducing gondolas and heavier armor the the G5 and same for Fw 190A6 and A7's - but not all were so equipped - for example JG2 and JG26. It was at this time that the P-38 became operational and the first Mustangs arrived - and the Me 110, 210 and Ju 88 were becoming vulnerable beyond the range of the P-47.

I don't know the exact dates but the trend to equip entire Staffel's with the gondola's started as the twin engine fighter became too vulnerable, even near the target. At the same time the notion of high cover 109s to 'protect' against the escorts was introduced as a tactic and Staffels were equipped with AS for the 109G% and 6.

Nobody argues that U4 equiiped 109s or Strum 190s were 'less' able to combat the Mustang - in fact the real point is this.

The Mustang was 'equivalent' to the latest 109 and 190, with some performance trade offs - but it was 'equivalent' over Berlin or Prague with nearly all its internal fuel and there was no place in Germany that the LW could retreat to safety.

The second point, is the the Allied fighter groups enjoyed a very high standard of average skills, in an exceptional long range fighter, had a great deal of confidence in it and were very aggressive about attacking - even with poor odds.

The skill and aggression of 8th (and 9th and 15th) AF versus the LW was very same when the LW fought the VVS.

You can trace the build upof 8th and 15th AF long range escort deployment to the massive losses the LW suffered deep into Germany and mark Dec 1943 as the '~beginning' and May 1944 as the 'end of the battle for control over the air' as defined when all bomber losses dropped below 5% for the attacking force.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 8, 2010)

Yep, i agree on all that,

good post!

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## renrich (Apr 8, 2010)

To say that the 109 versus the Rata was analogous to the P40 versus Japanese fighters in the PTO or that the P38G was analogous in the PTO to the 262 in the ETO seems to indicate a very basic ignorance of the situation in the Pacific and a somewhat typical eurocentric attitude. The P40 was superior in most respects to the A5M, Claude, like the 109 was to the Rata, but once the A6M got on the scene, the P40 was clearly outclassed in all respects except dive and durability. The characteristic which the typical eurocentric enthusiast ignores about the P51 is that the P51 could dominate or at least hold it's own many hundreds of miles from base, which no single engine LW fighter could do. Late model P38s and P47s could do the same and if it had been called on the F4U and F6F could have done the same. The 109 and 190 were fine short range designs but could never do the job the P51 did. In many ways the A6M in the Pacific was the Japanese version of the Merlin engined P51.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 8, 2010)

every situation is unique though there can be simularities. 109 vs Ishak was kind of a reverse P40/A6M. 109 was 60mph faster which was substantial but the Ishak (I-16) was one of the tightest/fastest turning monoplanes built. Russian pilots also quickly found that head on attacks gave them more than a good chance of winning/surviving as a few hits to the 109's radiator would at the very least force the plane to beat a hasty retreat if not force land.

190/51/109....the planes are so close in reletive performance it all comes down to he with the most toys wins.  An interesting point brought up here though...was the comment on the decision to avoid tangling with the escorts allowing the American pilots to ramp up in training. True....but on the other hand, i think the Yanks would have relished such a move by the Luftwaffe. In the end it would probably have been even more self defeating as the US would gladly trade fighter for fighter with the Germans vs. the more costly (both in human and material terms) fighter for bomber.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 8, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Good enough means that the 109G with a good pilot could handle the P51B/D, specialy in altitudes around 6-8000m. I agree, the lost of initiative was the main problem. They had to attack the bombers and while attacking the bombers they often lost their wingis, as result they fought alone in a tactical bad position.



While there are some models of the Bf-109G that may be competitive with the P-51D at these altitudes, the basic prevalent Bf-109G is some 20 to 40 mph slower with similar climb capability, which is a considerable advantage for the P-51D, and this is pre May ’44 P-51D (67”Hg). The B has an even better speed advantage. Post May, ’44, P-51’s (72” to 75” Hg) have even greater speed advantage (30 to 40 mph) and improved climb. Except around 15k ft., where the P-51D performance drops off before a compressor shift, the P-51D, after May, ’44, was faster and had a better climb than the Bf-109G from sea level to ceiling. This is also true for pre May, ’44, P-51B. Good pilots always make a difference, but the P-51 pilot had more tools to work with.




> Hi,
> 
> 75HG was only allowed when 150 octan fuel was available, otherwise 67HG was WEP. There are some documents that say the 8th airforce used that fuel from June44 onward, while there are docus that claim that US units on the continent(9th airforce ??) dont use this fuel.



While there are still ongoing discussions on fuel usage, there is certainly some combat reports that 70+” Hg was used in ’44 with the P-51.



> Clear is that WEP is what it is, its not Combat or Military rating and will decrease the range a lot.



Not unlike afterburners today, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t used when needed.



> Which plane was better just did depend to the altitude, what it should do, the used fuel, possible boost setting and time of usage of this boost. The 190D was the better ground attacker, the P51 the better high alt and escort fighter(>6500m), the 190D had a little better guns and they was more centered as well. Over Europe it wasnt a big different between the fighter performences, some times one side, some times the other side had a smal advantage.



I agree with all you have said here. The only thing I would add which is significant is that the P-51B/D was available late ’44, early ’45, whereas the 190D-9, and other Mustang fighters like the Bf-109K and Ta-152, were not available until late ’44 early ‘45, much too late to keep or regain control of the skies over Germany, which the P-51 had so effectively snatched away.





> Against Japan it was much different, where already the P38G was like the 262 over europe and where the P40 was like a 109 vs Ratas. At the end not the planes or pilots won, rather the overwhelming masses of the Allieds in the west and east, where the red army most probably would have won the war alone.
> Its increcible to see that the Ki43 and also the A6m was the backbone of the IJNA and IJAA till the end of war. Thats like using the SpitIa or 109E4 but without protection in 1944. Even the Ki66 was not much more than a 109F2 with better guns.



I tend to agree with you. The Japanese were significantly hindered by lack of technical and manufacturing support to keep up with changing technology and the inability to replace well trained pilots. They were able to produce some capable fighters towards the end of the war, but, like Germany, it was too late and they had few well trained pilots to fly them.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2010)

Agree with Davpair - standard LW fighters of crucial 1st half of 1944 were in notable disadvantage vs. P-51B/C/D. 650/660 km/h vs. 700 km/h was (and still is) disadvantage. When we include that P-51 was already in it's best altitude, with better pilot, and range to prosecute anywhere within area of interest, the writing was on the wall. The other plane from topic (D-9) managed just to equal (if even that) the speed, climb rate maneuvrability, but other issues remained. And only half a year later; a full year vs. P-51B.

To put it shortly, P-51D could have done anything D-9 could, while vice-versa was not possible.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 8, 2010)

Thank you drgondog.


----------



## Nikademus (Apr 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> To put it shortly, P-51D could have done anything D-9 could, while vice-versa was not possible.



What could the Mustang do that the Dora couldn't? Is a 40km/hr top speed edge really all that signifigant except in situations where one plane is fleeing or declining battle?

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2010)

It was able to escort the bombers from England to Berlin - D-9 was not able to cover that distance.

As for 40 km/h advantage - guess I would rather have it, than to look at enemy possessing it


----------



## Knegel (Apr 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Agree with Davpair - standard LW fighters of crucial 1st half of 1944 were in notable disadvantage vs. P-51B/C/D. 650/660 km/h vs. 700 km/h was (and still is) disadvantage. When we include that P-51 was already in it's best altitude, with better pilot, and range to prosecute anywhere within area of interest, the writing was on the wall. The other plane from topic (D-9) managed just to equal (if even that) the speed, climb rate maneuvrability, but other issues remained. And only half a year later; a full year vs. P-51B.
> 
> To put it shortly, P-51D could have done anything D-9 could, while vice-versa was not possible.



Hi,

you shouldnt forget that the Speed of the P51 is always given with WEP, while the speed of the 109G without MW50 is mainly with combat climb!!

Since late 1943 the 109G also had WEP available. Specialy regarding the P51B in 1943( -3 engine) you will find that it was not faster than the clean 109G-1/2 + WEP between 5500 and 7000m and i guess the P51b without WEP wasnt faster there as well. And specialy in high alt speeds was fast much below Vmax.
The clean 109G made around 640km/h on combat climb and + 20-30km/h on WEP. Thats what the P51B mase in around 6000m, also with WEP.

The climb of the clean 109G-1/2 was as good or better than that of the P51B/D up to 6000m, all over rather similar. Once again you should look to combat climb, not the WEP test.

Dont look to the late war climb datas of the MW50 powered engines, cause this combat climb datas are with less power than the early DB605A, while they also could climb with Sonder-Not(MW50), unfortunately there are only a few climb tests made with this setting, and i never saw a good one(with background datas).
The 109 had clear handling advantages in high alt(mainly rather slow speeds IAS), but anyway, thats later.

btw, nowhere i wrote 150 Octan fuel dont got used.

Hi renrich

When i compared the 109 vs Rata with P40 vs Zero, i was thinking of Spain(109B/D vs I-16-5 or 10) and the P40E/N vs Zero. Afaik the P40b/c never saw action vs the Zero.

The relation of this planes was rather similar. The Rata and the Zero was the better climbing planes(steady climb) and turnning planes, but the 109 and P40 had a better gun power in relation to the oponents (not existing) protection.
Additionally the 109B/D was a little faster than the Rata and the P40E was also faster(not just in a dive). 

The P40 had another huge advantage over the Zero, it was more manouverable at speeds > 400km/h IAS, aöso in the turn!!

The P38 had a similar speed advantage over the japanese planes like the 262 vs the late war Allied planes and it was same outclassed regarding its manouverability in a close combat.
But the P38 had the advantage of fast firing long range guns vs mainly weak targets, this the 262 did miss, thats the main reason why the 262 wasnt good vs fighters. 4 x MG151/20 would have been better in that case(vs fighters).

Look, even the "poor" F4F could hold its own vs the Zero. I dont know of many fights where the F4F´s realy got slaughtered, in the worst case it was 50%50, all over even the F4F had a positiv kill ratio, while its flight flight performence was well below that of the P40E or N. But here the gun power vs protection advantage made the winner. 

Hi davparlr,

WEP was not like a afterburner. MW50 and Military power was like that, cause it could get used in climb and even close combat, not so WEP, at least not withut to fear trouble within a few mins.
Emergency, that normaly means, if you be in danger and that normaly means, if you want to get away, not if you make a sustained turn or climb to get onto the enemys tail.

Thats why the germans and britsh testers often made their climb tests with combat/climb. 
The german pilots also could use WEP. 

Actually iam pretty much sure the FW190A was one of the biggest failsures in the "Reichsverteidigung".
I did eat all C3 fuel and even with that its performence above 6000m was very poor, compared to the 109G. 

They should have blown up the 109´s with C3 fuel to blow the escort away, then the low power of the B4 powered 190´s would have been enough to attack the Bombers, but better would have been to use 110´s or 410´s, and send the FW´s to the east, where the combat was on low level.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## drgondog (Apr 8, 2010)

Knegel - first, whether th Mustang was 20 km/hr slower or faster - it by and of itself only mattered in a chase.

The problem with the 109 was more limited endurance, limited pilots with enough skills to take full advantage of the aircraft's capabilities and the imposed tactic of 'flee' rather than fight - so the split S and dive was a frequent manuever that DID enable a Mustang to capitalize on aerodynamics and raw speed.

As to the Fw 190A being a 'failure', not so. Just because it did not have the turbo supercharger to enable superior airspeeds at B-17 altitudes, with Mustangs and P-47s and P-38s, it was not a design flaw. Such an aircraft would have looked and weighed like a P-47 and been miserable at low to medium altitudes with VVS... and Kurt Tank did not design to that specification. 

It was unthinkable that daylight bombing, escorted by equal performance fighters should appear over Berlin.

Once long range fighters were escorting the B-17s and B-24s the Me 110 and 410 were pretty worthless unless able to strike quickly and escape - I am not aware of many such scenarios from early 1944 forward, and virtually a handfull from Feb 1944 till the end of the war. To easy to see, cacth and shoot down.


----------



## jim (Apr 8, 2010)

1) german controllers were not that good. Josef Priller of JG26 often ceased operational flyinng in order to assume Jafu leader duties due to lack of talent of other persons. Reschke reports that many times ground control was poor , even disastrous . 14/1/45 led JG301 directly in front and under P51s . 29/12/44 ordered III/JG54 to patrol just un der the known patrol height of RAF fightters with disastrous results.17/8/43 failed to notice the presence of 56 fg so II/JG26 was surprised (and Galland died) Many times scrabled fighters early or late. You can find many examples in many books. Actually it was the exception when the system worked perfectly . 
2) The theory of "local american numerical inferiority" and P51 fightinng in" poor odds" is truly amazing.
Helmut Lipfert wrote: There were so many fighters above the bombers that i did not dare to look upwards.
Also: He also writes that p51 was less dificult than Yak 3 but the main problem was that was always appearing in Huge numbers
Reschke: Every german fighter was attacked by 10 allied fighters
August Labert was killed in April 1945 when he and his staffel were jumped by 80(!!!) mustungs .Oesau was killed in may 1944 after fighting alone with many escort fighters .And he was a Kommodore! Not any pilot. P51 always had both height advantage and numerical advantage. Even if there were many german fighters they were enganged with the bombers . The high escort was terribly outnumbered . Additionally the lack of capablle leader formations made things worse because was difficult to form huge battle groups. 
3) P47 was unsuited for classic dogfigts. Boom and zoom was its forte. Killed Philips, Mayer ,Ubben, Galland by surpising bounce while they were occupied organizing attacks in bomber boxes . F4U1 and F6F3 were truly unsuited for escort fighters ( single stage supercharger) P38 besides its tecnical problems according to german pilots (eg Heinz Bar) was not that difficult to beat when engaged in reasonable odds
4) P51 appears to be a truly magic machine . Using a low drug wing has the range , speed (even at low level where its two stage supercharger should be in disadvantage), dive, but at the same time can outclimb and out accelarate aircrafts with better power loading and high lift wings ,(and dont forget Bf 109 had not "laminar flow " wing but was a smaller airframe) Its amazing not only in comparison with german aircrafts but british as well . Sea Fury reaches 460mph with 2400hp ,P51h 487 mph with 2218hp .F4U5 needs 2500hp for 460mph(on corsair please correct me if i am mistaken) Okay, p51 is smoothier. Spitful XIV on 2375 hp from Griffon 85 tops at 478mph with its new "laminar flow wing" and its smaller, P51h 487mph on 2218hp .At the same time P51h outcimbes SeaFire 47 wich has 2350hp from Griffon 88 , six blade contra prop propeller and the old ( not the very old) high lift wing!!! All fighters reported hadling worsening as more and more power was added and strengthening was nessesary. P51h added power, Lost weight and Usaaf claimed in its official manual to be 10% stronger than P51D (Truly Mr Drongong said that propably thiis a mistake)Also it has 12,7mm guns that reportetly knocked out Tiger tanks when german used for the same purpose 30mm,37mm ,50mm ,75mm,the British 40mm, the russians 23mm,37mm. I admit that the comparison of speeds is somewhat crude for the luck ofprecise altitude , I write from memory


----------



## vanir (Apr 8, 2010)

> What is the corresponding boost for 75" in the British system?



Technically +21lbs static but in practise the boost guidelines do not translate well between nations not just because of conversion but also because of where the guage sender is placed on the engine. I think British and German ones are placed on the supercharger casing, American ones on the intake manifolding. Move the sender and you get a different reading on the same boost.

Also the German boost guaging (atü, often written ata or misleadingly contracted as atm), is in bar and not atmospheres. Germans engineers always use bar of boost, since this is metric. Atmospheres unfortunately is usually what is commonly used to translate German boost to British/American measurements, which understates it in addition to the sender positioning issue. 1 atmosphere is 14.5 PSI but 1 bar is 14.7 PSI.

German fuels (particularly synthetic fuels) were actually very high quality which is not reflected in their Engine Method Octane ratings. The guy who restored that famous A-8 that goes to airshows told me at the Luftwaffe Experten site iirc when I asked him that his research showed German C3 towards the end of the war has the same effective octane characteristics as 150 grade in practise, due to its continued development in additives and so forth throughout the war. He said this was particularly important information he had to find out when he was restoring the Focke Wulf.



> Knegel - the US did not have 'overwhelming' air superiority in numbers of strategic fighters until perhaps Dec 1944 and certainly after Bodenplatte.



I'm going to go with the listed figures of some 12,000 Allied combat aircraft covering the D-day invasion versus some 300 fighters available to counter them. There is simply no question that from mid-1944 the Allies had overwhelming air supremacy over the entirety of occupied Europe and the Reich, the very fact so many German aircraft were shot down by friendly fire during Bodenplatte is testament to this. All German AAA gunners by that time were already cultured by experience to simply assume any large formation of aircraft were Allied.

seriously, like WTF are you trying to claim?

Also I think that in the context of what Knegel is suggesting with the Fw-190A he is quite correct. The performance of the BMW really dropped off and quite dramatically from 5000m, which is the average combat height in the west compared to something like 2500m in the east. The BMW's best performance is really under 1000m, a bomb laden F-8 or F-9 at sea level is so quick at ladedruck a non water-injected Thunderbolt flying clean can't catch one. But once altitude gets to 4-5000m a Dora is better and from 5000m a Ta-C is better again.


----------



## Juha (Apr 9, 2010)

Hello Vanir
Quote:"the very fact so many German aircraft were shot down by friendly fire during Bodenplatte is testament to this."

That's not a fact but a myth, originating from Galland I think. But there were some LW losses to German AAA, more on question that so big German formations were seldom seen near frontlines.

Hello Jim
Helmut Lipfert never fought in Reich defence, that is what Drgondog is speaking on. Lipfert's few encounters with Mustangs were against 15 AF over Rumania.

Juha


----------



## Knegel (Apr 9, 2010)

Hi,

the FW190A wasnt a failsure in the design, but in combination with its engine it was a failsure for the home defence, which took place mainly in high alt. As i wrote, they should have use the C3 fuel for the 109´s to allow them to fight on even therms with the escort, then, more close to the target, all other heavy armned fighters could have done their job. Strangewise there was not a single complete JG or even Gruppe in late 43/early 44 to fight only the fighters. 
They realy thought its enough to keep the escort buisy, with a few top cover fighters, they dont saw the need to destroy the fighters. Bad mistake.

Lipfert, same like Hartmann fought only short time in the home defence, but what they describe fit exact to what other home defence unit pilots wrote.

The JG302 also fought long time mainly vs the 15th airforce, comming from Italy, still it was home defence.

I only know a few storys where P51´s got into a bee swarm of 109´s, while there are hundrets of storys where single german fighters got hunted down by many P51´s. 

The tactic to run away, using a split S to get away was mainly caused by inexperienced pilots in overloaded fighters. A 109G with 30mm´s under the wing wont manouver very good in high alt, specialy not alone(wingi lost after the attack to the bombers) vs severel enemys out of a disadvanced position.

Many pilots of the home defence units was unexperienced, in case of the JG30x, the pilots dont had any fighter combat training, most pilots was bomber pilots, educated to fly and navigate at night.
The tactics used so successfull since spain couldnt get used anymore, thistactics was good for escort and sweeps, if you get the order to intercept the bombers instead, its just a holeless task. 

