# Favorite fighter/interceptor?



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 10, 2005)

My favorite interceptor of the ETO would have been the Ta-152 i am sure, but seeing as how it saw little combat in its intended role, i wont make that my decision. Overall i would have to choose the Focke-wulf Fw-190D series. It could attain a speed of 425 MPH at an altitude of 21,710 ft. It had a somewhat limited range of 521 miles, but had good altitude performance and carried a decent armament. Two 20mm cannon and two machine guns, along with proviosions for 1,103lbs of bombs or attachable munitions. With good speed and armament, not to mention manouverability at alititude, in 1944 this aircraft was a treat to allied fightes and bombers. 

My favorite fighterr/interceptor of the PTO would have to be the N1K2-j Shiden-kai. With a top speed of 362 MPH at 19,407 ft, it wasnt the fastest interceptor of the war, it was enough to deal with bombers and fighters of the allied war machine. It was also armed with four 20mm cannon, giving it a good punch, capable of downing american bombers and fighters with limited hits. The aircraft had a very good range of 1,577 miles, giving it good loiter time over a target, or even escort ability. However this aircraft had many troubles in its service life, but still had a good effect for the numbers employed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2005)

Hmmm... This kinda topic has been done so many times before, but I will chime in to get ur re-thread going some...

The Fw-190D-9 is my favorite fighter, period... Sweetest thing in the air, and probably the Best All-Around Fighter in WWII....

As far as the PTO goes, the F4U-1D/F4U-4... Grandpa flew one, and many other craft, and it was his favorite... 

(He did state that the N1K2-J, during post war test trials, was the best fighter aircraft he ever flew, performance-wise)..

BTW, ur stats for the N1K2-j are actually those of the N1K1-J, according to The Complete Book of World War II Combat Aircraft... And the Shiden also had 2 machine guns on top of the 4X 20mm....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2005)

i guess i'd say meteor or spitfire........


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2005)

And for the PTO?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2005)

shiden.....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for the info on my mistake about the N1K2-J...i have that book myself, and misread. Thanks also for chimeing in. Im new heree, and just thought id post something, anything too establish myself.


----------



## JCS (Sep 10, 2005)

I voted for the Dora in the poll, although my #1 favorite fighter of all time is the Bf109G.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 10, 2005)

I personally am with Lanc Spitfire or Meteor with FW190D and ME262 close behind for ETO. For PTO F4U or P-38 with Shiden and Zero close behind.

Voted FW190D in the poll


----------



## evangilder (Sep 10, 2005)

FW-190 for ETO
F4U for PTO, closely followed by the Hellcat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2005)

For WW2 - P-38, F4U, FW-190D
Post War - F-86, MiG-15


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 10, 2005)

The Bf-109G as the best interceptor? Come on, the stick got very stiff, and because of the cramped cockpit, the pilot wasnt allowed to apply full force. It was a decent aircraft no doubt, but as for the best interceptor, i would think hardly. Sure it could carry many field conversion kits, rockets, extra cannon and so forth, but it had limited range. Its altitude performance was beyond that of earlier Fw-190s, and it was available sooner than the high altitude focke-wulfs. The "gustav" therefore played a vital role in the early part of the bombing raids, but it was hardly the best. Its sucesses are due to numbers and time deployed, along with the still at the time more trained pilots. By the time the Doras were ready, pilot prowess was even lower do to attrition.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2005)

No fair picking 3 for WWII FBJ... 

One from ETO, one from PTO...... (One obviously is ur favorite)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> No fair picking 3 for WWII FBJ.


 

Well the P-38 was in the ETO and PTO - I though I could get away with 1 1/2 for both.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 11, 2005)

Spitfire 21 for ETO. Corsair for PTO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

Of the two you have up there I would go with the Fw-190D. I think the Ta-152 could have been the best interceptor though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 11, 2005)

> The Bf-109G as the best interceptor? Come on



dude this topic's for your favourite, not what you think's the best, you should know- you made the bloody topic!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

Yeap Lanc is right and if you put it that way my favorite fighter/interceptor is the Bf-109G-6. You asked for your favorite fighter not what the best was. The Bf-109G-6 has always been my favorite fighter.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 11, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For WW2 - P-38, F4U, FW-190D
> Post War - F-86, MiG-15



Yup, though the MIG has terrible stick forces. i understand that many MiG-15 pilots had 4" added to the stick for leverage.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > For WW2 - P-38, F4U, FW-190D
> ...



Very True - even in the UTI (trainer).


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2005)

Going against the rub of things I would go for the Fiat G55. Good speed not the fastest I will admit, but it accelerated quickly a factor often missed. As with most Italian planes it was very agile and I would be happy to take on any of the P51, P38, FW190, F4U and Spitfire mentioned above in a fight. For the bombers it was well armed carrying lots of ammunition. 
That would do me.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

Wow, i completly overlooked the G.55. It was an excellent aircraft, with three 20mm cannon, and two machine guns, it had one hell of a punch. With a speed of 385 MPH at over 23,000ft, it was more than fast enough to catch the bombers being used, and hold its own against american and british fighters, being not much slower, having good dive and climb, ammunition stowage, and manouverability at all altitudes above 15,000ft especially.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

It surprises me not one person voted for the N1K2-J shiden kai. It was a great aircraft, but being from the PTO, and japanese, i shouldnt be surprised it received no votes. It was manouverable, had a good top speed at altitude, and a good armament, even stronger than that of the G.55. Because of some teething troubles, and bombings of factories where it was produced, it wasnt produced in good enough numbers to have any real effect, but gave a good account of itself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

It has nothing to do with the fact that it was Japanese. I am sorry but the N1K2 was not better than the Fw-190D. And besides you not ask people what there favorite fighter is and only give them 2 choices. There are plenty that like the Spit, P-51, or Bf-109 better than both of those. 

Are you trying to prove something here?