Herr Meyer(former Göring) and his Ostmark idol was just to stupid, if they dont listen to their experienced fontline leaders, even the best pilots and planes cant win.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Knegel (Apr 9, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Vanir
> Quote:"the very fact so many German aircraft were shot down by friendly fire during Bodenplatte is testament to this."
> 
> That's not a fact but a myth, originating from Galland I think. But there were some LW losses to German AAA, more on question that so big German formations were seldom seen near frontlines.
> ...



I doubt that was a myth, in different books i did read that at least one unit lost 20 fighters to friendly fire and several other units lost also some.


----------



## Juha (Apr 9, 2010)

Hello Knegel
according to Manrho's and Pütz' Bodenplatte, IMHO the best book on subject, only 5% (15 fighters) of LW fighter losses during the operation was by German flak plus 2 Ju 88s. And they solved the fate of 292 individual fighters.

Juha


----------



## Knegel (Apr 9, 2010)

Hello,

thats realy intersting, cause most books i have say between 70 and 85 losses by friendly fire.
But as we know, many writers just take datas from others(like we are used to do). 

Greetings,

Knege


----------



## davparlr (Apr 9, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> you shouldnt forget that the Speed of the P51 is always given with WEP, while the speed of the 109G without MW50 is mainly with combat climb!!
> 
> ...


----------



## renrich (Apr 9, 2010)

Jim, not that it really matters but both F4U1 and F6F3 had two stage, two speed superchargers and service ceilings of more than 36000 feet. Plus F4U1 carried 361 gallons of internal fuel. It is a common misconception that they were limited to low and medium altitude operation. The F4U5 had 2300 HP at takeoff and a Vmax of 465-470 mph with a service ceiling of 41400 feet.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> you shouldnt forget that the Speed of the P51 is always given with WEP, while the speed of the 109G without MW50 is mainly with combat climb!!
> 
> ...



It would be neat if you post some good data about speed of Me-109G-6 P-51B/C/D, on both military and WEP, so we could compare. But even if I agree that 109g(-6?) was able to do 660-670 on wep, it's still cca 40 km/h slower that P-51B/C/D.



> The climb of the clean 109G-1/2 was as good or better than that of the P51B/D up to 6000m, all over rather similar. Once again you should look to combat climb, not the WEP test.



Again, even if I agree about your, hm, instruction about what power setting to see for climb rate, the Mustang puts it good range into an advantage - Me-109 need to climb 1st, while P-51 is already on it's best altitude. 
BTW, there is no much point in comparison of heaviest Mustangs with lightest Gustavs for climb rate.


> Dont look to the late war climb datas of the MW50 powered engines, cause this combat climb datas are with less power than the early DB605A, while they also could climb with Sonder-Not(MW50), unfortunately there are only a few climb tests made with this setting, and i never saw a good one(with background datas).
> The 109 had clear handling advantages in high alt(mainly rather slow speeds IAS), but anyway, thats later.



That claim Bf-109 had advantage in handling in high altitude need some good backing 


> btw, nowhere i wrote 150 Octan fuel dont got used.



Okay


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> the FW190A wasnt a failsure in the design, but in combination with its engine it was a failsure for the home defence, which took place mainly in high alt. As i wrote, they should have use the C3 fuel for the 109´s to allow them to fight on even therms with the escort, then, more close to the target, all other heavy armned fighters could have done their job. Strangewise there was not a single complete JG or even Gruppe in late 43/early 44 to fight only the fighters.
> They realy thought its enough to keep the escort buisy, with a few top cover fighters, they dont saw the need to destroy the fighters. Bad mistake.
> ...



Agreed - and back to our discussion - aircraft close to equal, poor tactics and leadership from Goering and Hitler, enormous attrition in the Battle of Germany (air), attacks on Petroleum/Chemical, poorly trained recruits, loss of keey Geschwader, Gruppe, Staffel and Rotte leaders in piles during first half of 1944 

All made discussions about the relative 'superiority/inferiority of the fighters somewhat meaningless.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 9, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I am a bit confused by what you have said here but I can be slow. I will confess that I have limited data on the Bf-109 so I can’t argue your points knowledgably. So, lets assume my data for the Bf-109G is at combat rating, that is, no water injection or WEP. This is a comparison, right or wrong. Power settings for the P-51B(-3 engine) is at 60” (close to Normal Power) and the P-51B(-7 engine) is at 67” combat power. These data are from AAF flight test with aircraft tail number and weight identified. Note: The -3 engine P-51 is a couple hundred pounds under fighter weight, which would affect climb. The -7 is at fighter weight.
> 
> SL a/s(mph) climb rate(ft/min)
> P-51B-3 348 3600
> ...



What you quote is one plane low on fuel (around 3800kg) and the other is on WEP. for the -7 engine 67HG was WEP until mid 1944 and the still if no 150 octan fuel was available. 
How much the weight influence the climb and speed, you can see in another P51B test on 67HG WEP, with 9200lb.

SL 3187ft/min 371mph
10k 3380ft/min 407mph
20k 2715ft/min 416mph
30k 2015ft/min 443 mph 

And if we then take a clean 109G1(3040kg) we get this with combat and climb:
G1
SL 4100ft/min 326mph 
10k 3850ft/min 362mph
20k 3100ft/min 398mph
30k 1633ft/min 398mph

With WEP the plane had around 150PS more power at SL and 125 at rated alt.



davparlr said:


> I disagree with this. Both are handled similarly in combat. The main difference is that, while the engine may fail if you over use WEP, more likely you may have to work on the engine when you get back. With overuse of the afterburner, the plane gets very quiet because it has run out of gas.
> 
> A burner flight in a T-38 consist of a burner climb (it had set a record to 40k in 90 sec) a Tacan arc around the base obtaining supersonic flight and a landing. The flight only took a few minutes and the plane was out of gas. It normally flew 1.2 to 1.5 hours.



A after burner could get used in a climb, with WEP the engine would overheat and you risk to damage it rather fast. Highspeed is needed to cool the engine, and even then the usage is only allowed for short period, unlike to MW50 or C3 injection.




davparlr said:


> I have a slight disagreement here. Airspeed advantage helps in control of the fight, whether to fight or not, and, of course if not, like you run out of ammunition, to flee. Also, airspeed advantage equals energy advantage. Two aircraft engaging head on, one at 400 mph and one at 420 mph, the plane flying at 420 mph has an energy advantage, which is important.



Energy advantage is relative to the flight position and can swap within a millisec, where much but not enough kinetic energy can bring you into a very bad position, when you overshoot the enemy, or zoom up and the other can stay on your tail and shoot you down, cause the distance dont increase fast enough(bullets are always faster). 



davparlr said:


> I think this has been argued more effectively in other threads. I think the main argument was that early in ’44 when the Mustang was making itself known, there were not enough to overpower the Germans with numbers and yet still dominated the sky over Germany. I am sure these comments were true in late ’44 and ’45, although this certainly was not the case at Y-29 in January ’45 (we have a member whose father was a Mustang pilot there that day and became an ace).


The allied HQ wasnt as stupid as the german HQ, when they started the bomb raids again in early 44, there was already enough mustangs available to outnumber the german topcover, if there was one at all, in big degrees and the other heavy armned fighters wasnt dangerus for them anyway.
Vs the heavy armned german 109´s and 190´s anyway, the P51 and even the P47 and P38 was superior, thats a fact, and most german fighters at that time was heavyly armned and/or protected to attack the bombers. A mentioned before, the german HQ used the wrong tactics. Instead to use the VERY CLEAN 109G-1 or G-2 to fight the fighters, they produced the G-5/6 with bad bubbles and made it more heavy and so slow and less good climbing. Additionally they amrned it with 2 x 20mm or even 30mm´s. 




davparlr said:


> Nothing wrong with boom and zoom. An analysis by military, Navy, AAF, Brits, and company pilots in 1944 selected the P-47 as the best allied fighter above 25k ft.





davparlr said:


> In June, 1944, the P-51B at full rated power and fighter weight was capable of around 386 mph at SL and a climb of 4400 ft/min, and could hit 445 mph at altitude, this is per test. Only very late did Germany develop aircraft that would outclass it. From its onset in late 1943, the P-51B/D took the war to the sky over Germany, flying hours at a time and then going head-to-head with Germany best planes and then flew hours to get home. It certainly was a miracle cure for the Eighth AF.


Thats not full rated power, thats WEP. 



davparlr said:


> The Bf-109 was not noted as a very clean machine until the K came along.


The 109F, G1, G6-AS , G10 and K was known as very clean plane. Actually only the G-6 and G-14 was known to have to many bubbles. 
Without the clean design the 109 would have been not nearly that fast with that engine and that low octan fuel. What was in theory possible, if the FW190 wouldnt have needed the C3 fuel even more, you can see if you look to the DB601N and DB605D with C3 fuel. The low power of the DB605A with C4 fuel was the 109´s main problem. 



davparlr said:


> The Spitfire was not as efficient as the P-51. The P-51 with the same merlin as the Spit, was 30 mph faster at SL (as I’ve read somewhere).


At same time the Spitfire did climb 1000-1500ft/min faster. 



davparlr said:


> In spite of the constant ramblings about the P-51 not being strong, was only effective in mass groups, was good only at high altitude, ad infinitum, it was a fast, formidable fighter from sea level to ceiling that could uniquely perform at four hundred miles and return with pilots that had confidence in its capabilities and which spelled an early doom to the Third Reich.



Actually i dont see many people claiming the P51 wasnt a good fighter, but appart from its range it wasnt a outstanding super fighter. Without the Bombers and the stupid tactics of the Luftwaffe it would have had a real hard time. Like it was even the P38J or P47D with that range would have ruled the sky over germany. The heavy armned and tough 4-mots and the inability to find the right tactic vs them and its escort was the cause of the Luftwaffes downfall over the Reich.
The P51 was there when it was needed and its performence was good enough to be equal to the clean german fighters and better than that of the heavy armned fighters. 
The best escort fighter of the war and when low on fuel even a good dogfighter.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2010)

Knegel said:


> ...
> And if we then take a clean *109G1*(3040kg) we get this with combat and climb:
> G1
> SL 4100ft/min 326mph
> ...



Why would we talk about *G-1*, in late 1943 time frame, with WEP atop of that??


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2010)

jim said:


> 1) german controllers were not that good. Josef Priller of JG26 often ceased operational flyinng in order to assume Jafu leader duties due to lack of talent of other persons. Reschke reports that many times ground control was poor , even disastrous . 14/1/45 led JG301 directly in front and under P51s . 29/12/44 ordered III/JG54 to patrol just un der the known patrol height of RAF fightters with disastrous results.17/8/43 failed to notice the presence of 56 fg so II/JG26 was surprised (and Galland died) Many times scrabled fighters early or late. You can find many examples in many books. Actually it was the exception when the system worked perfectly .
> 
> *For every example you care to mention, I will cite several others where the LW controllers performed very well - just a few include March 6, April 13, April 24, April 29, May 12 when the relative numbers of escorts were inferior to the LW strength at the point of attack. In later times July 7, Sept 12, Sept 27, Nov 2 and 26 were examples of skillful direction to find weakly defended bomber formations.
> 
> ...



Jim - just a personal observation. I grew up as a son of an ace and have engaged with quite a few German experten including Rall and Goering and Steinhoff. As I studied more, listened more, I realized that a.) the constantly offered explanation that the Allies always had numerical superiority in a battle was simply not possible, and b.) the loss ratios were due not to German aircraft inferiority but both the declining skills and experience as well as stupid high command orders from Goering.

If you wish to objectively look at the air battles you must always consider the fact base from both sides of the Battles. The 8th AF executed Squadron, Group, Divion and Air Force Summaries after every mission. The detail the order of battle, the losses by type (Fighter, flak, Ditch, unk, mid air collision), the location and units engaged at every stage of the mission.

If you look at these in detail you will see that even when 1500 Bombers and 700 fighters left England - only a very few combat units actually engaged with German fighters - even though there were big battles fought in discrete areas along an 80-100 mile bomber stream.

The Allies had overwhelming strength compared to Germany, but as you proceeded farther into Axis territory, the strength of the LW grew while the Allies shrunk. The reason for this in 1943 and through May 1944 is that the dominant majority fighter was the P-47. It did not have the range to go past Dummer Lake in March 1944 so was used solely for Penetration and Withdrawl Escort. ONLY the Mustangs and Lightnings could go to Brunswick, Berlin, Leipzig, Munich, Ludwigshafen and they were less than 250 total in number over the target through April and roughly divided by a third for each separate Bomb division of 350-500 bombers per target area (usually wide spaces apart.

It was EXTREMELY unusual for two fighter groups to battle a large German force at the same time in the same general 50 mile area.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2010)

A few points on comparisons;

WEP is only available below rated altitudes. At rated altitude the supercharger is maxed out and cannot supply anymore air. At several thousand feet below rated altitude the air is a little denser and the supercharger can supply more air and the lower you go the the denser the air gets and the more air the supercharger can supply. This is where the WEP rating comes from. Up to the limits of the engine.


Speed and climb of Mustang vs Spitfire:

Speed is thrust vs drag. Mustang wins.

Climb is excess thrust vs weight after a certain flight speed is reached. A lighter but higher drag aircraft can easily out climb a heavier but lower drag aircraft. Another thing is that climb rates were usually established at speeds below 200mph where the drag is 1/4 the drag at 400mph so the amount of power going to drag is not going to be that far apart for the two aircraft. 

Some of the German power boosting systems also had limits. it may not have been 5 minutes (although some early versions on 601s had a clockwork device that limited it to ONE minute) 
The 1946 Jane's (which may not be accurate) gives the following for MW50
"...used to obtain extra power below rated altitude of the engine.." 
"..increased power could be used for a maximum of 10 minutes at a time, and at least 5 minutes had to elapse between succesive periods of operation. At this increased power the sparking-plugs had a life of 15 to 30 hours."
"on the 109, injection into the supercharger of the DB605AM engine was at the rate of of approximately 35 gallons per hour. The normal fuel consumption at the take-off rating was 106 gallons per hour,but this was increased to 141 gallons per hour when using the MW 50 system with higher boost pressure"

The C3 injection system only increased power below the rated altitude.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 9, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Agreed - and back to our discussion - aircraft close to equal, poor tactics and leadership from Goering and Hitler, enormous attrition in the Battle of Germany (air), attacks on Petroleum/Chemical, poorly trained recruits, loss of keey Geschwader, Gruppe, Staffel and Rotte leaders in piles during first half of 1944
> 
> All made discussions about the relative 'superiority/inferiority of the fighters somewhat meaningless.



Yep, its just a "what if" discussion. 

Btw, if there was just a few P51 fighters, but so high losses on the german side in Jan-June 44, why are there so few high scoring US Aces in the 8th airforce??
Afaik there was a lot of shared kills, what indicates that at least two planes was attacking one. 

Afaik the fighters was sweeping in rather smal groups alongside the long bomber trail to have fighters every where to be able to disturb the initial attack, to prevent a mass attack to the bombers. But due to the perfect communication between the US bombers and fighters, in general the initial disadvanatge turned very fast into a advanatge, cause once the other squdrons could get called to help, and in most cases it was like that.
Thats actually what many german pilots also wrote. 
So already with two groups (70-100 planes) it was very fast a locat advantage. Seldom more than two german Groups got contact to the bombers at same time. In most cases they came one after the next, where the missing possibility to talk to each other was a real handy cap to organisate a concentrated mass attack. When this did happen, or when the escort realy wasnt there, the bomber groups in this area got rather high losses. But that wasnt normal.
Once the big attacking formation of the german group was splitted, the Bombers probably shot as many german fighters down as the escort. 

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> A few points on comparisons;
> 
> WEP is only available below rated altitudes. At rated altitude the supercharger is maxed out and cannot supply anymore air. At several thousand feet below rated altitude the air is a little denser and the supercharger can supply more air and the lower you go the the denser the air gets and the more air the supercharger can supply. This is where the WEP rating comes from. Up to the limits of the engine.
> 
> ...



Your comments about boost/critical altitude - dead on, as usual.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Yep, its just a "what if" discussion.
> 
> Btw, if there was just a few P51 fighters, but so high losses on the german side in Jan-June 44, why are there so few high scoring US Aces in the 8th airforce??
> Afaik there was a lot of shared kills, what indicates that at least two planes was attacking one.
> ...



The bombers claimed a lot more German fighters but LW records were clear that 10:1 clims/actual was a better number for bombers - whereas US fighter claims were closer to 85% on the average. Frequently the difference between a US 'credit' and a German 'damaged' was in the case where a US fighter chased a LW pilot to the ground where it crash landed - but was later deemed 'repairable'.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 10, 2010)

drgondog said:


> A question for you to ponder - why were there so few 'bad days' for an 8th AF Fighter Group in air to air combat? or correspondingly why there were so few 'aces in a day for LW pilot vs 8th AF fighters. AFAIK there are 10 separate actions in which one 8th AF Group lost more than 6 fighters in one day. Two of those are owned by the 4th FG, several by the various P-38 groups and the rest by P-47 groups.



Few 'aces in a day for LW is relative, compared to the allieds they still was many with high kill numbers.
Even Reschke had 26 kills.
Some reasons was, a way smaler number of missions in the west than in the east and more tough targets(bombers), missing tactics and overloaded planes(if it comes to fighter kills).
In the east they took off 2-4 times a day, in the west 2-4 times a week.

If your father dont saw many encounters, it still sounds like there was not that many german fighters in relation to the escort. Or was the 1st tour after mid 1944?

The low losses on the US escort side can get explained by missing clean german fighters with experienced pilots(for fighter combat). In a 109G6 + gunpods i wont be easy to catch any of the US fighters. And most was armned by this. Actually most in the west.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Knegel (Apr 10, 2010)

Ops, dont got aware of "Aces in a day", though the reason is the same. But there was people who got 3 4Most in one mission, 2 was already rather often. I would say 3 4mots is a ace in a day. 
In the night that did happen more often.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 10, 2010)

I'd say ace in a day is impossible vs 4 engined bombers: you don't have enough ammunition


----------



## drgondog (Apr 10, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Few 'aces in a day for LW is relative, compared to the allieds they still was many with high kill numbers.
> Even Reschke had 26 kills.
> Some reasons was, a way smaler number of missions in the west than in the east and more tough targets(bombers), missing tactics and overloaded planes(if it comes to fighter kills).
> In the east they took off 2-4 times a day, in the west 2-4 times a week.
> ...



The 8th AF shot down 109s in approximate ratio of 3:2 (~ 2600 to 1700) relative to Fw 190s so hard to make judgments there also. A 109 with gunpods still faster than a 190A 7 at altitudes it encountered Mustangs.


----------



## jim (Apr 11, 2010)

Mr renrich , about F6F3 and F4U1....ups! I was wrong they certainly had two stage supercharges. But i beleive F4U5 needed 2760hp in war emergency power to acieve 469mpr
Mr drgondog
1) There were no multiple victories against us fighters during the time frame that we disguss simply because german fighters wre under orders to attack the bombers at all costs ,fighters only if absolutely nessecary . That made them having an entirely diferent mission profile than fighter interceptionAgainst bombers i can immediately recall Adolf Glunz 22/2/1944 5 Viernots 1 fighter , Hugo Fray 4 Viernots the day that he was killed etc... 
2)In 14/1/1945 Jg 301 was directed by the controlers directly in front and 500m lower than P51s .Any decent fighter unit would have good results with the given conditions . Something irrelevant. I dont believe in elite units.People are borned equal. Its the enviroment and special conditions that make the difference. With same training ,same aircraft same leadership all units are equal
3)6/3/1944 Target berlin . 730 viernots, 943 fighter sorties in support by 8th , 9th ussaf and Raf. Additional missions by medium bombers and their escorts .LW flew 528 fighter sorties some against the mediums (eg III/JG26 attacking b26 over Poix) ,some against struglers.
9/3/44 again againsr Berlin LW did not react at all ,exausted by the previus 3 days Ussaf had lost almost 80 bombers (800 crew) in 2 days and kept coming
4) In the first half of 1944 the prefered attack method was 12 oclock high .But it was not always possible Attacks occured from any angle even beneth the bombers.LW pilots were not stupid but circustanses (sorry!) imposed them the terms of combat. Many times they did not have time to climbe either because of late scrable or poor climbing performance (Fw190).Other times were poorly directed. Most of the time where bounced just before or during their attacks on bomber boxes. In my readings the escort was always higher than germans. In late 44 the official method was from behind and same level from large formations
5) While LW units war diaries show everyday combat with alleid air forces,after early 44 alleid pilots say that LW encounters were very rare.
6)Gunther Rall was ean experienced EASTERN front experte where diving away was standart and effectine LW escape manouver. I think it was his first west mission when he was shot down.
7)German people must not blame Hitler and Goering for everythink .Sure they were the main responsiple but many officials and officers failed their duties.
8)The german controllers were at best average.It appears that we construe the same events on the same days diferently. But thats the majic of democracy!
9)Silly claim by Rescke? Hard words for the veteran. It was his immpressions and impressions of ground witnesses for the late 44 battles. Even if his memory is wrong lets not be hard on him.
10) Fw190A was outclassed by P51 over 6000m Bf 109g6 not so much but still inferior
11) Escorts were bouncing german gruppen as they were oraniging their attacks on bombers or were bouncing individual fighters as they wre pulling out of their attacks on the bombers. In both cases had huge advantage. Even if a gap was discovered by the germans soon escorts were closing it .Knegel s comment covers me. 
12) Lambert was a Schlachtflieger (116 eastern kills) Killed while was taking of to attack soviet ground forces. I mentioned the action as indicative of the enviroment that LW faced. 

I will not insist further on the subject. Everyone can have his opinion ,At least we can agree that we disagree. I recognise that you are older than me with more years of research and direct acces on primary sources and contact with veterans .I rely only on books.If their authors are inaccurate then i am too. What i hold from these discussion: Until now i beleived that even improved tactics would result in only slightly better results for LW . Now i am not sure. Even with the same equipment perharps maybe better tactics and commands distribustion could give LW much better results . Tacticaly . Of course could not in any way delay the invansion.


----------



## Erich (Apr 11, 2010)

Even Reschke's own op records are not concise, he does not have complete records as I stated earlier, in fact he does not have cross checked references to US battle reprots except for some that I have sent him through others.......again I am trying to correct that.

let me try to sum up or at least give another idea. In late 44-45 the JG's were squashed and due to extrmeme losses were not able to put up full staffel let alone Geschwader strength aircraft, one of the worst case scenarios and this happened daily was that LW controllers even knowing how many bomber's fighters were leaving England would not allow early scrabbles of JG's to get in the air thus the US escorts P-47/P-51's were already at battle altitude while the JG fighters had to climb; this did not matter for bomber interception but did when it was to engage higher flying escorts so in emphasis Bill is very much correct that in the numbers game the LW had the numbers until 1945 they just did not have altitude superiority.

As for January 14, 45 what a debacle for JG 301 they were vectored at first in the wrong area and sent right into a beehive, JG 300 already was getting stomped by the 357th and JG 301 flying at a lower altitude fell right into the same category with P-51 diving from above and losing Fw's.

After Janaury 15, 45 there were very few day fighter JG's at hand the bulk had been sent east for the finals battles over Berlin, JG 301 for one was flying against both US and Soviet fighter and land masses.

E ~


----------



## drgondog (Apr 11, 2010)

jim said:


> 3)6/3/1944 Target berlin . 730 viernots, 943 fighter sorties in support by 8th , 9th ussaf and Raf. Additional missions by medium bombers and their escorts .LW flew 528 fighter sorties some against the mediums (eg III/JG26 attacking b26 over Poix) ,some against struglers.
> 
> *Jim - this is an excellent mission to illustrate waht I was trying to say about numerical inferioriy at the point of attack. Of the 943 fighter sorties, only the 354FG (9thAF) and the 20th and 357th FG (8th AF) met the Luftwaffe from west of Hannover to Berlin and back to Dummer Lake...The 20th FG engaged w/P-38s around Oldenburg to shoot down one Fw 190. The Mustangs were about 2/3 strong because of aborts due to mechanical problems - so the number of Mustang sorties ~ 100, P-38s ~ 40. The three Mustang groups were credited with 46 destroyed. It was this force that largely took on LufFlotte Reich.
> 
> ...


----------



## Erich (Apr 11, 2010)

Bill

Will Reschkes point of the JG's being overwhelmed in numbers is true for 45 the LW was just not there when it came to Reich defense in comparison to late 43 and into spring of 44 with all aircraft types flown inclusion of twin engine day/night fighters on day ops. Again I do not discount his overall impressions and what he and his Kameraden remember, too many inexperienced boyz and of course he in his heavy III gruppe pressed to make bomber kilsl from the rear I can imagine what went though his head if 20 P-51's dove down through his wedge like formation and he witnessed several of his buds shot out of the skies during the rear attacks.

US fighter groups were "just there" at the right time for air protection the LW was not in it's defensive role.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 11, 2010)

Erich said:


> Bill
> 
> Will Reschkes point of the JG's being overwhelmed in numbers is true for 45 the LW was just not there when it came to Reich defense in comparison to late 43 and into spring of 44 with all aircraft types flown inclusion of twin engine day/night fighters on day ops. Again I do not discount his overall impressions and what he and his Kameraden remember, too many inexperienced boyz and of course he in his heavy III gruppe pressed to make bomber kilsl from the rear I can imagine what went though his head if 20 P-51's dove down through his wedge like formation and he witnessed several of his buds shot out of the skies during the rear attacks.
> 
> US fighter groups were "just there" at the right time for air protection the LW was not in it's defensive role.



Erich - I agree with all you just said. Basically the LW sent most of LuftR east after Bodenplatte and there were few excursions in strength by the LW in post January 14, 1945 against the 8th AF.

This discussion is definitely 'deja vu' from my first incursions 4 years ago on this subject. The Battle of Germany was a bloody process, not an event.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 11, 2010)

Knegel said:


> What you quote is one plane low on fuel (around 3800kg) and the other is on WEP. for the -7 engine 67HG was WEP until mid 1944 and the still if no 150 octan fuel was available.
> How much the weight influence the climb and speed, you can see in another P51B test on 67HG WEP, with 9200lb.



The actual fighter weight of the P-51B which includes 196 gallons of gas is 9000 lbs. To make the 8430 lbs the -3 plane flew at, it had to have only 85 gallons of gas. Since the Bf-106 carries 106 gallons of gas, the tested P-51B-3 aircraft was only 120 light compared to the equally configure Bf-109G, so the original numbers are quite fair for comparison with a slight correction of 100 ft/min reduction in climb for the P-51. And the P-51-7 is also overloaded for fuel by about 540 lbs in comparison to the Bf-109G. Correcting both for equivalent fuel weight of about 600 lbs making all three aircraft equal in load, adding a P-51B-7 at 62” and a clean BF-106G1 from your data, this is what I get. I also threw in performance at 75” (available post May, ’44,) just for comparison:


SL a/s(mph) climb rate(ft/min)
P-51B-3(60”) 348 3500
P-51B-7(62”) 360 3770
P-51B-7(67”) 374 4100
P-51B-7(75”) 390 4700
Bf-109G 326 3678
Bf-109G1 326 4100

10k ft
P-51B-3(60”) 386 3440
P-51B-7(62”) 402 3650 
P-51-7(67”) 417 3650
P-51B-7(75”) 420 4170
Bf-109G 362 3060
Bf-109G1 362 3850 

20k ft
P-51B-3(60”) 424 2815
P-51B-7(62”) 412 3200
P-51B-7(67”) 425 3420
P-51B-7(75”) 444 3400
Bf-109G 399 3094
Bf-109G1 398 3100 

25k ft
P-51B-3(60”) 427 2250
P-51-7(62”) 436 2500
P-51B-7(67”) 436 2500
P-51B-7(75”) 439 2500
Bf-109G 397 2240
Bf-109G1 397 2322

30k ft
P-51B-3(60”) 441 2200
P-51B-7(62”) 440 1830
P-51B-7(67”) 440 1830
P-51b-7(75”) 426 1830
Bf-109G 400 1625
Bf-109G1 398 1633

Note: P-51B-7 data is clean, without racks, taken from the following charts (corrected for no racks and fighter weight at 100 gals fuel. P-51B fighter weight with 106 gallons of fuel is 8560 lb per “America’s Hundred Thousand”.) P-51B-3 data does not reflect whether racks are included. I assume it was without racks.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-speed-wf.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-climb-wf.jpg

P-51B-3 data does not reflect whether racks are included. I assume it was without racks. This data was taken from these charts

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-12093-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-12093-climb.jpg


Generally speaking, when equally loaded the P-51B is faster from SL to ceiling, at most altitudes significantly so, greater than 20 mph, and at 25k and up, greater than 30 mph.

The Bf-109G1 had significant climb advantage to the mil powered P-51 up to about 20k ft where the advantage starts to shift to the P-51.

But, it must be noted, this is a toe to toe comparison at equal loads, i.e., fuel loads are 106 gallons. In reality the P-51, when escorting, would be closer to it design fighter weight with 196 gallons of fuel since it still had to go four hundred miles home and it certainly would have racks, which would have reduced speeds by 8-12 mph. So, it always seemed obvious to me that the Germans had the means to contest the sky against the P-51 but never seem to anticipate the threat the plane had against the homeland or prepare for it. I think the G1 needed better performance at altitude to really threaten the P-51s and maybe they did with GM-1. Without that the P-51s could just climb to 30-35k where their performance was significantly better than the G1 and pounce on any attacking formations from above and with their fast diving speed and overall top speed, should be very good at boom and zoom.




> With WEP the plane had around 150PS more power at SL and 125 at rated alt.



If you have charts on the Bf-109G1, I would love to have it for my data base if you don’t mind sharing



> A after burner could get used in a climb, with WEP the engine would overheat and you risk to damage it rather fast. Highspeed is needed to cool the engine, and even then the usage is only allowed for short period, unlike to MW50 or C3 injection.



AAF test and combat reports do not support your statement

From Spitfireperformance copy of AAF test of 44-1 fuel.


> Climbs were made to thirty thousand feet at the standard, and at the test war emergency ratings. Climbs at seventy-five inches Hg. required about one minute less than was required when climbing at sixty seven inches Hg. All engine temperatures were normal during climb at the increased power.



Combat reports do not indicate a particular concern about pulling WEP, some reporting extended use, one for fifteen minutes, one for fifty miles.





> Thats not full rated power, thats WEP



That was authorized and was available to the pilot to use and they used it. Comparing maximum capability is valid in that that is what is often used when in combat.



> Actually i dont see many people claiming the P51 wasnt a good fighter, but appart from its range it wasnt a outstanding super fighter. Without the Bombers and the stupid tactics of the Luftwaffe it would have had a real hard time. Like it was even the P38J or P47D with that range would have ruled the sky over germany. The heavy armned and tough 4-mots and the inability to find the right tactic vs them and its escort was the cause of the Luftwaffes downfall over the Reich.
> The P51 was there when it was needed and its performence was good enough to be equal to the clean german fighters and better than that of the heavy armned fighters.
> The best escort fighter of the war and when low on fuel even a good dogfighter.



I don’t have any disagreement with this. My only comment would be that the range is the hard part. Making a point defense fighter with good performance for one to two hour endurance is not particularly difficult. To make a fighter with eight to ten hour endurance is not particularly difficult. To make a long range escort with good performance from SL to ceiling over target four to five hours away and return is difficult. When considering the mission, I think the Mustang’s outstanding range coupled with very good combat performance over target in a way does make it an outstanding super fighter. In my opinion, the only real super fighter of the war was the Me-262.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 13, 2010)

drgondog,

do you have any T.O.s and POHs with regards to the use of 150 fuel by the 8th AF?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2010)

davparlr said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t have any disagreement with this. My only comment would be that the range is the hard part. Making a point defense fighter with good performance for one to two hour endurance is not particularly difficult. To make a fighter with eight to ten hour endurance is not particularly difficult. To make a long range escort with good performance from SL to ceiling over target four to five hours away and return is difficult. When considering the mission, I think the Mustang’s outstanding range coupled with very good combat performance over target in a way does make it an outstanding super fighter. In my opinion, the only real super fighter of the war was the Me-262.



Aaaand with this comment (but taking into account the other stuff he wrote in our Forum), Davpair moves to the Forum's top league of WW2 aviation experts, with drgondog, Erich JoeB.
Sorry if I sound too subjective


----------



## drgondog (Apr 13, 2010)

Milosh said:


> drgondog,
> 
> do you have any T.O.s and POHs with regards to the use of 150 fuel by the 8th AF?



No I don't, My sources that I depend on are the still living crew chiefs in the 355th FG as well as the Group History monthly technical reports


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 13, 2010)

Milosh, is this what you are looking for??

150 Grade Fuel


----------



## Milosh (Apr 13, 2010)

No bobbysocks. I have gone through Mike's site. I could find no TOs or POH notes on the use of 150 fuel.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 14, 2010)

Hi,



davparlr said:


> The actual fighter weight of the P-51B which includes 196 gallons of gas is 9000 lbs. To make the 8430 lbs the -3 plane flew at, it had to have only 85 gallons of gas. Since the Bf-106 carries 106 gallons of gas, the tested P-51B-3 aircraft was only 120 light compared to the equally configure Bf-109G, so the original numbers are quite fair for comparison with a slight correction of 100 ft/min reduction in climb for the P-51. And the P-51-7 is also overloaded for fuel by about 540 lbs in comparison to the Bf-109G. Correcting both for equivalent fuel weight of about 600 lbs making all three aircraft equal in load, adding a P-51B-7 at 62” and a clean BF-106G1 from your data, this is what I get. I also threw in performance at 75” (available post May, ’44,) just for comparison:



The weight of the P51B, without droptanks and rear fuel tank, so the weight after dropping the tanks was 9300lb, thats often the weight when combat started.

Also the 109´s had in most cases close to full fuel, cause they also most had drop tanks.


davparlr said:


> Generally speaking, when equally loaded the P-51B is faster from SL to ceiling, at most altitudes significantly so, greater than 20 mph, and at 25k and up, greater than 30 mph.



Equally loaded is the weight after dropping the tanks. 



davparlr said:


> The Bf-109G1 had significant climb advantage to the mil powered P-51 up to about 20k ft where the advantage starts to shift to the P-51.
> 
> But, it must be noted, this is a toe to toe comparison at equal loads, i.e., fuel loads are 106 gallons. In reality the P-51, when escorting, would be closer to it design fighter weight with 196 gallons of fuel since it still had to go four hundred miles home and it certainly would have racks, which would have reduced speeds by 8-12 mph. So, it always seemed obvious to me that the Germans had the means to contest the sky against the P-51 but never seem to anticipate the threat the plane had against the homeland or prepare for it. I think the G1 needed better performance at altitude to really threaten the P-51s and maybe they did with GM-1. Without that the P-51s could just climb to 30-35k where their performance was significantly better than the G1 and pounce on any attacking formations from above and with their fast diving speed and overall top speed, should be very good at boom and zoom.


The clean 109G-1, adjusted for fighter combat would have had GM-1. 




davparlr said:


> If you have charts on the Bf-109G1, I would love to have it for my data base if you don’t mind sharing


There are only estimations with a 109G-1 with WEP, based on the flight tests with the 109F-4.
This estimations goes up to 700km/h in 7000m, but this is most probably without mach correction.
The 109F.4 did reach 670km/h in 6,2km with WEP.



davparlr said:


> AAF test and combat reports do not support your statement.
> From Spitfireperformance copy of AAF test of 44-1 fuel.
> Combat reports do not indicate a particular concern about pulling WEP, some reporting extended use, one for fifteen minutes, one for fifty miles.
> That was authorized and was available to the pilot to use and they used it. Comparing maximum capability is valid in that that is what is often used when in combat.


Yes, but that goes for both sides, also the germans had WEP available in the 109G, even before it was official allowed to use it and same like the allied pilots they did use it when needed.
The FAF specialy made this impossible for their 109G´s they got, for the good reason, they dont had enough engines. 
In some allied WEP tests you can read that they couldnt make the climb test at once, cause overheat, in other tests they write, althought its made with WEP, in combat its not recommended.
Of course in home defence a engine failsure wouldnt be that much of a problem, although not nice, but as escort fighter or like in the pacific, where you be thousand miles over sea, it was clearly different.
At the end the pilot had to decide, like you say.
But if we compare datas, we should use the same for all.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Knegel (Apr 14, 2010)

drgondog said:


> ..........- then 800-1200 bombers and 250 fighters versus 400-500 LW fighters over Leipzig..



400-500 LW fighters over Leipzig??

Where do you got such numbers from??
They would habe been happy, if they would have had such a number in one tight area.
400-500 was rather what they got up, splitted from the low lands to Leipzig and back.

Seldom more than 50-100 german fighters was at same time on the bombers. In most cases in was 1-2 Gruppen at same time. Due to communication problemsbetween the JG´s(no direct communication) very often there was a delay. So the pilots of the Gruppen that got in contact with fighters, very often was overwhelmed, specialy cause after a attack to the bombers, they was already thinned out, low on amo and splitted and anyway much to heavy loaded.
After the attack to the bombers the german unit wasnt able to fight as such anmore. They got splitted, where some could fly home without to see a fighter, others had many against them.
The topcover in most cases was outnumbered in big degrees.

If we take pure numbers, we always need to include the Bombers, or we need to exclude the fighters that did attack the bombers. 

So even if we assume "800-1200 bombers and 250 fighters versus 400-500 LW" its 1:3. For the reason above, 1:10 its not that much overclaimed, from the point of view of the single pilot, though.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2010)

Knegel said:


> 400-500 LW fighters over Leipzig??
> 
> Where do you got such numbers from??
> They would habe been happy, if they would have had such a number in one tight area.
> ...



1 to 10 is a gross exaggeration from the perspective most often offered - namely 10 Mustangs to one Me 109 as quoted by Reschke and others. As Erich commented, from late January 1945 through the end of the war, those statistics actually were not too far off when considering western Germany where JG 26 and JG 2 were essentially fighting the Allied Air Force in the west. 