----------



## Erich (Sep 12, 2005)

the Dora as I haven't a tidbit on the Japanese a/c


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 12, 2005)

Glider said:


> Going against the rub of things I would go for the Fiat G55. Good speed not the fastest I will admit, but it accelerated quickly a factor often missed. As with most Italian planes it was very agile and I would be happy to take on any of the P51, P38, FW190, F4U and Spitfire mentioned above in a fight. For the bombers it was well armed carrying lots of ammunition.
> That would do me.



I agree. You think logically Glider...


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2005)

Thank you


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

And it was around in mid-43...if you compare it to what else was around at the time you realise it was a fairly remarkable aircraft...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 24, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> And it was around in mid-43...if you compare it to what else was around at the time you realise it was a fairly remarkable aircraft...



A G.55 compares reasonably to a Spitfire IX with a Merlin 61 or a 109G-6 with a DB605AM. It still loses out in terms of climb and speed against these two. Still, given that the Italians seemed to have a knack for getting very good handeling and high manoeuverability out of their designs, it would of been a handful in a dogfight. 

If I wanted an interceptor, I would go for either the Bf-109K4, Spitfire XIV, Yak 9U or F4U-4. All these planes climb like a lift to 20,000 feet. An interceptor is no use to anyone if its still climbing to get into position when the bombers are already over the target. Over about 30,000 the Spitfire would be the favourite, if only because the Griffon 65 doesn't hit critical altitude in 2nd stage until somewhere around 26,500 feet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

For Intercepter I would go with either the Ta-152H, Fw-190D or the Spit XIV.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> For Intercepter I would go with either the Ta-152H, Fw-190D or the Spit XIV.



The P-38L-5 and F4U-4 start off with 5min/20,000', great maneuverability, top speeds over 440mph, and the ability to mix it with any of them. The closeness of them is why I like to list them together.

wmaxt


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 25, 2005)

I'd go with the Tempest- fast, manouverable and can carry a hell of a punch in ground attack work


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > For Intercepter I would go with either the Ta-152H, Fw-190D or the Spit XIV.
> ...



Those 2 were great aircraft also, I will give you that.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 21, 2006)

From what I have read, the N1K2-J lost power at altitude and was not successful in attacking B-29s. This seems to elimate this plane from contention.


----------



## Jagdverband 44 (May 25, 2006)

Fw-190D-9. that plane is awsome.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 25, 2006)

> Fw-190D-9. that plane is awsome.


It most certainly is, and many many members and Mods here agree 100% with u...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

As I said before the Bf-109G-6 is my favorite aircraft of WW2 period but when it comes to the best catagory I go with the Fw-190D and the Ta-152.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2006)

Revitalized this Poll...


----------



## Henk (Nov 4, 2006)

Fw-190D, love the plane and everything about her, but the Me-262 and Ta-152 are also a number of my favorites.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 6, 2006)

Ta-152 is too optimised for high altitude operations. Part of the problem with these polls of just picking a airframe is not specifying the mission parameters. Therefore, I would have to adopt a more loose choice that allows for flexibility.

And that leaves one to pick the P-51D or P-38L.


----------



## Erich (Nov 6, 2006)

not actually since it's operations nearly constituted almost all mid to low altitude range with the Soviets and RAF. Only 1-2 missions against the P-51 from what I can find and I am unclear at what altitude on those ......


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 7, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For WW2 - P-38, F4U, FW-190D
> Post War - F-86, MiG-15



Speaking of the F-86, I saw last Saturday a cool show on the History Channel called Dogfight. It showed an F-86 Sabre in a dogfight with a Mig-15. The F-86 came out the victor when the Mig used his excess speed from a dive to outclimb the Sabre. The Sabre followed and fired from extreme range and killed the Mig. As the Sabre pulled out of the climb, another Mig fired from his four o' clock and acceralted towards him, the sabre pulled up, got on the Migs tail, and shot that one down. It was all in 3-D animation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> And that leaves one to pick the P-51D or P-38L.



Does not leave me to pick the P-51D. It is a myth. The aircraft was a great aircraft dont take me wrong, but if she had not had the numerical superiority that she had over the Luftwaffe fighters she would have been no better than the best Luftwaffe fighters.

Her lay to fame is only as an escort fighter able to follow the bombers to the target and back. The rest is hollywood...


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 7, 2006)

FW 190 lineage for me, because I like outsiders and the 190 was not designed as an air superioritity fighter but as a 'jack of all trades' (I believe Tank used the term 'Diestenpferd' if I can ever spell a German word correctly...)
Nevertheless the 190 was always on top in performances as interceptor, plus she carried a firepower superior to any other single engine fighter (except the Dora who was optimized for interception and exchanged firepower for lightweight) packed in a very nimble design.
OK, the Tempest V had approx the same firepower of the standard 190-A7, but was 9000 pounds empty vs 6500...


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Nov 7, 2006)

My favorite fighter is obvious....The JUG!!!

But my favorite interceptor would have to be the F2G corsair.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Speaking of the F-86, I saw last Saturday a cool show on the History Channel called Dogfight. It showed an F-86 Sabre in a dogfight with a Mig-15. The F-86 came out the victor when the Mig used his excess speed from a dive to outclimb the Sabre. The Sabre followed and fired from extreme range and killed the Mig. As the Sabre pulled out of the climb, another Mig fired from his four o' clock and acceralted towards him, the sabre pulled up, got on the Migs tail, and shot that one down. It was all in 3-D animation.


I saw that show, very cool and accurate.

It was correct in saying that the F-86F was faster and at certain altitudes could out maneuver the Mig-15. The Mig-15 was still lighter and could out accelerate the Saber but eventually the Saber could close in, especially at higher mach numbers.


----------



## rochie (Nov 7, 2006)

i voted fw 190 dora but also love the f 4u


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 7, 2006)

I'll stick with my posts. More versatility in P-51 and P-38.

Erich, I'm surprised about your comment on the Ta-152. With such a large wing aspect ratio, you are saying that it was a superior low/mid dogfighter? That would prove to be very counterintuitive for me.