But the discussion has been about late 1943 up to D-Day when control of the air over Germany was being contested by small numbers of US escorts (no RAF, no US P-47s, only 8th AF Mustangs and Lightnings


----------



## Knegel (Apr 15, 2010)

Hi,

the battle of Munich was a rare case and the german forces was around munich, like so often they came one after the next and their main target was the bombers.



drgondog said:


> The bombers did not do anything except fly in formation, fighters had full autonomy to fight or flee.



No they couldnt flee, they had the order to attack them, what brought them into a tactical disadvantage to the escorting fighters, as such the bombers count as oponent, taking part in the combat. The need/order to attack the Bombers made the german fighters heavy, often they took damages whilethe attack, the need to evade the defensive fire of the bombers destroyed the german formations, so they had problems to fight as a unit.

For the escorting fighters the bombers was more worth than the same number of fighters.


Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## davparlr (Apr 15, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> The weight of the P51B, without droptanks and rear fuel tank, so the weight after dropping the tanks was 9300lb, thats often the weight when combat started.
> ...



Which is what I said

"In reality the P-51, when escorting, would be closer to it design fighter weight with 196 gallons of fuel since it still had to go four hundred miles home and it certainly would have racks, which would have reduced speeds by 8-12 mph. "




> Equally loaded is the weight after dropping the tanks.



Which is what I was comparing. My assumption was that the Bf-109 data I was using was not carrying drop tanks or racks, which is the configuration most speed test are performed at.




> The clean 109G-1, adjusted for fighter combat would have had GM-1.



I don't have any performance data on the GM-1 so I cannot compare capabilities




> But if we compare datas, we should use the same for all.



Yes, that is why my comments were on the 60" Hg P-51B-3 and 62" Hg P-51B-7

"Generally speaking, when equally loaded the P-51B is faster from SL to ceiling, at most altitudes significantly so, greater than 20 mph, and at 25k and up, greater than 30 mph.

The Bf-109G1 had significant climb advantage to the mil powered P-51 up to about 20k ft where the advantage starts to shift to the P-51."

If we had detail WEP performance data for the Bf-109G, we could compare the WEP performance of the P-51B/D to the WEP performance of the Bf-109G, I don't, so I am stuck with Mil power comparison.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> the battle of Munich was a rare case and the german forces was around munich, like so often they came one after the next and their main target was the bombers.
> 
> ...



It is certainly ok to agree to disagree..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2010)

Milosh said:


> No bobbysocks. I have gone through Mike's site. I could find no TOs or POH notes on the use of 150 fuel.


I bet the use of 150 octane fuel was specified in a "TCTO." I believe they were used during WW2.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 15, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I bet the use of 150 octane fuel was specified in a "TCTO." I believe they were used during WW2.



TCTO = Time Compliance Technical Order ??

If so, can you explain how this works.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2010)

Milosh said:


> TCTO = Time Compliance Technical Order ??
> 
> If so, can you explain how this works.



It's a document that might drive a repair, inspection or change in operation. They've been around for a long time and might have been used during WW2. I don't know how one would access that information but that's the only other place I can think of where you can find a change to the type of fuel being used in the aircraft.


----------



## jim (Apr 15, 2010)

It was numbers and bad tactics of their own that defeated the germans . 
On 15/9/40 Lw lost 60 aircraft and Hitler was forced to cancel the invansion of Enland. On 17/8/43 Ussaf lost 60 viernots (10 crew) plus 128 damaged and two days later struck again 17/10/43 lost another 60 bombers and next day was buisness as usual .During the Big week lost almost 300 viernots and had no problen. 6/3/44 lost 69 10-crew bombers and came again in 8/3 and 9/3 . Many times lost dozens of bombers with hundrends of crew with no reduction of fighting strength. Which other air force could sustain such losses?How succesful is the escort that allows the loss of 69 bombers? Only if you have unlimited idustrial capability like US had.
Escort fighters were also P47 s(that scored heavily during that time too), P38s( killed oesau), and sort range fighters that took the early stage of bomber trips.German had to face all of them.Actually there are people who believe that P47 did the dirty work and P51 took the glory.
German fighters pilots were ordered ta attack the bombers no matter what.Goering threatened with court martial the failure to attack the bombers if neven weather was the reason. In 1943 was sugested that some gruppen should attack the escorts during the transit flights in order to force them eject the drop tanks .The idea was rejacted by the high command. Also the inability to of the varius wings to comunicate meant that could not co ordinate thei attacks even when they were in the same area.
Escorts were never targeted , were enganged only in self defence by the german fighters.Bombers attracted the attention of german fighters. So the escorts always could choose when ,where and how engage the bomber interceptors. So even in the few cases that-localy-did not outnumbered the interceptors had always height and energy advantage,and most of the time surprise advantage . 
We can not compare the tactics because had diferent aim. We can not only say thatUS tactics proved adequate given the poor german tactics. . About the skills we should compare them with equal numbers of planes,entering in the same level, both in frei jagd ,. US pilots never fought in equal terms with their opponents. In WWi had number advantage, in WW2 numbers and during some periods technological advantage, in Korea both, in Vietnam both ,(still suffered casualties in air to air combat by aircraft two generations older)in Iraq both (still did not dare to engage the few Mig29s in close combat) So their true skills is an unknown quantity ,but obviously are good given the oceans of fuel that are available to them for training. Perhaps we should ask Indian Su-30 pilots ...


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2010)

ah not quite true Jim. I and II. gruppe of JG 301 in November 44 had two stafflen each that were supposed to take on the US P-51 escorts, that was the order(s). in most cases all of I. gruppe and most of the time II. gruppe in full were called upon to do this while the III Schwere gruppe attacked the bombers. only when NO escorts were about could the Geschwader attack in force and that was maybe 5 % possibly less of the time.

In December 44 6./JG 301 was given the new Dora - 9 with the sole purpose of engaging the P-51 the Dora only got to 5th and 7th staffel at a very slow pace. 8th staffel never had any Doras of their own, though some of the pilots due to shortage of a/c in that staffel and casualties of the other 3 staffeln did fly the Dora on some missions.

interesting eh ?

E ~


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2010)

jim said:


> It was numbers and bad tactics of their own that defeated the germans .
> On 15/9/40 Lw lost 60 aircraft and Hitler was forced to cancel the invansion of Enland. On 17/8/43 Ussaf lost 60 viernots (10 crew) plus 128 damaged and two days later struck again 17/10/43 lost another 60 bombers and next day was buisness as usual .
> 
> *Ah, No - not 'business as usual' - it was in this timeframe after Oct 14 (not 16) 1943 that the 8th AF fully realized that the Germans had full control fo the air. The next several months were characterized by middle range missions to Hamburg or Bremen or Frankfurt to conserve strength and build up 8th FC and introduce the P-38s and P-51s. The P-38s were disappointing and judged better for 9th AF, in return for Mustangs.
> ...



Oh well, we disagree on most everything... except the poor tactics and declining skills of the LW in the Battle of Germany.


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 16, 2010)

Still - an enjoyable and civil discussion!


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Still - an enjoyable and civil discussion!




Lol Kurfurst! Maybe different from days in the past?


----------



## fackusa (Mar 24, 2013)

I shove pineapples up my butt


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 24, 2013)

Outstanding FBJ.

Geo


----------



## Njaco (Mar 24, 2013)

I like the country - "BS'


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 24, 2013)

ROFL!!!!!!


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2013)

ROLF! At least you picked pineapples and porcupines ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2013)

Such ignorance. Amazing that such people seem to breed the most.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 24, 2013)

If he's having to resort to abusing pineapples, maybe he isn't breeding enough.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 24, 2013)

I think he's the type that doesn't leave his mom's basement. And to use Caps Lock throughout the tirade....no manners.

Geo


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2013)

Didn't see the tirade, but since it was edited and came out with pineapple abuse, I can imagine.

Thanks for being mods.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2013)

GregP said:


> Didn't see the tirade, but since it was edited and came out with pineapple abuse, I can imagine.
> 
> Thanks for being mods.



You did not miss anything. It was a typical Anti American Arse who just wanted to say **** America, **** Americans, **** the Mustange, The Russians would have destroyed you, etc...


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2013)

With a forum name of fackusa, I'm not surprised.

Funny, I have several people I think of as friends in the Bahamas. I hope his attitude isn't a widepsread one. You never know, do you?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 24, 2013)

Not from the Bahamas.


----------



## GregP (Mar 25, 2013)

Great scuba diving, though ...


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 25, 2013)

fackusa said:


> I shove pineapples up my butt



marcel, is this one of those funky "Steenkolen Engels" or mistakes Dutch people make in English???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 21, 2017)

*Focke-Wulf 190D-9 vs. North American P-51D
Purpose: To correct some inaccuracies.*
Soren actually did a great job in his opening post. Excellent material actually.
I have been researching these two fighters along with every other WW2 fighter
for many years now. The following information is applicable to a P-51D using
its original standard of 67"Hg boosting for its V-1650-7 Packard engine during
June/July 1944. This is somewhat lopsided in that the figures for the Fw-109D
are for a standardized Dora using MW 50 starting on 18 December 1944. By this
time the Mustangs in Europe were using 100/130 or 100/150 (44-1 fuel) and
were pushing boost levels of 72, 75 and even 81"Hg.
Fw-190D-9 using MW 50 and with an ETC 502 rack (fuel/bomb) fitted vs.
*P-51D-15 tested at Wright field, report dated 15 June 1945 with external fuel
racks installed.* Without these racks the P-51 is a solid 6 mph. faster at all
altitudes. Just for fun I have entered the Russian testing figures of the P-51D
It can be plainly seen that they used somewhat different boosting at different
altitudes than the USAAF.
The basic numbers are:
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm
Fw -190D-9 --- *P-51D Mustang (USSR with time to height in minutes)*
S.L........376 / 4428---*375 / 3600 (378)*
1,000..388 / 4388---*388 / 3600 (385-1.5)*
2,000..400 / 4124---*403 / 3385 (405-2.1)*
3,000..406 / 4103*---416 / 2985 (419-3.25)*
4,000..416 / 3985---*413 / 2534 (434-4.45)*
5,000..427 / 3493*---410 / 3200 (428-5.7)*
6,000..427 / 2991---*420 / 3100 (426-6.95)*
7,000..421 / 2499---*432 / 2645 (426-8.55)*
8,000..413 / 1987---*441 / 2200 (442)*
9,000..403 / 1485*---431 / 1765 (436)*
10,000..391 / 984*---417 / 1285 (430)

Engines: *Jumo 213A: B4 fuel / 1.8 ata / 2,100 PS (2,071 hp.) With MW 50.
*Packard V-1650-7: 100 octane / 67 "Hg / 1,720-1,780 hp.*

Combat Weights: 9,590 lbs. / *9,760 lbs.*
Combat Ceilings (1,000 fpm. climb rate): 32,700 ft. /* 35,000 ft.*
Wing Areas (sq. ft.): 196.98 / *235 (new wing)*
Wing Loading (lbs./sq. ft.) 48.69 / *41.4*
Power Loading (lbs./hp.) 4.631 / *5.483*

I know, I took a long time to answer (4 years). I needed the time to
research the two.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 21, 2017)

Performance is fairly close up until about 6,500 m. with the Fw having a much better
climb at lower altitudes. The Fw D-9 had an exceptional acceleration when using
MW 50 at lower levels. The battles over Europe were fought at high altitudes. Up
there the Merlin was the better engine and gave the Mustang the edge. The D-9
with its 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm armament was very lethal at any altitude. Which
aircraft was better? It still all depends on what you needed it to do before you
can find that answer.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 21, 2017)

Corsning I completely concur, it depends on what you need it to do. The thing I think people don't consider is that yes, at similar combat weights the Fw-190 has an advantage (as well as the Me-109). That is to be expected, However, the Mustang flew 3 hours to get to the fight, and is very close in performance, will fight for 30 minutes, then fly 3 hours home. The weight penalty the Mustang has to carry the amount of fuel, oil, O2, etc, to stay airborne for up to 7 hours is huge, yet it hung with best prop fighters the Axis could come up with.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jun 21, 2017)

Dick Bong an American PTO Ace was quoted several times as saying it was less the aircraft and more the pilot that counted. He gained fewer kills per mission than others but had the sense of knowing when to break engagement and come back to fight another day. He often out survived others that shot down more on a given mission but did not survive the war. He made mention of the fact that Japan literally ran out of trained pilots long before they ran out of airplanes. And that when that happened Allied loss ratios seriously improved in the PTO. German pilots were not rotated out of combat like their American counterparts and as a consequence developed serious skill and familiarity with their aircraft and its advantages and disadvantages. Honestly not sure about RAF pilots and their rotation methods but I would imagine during the BoB it was all hands on deck and no real rotation.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 21, 2017)

Stona can give a more detailed description but 11 Group squadrons were rotated out to less hectic areas and squadrons from there were rotated into 11Group.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 22, 2017)

I have added the Engines and power levels in Post #485. Yep, that was and oversight
on my part.

I also forgot to mention the information for the Fw-190D-9 came from Dietmar Hermann's
"Long Nose" and the main information for the P-51D-15 is from wwiiaircraftperformance.


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2017)

Hi Corsning,

Reference post 485.

I thought MW50 was almost exclusively reserved for boost at FTH and above.Perhaps I am thinking backwards, and nitrous was used for extra power down low, but since it has limited time, I'd think it should have been used in emergencies only. Of course, they WERE over German territory and Germany WAS losing, so maybe the definition of an "emergency" was different for the Germans than for the Allies.

Not arguing. just thinking in print here. No agenda.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2017)

I believe MW 50 was the water alcohol mixture would do little (although something) above FTH.

The GM 1 (Nitrous oxide) was used at high altitude because it supplied additional oxygen over and above the oxygen in the air. 

That is the way I remember it anyway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2017)

Nitrous also has to be used at max rpm. Use at intermediate power usually leads to rapid engine destruction without VERY careful mixture control. I can verify that from personal experience in the GM LS-1 world of higher-horsepower Camaros. I watched several very nice Corvettes use up a brand new LS-1 while deploying nitrous too soon. It melts pistons pretty quickly! I'd run a wet system if I were you and didn't want to spend a ton of money when the second solenoid fails on a dry system.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2017)

I believe (but could well be wrong) that what is happening at the less than full throttle application of nitrous is that the overall "mixture" goes lean, way lean. Way more available oxygen than fuel.


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2017)

Milosh said:


> Stona can give a more detailed description but 11 Group squadrons were rotated out to less hectic areas and squadrons from there were rotated into 11Group.



When things got really tough the rotation of entire squadrons stopped. Fresh squadrons with inexperienced pilots simply took heavier losses than the squadrons they replaced. For example, No. 616 Squadron lost 5 pilots and 12 aircraft in a week (25th August - 2nd September).No. 603 lost 12 pilots and 16 aircraft and No.252 9 pilots and 13 aircraft in a similar period. It was as a result of this that the 'stabilisation system' was introduced. As of early September 1940 squadrons in other Groups were stripped of their experienced pilots who were transferred into squadrons in 11 Group to replace their losses. This led to the creation of 'B' and 'C' class squadrons in the other Groups. 
A 'C' class squadron was not operational in any real sense, some being able only to field a Flight of fully trained pilots. It was a distinction entirely lost on some at the Air Ministry, and in the RAF, who simply looked at total pilot numbers and assumed that Fighter Command was doing okay.
Arguments about just how parlous the state of Fighter Command was in the first weeks of September will rage on, but the adoption of the stabilisation system, creaming off the best men from some units to create a fighting elite in others is always a sign of desperation. Napoleon did it, Ludendorff did it in 1918, even the BEF did it in 1940, creating 'B' Class Divisions. The stabilisation system introduced to Fighter Command was unpopular with the squadrons (both those that had to give up their best men, and those to whom they were transferred who knew they would have to 'stay in the line') and unpopular with Dowding, who considered it demoralizing and divisive, he simply had no choice.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## grampi (Jun 23, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Corsning I completely concur, it depends on what you need it to do. The thing I think people don't consider is that yes, at similar combat weights the Fw-190 has an advantage (as well as the Me-109). That is to be expected, However, the Mustang flew 3 hours to get to the fight, and is very close in performance, will fight for 30 minutes, then fly 3 hours home. The weight penalty the Mustang has to carry the amount of fuel, oil, O2, etc, to stay airborne for up to 7 hours is huge, yet it hung with best prop fighters the Axis could come up with.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Can you imagine the advantage the Mustang would've had if it didn't have to be able to fly so far to reach the combat area, and then fly back?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 23, 2017)

grampi said:


> Can you imagine the advantage the Mustang would've had if it didn't have to be able to fly so far to reach the combat area, and then fly back?


*I am so glad you made that statement grampi. I have done a little researching the last couple of days.
answers coming...*



BiffF15 said:


> The thing I think people don't consider is that yes, _*at similar combat weights the Fw-190 has an advantage (as*_ *well as the Me-109). That is to be expected,* "
> 
> *Biff, once again that all depends. In the comparison I made in Post # 485 the Mustang in
> question was tested at 9,760 lb. That was take-off weight. By the time the P-51D actually
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 23, 2017)

*Mustang III No.F.X.858, Operation Crossbow: February - May 1944*
Engine: Merlin 100 (modified Merlin 66 to +25 lbs. [80.8"Hg] boost)
Horse Power: 1,940-1,970+ at sea level, 2,020 hp./4,100 ft.

Altitude...Speed / Climb / Time to height.
Meters....mph / fpm / minutes to altitude.
S.L.........393 / 4500 /
1,000...409 / 4150 /-.85
2,000...419 / 3965 /-1.6
3,000...420 / 3970 /-2.35
4,000...435 / 3960 /-3.2
5,000...450 / 3510 /-4.05
6,000...454 / 3025 /-5.1
7,000...452 / 2560 /-6.3
8,000...449 / 2065 /-7.8
9,000...444 / 1600 /-9.4
10,000...436 / 1135 /11.95
11,000...425 /---650 /15.5
12,000...NG. /--NG. /23.25

Combat Ceiling: 33.660 ft.
Armament:4 x 0.5 in.
Combat Weights: 8,800 lb. for speed runs and 9,260 lb. for climb trials.

Wing Loadings 8,800 lb. / 9,260 lb. (lbs./sq.ft.): 37.77 / 39.74.
Power Loading at 1,940 hp. same as above (lbs./ hp.): 4.536 / 4.773.

In another brief test aircraft No. F.B.377 with a V-1650-7 using +25 lbs. boosting:
Speed trial results: 405 mph./S.L., 413 mph. @ 1,000 m., 5,000 ft. 412.5 mph./
2,000 m. and 412 mph at 8,000 ft.

I am just going to have to say the Mustang could more than hold its own.

Just an opinion and void where prohibited by law... and them some.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 23, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> *Mustang III No.F.X.858, Operation Crossbow: February - May 1944*
> Engine: Merlin 100 (modified Merlin 66 to +25 lbs. [80.8"Hg] boost)
> Horse Power: 1,940-1,970+ at sea level, 2,020 hp./4,100 ft.
> 
> ...