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2006)

proof was Matt that it took down Soviet and RAF fighters from mid range, the Ta 152H was never flown at it's peak altitude. As JG 301 was providing constant Wehrmacht ground enforcement even the Doras of II./JG 301 were committed to fighter bomber missions in the Spring of 45 along with the Fw 190A-8/A-9's. Stab of JG 301 with the Tank was providing high air coverage but they were not flying at anything above 20,000 feet but at much lower alt.'s


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 7, 2006)

Midrange I can fathom. It is the lower flight regime where I would think that any airplane with such a high wing aspect ratio would suffer maneuverabilty. Were there quite a few kills in the midrange? Against what kinds of airplanes?

I'm not knocking the 152, just am fascinated that an aircraft specifically developed for high altitude operations, is being touted as superior fighter in all flight regimes. Seems contrary to my understanding.


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2006)

Jak's, Migs, Tempests and a kill against a P-51D and a P-47, but I am thinking off the top of my head right now. The TA 152H-0 and H-1 kills have not all been recorded, much of the spring 45 kills were not recorded as nobody cared, it being one of the last Reich defense units and operating against both sides of the conflict, JG 301 as a whole left so many bases to be flittered away in stupid ground bombings and strafings


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 7, 2006)

They were all great fighters in their own right, but I chose the Hawker Tempest as my personal favourite in the European theatre of war. It was hard to choose between the Tempest, the P-47 and the Bf-109. For the Pacific side of things, definetly the Kyushi Shindin


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

I didn't think the Shiden ever saw action. It was plagued by engine trouble from the start, right? Specifically overheating? And didn't the primary flight test pilot die during an early test?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> I'll stick with my posts. More versatility in P-51 and P-38.



Not trying to argue here with you and I agree that the P-38 is a very versatile aircraft but how is the P-51D more versatile than the Fw-190, Tempest, P-47, Corsair, etc...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

Oh, never mind. I agree with you. Powerful, fast and 4 30mm cannon. What's not to like.

I was thinking of the forward canard airplane with rear mounted engine. Can't recall designation off the top of my head.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not trying to argue here with you and I agree that the P-38 is a very versatile aircraft but how is the P-51D more versatile than the Fw-190, Tempest, P-47, Corsair, etc...



Perhaps not. I view these threads as more of a popularity contest than one that is likely to draw any meaningful technical conclusion. Your question is not an argument, but rather what makes these threads fun. In the hands of a skilled pilot any of these fantastic aircraft were beyond the pale.

My vote for the P-51D is based upon its operational capability, flexibility, maintainability (a VERY important consideration) and design simplicity. The latter cannot be readily said for the P-38 however. The engine platform was not unique to this aircraft, the armament consisted of a single weapon, and the maintenance cadre were well trained. The flight characteristics were forgiving, allowing for relatively untrained pilots to master basic aerial fighting skills, and its range was phenomonal.

Perhaps not all unique to P-51D, but convincing in their own right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

Okay because I understand versatility differently as in what kind of roles it can perform in. The P-51 could not perform in as many as I stated.

I just look at this way, you take away the range and the P-51 is no better than the Spitfire, Bf-109 and Fw-190 and probably not as good as the Spit and Fw-190.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)




----------



## lonestarman63 (Nov 8, 2006)

Ain't she just cool too look , i mean if you knew nothen about aircraft and walk about and found one of these you wold have to say she is a predator with only on job in life


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

You got that right. Every other designer said lets put two engines on the wings outside a common fuselage so she will go faster. Kelly Johnson put that on its ear.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 9, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I saw that show, very cool and accurate.
> 
> It was correct in saying that the F-86F was faster and at certain altitudes could out maneuver the Mig-15. The Mig-15 was still lighter and could out accelerate the Saber but eventually the Saber could close in, especially at higher mach numbers.



Cool.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> Ain't she just cool too look , i mean if you knew nothen about aircraft and walk about and found one of these you wold have to say she is a predator with only on job in life



I agree but I say the same for the Fw-190 and the Bf-109G. You look at them and they have an elegence to them but at the same time you can tell they were built for one purpose with there menacing looks. The Fw-190 was not called the Butcher Bird for nothing.


----------



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

whereas the spitfire's graceful lines give the illusion of heavenly beauty that could do no harm... of course while you're tossing yourself off in the cockpit at how beautiful she is she'll be shooting you down


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2006)

If I could still vote I would, and it would be conclusively for the P38! Long range, good top speed, strong gun armament, and enough bombs and rockets to keep the enemy guessing if its a fighter or a straight out bomber. The only other possible plane I would vote for is not their, and I'll give you a hint, I start just about every topic on planes telling how it was underrated, and should have been advanced more in design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> whereas the spitfire's graceful lines give the illusion of heavenly beauty that could do no harm... of course while you're tossing yourself off in the cockpit at how beautiful she is she'll be shooting you down



Dont ever talk about how you jack off to aircraft again, please....


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 9, 2006)

Thankyou Adler. "Tossing off". "Erotic Lumbricants". Eewww.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 11, 2006)

All the Spitfires, FW190's, Mustang and most of the Japanese ones

No Contest


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Nov 11, 2006)

For ETO I prefer FW-190A-8 and LA-7 and YAK-3 (this because my grandfather flew on this plane when he was fighting along with Russians on the Eastern front). PTO F4U Corsair and KI-84 Hayate.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 11, 2006)

Welcome to the forums Milos!


----------



## bigZ (Jan 21, 2007)

Went for the 152 just because I like it. The Dora also looks good but the 190's in general look pug ugly.

How about the Reggianne Re 2005/ YAK's/ IAR 80/81 etc? Poll looks a bit biased too Northern Europe and US. It was a World War!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

i don't think any of the -190s are ugly...........


----------



## Marcel (Jan 23, 2007)

I choose the Spitfire, no, the 190, eh no, the Tempest, eh no the Mustang, AAAARRGGH, I don't know which to choose, I like them all!!!!


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

If any1 voted for the Shiden-Kai,I support you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Not to many people did. There is a reason why.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

Anyone notice that Ohka and Lanc are two peas-in-a-pod? Lanc and his unswerving focus upon all things British and Ohka and his love of everything of the Emperor.


----------



## MacArther (Mar 11, 2007)

Hrmmmmm, you may have a point there.... I'll have to look into it  .