Jeff,

It's my opine that the Mustang could hold it's own and more. However, I'm trying to not appear to be so hard over (fanboy) on one airplane that I don't listen to reason or counter points. If the Mustang, at it's earliest opportunity (heavier weight), encounters a Fw-190D or late model Me-109 at the end of their sortie (lowest weight) I think the outcome might favor the German equipment.

I also realize there was some of what I will call leapfrogging going on in performance. The Mustang was due an update (H model) but alas the war ended in Europe first. Also, we tend to compare the charts in great detail as that is a common denominator approach, however it leaves more questions to me than it does answers. For example, 30 mph difference in top speed at a given altitude. What does it really do for you? If you think you are outside the max range of your opponents weapons, it means leaving and not turning back. If you aren't sure you have to turn back then what does your greater top speed do for you? Weapons are next, the .50 cal versus Cannon versus whatever. From the gun footage I've seen, regardless of who was doing the shooting, they all seemed pretty effective from the defenders point of view. Climb rate is another, and on it goes.

My point is it's hard to nail down beyond the charts, but more than enough guys have beat a "better" performing adversary so variables still exist. 

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 23, 2017)

Hi Biff,
You are absolutely right. All kind of things can come into play in the air, and I am
quite sure I don't need to tell you that. As far as the speed thing goes, I have not
read enough or talked to enough people in the know. From what I have read so
far the Fw-190D started to "tighten up" around 380 mph...?, the Mustang didn't.
In a dive I am not quite sure what the Fw did but at 550 mph. true air speed the
Mustang began to porpoise. This allowed it to pull out of a high speed dive much
easier than other contemporary high speed fighters.
Jeff

PS: Just for the record, I do not have a personal favorite fighter aircraft of WW2.
I love researching them all to get to the real truth. They are all fun to study. Then
in the end, the truth is the truth until more great information is uncovered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2017)

stona said:


> When things got really tough the rotation of entire squadrons stopped. Fresh squadrons with inexperienced pilots simply took heavier losses than the squadrons they replaced. For example, No. 616 Squadron lost 5 pilots and 12 aircraft in a week (25th August - 2nd September).


I believe that a squadron was 12 operational pilots/aircraft but wasnt the strength 16 men and machines at the start to guarantee (as far as possible) that 12 were available. This is a sensible contigency for operations, quickly swallowed up when battle starts.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 24, 2017)

actually......we miss erich. he is was a great wealth of information...his relative flew 110s ( iirc)....he had a library that rivaled drgondog...between the two of them we were able to sort out a lot of fantasy vs reality. what looks good on paper isn't what always is....


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I believe that a squadron was 12 operational pilots/aircraft but wasnt the strength 16 men and machines at the start to guarantee (as far as possible) that 12 were available. This is a sensible contigency for operations, quickly swallowed up when battle starts.



I'm doing this from memory as I'm not at home this weekend, but I'm reasonably sure of the numbers 
Following the introduction of the stabilisation system an 'A' class squadron was supposed to have 16* operational* pilots. In 1939 the figure was a total 26 pilots, but the definition of operational before the war might be different. A man fresh from an OTU would be considered an operational pilot in peacetime, but would be continuing his training with his squadron. During the BoB he might find his was to a squadron in 11 Group, but from the second week in September he would almost certainly be posted to a 'B' or 'C' class squadron in another Group.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jun 24, 2017)

stona said:


> I'm doing this from memory as I'm not at home this weekend, but I'm reasonably sure of the numbers
> Following the introduction of the stabilisation system an 'A' class squadron was supposed to have 16* operational* pilots. In 1939 the figure was a total 26 pilots, but the definition of operational before the war might be different. A man fresh from an OTU would be considered an operational pilot in peacetime, but would be continuing his training with his squadron. During the BoB he might find his was to a squadron in 11 Group, but from the second week in September he would almost certainly be posted to a 'B' or 'C' class squadron in another Group.
> Cheers
> Steve



Years ago seen some document obtained from Kew that had stats on BoB squadrons. The person never posted the whole document, just sections. It had the number of pilots and a/c on hand, operational and wastage.

Will look to see if I saved it. 

edit. Found 2 images.

Hurricane squadrons appear to have 22 a/c and Spitfire squadrons have 18 a/c. Also has a/c issued to the squadrons.

The data begins week ending July 7.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 24, 2017)

Erich's cousin flew and was KIA in an FW190A-8 near Hannover, 11/26/44. Probably 355th FG but possibly 339th.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 24, 2017)

It is interesting how Erich's comments made in this thread (but not just in this thread) hit bulls eye even after more than decade.


----------



## dedalos (Jun 24, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Corsning I completely concur, it depends on what you need it to do. The thing I think people don't consider is that yes, at similar combat weights the Fw-190 has an advantage (as well as the Me-109). That is to be expected, However, the Mustang flew 3 hours to get to the fight, and is very close in performance, will fight for 30 minutes, then fly 3 hours home. The weight penalty the Mustang has to carry the amount of fuel, oil, O2, etc, to stay airborne for up to 7 hours is huge, yet it hung with best prop fighters the Axis could come up with.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


True the fuel penalty of the p51. But the 190 also had penalties that crippled its prformance
it had to operate on lower grade fuel
it had to carry heavy armor to survive attacks on the heavy bombers
it had to carry heavy cannons for the same reason
it had no acces to raw materials, so no turbosupercharged vertion.
it had to be constructed in undercovered factories by u trained workers or even slaves.so low building quality
it had to use the heavy camouflage paint because of the operational enviroment. Th e p51 did not have to use camouflage
it had to face specialized opponents. LF spits, tempests,yaks, las at low altitude, HF spits, p47s, p51s, at high altitude.the 190 had one confuguration for all different needs because of the production needs

Personally i see only 2 clear ,constructive,advantages of the p 51 d over the d9. The wing profile and the 2 stage supercharger.


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2017)

The P-51D was faster by 10 - 11 mph.
The P-51D had a service ceiling more than 2,000 feet higher.
The P-51D had 2,200 miles MORE range.
The Fw 190 D-9 climbed. 3,346 fpm. The P-51D climbed 3,209 fpm The difference isn't worth much. Either can hang in there with the other long enough for a kill. Advantage VERY slightly to Fw 190 D-9 in a prolonged climb.
Fw 190 D-9 wing loading 47.7 lbs/ sq ft. Wing loadiong P-51D: 39 lbs / sq ft. Clear advantage for P-51D by 20+%.
No advantage anywhere in weight to Fw 190 D-9. It weighed more empty and weighted more normally loaded. The P-51D weighed more when loaded to the gills with fuel for long range, but lost a good deal of that weight getting to the fight. At combat join, the P-51D might be slightly heavier; maybe not.
Clear advantage in armament to Fw 190 D-9. It didn't seem to help any in the war.
1,805 Fw 190 D-9s built; 9,806 P-51C/Ds built. Advantage so great as to be a mismatch entirely; very much to the benefit of the P-51D. I'd say eleven P-51Ds fighting against two Fw 1990 D-9s would be a clear victory for the P-51Ds anytime.

I see P-51Ds flying every weekend, sometimes as many as 4 or 5. There are no Fw 190 Ds flying anywhere in the world 72 years after the war. There IS one Fw 190 D-9 replica with an Allison that MAY fly someday. That would be nice to see. I DO see one Fw 190F replica flying maybe 2 - 3 times a year. Always good to see it fly. It flies on a U.S. engine and prop and systems.

Doesn't even seem like a close fight to me ... P-51D in a knockout win. I see maybe 6 - 7 clear advantages to the P-51D against 1 or 2 for the Fw 190 D-9.

Still, in real life, the differences were relatively minor since the pilots would undoubtedly supply the difference for the win either way. On paper, I'd take a P-51D any day of the year ... though I confess I'd still love to see an Fw 190 D-9 (or more) flying in a sky near me.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 25, 2017)

dedalos said:


> True the fuel penalty of the p51. But the 190 also had penalties that crippled its prformance
> it had to operate on lower grade fuel
> it had to carry heavy armor to survive attacks on the heavy bombers
> it had to carry heavy cannons for the same reason
> ...



The Fw 190D-9 have had capability to operate on the C3 fuel (by midd/late 1944 about as good as Allied 100/150 grade), along with MW-50 system - thus no clear advantage for P-51 there. Granted, P-51s will have more fuel to use, but that is not a feature of the P-51, but of the war situation.
P-51D was also carrying armor + protection for it's bigger tanks, so IMO that point is moot. Weapon set-up of the Fw 190D-9 was no heavier than of the P-51D.
P-51 was without turbo either. Build quality of the Fw 190s was always good, or at least it was before Spring of 1945.
P-51 also clashed vs. anything Axis, and was tested against Allied fighters, usually coming ahead with few exceptions.

I agree with latest paragraph. We might also toss in the late coming of the D-9 as a (non-constructive) shortcoming, that really was within the capability of German aeronautical industry already in winter of 1943/44.


----------



## GregP (Jun 25, 2017)

The quoted performance specs do not support your contention, Tomo, C3 or not. The numbers are the numbers. You are simply muddling the facts here.

Might be true, but the numbers quoted don't say that. I'd be inclined to believe slightly higher numbers for the Fw 190 D-9, but that might open up slightly higher numbers for the P-51D, too. You accept the quoted numbers or you don't. I tend to accept them. If so, the numbers are true and fact. If not. then the field is wide open, with the P-51D having the better Cdo and WAY higher numbers of combatant aircraft.. I'm starting to doubt it ...

Armor doesn't change the listed weights. Turbo or supercharger is not important in the slightest. The service ceiling (performance) IS. And the P-51D was better altogether, by a margin. Not great. but a margin anyway.

The big difference between turbo and super is rpm of the impeller. The P-51D was far more robust and better altitude-capable. Fact.

I really like the Fw 190 D-9, but it was NOT as good as a P-51D.

Probably close enough to be called about even, with a slight advantage to the P-51D. Pilots made the difference and rarity of the Fw compared with the P-51D made the Fw 190 D-9 a second-seat fighter. It wasn't the valor of the pilots or the performance of the Fw 190 D-9 airframe, it was the complete lack of relative production numbers that made the P-51D the better aircraft IN THE WAR.

Individually, the contest was fraught with doubt. Eleven to two production numbers make it a foregone conclusion.

Try fighting eleven to two. You lose, every time!

Unless you are Royce Gracie ... or modern equivalent. The Fw 190 D-9 wasn't.

It WAS good. But not 11 to 2 good. Neither was the Ta 152, which was basically a very slightly improved Fw 190 D ... and they only delivered about 42 of them; never more than 20 in service at any one time. That from Adolph Galland. He should have known, if anyone did, being in command.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 25, 2017)

GregP said:


> The quoted performance specs do not support your contention, Tomo, C3 or not. The numbers are the numbers. You are simply muddling the facts here.
> 
> Might be true, but the numbers quoted don't say that. I'd be inclined to believe slightly higher numbers for the Fw 190 D-9, but that might open up slightly higher numbers for the P-51D, too. You accept the quoted numbers or you don't. I tend to accept them. If so, the numbers are true and fact. If not. then the field is wide open, with the P-51D having the better Cdo and WAY higher numbers of combatant aircraft.. I'm starting to doubt it ...



Greg, it is too bad you don't seem to grasp what I was talking about. (that sentence is the most polite I'm currently able to post here, other ones that came 1st to my mind would've earned me infraction at least)
Nobody said that P-51D was with worse or equal Cd0 vs. Fw 190D-9, nor the numbers produced.



> Armor doesn't change the listed weights. Turbo or supercharger is not important in the slightest. The service ceiling (performance) IS. And the P-51D was better altogether, by a margin. Not great. but a margin anyway.



The 1st sentence means actually something?
Turbo or 2-stage supercharger is important, since it provides the aircraft having it the edge in performance (speed, RoC) above 20000 ft vs. another aircraft whith 1-stage S/C. Exactly where the bomber streams were travelling vs. Germany.



> The big difference between turbo and super is rpm of the impeller. The P-51D was far more robust and better altitude-capable. Fact.



Pray tell, what would be the difference in rpm of impellers of the turbo and gear-driven S/C? No-one said P-51D was lacking altitude capability vs. Axis best.



> Try fighting eleven to two. You lose, every time!



Since you said so.



> Unless you are Royce Gracie ... or modern equivalent. The Fw 190 D-9 wasn't.
> 
> It WAS good. But not 11 to 2 good. Neither was the Ta 152, which was basically a very slightly improved Fw 190 D ... and they only delivered about 42 of them; never more than 20 in service at any one time. That from Adolph Galland. He should have known, if anyone did, being in command.



The number of the Ta-152 delivered has no bearing on this thread, but don't let that stop you.
The Ta-152 was a major improvement over the 190Ds, and, lo and behold, featured a 2-stage S/C.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 25, 2017)

dedalos said:


> True the fuel penalty of the p51. But the 190 also had penalties that crippled its prformance
> it had to operate on lower grade fuel
> it had to carry heavy armor to survive attacks on the heavy bombers
> it had to carry heavy cannons for the same reason
> ...



Dedalos,

All aircraft designs have trade offs, or penalties. The Me-109 was small, carried a small amount of fuel, and had a big motor. Sounds like a race car meant to run 25 laps. The Fw-190D was bigger, carried a bit more fuel, and could go 30 laps. The P-51BCD had about the same motor, was a bit cleaner drag wise, and could compete well with the FW and ME, AND go over 100 laps. I'm not disparaging the German aircraft, as a matter of fact the Fw-190D is my favorite Axis aircraft. However, performance snap shots are just that, a snap shot. It's nice to compare them, and they are a starting point of a conversation about different aircraft, but are by no means the be all end all.

The performance comparisons should lead the conversation to how were they used and why. The capability that made the Mustang so useful was it's ability to hang with the best prop fighters Germany could make AND fly 5 hours more. This single point is completely ignored or pushed aside so often. Put yourself in the Commanding Generals shoes (either side) and tell me if this wasn't a tremendous advantage or not. Or the conversation could go as to why was Focke Wolf making planes whose factories were getting bombed, or why were the German pilots not trained like their adversaries. Who has the advantage, a new fighter pilot with 300-400 hours between pilot training and additional time in P-39's / P-40's, then clobber college in the Mustang in England before flying his first combat sortie, or the kid who has 50-100 hours total when he arrives at the merge? Why did that occur? 

A bit long winded of an answer, however my point is the charts are but one part of the equation that is a weapon system.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Jun 25, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> The Fw 190D-9 have had capability to operate on the C3 fuel (by midd/late 1944 about as good as Allied 100/150 grade), along with MW-50 system - thus no clear advantage for P-51 there. Granted, P-51s will have more fuel to use, but that is not a feature of the P-51, but of the war situation.
> P-51D was also carrying armor + protection for it's bigger tanks, so IMO that point is moot. Weapon set-up of the Fw 190D-9 was no heavier than of the P-51D.
> P-51 was without turbo either. Build quality of the Fw 190s was always good, or at least it was before Spring of 1945.
> P-51 also clashed vs. anything Axis, and was tested against Allied fighters, usually coming ahead with few exceptions.
> ...



The normal jumo 213A could not use the C3 fuel. Some late D9s, on the eastern front, may have used some c3, and that produced the best performance for the D9. As far as i know even the late war C3 was inferior to the 100/150 fuel that the americans had.
The 190 was carrying 150 kgr of armor.The p51?
P51 did not have turbo but did have 2 stage supercharger.The 190C turbo was not produced mainlybecause the lack of raw materials
The surfaces quality of the p51 was far better.German factories simply coul not spend time polishing and sanding the wings. Actually did not even have the rubber to seal the gap between the engine and the wing. And they were obligated to apply camouflage paint adding weight and drag.
The p51 clashed vs anything axis had with major advantages: Massive superiority in numbers, massive fuel advantage( 150 vs german 95 vs japanese 87), better pilots, ULTRA supporting its operations.
In my opinion The P51D, given equal fuel , had advantage over the D9 and K4 only above 6000m. The D13 propably would be at least equal at all altitudes(except the range of course)


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 25, 2017)

OK, listen up. I spent a lot of money on Dietmar Harmann's books
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, Fw 190 "Long Nose" & Ta 152...................
I read studied and dissected these and everything else I could get
my hands on the last several years. With that said I shall begin to
unwind.............................

" *The standard production model of the Fw 190D-9 had a Jumo 213A
engine operating at 1.8 ata boost with B4 fuel and designed to use MW 50.*
However, the MW 50 system introduction was delayed until December 1944.
So the first thirty D-9s to arrive at III/JG 54 in October were a disappointment.
They were capable of only 1,750PS. After a consultation with Jumo's head of
development, Dr, Lichte, in September 1944 an equipment kit was installed
which raised boost pressure which increased the 213A's output to 1,900 PS.
This installation was done on-site by Junkers' Technical Field Service (TAM)."

"Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his " The
JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" December 17,1944: *" The new
airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close*-
*coupled radial-engine predecessor*. Its 2240 hp with MW 50 gave it an
excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived more
rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with
tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was
a bit faster."

"The 2,240 PS maximum output that is often quoted for the Jumo 213A with
MW 50 is a bit of a mystery, My collection (Dietmar Hermann?) of* reports from
Junkers that date to the end of the war, never mention a 2240 PS setting.*
According to Junkers the Focke-Wulf document the *2100 PS SEP was the
maximum output for all production D-9s that entered service during WW2."*

" In Hermann's "Longnose" on page 118 he states," By the end of the war
many fighter units were equipped with the Fw 190D-9, including all the Gruppen
of JG 2 and JG 26. At the end of the war they were flying the Fw 190D-9 or
*Fw 190D-12, which were equal, if not superior to the latest versions of the
Spitfire."*

" On pages 119-121 in "Longnose" Lt. Ossenkop summarized the differences
between the Fw 190D-9 and Fw 190A-8. Page 121 part 7, " Take-off and climb
were rather better than in the A-8.* It was possible to make tighter turns before the
onset of flow separation*.* In a div, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8* with its drag-
producing radial engine. He felt that the D-9 was equal to most enemy aircraft
above 4,000 meters up to its maximum boost altitude (est. 6-7,000 m.)"

*'Vs. the Mustang*: The two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers,
which was an advantage for us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather
faster in a dive."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Jun 25, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Dedalos,
> 
> All aircraft designs have trade offs, or penalties. The Me-109 was small, carried a small amount of fuel, and had a big motor. Sounds like a race car meant to run 25 laps. The Fw-190D was bigger, carried a bit more fuel, and could go 30 laps. The P-51BCD had about the same motor, was a bit cleaner drag wise, and could compete well with the FW and ME, AND go over 100 laps. I'm not disparaging the German aircraft, as a matter of fact the Fw-190D is my favorite Axis aircraft. However, performance snap shots are just that, a snap shot. It's nice to compare them, and they are a starting point of a conversation about different aircraft, but are by no means the be all end all.
> 
> ...



Hi
I agree with everything. No matter why The P51D was operationaly far more succesful in 1943-45 period than the 190 or the 109
I made the comparison just on technical level
just one point i disagree. The 51D did not have the same motor with the d9. It had a smaller motor. It was competitive because a)its aerodynamics.It needed less power to achieve superior speeds b) THE FUEL. its smaller engine was able to produce 2000 hp because of the 150 octane fuel. The 25% bigger Jumo213A produced 1776 ps on 95 octane fuel and with ADI 2100 ps. Postwar, french produced 213As, produced 2300 ps on 130 octane fuel.
The p51 was a brilliant design.But it did have in its favor many important factors to be so succesful

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 25, 2017)

To Biff's excellent points regarding airplane vs weapons system (which to me was a dirty word when looking at Century Series USAF fighters), the Merlin Mustang, P-47N and P-38J-25/L were examples of combat aviation that were excellent 'systems'. 