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2007)

I voted for the TA-152, even though the mustang had longer range.... It was a difficult choice with the Mustang, Corsair, Lightning, 190D-9 etc. etc. Wonder what would have happen if the TA-152 had shown up a year earlier?


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 20, 2007)

THis was a tough choice given the line-up of excellent aircraft in the list, in fact they are all held in high regard by me, so I had to vote for a purely aesthetic choice, I like the looks of the Spitfire Mk IX the best, but if I was choosing which I'd rather be flying in combat, I'd have trouble choosing between an Fw 190A-8, P-47N or P-38J-25.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2007)

I voted Ta152 (big suprise) - even though designed as a Mustang killer, it had enough firepower to be a B-29 or B-17 0r Lancaster or Spitfire or (insert your preference here) killer.

Shiden great fighter/lousy engine quality but at it's peak performance I would still take a 190D-9 (or -12 or -13 ...God I hate Myself) over it.. in fact I would put a P-38L over the Shiden as a high altitude Interceptor duking it out with B-29s.. and a Shiden could whip a 38 or 51 or F4U or 190 or Ta 152 in the horizontal.

Regards,

I hate myself Willy


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 16, 2007)

I'd say FW-190D-9. just cause.

Edit: hey, someone else on the internet lives in Oregon besides me! cool!


----------



## Cota1992 (Jun 16, 2007)

I picked the T-Bolt as my favorite with any Fw-190 as a close second runner up. I don'r know what's the best and don't think I'm the guy to judge that anyway, but being close to a P-47 as it cranked up and taxied off a few yards away was enough to hook me for life as a favorite.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 12, 2008)

What about the Fw 190A-9?

I'll go with the P-47 as my favorite though. P-47D, M, N, for general-purpose/multirole, interceptor, and long-range escort. (plus there's the XP-47J...)

Thinking of versitillity though, the P-51 was a good high-altitude escort (and very fuel efficient) and decent fighter-bomber, but overall the P-38, P-47, and Fw 190 series were more vesitile fighters imo.


----------



## Soren (Feb 12, 2008)

LMFAO Bill !


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 13, 2008)

What's that a response to Soren???


----------



## Soren (Feb 13, 2008)

Bill just made some very funny remarks 

I agree with his post.


----------



## renrich (Feb 14, 2008)

If we are talking about the most effective interceptor in WW2 I pick the Me 262. It did not have the most kills of bombers but when it was operating it was almost unstoppable. It must have struck fear into the hearts of bomber crew in Europe. It would have effective against the B29 also. In Europe the interceptor that probably had the most kills would probably have been some model of the FW190 although Chris may have knowledge that shows the Bf109 to be supreme there. I don't know about overall WW2 numbers of bomber kills but in the Pacific I am sure that the Hellcat was the champion there with more bomber kills than any other AC(including kamikzes) and the Hellcat may be the bomber killing champion of the whole war.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2008)

renrich said:


> If we are talking about the most effective interceptor in WW2 I pick the Me 262. It did not have the most kills of bombers but when it was operating it was almost unstoppable. It must have struck fear into the hearts of bomber crew in Europe. It would have effective against the B29 also. In Europe the interceptor that probably had the most kills would probably have been some model of the FW190 although Chris may have knowledge that shows the Bf109 to be supreme there. I don't know about overall WW2 numbers of bomber kills but in the Pacific I am sure that the Hellcat was the champion there with more bomber kills than any other AC(including kamikzes) and the Hellcat may be the bomber killing champion of the whole war.



Rich - that would be interesting research. 

I suspect that both the Fw 190 AND the Me 109 would be at the top simply because the RAF, VVS, and USAAF combined lost a lot more bombers than the Japanese had in their entire inventory. IIRC the total awards for the F6F were in the 5000 range - of which I would be equally suprised that 2000 were bombers. Their foes were largely IJN which tended to torps and dive bombers while the IJA had the Betty's etc. Marines and USAAF took on more of the latter than the USN, didn't they?

I would 'guess' that the both the Me 109 and the Fw 190 in all their variants were close to that number on B-17s,24s, 25s, 26s across 8th/9th/12th and 15th AF? 

Don't know for sure but suspect it would be true, and who knows how many RAF medium and light bombers were shot down from North Africa, all across the Med and around the ETO?

I wonder who might have an answer to that?

I would have picked the Me 262 for defensive role but leaned to Ta 152 based on near 262 (about the same delta as between a P-40N and a P-51D at 25,000 feet) performance plus range plus payload. 

So a Ta 152 could be used as a high speed long range escort, long range interceptor, fighter bomber, long range fighter recon, etc where the 262 is unstoppable as a shorter range fighter.


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2008)

Bill, you are right, in that the number of kills the Hellcat had in the Pacific was 5257 with 1445 being bombers. I don't know if, for instance, a Zeke being used as a kamikaze counts as a fighter or bomber. Interestingly F4U had less than half the kills of the Hellcat but a much higher proportion of the kills were fighters and it dropped a lot more bombs. I read somewhere on this forum that F4Us dropped 70 % of all bombs dropped by US fighters in WW2. Is that possible? Actually, if Allied fighters in the ETO had had the opportunity to be interceptors (good that they did not) I believe I would pick the P38L as the premier interceptor. By late 1944, it was the weapon it was designed to be with all the bugs out, deadly firepower, great high altitude performance and could have stayed up a long time to shoot down many bombers. Few escort fighters could have competed with it at high altitudes.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2008)

I believe the Spitfire XIVe to be superior to the P-38L as an interceptor; it was just as quick to 20,000 feet (7 minutes for both, if I remember correctly) as the Lightning and would be more comfortable in and amongst the enemy escorts if they were encountered. The Spitfire had good firepower with 2x20mm Hispano Mk.II and two Browning M2 .50 cal. The only advantage of the P-38 would be the extended time in the battle, but this would not be as important in an intercept.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 15, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I believe the Spitfire XIVe to be superior to the P-38L as an interceptor; it was just as quick to 20,000 feet (7 minutes for both, if I remember correctly) as the Lightning and would be more comfortable in and amongst the enemy escorts if they were encountered. The Spitfire had good firepower with 2x20mm Hispano Mk.II and two Browning M2 .50 cal. The only advantage of the P-38 would be the extended time in the battle, but this would not be as important in an intercept.