The attribute, given that all three were fast and maneuverable, that made them excellent weapon systems was the interchangeability of external load capability combined with large internal fuel fraction. All three could go deep with a combination of Bombs and Fuel tanks, could go long on internal fuel alone without the drag of the external loads, could go extremely long and arrive 'clean' for combat and still return.

Photo recon? Yes. Armed Recon at low level? Yes, Fighter Bomber at combat radius =300 miles? Yes. Air superiority with maneuverability and speed at all altitudes - more or less equal to their finest piston engine opponents? Yes. Low level interdiction of surface transport, airfields, etc. at bomber distances? Yes. 

I once had a long letter exchange with Eric Brown during which we debated his placement of F6F and FW 190 as 'great fighters ranking' slightly above the Mustang. My key and salient point was the tactical flexibility combined with outstanding performance envelope that actually none of his top choices possessed - that limited their utility as a tool of airpower. 

The strategic footprint of the three fighters I named above were unmatched in the COMBINATION of combat range and capability throughout.

He conceded the point but closed with point fighter argument and tried to hold the FW 190 position vs Mustang by stating that the Mustang had a lower Mcr due to the radiator scoop of the P-51. I was very surprised that he held that belief as he was also an Aeronautical engineer. For some reason he either ignored the RAE Mark IV dive tests or simply had that info as a blind spot. I admired and respected him - and tip my hat to a great aviation figure of importance that ranks with anyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2017)

I would ask that we keep a distinction between the 190A and the 190D as there are a few more differences than just the engine. 
like 






78kg out of 145.7kg of armor on an A-8 are for the oil cooler? Did the D-9 also use a lot of armor around the oil cooler or radiator?

The P-51 also devoted a fair amount of weight to a different form of protection. The self sealing fuel tanks. Weight for the wing tanks in a B or C was about 320lbs minus the fuel lines and valves. you need bigger heavier tanks to hold the greater amount of fuel the P-51 carried. The rear fuselage tank increased empty weight by about 265lbs, tank, self sealing balder/lining, supports/brackets and fuel lines. 

I have no figures peak figures for the French Jumo 213 at altitude but it's take off rating was 2300hp at 3250rpm using 11lbs boost (52in) and _water injection _on 100/130 fuel. it was rated at 2100hp/3250rpm/11lbs boost dry. Perhaps power went up a bit as the aircraft climbed to full throttle height? 
Rating engines was often a balancing act between desired output and desired time between overhauls. Some engines were given higher ratings with few, if any changes, in exchange for shorter times between overhauls like the Russian 105 series. The Post war French Jumo 213s were used in a flying boat and they may have been going for longer overhaul times than a WW I fighter, I don't know. However the NORMAL rating for the engine (max continuous?) was 1720hp at 3,000rpm at 5,900ft in low gear and 1500hp at 3,000rpm at 16,400ft. I would note that a commercial Merlin 724 engine was rated at 1500hp at 2850rpm at 7750ft in low gear and 1420hp at 285rpm at 18,750ft in high gear on 100/130 fuel. figures are from the 1953 edition of "aircraft engines of the world". 
I would guess that the French were not suffering from any material shortages at this time in the way of alloys or bearings. 

Higher performance fuel does little or nothing for altitude performance without a suitable supercharger system. Germans were well aware of the benefits of using two stage superchargers (non-turbo) since both Daimler Benz and Auto Union had used them on Grand Prix cars in 1939. granted they used roots compressors rather than centrifugal compressors but the ability to reach the same boost with less temperature rise ( and thus the ability to make more power on the same fuel) was there. 

Merlin engine chart





Please move power peaks to the left by 2500-3500ft to take out the effect of the 400mph ram. 18lbs or a bit more is the limit for 100/130 fuel in the Merlin. The 100/150 fuel did nothing for combat at altitudes over 20,000ft.


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2017)

Milosh said:


> Y
> 
> Hurricane squadrons appear to have 22 a/c and Spitfire squadrons have 18 a/c. Also has a/c issued to the squadrons.



Aircraft supply was rarely a problem during this period. A cursory and no very rigorous look through a few pages of ORBs shows that generally aircraft lost on one day were replaced the next morning.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## dedalos (Jun 25, 2017)

drgondog said:


> To Biff's excellent points regarding airplane vs weapons system (which to me was a dirty word when looking at Century Series USAF fighters), the Merlin Mustang, P-47N and P-38J-25/L were examples of combat aviation that were excellent 'systems'.
> 
> The attribute, given that all three were fast and maneuverable, that made them excellent weapon systems was the interchangeability of external load capability combined with large internal fuel fraction. All three could go deep with a combination of Bombs and Fuel tanks, could go long on internal fuel alone without the drag of the external loads, could go extremely long and arrive 'clean' for combat and still return.
> 
> ...



Yes P47,P38 was good weapons systems.The P51 was excellent. Especially the first 2 were big and expensive , used a lot of fuel so theywere good at many roles. How good?
The P51A in Raf use gave good service at armed reconnaissance but when intercepted by contemporary FWs was nothing special. I repeat it was the 2 stage supercharger that made the 51 special( and the lack of it in the 190)
I directly question the ability of the p38l to execute low level roles when facing D9s with ADI ,decent building quality and decent pilots. Against D13s or Ta152H would be in trouble at all altitude
I also question the ability of the P47 N to perform low and medium level roles against the latest members of the Dora family, especially if we provide both types with the same fuel
I don t credit the P51 as a great fighter bomber. Both in ww2 and in korea ,proved so vulnerable to flak that it s unsuitable for the role.
You are a person of great scientific knowledge, but Brown flew them all! I believe his opinion has some weight!

I believe the 190 was a decent weapon system too.it was small, cheap, very easy to be serviced, low pilot workload .
Could be an air superiority fighter, a bomber interceptor, a CAS aircraft,a torpedo bomber, a long range Fighter bomber(190G), an anti tank aircraft, a recce aircraft. It was proven that additionally to the standard internal fuel capacity could have wing tanks and rear fuselage tank. When it finally recieved a 2 stage supercharger was almost equal to the latest alleid fighters
I say almost, because it still retained the obsolete wing profile


----------



## dedalos (Jun 25, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I would ask that we keep a distinction between the 190A and the 190D as there are a few more differences than just the engine.
> like
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 25, 2017)

*Okay, I will anchor a awhile...*



dedalos said:


> Yes P47,P38 was good weapons systems.The P51 was excellent. Especially the first 2 were big and expensive , used a lot of fuel so theywere good at many roles. How good?
> 
> *They were good enough to not stop or switch production to another aircraft. Also, don't forget the US was supplying equipment to the Pacific theater as well as lend lease equipment. And with deep pockets you can "afford" to make expensive equipment.*
> 
> ...



*I think the Fw-190D series was a great design, by a very talented designer, and exactly what Germany needed. I also think that it was a better plane than the Me-109 and should have taken some of that production resources. However, per my previous post it was designed to go 30 laps in the race, and the Mustang was designed to go 100 laps, and that they were very close in performance is a testament to the North American and Rolls Royce.

Cheers,
Biff*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> * However, per my previous post it was designed to go 30 laps in the race, and the Mustang was designed to go 100 laps, and that they were very close in performance is a testament to the North American design team.*



And Rolls Royce 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 25, 2017)

stona said:


> And Rolls Royce
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Fixed!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 25, 2017)

You know, I believe I forgot to mention the fact that the German fighter pilot
seats were tilted back compared to most Allied pilot seats. (Forgive me if
that is wrong, that is just how I remember it). Then again, in June 1944
USAAF pilots were receiving G-suits. Now that was a big advantage that
allowed much higher g-maneuvers without blacking out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2017)

*"Obviously a d9 with 2100hp dry and 2300hp with adi would be quite more capable than historicaly.On 150 fuel would be propably over 2400hp*
*
Yes they did not suffer from materials shortages. But they also did not re designed the engine. They made use of captured tools and reproduced the german design"
*
By 1948 they were offering co-axial contra-rotating propellers on the inverted V-12 and a 24 cylinder vertical H engine using Jumo 213 cylinder banks. At some point they had a tandem V-24 engine, one Inverted V behind the other. By 1953 they were offering a compound engine with the exhaust going through a blow-down turbine coupled to the crankshaft with 2650hp for take-off so it sounds like they were doing some development. 

When you use high PN fuel to give higher boost you need to be sure the engine will stand up to the strain (higher pressure in the cylinders) and the higher heat load. For instance going from 52in MAP to 58in MAP (11lb boost to 14lbs boost ) means burning over 11% more fuel in the cylinders per revolution. Maybe the cooling system can handle the load, maybe it can't. Cooling system means wet or dry liners and cooling of the cylinder head/exhaust valve area, not just radiator and pumps.


----------



## GregP (Jun 26, 2017)

About the answer I figured you'd give, Tomo. And don't worry about the reply. I don't care.

You seem to be on a hair trigger and want to fight all the time, for no reason. Why? I don't. I have nothing impolite to say to you. Generally, I like your posts and consider you one of the solid, knowledgeable members here. Why can't you be at least friendly?

Here's what I see:

*Fw 190 D-9*: Empty: 7,694 lbs; Normal: 9,413 lbs; Maximum: 10,670 lbs; Max Speed: 426 mph @ 21,655 ft; Range: 519 mi; Service Ceiling: 39,370 ft

*P-51D*: Empty: 7,635 lbs (lighter); Normal: 9,200 lbs (lighter); Maximum: 12,100 lbs; Max Speed: 437 to 440 mph at 25,000 ft, depending on report. Assume 437; Range: 1,650 with tanks; Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft. The extra max weight was all fuel, and that gave a LONG range when required. You could NOT have replaced the P-51D with the Fw 190 D-9; it couldn't do the job under any circumstances of which I am aware (insufficient range). The converse is not true. The P-51D could have replaced the Fw 190 D-9 and not much would have been lost, while great range would have been gained.

Armament goes to the Fw 190 D-9 all the way, for sheer destructive power, but the P-51D was adequate for the fight. Production numbers are as I said before 11 to 2 for the P-51D, roughly. Not all of them got to Europe, but there were more P-51Ds around than Fw 190D-9s in the air, always. That makes a LOT of difference in a real war. Not in a video game or one-on-one. Particularly, if the people with the larger number of fighters have the fuel to fly them at will, and they did. The converse is just not true. The Germans basically ran out of fuel at the front line airfields in late May 1945. That's why we destroyed so many on the ground in April. They weren't flying. Ergo, no help to the war effort. Had nothing to do with the willingness to fly and fight ... but you DO need fuel to fly.

Pilots: I'd say the Germans were better when the "Experts" were flying (much more experience), but the Allies had better pilots (late war) on average (more experience on average), if only due to more training and nobody bombing us while in pilot training. We also had a training PLAN and program. We flew in LARGE formations as the war drew down, making an attack on the fighter escorts somewhat suicidal for the most part and an attack on the bombers not much less risky.

One on one: Fw 190 D-9 was a wonderful fighter. Good climb, good speed, great armament, robust, and well-designed. The P-51D was also a wonderful fighter, with slightly less-impressive armament but also with the ability to kill anything it encountered, albeit with probably more ammo fired. They were close enough that the pilots SHOULD have made the difference, one-on-one. I consider the Fw 190 D-9 to be the best the Germans fielded in numbers, and it WAS a good one. The best fighter they fielded of the piston variety was undoubtedly the Ta-152, probably the H for high altitude and the C for medium altitudes. There were never enough of either fighter to make a big difference in the outcome, but they were impressive for sheer engineering and performance, particularly the Ta-152. Had it achieved mass production, things might have been a LOT more interesting.

I wish the aircraft family had survived the war to a much greater degree. Real WWII fighters are wonderful to work on and keep flying. It would be a privilege to work on a Focke-Wulf, especially a real one.

Oh yeah, the Ta-152 has no bearing on the thread? Are you serious? The Ta-152 was an Fw 190 D model that was "improved," so it most certainly DOES relate to the thread. It was a wonder plane, but without any major production (about 42 - 43 delivered, with more airframes waiting for engines and props). That alone makes it a non-player. Had it been built in numbers, it might have been a game changer. It wasn't in the end. The Ta 152 combat record was very ordinary, probably due to the war situation more than to any operational reason. There WERE thousands of Allied fighters flying about versus the 42 or so Ta 152s. That makes a huge difference in operations, normally speaking. It was a superb aircraft, in every sense of the word. It just wasn't a factor in the war. In every other sense, it was a great fighter, if ever there was one.

I think in terms of war contribution, not individual performance, because that is what wins wars. You might have the best airplane in a group of 45 Ta-152s, but if you come up against 800 good fighters (maybe P-51Ds) from the enemy side, it might not matter much in the end. And it didn't.

The Bf 109 gave a great contribution to the German war effort. It didn't win the air war, but was probably the best fighter of all times, if all the victories get counted correctly. Some days, your best doesn't quite make it happen. Doesn't mean the equipment OR the personnel were faulty. It only means you lost when it was over. When it happens, get on with life and move forward. Hopefully, world war is a thing of the past. Doesn't mean we should forget it.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 26, 2017)

dedalos said:


> Yes P47,P38 was good weapons systems.The P51 was excellent. Especially the first 2 were big and expensive , used a lot of fuel so theywere good at many roles. How good?
> The P51A in Raf use gave good service at armed reconnaissance but when intercepted by contemporary FWs was nothing special. I repeat it was the 2 stage supercharger that made the 51 special( and the lack of it in the 190)
> I directly question the ability of the p38l to execute low level roles when facing D9s with ADI ,decent building quality and decent pilots. Against D13s or Ta152H would be in trouble at all altitude
> I also question the ability of the P47 N to perform low and medium level roles against the latest members of the Dora family, especially if we provide both types with the same fuel
> ...




Dedalos - I mostly agree your points about FW 190D when operating in best conditions available to it in last four months of the war.

Please note that I said "more or less equal", not superior, in my remarks about full envelope air combat. Note that a P-47N or P-38J/L or P-51 with bomb load is using all internal fuel for the 250-350 mile combat radius and extremely light for optimal maneuverability in the low level envelope. All the 8th/9th AF P-38J/L, P-47D/M performed well against the FW 190D. I am not saying superior, but equal, and the pilots made the difference. If the P-47N was carrying bombs in FB role, it should have performed better than the D at low level after dropping loads.

Amusingly, the Mustang I and IA had many survivors at the end of WWII - primarily because of the performance of the Allison engine and overall capability at low level.The armed reconnaissance role performed by them was one of the most hazardous of WWII. I have no idea what the answer is but I wonder how many survived as a percentage of production for the three years of continuous combat and how that compares to FW 190A-5 or Spit IX contemporaries.

As to 'great fighter bomber' (or not), the P-51D had very close to the same loss per sortie ratio as the F4U in Korea and the F-105 in Vietnam, before anti Sam tactics were introduced in late 1966. (As an aside, the US has never produced a tougher airplane than the F-105).The capability didn't change, but the threat environment post WWII increased greatly.The capability in WWII was excellent, particularly when compared to Spitfire, Bf 109, FW 190A/D, Hurricane, A6M, P-40, Yak 3, Laag 7, Ju-87, Me 110, etc.

To the last point about Eric Brown. IMO, there is no better expert to comment on the flying qualities of any WWII aircraft in comparison with each other. Our debate was the ranking in comparison and I focused on 'Important combined with performance'. With due respect to the F6F, both the FM2 and F4U could have performed the Carrier and land based mission with nearly the same results as F6F, Neither the P-38H/J (until J-25), nor the P-47D were up to the challenge of prosecuting a.) the destruction of the LW over its own airspace, and b.) supporting the strategic daylight bombing campaign before D-Day. Post D-Day was irrelevant if the SHAEF had determined the invasion was too risky based on LW existing strength, as mid July was the latest possible window for cross Channel attack. The weather almost doomed the invasion as it was.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 26, 2017)

dedalos said:


> The normal jumo 213A could not use the C3 fuel. Some late D9s, on the eastern front, may have used some c3, and that produced the best performance for the D9. As far as i know even the late war C3 was inferior to the 100/150 fuel that the americans had.



Seems like D-9 was succesfully tested with C3 fuel: link (pdf)
Already in 1943 the German C3 fuel was rated as (for rich rating) 'better than 125 grade' (>125 grade) by Allied 'chemical intelligence':
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf




> The 190 was carrying 150 kgr of armor.The p51?



Weight - I don't know. It carried front and back metal armor, plus front bullet-proof glass.



> P51 did not have turbo but did have 2 stage supercharger.The 190C turbo was not produced mainlybecause the lack of raw materials
> The surfaces quality of the p51 was far better.German factories simply coul not spend time polishing and sanding the wings. Actually did not even have the rubber to seal the gap between the engine and the wing. And they were obligated to apply camouflage paint adding weight and drag.



The British used 'painted' Mustangs, IIRC there was barely any speed loss.
The way Germans were installing engine cowlings, ie. those were attached to the engine ('motorfeste Motorverkleidung') that, even when good rubber was used, was draggier than the Allied system where the engine cowling was attached to the 'fixed' parts of engine compartment ('Zellenfeste Motorverkleidung'). Even if it enabled the 'power egg' engine installation easier to design. People at Focke Wulf judged that way of cowling will gain them 25 km/h on the Ta-152, for example.



> The p51 clashed vs anything axis had with major advantages: Massive superiority in numbers, massive fuel advantage( 150 vs german 95 vs japanese 87), better pilots, ULTRA supporting its operations.



Ah, no. The Allied fuel, before mid-1944, was the 100/130 (lean/rich). German fuel was 96/130+ (lean/rich). Japanese were using 92 oct + water-alc injection. The great numerical advantage is also a myth, at least before mid-1944. Eg. during the big week, USAF used 73-150 P-51s, that did more damage to the LW than 750+ of P-47s and P-38s combined, vs. hundreds of LW 1-engine fighters.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 26, 2017)

Wasn't German a/c paint smoother than Allied paint?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 26, 2017)

GregP said:


> About the answer I figured you'd give, Tomo. And don't worry about the reply. I don't care.
> 
> You seem to be on a hair trigger and want to fight all the time, for no reason. Why? I don't. I have nothing impolite to say to you. Generally, I like your posts and consider you one of the solid, knowledgeable members here. Why can't you be at least friendly?
> ...



Sorry that you count me as the one wanting to fight all the time. I just don't like to be accused for muddling with facts (without support for the accusation), and can be more than friendly when that does not happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 26, 2017)

Good answer, Tomo.

Glad to hear it, because I probably muddle the facts more often than you do, but that happens in discussions. It wasn't intended as a specific criticism, more of an observation on ONE tiny subject. And I could have been wrong then, too. As I stated above, your posts are usually quite good and to the point.

As a general rule, I think ALL the production fighters were pretty good. If they weren't, they wouldn't have made production. There is certainly room for a dissenting opinion, and it might be correct.

One-on-one, I'd call the Fw 190 D-9 versus the P-51 a dead even heat. Both good, solid aircraft. Nobody (or few) ever accused the Germans of making inferior equipment! My own thoughts would be that the Fw 190 D-9 would out-roll the P-51D (based on wartime observations of Fw rolling ability), but the P-51D would out-turn the Fw 190 D-9 (based on 20% lower wing loading and decent airfoils for both).

Cheers.

P.S. It is off-subject, but from your signature it appears you live in Poland. What is the Polish Air Force experience with the F-16? Do they like it or not? Maybe a dedicated answer in the modern forum?


----------



## dedalos (Jun 26, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Seems like D-9 was succesfully tested with C3 fuel: link (pdf)
> *As far as i know the vast majority of the D9 units did not had the option to use the C3 even if available*
> Already in 1943 the German C3 fuel was rated as (for rich rating) 'better than 125 grade' (>125 grade) by Allied 'chemical intelligence':
> http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf
> ...


----------



## Greyman (Jun 26, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> The British used 'painted' Mustangs, IIRC there was barely any speed loss.



Reading up on a B-17 document at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org ...

Surface roughness of an unpainted B-17: 15 micro inches
Surface roughness of a painted B-17: 50 micro inches
Weight of paint: 75 pounds

Despite being heavier and over 3 times as 'rough' - the painted B-17 was 2 to 5 mph faster then the unpainted aircraft (depending on the altitude). They figured because it filled in all the seams, joints, rivet heads, etc.

Now as far as I understand the 'unpainted' late war USAAF aircraft did have compositions applied to them to fill (all?) the little bits and improve the overall finish. How much of a net weight and smoothness gain this was over a painted aircraft I have no idea.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_42-97656_Eng-47-1722-A.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2017)

If a B-17 only took 75lbs of paint to cover the performance gain for single engine fighter doing without paint would be minuscule. 
Some large transport planes went without paint but put the difference in weight toward higher payload or fuel, but again the surface area of large transports is much larger than the surface area of a fighter. 

I would note that some engines responded to 150 PN fuel much better than others. The P-47Ds were limited in time in their use of higher power settings allowed by both water injection and/or 150PN fuel. While high speed showed a nice improvement without much restriction (except fuel consumption) the use of high power in climb called for a careful eye on the temperature gauge. 
The "C" series engines used in the P-47M and N had much more finning for cooling and much stronger internal parts. This allowed for more power to made using the 150 PN fuel than the "B" series engines could be rated for. Development of the "C" series started in 1940. One might say that the later "CA", "CB" and "E" engines were designed with the higher than 100/130 fuel in mind. 

In fact most, if not all, air cooled radial engines required new versions with major modifications to make use of 145-150PN fuel. 
It took Wright until 1947 to produce engines rated for 115/145 fuel. Not sure about Bristol but if so they were definitely post war (sources disagree) but very late model Centaurus (660 series?) and Hercules (760 series?) Please note that a 760 Series Hercules gained over 500lbs in weight from a MK I Hercules.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2017)

Greg, Tomo, can you two kiss and make up?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 27, 2017)

This is a family forum, so I'll decline the kiss part of it ... Tomo will, too ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Greg, Tomo, can you two kiss and make up?



Yes. I'm sorry for coming out that harsh.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 27, 2017)

Ahem, for those who weren't paying attention when I sent Post # 514.
" *The standard production model of the Fw 190D-9 had a Jumo 213A
engine operating at 1.8 ata boost with { B4 fuel } and designed to use MW 50.*

I will be sending notes home to the parents of those that don't pay attention
in class.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jun 27, 2017)

It was just getting good, got the popcorn!


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 27, 2017)

Mr. Porter, please inform the rest of the class when you have made
the trip to the store to acquire the correct quantity of beer to supply
the rest of the class to go along with that popcorn sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jun 27, 2017)

That was my bad as the kids say, I 'forgot' to mention the beer... won't happen (often) again!


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 27, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> If a B-17 only took 75lbs of paint to cover the performance gain for single engine fighter doing without paint would be minuscule.
> Some large transport planes went without paint but put the difference in weight toward higher payload or fuel, but again the surface area of large transports is much larger than the surface area of a fighter.
> 
> *SNIP*



Just by way of information I had read this earlier this year, found it interesting, not a FW or Mustang but testing on an early P-80A with unpainted, filled, and painted surfaces, but at slightly different weights, it's the third table from the top.

Full report here: P-80 Performance Tests

It seems the P-80 gained speed progressively from unpainted to filled to painted, although I don't see any more than a 10 MPH gain at the most.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 27, 2017)

You know Pete, Erik Hartmann made the statement, " We didn't worry about
20 mph. difference." or he said something very close to that many years ago.
Just the same, I think if I was just out of range of an enemy fighter and had
had my fill for the day, knowing I had a 10 mph. advantage in speed would
be somewhat comforting.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 27, 2017)

Corsning,

I have touched on that point before. If you know for sure you are out of gun range and know you are faster then it's an easy go decision. If you are not sure of either or both it's much tougher and you are betting with your life.

If a opponet is faster but inside your gun range you can keep him from getting away by forcing him to maneuver to avoid shots allowing you to close the gap.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jun 27, 2017)

GregP said:


> Good answer, Tomo.
> 
> Glad to hear it, because I probably muddle the facts more often than you do, but that happens in discussions. It wasn't intended as a specific criticism, more of an observation on ONE tiny subject. And I could have been wrong then, too. As I stated above, your posts are usually quite good and to the point.
> 
> ...


 

Greg

There was a test of the 190D-9 done in the US after WW2 (see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf).
The test pilots opinion was that the FW's rate of roll compared well with the P-51D and P-47 but could not match to the P-38J and P-80. Unfortunately, no speed or altitude was given, and no definition of what "compared well" means.

The above for info only.

Eagledad


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 27, 2017)

If a opponet is faster but inside your gun range you can keep him from getting away by forcing him to maneuver to avoid shots allowing you to close the gap.

Cheers,
Biff[/QUOTE]

Excellent point Biff. Thank you for that insight. I am guessing that I will repeat that maneuver
to others.
I can't believe that maneuver never even crossed my mind.
Boy, nothing gets past old eagle brain me, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 27, 2017)

For those that would like more information on the Fw 190 & Fw 190D-9;
FOCKE-WULF Fw 190D PERFORMANCE - Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds
FOCKE-WULF Fw 190/Ta 152 PERFORMANCE TIMELINE - Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds
performance-timeline/
Have a great day guys, Jeff


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2017)

The P51 was pure serendipity. Its design brief was set by its manufacturer simply to be better than the P 40. Being a USA manufacturer it had a long range on internal fuel simply because the USA is a huge country. It was specified with an Allison engine which meant it was not too difficult to put in a Rolls Royce Merlin. From its original design with low drag wings and cooling system it was found that it could take more guns and ammunition in the wings, more internal fuel, oil and oxygen and then two massive external tanks on the wings. 
In my view the "edge" that the P51 had on others was its aerodynamics and its "contingency" in engineering, its condition on take off with external and internal load of fuel was borderline on safety but put it in another league in terms of range. Then as this is being discovered and put together the USA finds its bombers cannot defend themselves as expected. Cometh the hour cometh the P 51. Looking at a P51D and its performance figures it is hard to believe that by and large it happened by accident, the air frame and engine being designed on different continents in different decades. 

BTW who gets credit for the canopy?

As aircraft the Fw 190 of any type will suffer in comparison, with 1000 four engined bombers available, the USA decided the terms of the conflict, that is what happens in a war, not a demerit for the Fw 190 D.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 27, 2017)

BTW who gets credit for the canopy?

I actually have no idea, but my money is on the innovative British.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> BTW who gets credit for the canopy?
> 
> I actually have no idea, but my money is on the innovative British.


It is the canopy that makes the P51. The P51A would never have been named "Cadillac of the skies". The back of the LW was broken by the B/C version but it is the P51D that gets the credit and wins the hearts because of that canopy.


----------



## GregP (Jun 27, 2017)

Hi Eagledad,

I'll be sure to read that one since I have often heard about the fantastic rolling capability of the Fw 190 radial aircraft. particularly when they first came out and were such a surprise to the RAF. I figured the switch to the inline might affect pitch rate, but I didn't think it should affect roll rate by much. Perhaps that is incorrect. Everything I HAVE read indicates the Fw 190 D-9 was a good one, in every sense of the word.

Thanks! It will make a good read, I'm sure. And I can't disagree with it since I wasn't there.

*Edit*: Well. that certainly doesn't bear out what I said above, does it? I wonder if the example they flew was representative. It obviously had some issues, and may not have been entirely in good working order. I would THINK the D-9 to be better than that report indicated, but have no proof of same as I don't read German. Since the report was of flying a captured D-9 with some obvious difficulties, I'd not want to claim the conclusions as typical of the type without other corroboration.

What's even funnier is that report contradicts every other flight report of the radial units. They were supposed to stall with little to no warning and this D-9 gives plenty of warning. Something is fishy here ...

Steve Hinton flew Paul Allen's Fw 190 restoration and said the feel of the aircraft was first rate. That is, it was immediately apparent he was in a first-rate fighter that flew considerably differently from a Flugwerk replica (which he has also flown). He didn't explore the flight envelope very much as the test card was all about making sure it was airworthy, not about performance. That particular aircraft is BMW 801-powered.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 28, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The P51 was pure serendipity. Its design brief was set by its manufacturer simply to be better than the P 40. Being a USA manufacturer it had a long range on internal fuel simply because the USA is a huge country. It was specified with an Allison engine which meant it was not too difficult to put in a Rolls Royce Merlin. From its original design with low drag wings and cooling system it was found that it could take more guns and ammunition in the wings, more internal fuel, oil and oxygen and then two massive external tanks on the wings.
> In my view the "edge" that the P51 had on others was its aerodynamics and its "contingency" in engineering, its condition on take off with external and internal load of fuel was borderline on safety but put it in another league in terms of range. Then as this is being discovered and put together the USA finds its bombers cannot defend themselves as expected. Cometh the hour cometh the P 51. Looking at a P51D and its performance figures it is hard to believe that by and large it happened by accident, the air frame and engine being designed on different continents in different decades.
> 
> BTW who gets credit for the canopy?
> ...



The Bubble Canopy has two mothers.
The Brits articulated a need for better visibility and NAA responded with a 'sliding Hood' design installed and tested on a Mustang 1A in November, 1942. The sliding hood was satisfactory but the Malcolm Hood on the Spitfire was deemed a better solution and the RAF went to R. Malcolm for a Mustang custom solution. The first note I have found relative to date of installation is on the IARC for 43-6405 (FZ105) "R.Malcolm 30 Nov 1943, 19MU Oct, 1944" denoting the movements. Approximately 10 were modified in the UK for Mustang III before they were 'reverse Lend Lease' back to AAF for 354th FG on or around 12/31/43.

The Brits requested that Malcolm Hoods be installed at NAA in 1943 but I don't have the actual letter or the date, but NAA tested one installed at NAA in October, 1943 and deemed it too noisy and cold. That said, I have found that NAA was testing a bubble canopy at Inglewood wind tunnel. The drawing is labeled "Packard Pursuit" dated 7-7-42.

The P-51D Master Dimensions Book dated Feb 10, 1943 contains the Lofting Lines for both the P-51D Canopy as well as the six gun wing. The P-51D Lofting was complete on April 10, 1943 and subsequent Effectivities points to the P-51 42-106539 and 540 as the #1 and #2 P-51D-1. 42-106539 was delivered on 25 October, 1943. I believe, but not certain, that P-51B-1 43-12102 famously shown as first Bubble canopy mod was flown in July, 1943 - not November 17 as often stated. I believe 539 was the Mustang that actually flew in November as the first P-51D.

What is CERTAIN is the much touted visit to Inglewood in July, 1943 - by either Kelsey/Bradley (I can't remember) with the XP-47K bubble canopy version was Not the 'stimulus' for NAA development.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 28, 2017)

While I prefer the look of the P-51B/C, it's no stretch to see (no pun intended) why the D model would be desirable, granted my knowledge is only from research but the better visibility of the bubble would be the way to go.

So, I assume the D with a bubble would offer better visibility than a B/C with a Malcolm Hood on it? I seem to remember reading some accounts that pilots preferred the Malcolm Hood because they were able to sort of lean out of the cockpit and look under the tail. Sounds anecdotal so I'll ask, is that possible and wouldn't the D's bubble not only allow that but also just offer better all around vision?

Also, interesting that NAA found the Malcolm Hood "too noisy and cold", so does that mean modifications were in order? Or did North American just say pfft, that's cute but here's the bubble top D instead? Which looking at the timeline drgondog posted seems that NAA already had a bubble top answer before the Malcolm Hood (or the XP-47K for that matter) showed up at Inglewood.


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> You know Pete, Erik Hartmann made the statement, " We didn't worry about
> 20 mph. difference." or he said something very close to that many years ago.
> .



At least one Hurricane pilot made an effectively contradictory statement when he said words to the effect that the thing that worried him most about the Bf 109 was knowing that the Hurricane wasn't fast enough to run away from it. The speed difference meant that the German pilot could disengage more or less at will, an advantage denied the pilot of the slower aircraft.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2017)

Somethings are relative, 20 mph to a 320 mph fighter is a bigger difference than 20mph to a 420 mph fighter. And in some cases it is the acceleration rather than the actual speed that allows the separation. I doubt that any piston engine fighter pilot decided to depart a fight while flying at top speed. He may well have been at full throttle but you are not at top speed even if banked let alone turning. If a 340mph fighter decides to "run" while doing 280-290mph with a 320 mph fighter behind him (also doing 280-290mph) but not in firing position the 340mph fighter _may_ have better acceleration and be able to hit 320mph before the slower fighter does and then keep accelerating. What this_ looks_ like to the pilots involved may be a bit different than the actual physics. or even the actual top speeds of the planes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 28, 2017)

Keep in mind when talking about acceleration that you must know the
engine power, power loading, and dynamics of the aircraft involved.
At the time of its inception the Ki.43 had a maximum speed of less
than 310 mph., but there wasn't an aircraft in the sky that could
match its acceleration from 150 to almost 250 mph.and possibly even higher.
And that was with a 2-blade prop by the way. And NO I don't have the
exact figures...do you?

I don't have all the answers at this time, but I am having fun working on it.
God bless, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 28, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> While I prefer the look of the P-51B/C, it's no stretch to see (no pun intended) why the D model would be desirable, granted my knowledge is only from research but the better visibility of the bubble would be the way to go.
> 
> So, I assume the D with a bubble would offer better visibility than a B/C with a Malcolm Hood on it? I seem to remember reading some accounts that pilots preferred the Malcolm Hood because they were able to sort of lean out of the cockpit and look under the tail. Sounds anecdotal so I'll ask, is that possible and wouldn't the D's bubble not only allow that but also just offer better all around vision?
> 
> Also, interesting that NAA found the Malcolm Hood "too noisy and cold", so does that mean modifications were in order? Or did North American just say pfft, that's cute but here's the bubble top D instead? Which looking at the timeline drgondog posted seems that NAA already had a bubble top answer before the Malcolm Hood (or the XP-47K for that matter) showed up at Inglewood.



The NAA engineers were placating the RAF because a.) they knew that the production break to modify existing P-51B/C design would place production of Malcolm Hood version into the last block in late Spring, b.) the labor cost was prohibitive in contrast to the production Bubble canopy, and c.) would be delivered in fewer numbers over the May-June timeframe than the production D-5. 

The original -2 Canopy was closer to flat side than the more blown -6 Canopy. So the original P-51D-5-NA with the -2 canopy had slightly less back and down than Malcolm Hood and the later -6 'semi-blown' bubble canopy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2017)

It has always been a mystery to me that from when the Spitfire was first seen in public other designers didnt seek to copy its canopy. the Typhoon didnt get a bubble canopy until Nov 1943.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 28, 2017)

When the Spitfire was first seen in public, it didn't have a bulged canopy.

But, hey, pbehn, I knew what you meant! And I agree with that sentiment.







The prototype is shown above, complete with original canopy, 2-blade prop, and tail skid. No stealth at all!

Glass panels were well after the war ....


----------



## ChrisMcD (Jun 28, 2017)

I understand that a US liaison officer was the one who pushed for the bubble canopy on US fighters after seeing it on the Typhoon.

"A problem encountered with the Merlin-powered P-51B/C Version
was the poor view from the cockpit, particularly towards the rear. The
‘Malcolm Hood’ fitted to the P-51B/C was an early attempt to correct
this deficiency. However, a more lasting solution was sought. In January
1943, Col. Mark Bradley had been sent to England and saw how the new
‘bubble’ or ‘teardrop’ canopy had given Spitfire and Typhoon pilots an
unobstructed 360-degree vision. He returned to Wright Field in June and
began exploring the possibility of incorporating bubble canopies on
USAAF fighters.

Republic Aviation installed a bubble canopy on the P-47D
Thunderbolt in record time and Bradley ﬂew it to Inglewood to
demonstrate its features. Following discussions with the British, and after
examination of the clear—blown ‘teardrop’ canopies of Spitfires and
Typhoons, NAA secured an agreement with the Army to test a similar
canopy on a Mustang in order to improve the pilot’s View from the
cockpit.

P-51B-1-NA (43-12101) was selected to be modified as the test
vehicle for the new bubble canopy."

Ref: 
*Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air*
By Steve Pace


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2017)

The Spitfire canopy evolved just like the rest of the aircraft. As far as the view from the cockpit goes, it is worth remembering that the first 'low back' Spitfires didn't appear in production until 1944.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jun 28, 2017)

ChrisMcD said:


> I understand that a US liaison officer was the one who pushed for the bubble canopy on US fighters after seeing it on the Typhoon.
> 
> "A problem encountered with the Merlin-powered P-51B/C Version
> was the poor view from the cockpit, particularly towards the rear. The
> ...


Unfortunately, Bradley was either a little foggy on the details or he didn't realize that the 106-xxxxx drawings were complete for the Production D and that 43-12102 had already installed the prototype bubble canopy. Steve made several errors in his collection but the Bradley tale came from Bradley - not NAA. He also claimed to have flown the first 85 gallon tank but Chilton holds that distinction.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> When the Spitfire was first seen in public, it didn't have a bulged canopy.
> The prototype is shown above, complete with original canopy, 2-blade prop, and tail skid. No stealth at all!.



That is a proper prototype, it looks like I just made the worlds worst Spitfire replica and propped it up on a beer crate for a photo.

When I said "seen in public" I meant at an air show where the worlds designers could see it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Somethings are relative, 20 mph to a 320 mph fighter is a bigger difference than 20mph to a 420 mph fighter. And in some cases it is the acceleration rather than the actual speed that allows the separation. I doubt that any piston engine fighter pilot decided to depart a fight while flying at top speed. He may well have been at full throttle but you are not at top speed even if banked let alone turning. If a 340mph fighter decides to "run" while doing 280-290mph with a 320 mph fighter behind him (also doing 280-290mph) but not in firing position the 340mph fighter _may_ have better acceleration and be able to hit 320mph before the slower fighter does and then keep accelerating. What this_ looks_ like to the pilots involved may be a bit different than the actual physics. or even the actual top speeds of the planes.