Plan_D - I would offer one reason why I would want the P-38L as an interceptor. Huge differences in range. 

I feel the Luftwaffe failed to press US Daylight raids at earliest opportunity, even with nuisance attacks, to attempt to force long range escorts to drop external fuel prematurely. If the LW had the Ta 152 much earlier or even a P-38L with very long loiter time, they could have put them over the Channel on the Border as the bombers were forming up.. possibly even attacked from high altitude during the formation assembly process and put enormous strain on planning for 8th and 9th AF Fighter Command and RAF Fighter Command?

To me the climb rate to 20,000 feet is interesting but less important with good radar coverage giving more reaction time. In the case of US daylight attacks a simple brief burst on a radio transmitter near American airfields during engine start process would have been better than radar.. could time the Formation Assembly almost by the clock from Engine Start Time on the mission plan.

Secondly, I can't think of any bombers the luftwaffe had that didn't fall very nicely to a simple ol' battery of 4x .50s on the P-51B when they caught Ju 88, He 111, He 177, Do 217s while roaming the east German countryside.

The Spit battery of 4x20s absolutely better in my mind but the 2x20 plus .303 would be slightly lower preference for me. 

Last, I like the P-38 firepower concentration factor of all 5 weapons having essentially a 24" diameter cone of fire and complete ballistic convergence from 0 feet to 300-400 yards. I suspect the effect for the me 109G/K was better than expected with the central battery, even though slowed in rate of fire with respect to P-38, by prop synchronization requirements?

Both great ships, but for Interception I would go with the P-38L over any US conventional fighter for the reasons noted...


----------



## Freebird (Feb 15, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Hmmm... This kinda topic has been done so many times before, but I will chime in to get ur re-thread going some...



I was curious to ask the mods/members, has there been a poll done of best *low-level* fighter-interceptor? Say under 10,000 feet?


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2008)

According to my source the fastest US fighter at sea level was the F4u4. 380 mph. We know it was a formidable kamikaze interceptor as that AC was what the Navy loaded up with near the end when the kamikazes predominated. If it were eligible the F8F would have been a star because of it's high speed and rate of climb.


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2008)

The FW-190 Dora is definitely one of the best performing a/c at 0 to 10,000 ft, with a SL top speed of 382.5 mph and 4,430 ft/min climb rate.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> The FW-190 Dora is definitely one of the best performing a/c at 0 to 10,000 ft, with a SL top speed of 382.5 mph and 4,430 ft/min climb rate.



How does that compare with a Typhoon or The F4U?

What other aircraft were there in 1941 or 1942 that specialized or excelled in low-level ops? 
(I know about the clipped wing Spit's, I wonder if there were others)


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2008)

The FW-190 Dora is slightly faster and climbs slightly faster than the F4U-4. The same applies against the Tempest. (The Typhoon is too slow for comparison)

In 1941-42 the FW-190A is unrivalled in terms low alt performance.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> The FW-190 Dora is slightly faster and climbs slightly faster than the F4U-4. The same applies against the Tempest. (The Typhoon is too slow for comparison)
> 
> In 1941-42 the FW-190A is unrivalled in terms low alt performance.



I thought the Typhoon was in the high 300's when close to sea level?


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2008)

The Typhoon had a max speed of 342 mph at SL in 1942. In 1943 it seems to have moved on to 352 mph.


----------



## renrich (Feb 16, 2008)

At sea level in 1942 the F4U1 was the fastest of all US fighters at about 350 mph. At 5000 feet the Allison Mustang took over getting up to 390 mph before it's supercharger gave out. Late in the war another good low altitude performer was the P63.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> According to my source the fastest US fighter at sea level was the F4u4. 380 mph. We know it was a formidable kamikaze interceptor as that AC was what the Navy loaded up with near the end when the kamikazes predominated. If it were eligible the F8F would have been a star because of it's high speed and rate of climb.



The 51H at full combat load, no external tanks, was flight tested at 401mph at SL with climb rate of 4700fpm from SL to 2200 feet. North American tests in mid 1945 had it at 410 mph at SL and 5100fpm max climb rate - but I haven't been able to find my files on that. 

It was in production and in operational squadrons in March so only lagged the Ta 152 by a couple of months, depending on whether you think either the H-0 or H-1 was a production quality fighter

BTW - on the D-9 here is what Caldwell had from the III./JG54 pilots in December

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*26 December: The biggest news the returning pilots had for their comrades was the Mustang’s superiority in speed and acceleration to their Dora 9s. *
27 December: Despite its long absence from the front for training, there were still doubts as to the combat-worthiness of III/JG 54. Today a familiarization flight over Münster basin was ordered for all four of the Staffeln. […] III/JG 54 lost five aircraft destroyed and one damaged; three pilots were killed and two were injured. 

29 December: The First Gruppe stood down to conduct intensive training in their Fw 190D-9s; 120 flights were made... The Green Hearts were fully engaged today; this would go down in the history of III/JG 54 as its schwarze Tag (black day). 
_

No editorial comment on the Dora but it points out the difference between flight test results and operations results


----------



## renrich (Feb 16, 2008)

Would it not be true that operational performance would always lag behind the performance predicted by the manufacturer? My graphs show that the P63A was the fastest sealevel AAF fighter at about 375 mph, with the P51D coming in at about 368 mph and the P51B being a shade faster. The P51H is not shown. I don't have any performance data on the F8F except that Linnekin in "80 Knots to Mach II" states that the Bearcat, especially the F8F1, were honest 440-450 mph aircraft at low altitudes and he states that a milestone Bearcat performnce record was from a standing start on the runway to 10000 feet was done in approx a minute and a half. He also talks of staying with a Vampire on the deck. I wonder what happened to the P51H as far as warbirds and air racing are concerned. I believe a heavily modified Bearcat holds the piston engine speed record. One would think an H model Mustang would be a candidate for that. Looking at the speeds these modified warbird air racers achieve, makes me wonder about all the performance numbers we see quoted on production WW2 fighters.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2008)

I am puzzled by that article Bill and find it very suspect, esp. since every FW190 pilot having flown both types (Including all the test-pilots) make it very clear that the Dora-9 turned climbed allot better than any version of the Anton and was much faster as-well, an improvement which was very much appreciated by the frontline units who gave similar praise and told how they now comfortably could stay and fight the Mustang at high altitude. 