I have to disagree here a bit. Delta airspeed is an absolute function, not a relative one. A car that is going 60 mph sees a car going by 80, will say that car car is really going fast. A plane fly 400 mph sees a plane going by at 420 could say the same thing since the distance the 80 mph car over the 60 mph car in say one minute, will be the same as the 420 mph plane will have over the 400 mph plane in same minute. Separation rate of the two examples are based on the same value, 20 mph. What you say about the acceleration rate is true. Two planes in a turning fight, one is capable 400 mph top speed and the other 420 mph, the 420 mph plane is in the lead and decides to roll out and run counting on his top speed for separation. Unfortunately, for the lead aircraft, even though he can out accelerate the chasing plane he is likely not going to be able to out accelerate the rounds coming his way before he can get out of range, which is exactly a repeat what you have said.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2017)

Bubble canopy technology seems to have been an evolutionary design. Both the Zero and Fw 190 had pretty close to 360 degree viewing whereas most fighters at the start of the war had poor aft viewing, like Bf 109.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 28, 2017)

There was also a problem in forming full blown canopies in the beginning without imperfections that would cause vision problems.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2017)

It took a while to make large one piece blown canopies. Why it took so long to get "bubbles" made up of multi panels is a bit harder to understand. 





first flight Oct 1938
while the Tornado 




solid rear for what reason? 




Grumman XF5F but the F6F and even the F7F didn't follow. 
P-38 and P-39?

However there may have been a drag penalty with some of these early canopies??


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2017)

The Miles M20 had a sort of bubble canopy in 1940.





Of course there is no way to tell how optically perfect it was. As I understand it a bubble canopy cannot have perfect optics, but then flat glass only has when looking straight through it. My point was that the British (Spitfire and whirlwind) Germans (Fw190) and Japanese (zero) were moving in that direction while the brand new designs in USA were still birdcage type.

I have no idea what Hawkers were up to the Typhoon was probably worse than the Hurricane to start with.


----------



## eagledad (Jun 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Eagledad,
> 
> I'll be sure to read that one since I have often heard about the fantastic rolling capability of the Fw 190 radial aircraft. particularly when they first came out and were such a surprise to the RAF. I figured the switch to the inline might affect pitch rate, but I didn't think it should affect roll rate by much. Perhaps that is incorrect. Everything I HAVE read indicates the Fw 190 D-9 was a good one, in every sense of the word.
> 
> ...



Greg;

I also thought that the D-9 had a similar roll rate as the A. The only way I can see a P-38J out roll a FW-190 would be if the Lightning was equipped with powered ailerons, the speed was almost 350 true, and we are talking steady state roll, not "slam bang" (ie quick roll one direction followed but a hard reversal the other direction,)

. 

I have included a chart comparing the P-38L, P-51B, and FW-190A roll rates, by Lockheed via Dr.Carlo Kopp.







Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 29, 2017)

1938 / 1939 Nakajima Ki.27

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 29, 2017)

drgondog said:


> Unfortunately, Bradley was either a little foggy on the details or he didn't realize that the 106-xxxxx drawings were complete for the Production D and that 43-12102 had already installed the prototype bubble canopy. Steve made several errors in his collection but the Bradley tale came from Bradley - not NAA. He also claimed to have flown the first 85 gallon tank but Chilton holds that distinction.



Another question if you don't mind, re Mustang stability with the 85 gallon tank, did stability issues stem from the lack of baffles in the tank or just the fact that it added all that weight where it did. 

And, if it was a tank without baffles did they ever try it with baffles? I think I've read that postwar some of the 85 gallon tanks were removed to increase stability, yes or no?

Thanks as always.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Another question if you don't mind, re Mustang stability with the 85 gallon tank, did stability issues stem from the lack of baffles in the tank or just the fact that it added all that weight where it did.
> 
> And, if it was a tank without baffles did they ever try it with baffles? I think I've read that postwar some of the 85 gallon tanks were removed to increase stability, yes or no?
> 
> Thanks as always.


The lack of baffles was noticeable but not sure that it was destabilizing. That said, the 85 gallon tank received two lateral baffles following a December 22, 1943 Test report. The lack of longitudinal baffles were not deemed important.

I have not heard that AAF/USAF removed the 85 gallon tank. For example, It was very important in Korea for sufficient range of FB ops out of Japan. Removal is a no-brainer for Warbird community. That said, the P-51B Berlin Express re-installed the tank and plumbing to make the cross-Atlantic trip to Duxford yesterday.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 29, 2017)

Many thanks, always happy to learn more about the Mustang. I try not to be a fanboy about it but it's my favorite from WWII and I think one of the most beautiful (and impressive) aircraft to ever take wing.

Also I got my signals crossed and transposed the removal of the fuselage tank by warbird owners with AAF/USAF postwar, my bad. I really should be fully awake when I post.


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2017)

Not sure liking a plane makes you a fanboy. I usually attribute that more to the guys who credit their pet aircraft with abilities beyond what it really had. Perhaps that is not the literal internet definition?
.
Unfortunately, I like ALL WWII fighters! Regardless of side or country. And I assume they were all pretty decent when they were selected for production. Almost everyone who produced a fighter looked at the world competition before buying it

The P-26 Peashooter, while obsolete in WWII, looked pretty decent in 1932! By 1936 (Curtiss Hawk, Bf 109, and Spitfire time), it didn't. It just happened to be a time of rapid engine and airframe development.

I have also heard maybe 50+ WWII pilots way top speed was almost meaningless in a fight. None said it was meaningless when running away, just that it was in a fight. Perhaps what they were saying is, "If you weren't trying to escape, top speed was not all that important." Maybe most in here can see that as absolutely true. It's just that, in a fight, it can turn from a fight to escape in a heartbeat, and you have little control over when that happens some of the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2017)

GregP said:


> I have also heard maybe 50+ WWII pilots way top speed was almost meaningless in a fight. None said it was meaningless when running away, just that it was in a fight. Perhaps what they were saying is, "If you weren't trying to escape, top speed was not all that important." Maybe most in here can see that as absolutely true. It's just that, in a fight, it can turn from a fight to escape in a heartbeat, and you have little control over when that happens some of the time.



I have read of Hurricane pilots being unnerved when in combat in France with Bf 109s because while they could stay in combat they couldnt break it off. By the same token I read of a Tempest pilot who didnt fancy taking on a flight of Fw190s just pushing the throttles through the wire gate to use max boost and leave the problem behind.


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2017)

Heard of them, too. Never been one of them, so I only have anecdotal evidence and combat reports.

Seems that if you were attacking, top speed wasn't all that important. If you were trying to avoid contact, it was. Altogether, I'd say it has importance, but I'm not sure where it fits in. I'd bet it is different for each fighter pilot, but don;t really know.


----------



## airminded88 (Jun 30, 2017)

I'd say that top speed is also critical at an offensive capacity for when the pursued aircraft tries to disengage a fight and put distance between it and its pursuer, it is a superior speed that will become the dominant factor for the pursuing fighter.


----------



## GregP (Jun 30, 2017)

Not too sure. As long as you were in range, it didn't matter if he was extending. It mattered if you could shoot before he got out of range (WW2). If he was running, you could bet he wasn't going to be overly aggressive in the immediate future. That says nothing about his friends, though.

Today, top doesn't matter at all, except to GET there. ALL the missiles are faster than the aircraft! And all dogfights are at speeds lower than top speed.

Biff could chime in here.


----------



## stona (Jun 30, 2017)

In the 1930s the Air Ministry and RAF concentrated on developing two properties of their fighters' performance. Those were speed and firepower. Both the Hurricane and Spitfire were direct results of the Air Ministry's high speed research programme. I find the arguments that maximum speed was somehow unimportant unconvincing. Both aircraft look the way they do because the merging of various specifications (including F.35/35 which was specifically for an experimental 'High Speed Aircraft'). It's why they are monoplanes, why they have retractable undercarriage etc., etc. Everyone developing fighters was seeking to produce certain types to be as fast as was technically possible at the time and the Air Ministry was acutely aware of developments in Germany. The Air Ministry was aware that RAF fighters generally sacrificed performance for other operational factors, and that this might no longer be tenable. As the Director of Technical Development (Cave) wrote:

_"We receive from A. I. [Air Intelligence] reports of high speed claimed for fighters built abroad. As our new Fighter Specifications F.7/30, F.5/33 and F.22/33 all sacrifice performance for other operational requirements the situation may arise shortly that our fastest fighter is very much slower than some foreign fighters."_

A situation which was clearly not acceptable. The ever increasing speed of bombers was also a concern, as was the need to develop a sufficiently faster fighter to be able to effect an interception.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2017)

Top speed is a function of Power Available vs Power Required. Although a 20 mph difference (or 40) may not be perceived as important in a fight, Acceleration and Climb are important and those are directly related to 'excess power'

So, if a P-51B-1 and Bf 109G6 at 25K are zipping along at the 109's max Power/top speed of say 390mph, the 109G6 is way behind the 51B-1 in Energy available when the 51 pilot moves from MP to WEP.

Top Speed as a metric is as stated above, but it IS a reflection of 'what's left in the tank' when comparing relative performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 30, 2017)

Hey Greg, don't get me wrong, I'm in the same boat, I find just about all WWII fighters and bombers likable. As a kid growing up on the family airfield surrounded by farm country there were two ways to go, farming or aviation. I'm not a farmer.

I had SEVERE allergies growing up so most of my summers (until about 13 years of age) were spent on a couch or in bed breathing through wet cloth or later masks to keep out pollen. My outlet at the time was to read and I settled on WWII air combat almost from day one. My dad brought just about any book he could lay his hands on for me from the library and harassed them to get more all the time. He was a hard guy to refuse, still miss him.

Sorry, rambling, what I meant to say is out of all the choices the Mustang is just "it" for me. I have no illusions about its performance, hell, I am of the opinion you don't have to stretch the blanket when it comes to the P-51, its merits (and that of its pilots) stands on its own.

That said, I still find all the other fighters interesting and in their own way works of art.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## airminded88 (Jun 30, 2017)

Well put Petter Gunn.
It's not difficult to like the P-51 unless you are extremely biased against it and all Allied-built equipment and the opposite is also true.
I just wish there was more equilibrium in the wold but I digress.
The Mustang does not need any embellishment whatsoever. It carries an admirable legacy behind it but its limitations as with every single prop-driven fighter to come out of WWII should always be kept in perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 30, 2017)

To speed or not to speed...

There are couple of things at play here, already touched on but important none the less. The summation being what tools do you have and when / how to use them.

Speed: Speed in the WW2 fighter world comes from (for the most part) two sources or a combo of them. Those being aerodynamics and power. I'm not getting into the which prop is better, just looking at the power as stemming from the prop, engine, fuel as a group. The P-51A was noticeable faster than it's Allison counterparts due to some serious attention to aerodynamic details. Side benefits being better fuel milage (if there is such a thing in a WW2 fighter), better acceleration and maybe better high speed handling, higher critical mach, and or higher ceiling. All tools.

Power: Bill touched on it, but the power available versus required. His example being, "So, if a P-51B-1 and Bf 109G6 at 25K are zipping along at the 109's max Power/top speed of say 390mph, the 109G6 is way behind the 51B-1 in Energy available when the 51 pilot moves from MP to WEP." In any situation if you have more power available than the guy you are fighting you have a tool he doesn't. Doesn't mean you will use it correctly, at the right time, or in the right place, it just means it's there.

Maneuverability: While the Zero had tremendous range, it also had serious maneuverability advantages over it's Allied adversaries. If you can do something in a turning fight noticeably better than your adversary it is an advantage (and or tool) to be used against him or his type.

Speed has it's uses in WW2. If you are going fast enough it seriously impedes or reduces the ability for the adversary to complete an intercept (and shoot you down). If you are offensive it allows you to avoid attacks, as well as opens opportunities for you to attack that your adversary doesn't have. If you get bounced (tapped in todays terms) it might give you an opportunity to roll over and exit the fight (bandit not in range but in the attack mode) do to your higher speed / faster acceleration) or it might slow down his intercept enough that you can drag him / the fight over in front of a friend who can then put your bandit out of action. It's also usable if you are able to exit a turning fight (engagement in todays terms) before he can bring his nose to bear on you to shoot (or employ in todays terms). This is a difficult one as you are using your eyes / experience to judge the distance and are betting with your life. If he starts to shoot, you can jink (bullet avoidance maneuver), turn back in, or continue.

Power, or excess is a good thing. There are predominately two types of dog fights (BFM / Basic Fighter Maneuvers) and those are rate or radius fights. Rate is how man degrees of turn you can sustain over time (generally longer ranged fights), versus the radius fight (closer ranged fights in which the gun could be used also called a nose position fight) which is how many degrees can you turn over the next few seconds. Excess power if used correctly will keep you out of a short range fight. Or it will give you an advantage in a close fight if used correctly. I have fought F-18's with the Eagle, and they are much more maneuverable than I was. However, if we got into a groveling match, I would try to work the fight into the vertical since I have more power than he does. Get above him, open distance between you (aka turning room), then drop down while bringing the nose to bear so as to employ weapons. Also in a longer range fight, against an F-4, F-5, Mirage, F-16 (depending on it's configuration), if the guy can't shoot me then I'm going to play the rate game as it made for a longer life span. Same goes in WW2. If you are in a rate fight (trying to turn more degrees per second over time), you need to keep your speed up. An example is a guy attempts to shoot you, overshoots and his nose is stuck in lag (not able to bring it into lead due to your turning and his performance). You keep your speed up at or towards best rate speed, and maintain that while watching him. If he starts sliding from the back of your canopy towards the front he is losing that fight so don't change what you are doing if the fight allows (does he have a buddy about to jump you, does gas allow). Over time (unless he changes the fight) you will reel him in to arrive at his 6 o'clock with overtake ready to employ / shoot. If he elects to low yo-you shortly after over shooting (over rotate or dig under) then all you have to do is over rotate to keep him near the horizon (your perspective) and he will probably not get to a gun employment opportunity. That last maneuver will build angles between you, hopefully allowing for an separation (exit of fight).

Hopefully not too much detail. We look at the charts and they tell us a tremendous amount, but only at that one slice of time. We have seen where one airplane will have an advantage over another yet still lose. It could be the pilot didn't have the required situational awareness, or he lost sight for a moment, and loses in the end. Better plane, lesser plane, it doesn't matter if you don't use it well. In the case of the P-51BCD versus the Fw-190D-9 they seem very well (evenly) matched until you add in the Mustang flew from England, fought for 30 minutes, then flew back. 

The big picture is speed, maneuverability, range, weapons, the pilots skill, are all tools. Use them better than your adversary, even if he has advantages, and you should be successful.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 30, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> The big picture is speed, maneuverability, range, weapons, the pilots skill ...



Not _looks_?!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2017)

from another angle it looks very unfriendly
.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 30, 2017)

I'll see your one and raise you three...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 30, 2017)

GregP said:


> ...
> P.S. It is off-subject, but from your signature it appears you live in Poland. What is the Polish Air Force experience with the F-16? Do they like it or not? Maybe a dedicated answer in the modern forum?



I live in Croatia. My avatar pic is our MiG-21 2-seater 'Kockica' ('small box'). A token number of MiG-21s represent a pale shade of what we could use, money being scarce due to inept and/or corrupted governments of the last 3 decades and counting.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 30, 2017)

Thank you Biff. Always glad to read your insight from first hand knowledge.
Now then, speed is life. From top speed for escaping/catching, climbing speed
to gain altitude, acceleration into a roll, diving speed for escaping/attacking,
turning speed (time)...etc. Speed is life. I agree that top speed is not everything.
The Me 163 and 262 proved that. But in there case, it was definitely something.
Top speed is what made aircraft like the Mustang I, Ia and Mosquito so very
important. They could get in, do their job and get out without being intercepted
most of the time.
The high speed of the B-29 is one of the main reasons its interception was so
difficult.
Combat speed is another great asset.
*Combat speed:* The maximum speed at which an aircraft retains its full
maneuverability to the degree that it does not harm its structure and
is still fully functional at a competitive level to its adversaries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 30, 2017)

You are the man Tomo. I am so glad you hang in there tuff buddy.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 30, 2017)

Thank you. Wife and me are tough puppies, have had some luck, and family support from both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 30, 2017)




----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2017)

Hey Tomo,

Couldn't tell from the Avatar (size, not quality). Always liked the MiG-21 myself. It has a lot of good qualities except for range and low-speed handling.

Air Forces aren't cheap to run! That's for sure.

I doubt you have cornered the market on a government the people aren't all that fond of. There are probably a hundred plus countries or more who feel similarly about their own government.

I think if I were running the government, and my country had a population of one, I might really like the government.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 5, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> I live in Croatia. My avatar pic is our MiG-21 2-seater 'Kockica' ('small box'). A token number of MiG-21s represent a pale shade of what we could use, money being scarce due to inept and/or corrupted governments of the last 3 decades and counting.


Tomo,

My family and I just returned from your "neck of the woods". We did just over a week in Rome, Naples & Amalfi. Is Croatia terrain similar to Italy?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 7, 2017)

Not sure if this is the place for this, but it's a Mustang thread so...

Was late for a physical therapy appointment at this massive medical complex, had to stop for gas, couldn't get a parking spot, when I finally did, I'm walking through this huge underground parking structure when a minivan drove past with "P51 PLT" as its license plate. Well that's cool, so when I get to the elevator/entrance I look at the front and he has a Fourth Fighter Group Assn. plate on the front, that's when I looked at the driver, realized he was an elderly gentleman, I pointed to the plate and gave him a "thumbs up" which he returned with a grin.

Well, I had to know so I walked over and spoke with him for a few minutes, turns out it's Lieutenant John B. "Jack" Swan and his wife Jan. Got to speak with him for a few minutes, the look on his face when when he mentioned getting a brand new D-20 when he got to Debden was priceless. Guy is still sharp as a tack, wife and I are taking them both to lunch on Saturday. Just one of those moments (increasingly rare now) that you run into a WWII vet that I thought I'd share. He's 93 and is in good health except for his shoulder (we have that in common at least), looking forward to lunch with them tomorrow.

Cheers

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 8, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Tomo,
> 
> My family and I just returned from your "neck of the woods". We did just over a week in Rome, Naples & Amalfi. Is Croatia terrain similar to Italy?
> 
> ...


Pretty similar, though we have more islands and are less densely populated (less towns/cities per square mile). Italy also looks more cultivated, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## airminded88 (Jul 8, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not sure if this is the place for this, but it's a Mustang thread so...
> 
> Was late for a physical therapy appointment at this massive medical complex, had to stop for gas, couldn't get a parking spot, when I finally did, I'm walking through this huge underground parking structure when a minivan drove past with "P51 PLT" as its license plate. Well that's cool, so when I get to the elevator/entrance I look at the front and he has a Fourth Fighter Group Assn. plate on the front, that's when I looked at the driver, realized he was an elderly gentleman, I pointed to the plate and gave him a "thumbs up" which he returned with a grin.
> 
> ...



Finest company to enjoy a meal and a pleasant chat with!
Hopefully everything went well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