Furthermore in actual comparative tests the Dora-9 out-turned, out-climbed and out-accelerated the A-8 easily according to the test pilots. Anything else would also be wierd as by looking at the aerodynamics the Dora-9 clearly has the advantage.

In short, Caldwell is talking trash and knows nothing of what he's talking about as all the vets, experts physics tell a much different story from the one told by Caldwell in that article. 

This is ofcourse not your fault Bill, I'm just letting you know that the article is pure BS.

PS: Note how the figures are screwed up as-well, using the 2,240 HP figure.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2008)

Now regarding the Ta-152H-1.

Well the quality of the airframe was reportedly very good, the engine was actually the only real problem bogging the unit. 

The max climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 was 5,500 + ft/min, 10 km being reached in just 10.1 min. Top SL speed was 585 - 597 km/h, and top speed at alt was 755 - 760 km/h. Service ceiling was 15.1 km.

Some Ta-152 pilots claim to have reached 500 mph in straight flight at high alt using GM-1, something which would be very impressive. The company never tested top speed that high up so we can't know for sure wether the pilots were actually flying that fast or the automatic IAS to TAS converter worked properly at that speed alt.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> I am puzzled by that article Bill and find it very suspect, esp. since every FW190 pilot having flown both types (Including all the test-pilots) make it very clear that the Dora-9 turned climbed allot better than any version of the Anton and was much faster as-well, an improvement which was very much appreciated by the frontline units who gave similar praise and told how they now comfortably could stay and fight the Mustang at high altitude.
> 
> Furthermore in actual comparative tests the Dora-9 out-turned, out-climbed and out-accelerated the A-8 easily according to the test pilots. Anything else would also be wierd as by looking at the aerodynamics the Dora-9 clearly has the advantage.
> 
> ...



Dismissing Caldwell's recount of interviews and recollections of the JG26 pilots he worked with for so many years is not so simple as 'dismissal'. He was and remains pretty well trusted by the JG26 pilots.

I don't recall ever hearing a storm of protest by the JG26 community over his books or recollections presented. And, at the end of the day, he wasn't attacking the Dora, simply relating diary discussions from III./JG26 and JG54.

My father's recollection of the one he flew post war was that it (190D) was faster than the two seat trainer version he flew prior to the 190D (and he didn't recall which version Dora but thought it was a -9), but the trainer did outroll the D. I don't recall any real discussion about turn except a general impression they all turned about the same. 

Having said that, he can't be considered an expert on the Fw 190A (two seater) or Dora or 109 two seater with a total of about 25 hours

But, at the end of the day, absent actual documented flight tests that everyone agreed had no agenda (RAF perhaps comparing aagainst Spit, etc, etc) what do we really know about experiences derived from combat recollections other than the survivor lived to have a POV? The encounter reports of the 355th pilots that shot down 190Ds didn't cite any notable problems - but what does that say, really.

I saw some translated flight test data from German Flight tests on Mike Williams site for a variety of tests - are they inaccurate in your opinion?

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Having said that, he can't be considered an expert on the Fw 190A (two seater) or Dora or 109 two seater with a total of about 25 hours
> 
> 
> 
> FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials


He was probably more expert them a lot of the guys that flew in the latter part of the war


----------



## drgondog (Feb 16, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> He was probably more expert them a lot of the guys that flew in the latter part of the war



Well, you're right. He had ~ 2200 hours before those flights in July-Sept 1945 so it wasn't like he wouldn't know when a stall was coming, etc. In the process of flying different Fws, he would fly one of them against a 51D and beat it, then fly the 51D and beat the other guy. 

He was trying to get a ride in the Me 262, but rotated back to US before he had a chance. He regretted never flying that or the Spitfire or a Ta 152.

His favorite ship of all time was the F-86E/F, then Mustang.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Well, you're right. He had ~ 2200 hours before those flights in July-Sept 1945 so it wasn't like he wouldn't know when a stall was coming, etc. In the process of flying different Fws, he would fly one of them against a 51D and beat it, then fly the 51D and beat the other guy.
> 
> He was trying to get a ride in the Me 262, but rotated back to US before he had a chance. He regretted never flying that or the Spitfire or a Ta 152.
> 
> His favorite ship of all time was the F-86E/F, then Mustang.


used to have the odd beer with a 416 Spit guy that flew the 262 at the end of the war . Unfortunately he never talked about flying


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2008)

Bill,

I don't buy Caldwells words on this subject as so many actual FW190 pilots tell quite a different story, also his claim that the Dora didn't turn as-well just quite simply doesn't hold water at all, not only because EVERY SINGLE FW190 vet says otherwise, but mostly because it doesn't fit into the basic laws of physics.

Read Dietmar Hermann's book on the 'Longnose', in it there are many German reports on the merits of the Dora over the Anton, namely the much better turn performance (More power less drag has this effect) climb rate, and esp. the much better high alt performance. And finally the comparative tests ended with the very same conclusions, the Dora-9 turns much better climbs much better at all altitudes. 

Also in Willi Reschke's (FW190 Ta-152 pilot ace) book _Wilde Sau_ he explains how the Dora's were causing problems for the P-51's, giving them a fight to the teeth at high alt. However the big advantage in numbers the P-51's enjoyed at that point was enough to ensure that the Dora's were almost always in a disadvantagous situation, nomatter what they did really. Teamwork beats individual performance. They were fighting a lost battle against so many.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 16, 2008)

Shiden


----------



## drgondog (Feb 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I don't buy Caldwells words on this subject as so many actual FW190 pilots tell quite a different story, also his claim that the Dora didn't turn as-well just quite simply doesn't hold water at all, not only because EVERY SINGLE FW190 vet says otherwise, but mostly because it doesn't fit into the basic laws of physics.
> 
> ...



It's ok Soren. Recounts, anecdotally, are subjective in both directions. But Caldwell didn't claim' the comparison, merely reproduced the December JG26, III./JG54 diaries of the period.


----------



## renrich (Feb 17, 2008)

Bill, enjoyed your post of the flight tests on the FW190D9. Sounds like when all systems worked properly and the AC was properly prepared the "Dora" was an honest 400 mph fighter. Interestingly the data in my reference "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes," on the D9 must have been taken directly from the flight test you posted. Makes me have more confidence in the data in the book. Thanks.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

Apparently the guys who actually flew the bird as-well as physics takes a back seat according to you Bill ? Very illogical IMO.

Renrich, try with 440 mph


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Apparently the guys who actually flew the bird as-well as physics takes a back seat according to you Bill ? Very illogical IMO.
> 
> Renrich, try with 440 mph



How did you read that in my comment? 

You said, IIRC, that Caldwell (and Caldwell's recount) was BS - or words to that affect. I pointed out that he merely reproduced JG26 and III./JG54 pilots diary notations. There has been a long period since he published both JG26 and the War Diaries of JG26 and no one I have heard of were outraged with the comments except perhaps you? I will ask Don what, if any comments he received from surviving Dora pilots - maybe there has been some.

Having said that, how does that imply that my words over ride pilots that flew it, when I thought I pointed out written accounts from pilots that flew it? 

Are you saying that Caldwell is predjudiced toward the USAAF and favors US in his books - if so read them again.

Last - I pointed you to the series of G.m.b.h Bremen reports conducted at Bad Eilsen and asked your opinion of them with no response. They show very nice performance for various engines, boost and conditions - nothing to indicate that the Dora was not an exceptional machine so they shouldn't be considered a distortion unless you have unimpeachable data from another source.

These reports were apparently extracted with Dietmar Hermann's permission. Are these reports in your opinion, not representative of the facts (or physics) of the Fw 190D-9 flight tests or operational comments? Here are some of the comments from the report, including the *Max theoretical performance at 432mph at 18,000 feet with engine gaps sealed and uncorrected airspeed for compressibility and without ETC*. 

The Best SL performance was with B4 and MW50 at 2.02 ata, without ETC and with engine gaps sealed (theoretical, no evidence of 2.02ata ever being attained in field, no ethenol used in field - only water, no production version delivered with engine gaps sealed) was 387mph from the chart... and 367mph w/o engine sealing and with ETC504 and variable wheel covering.

These are great numbers but also closer to theoretical because of lack of ethanol, engine gap seal, 2.02 ata cpability in field for the 190Dora with the D-9 prop at 3250 rpm at max WIP/TO engine conditions... at full ammo and 141 gallons of fuel for gross weight of 9590 pounds

The following chart depicts level speed performance as calculated by Focke-Wulf along with the results presented in Report 3 of Wk Nr. 210002. The report is carefull to note the theoretical data is derived from wind tunnel drag tests in which the scale model was perfectly smooth (hence engine seal in flight test to closer approximate the wind tunnel conditions for drag)

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials (scroll down about 2/3)


The condition representative of standard production Fw 190 D-9’s during 1945 is as follows: Jumo 213A operating at 1.8 ata with B4 fuel MW 50, equipped with ETC 504, main wheel fairing doors absent/fixed and engine gap not sealed. Of all the data charted in the compilation curve linked above, that curve best fitting the condition of a standard production Fw 190 D-9 is curve 4 of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9 chart dated 11.3.45 (the red line). One shortcoming of this curve, when viewed in context with other curves from Focke Wulf’s Flugmechanik Department, is that it assumes the installation of the engine gap seal and is therefore approximately 13 km/h optimistic relative to the condition of delivered production aircraft (with rack minus the drop tank).

I would have to check but I believe the actual max for the above conditions was 367mph at SL and max climb at 3329fpm at SL with a top speed of 413mph around 21,600 feet? 

Dietmar Hermann summarized FW 190 D-9 performance as follows: 

_*I haven’t read or heard that the D-9 was tested with the Jumo 213 and C3 fuel. I know that at the beginning of development Focke-Wulf made a distinction between the normal Jumo 213 and the Jumo 213 with 100 octane fuel. I think that there was not a problem with the engine; rather there was a problem of the fuel’s availability. In my book I have published one chart from 3.1.45 (page 154) showing FW 190 D-9 performance with B4 fuel with MW 50 injection operating at 2,02 ata (Sondernotleistung ). However, I have no evidence showing that 2,02 ata was enabled by the end of the war. I think that the D-9 was flown either with the 1900 PS update or with MW50 injection (2100 PS). *_

Help me out on the 'physics' dispute regarding the Dora - I am not aware that anything I said challenged any principles of physics or aerodynamics, but who knows?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

Bill,

I'm making sure I know what you mean that's all.

The tests presented on Mike Williams site were carried out with a underperforming batch of engines, hence the results. Lutz notes this on William's site as-well. Sorry for not addressing this earlier, guess I thought I already had.

As to the physics, again they dispute what Caldwell claims. But tell me what effect does an increase in power with a decrease in drag and no change in weight normally have on an a/c's performance? I understand you have a good understanding on aerodynamics so this should be easy really.

Finally let me point out that it is Caldwell's claim I don't believe.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I'm making sure I know what you mean that's all.
> 
> ...



Soren - the comments about the underperforming engines are made by Hermann in this report... which is why I went to the discussion regarding 2.02 ata and best theoretical results based on wind tunnel drag numbers.

As you noted, I DO understand the physics of increased power even with *same *drag (no evidence of 'decreased drag other than artificially covering engine gaps and wheel covers - neither of which would exist in the field). 

You seem to be sliding into old habits of sarcasm? 

I also understand that calculated results are rarely attained in flight test because wind tunnel models are exceptionally clean in contrast to operations... ditto engine performance from one airplane to another which is why aircraft are generally picked at random - at least in USAAF and USAF tests.

So Hermann points out that the properly performing Jumo 213A would yield 70-100 hp more than the October 1944 test results - but would NOT attain the best 'theoretical' results which uses all the optimal factors never achieved by a production Fw 190D-9 according to him (and the caveats I cited in the above thread). He also pointed out that the -12 propeller seemed to boost the performance over the -9 prop.

Back to Caldwell as you didn't seem to finish your thoughts on him. I didn't read that as 'his words', but as a reproduction of a diary compiled by III./JG54 pilots recounting their experiences with the D-9 in December-January operations. 

In other words Caldwell was not 'claiming' anything, just presenting other's words. You may have a more complete source to references which refutes the operational observations of those pilots. I haven't seen such but doesn't mean they don't exist.

Back to Mike Williams reproductions of Hermann's reports and comments - Is Hermann incorrect, are the flight tests and theoretical max performance incorrect? 

There is a difference between the two (underperforming engines cited versus theoretical) in the 13-20 mph range for boost and surface condition similarities - but in every case that I read, 1900 hp Jumo 213A in 1.85ata and Max Take Off/War Emergency Power, was the cited 'max' conditions for the tests. 

Do you have operational evidence that was exceeded in combat for the Dora 9? 


Last - the below tests in March 1945 clearly state that the D-9 below was a production aircraft tested with properly adjusted engine..so I would think this series of data should meet objective scrutiny?

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

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


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

2 March 1945


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

I. General information. 

Airplane model : Fw 190 D-9 W. –Nr.210006 
Aerodynamic Wing Area : F = 18,3 m2 
Wing span : b = 31,32 ft (10,46 m) 
Wing aspect ratio : R = 6,0 
Engine : Jumo 213 A (B-4 fuel) 
Engine power permissible for 30 min : 3250 rpm 
Engine power for continuous operation : 3000 rpm 
Air Intake : external scoop without filter 
Exhaust system : plain blow back stacks 
Pitot tube installation : Bruhn 5 d 
Propeller : Heine, 3 blades, compensating core, D = 3,5m, t/D = 11,5% 

Aircraft condition: 
Standard version with ETC 504 (without wheel cover). 

Engine: without gap gasket 
Surface: standard, primed and sprayed 
Armament: 2 mg 131 in the fuselage with 475 rounds 
: 2 mg 151 in the wing with 250 rounds. 
Antennas: for Fu G 16 
“ Fu G 25 
“ equipment 
and directional loop cover. 
Take-off weight: 9,590 lbs (G = 4350kg) (after n.J.190.213-045 v,31.7.45) 
Fuel contents: 141 gallons (640 liter), of which 25 gallons (115 liter) is in the supplementary fuselage tank. 
10,229 lbs. (4640 kg), if flown with 300 liter drop tank. 

II. Performance tests. 

Speeds were ascertained from dynamic pressure tests. Calibrated measuring instruments were used. The interesting Va-area was reached by flight measuring on the test range. 
The rates of climb were measured with a carbon recorder. 

III. Results of the tests. 

The results are on graphs 5 to 9. The level speeds were reached with different engine rpms. It is remarkable that speeds were around 9 mph (15 km/h) higher in the past with Serial Nr. 006 at 3000 rpm (see report of 15.11.44). The current speeds were reached after installation of a new engine, correct engine adjustment, and with the standard propeller. Performance shown in the report of 15.11.44 was determined, through continuous testing, with an unadjusted engine and a D-12 propeller. The speed loss is therefore from engine and propeller differences (D 9 and D 12 propeller). 

1.) Level Speeds. They are shown on sheet 5 and apply to a nominal weight of 9,259 lbs. (4200 kg). The V curves are drawn in throughout the entire speed range, so that one can read off the associated Va at each height to each Vw. Sheet 6 shows the dependence of the airspeed on the flying weight and sheet 7 the influence of a 66 gallon (300 l) external tank on the speed. 

Example: 

Search: Speed at 26,246 feet with a weight of 9,700 lbs, 66 gallon drop tank height, and 2300 rpm. 
Given: at 19,685 feet and 9,259 lbs, as per sheet 5, without tank, Vw = 334 mph (538 km/h), Point I: Va = 252 mph (406 km/h ) Weight influence: (as per sheet 6) Va = 252 mph (406 km/h) with 9,259 lbs (4.2 kg) register, point II, draw parallel up to 9700 lbs (4.4 kg), gives new Va (point III). (Δ Va = -6) km/h 
Va = 400 km/h 
External tank loss (as per sheet 7, Fig.b, point IV: (Δ Va = -20) km/h
380 km/h 


The final Va = 380 km/h is registered on sheet 5 (H = 6 km.) Point V and perpendicularly under V on H = 0 km, in the example looked for Vw = 506 km/h read off, point VI. 

2.) Climb performance. 

It is shown on sheet 8 for 3000 rpm and 3250 rpm 

Va climb SL - 22,966 ft Va = 174 mph 
26,247 ft Va = 168 mph 
29,528 ft Va = 163 mph 
32,808 ft Va = 158 mph 


3.) Radiator flap test flight. 

The influence of the radiator flap position on speed (with empty drop tank) was determined at 6,562 feet with 2700 rpm, (see sheet 7, Fig.e). The entire opening was divided into 10 equal parts, "0 = completely down" and "10 = completely up". The test shows that the speeds are greatest with a 2,3 radiator flap position (approx. flush), i.e. the speed loss is lowest. If possible, level flight should be flown at this position.


----------



## renrich (Feb 17, 2008)

Yep, the data in the "Great Book"(not to be confused with the Good Book) says the D9 could do 426 mph at 21650 ft. That is good performance for a WW2 production AC and I think reflects the data in the Mike Williams copy of the flight test. As to 440 mph for a D9, could be! I have seen a test of a "cleaned up" F4U1 with WEP (did you know I was a fan of the Corsair?LOL) that in one run reached 431 mph TAS. Does that mean that the average F4U1 with WEP could do 431 mph? Not in my book. All it means is that a specially prepared F4U1 with WEP hit well over the published performance of that model which is around 417 mph. What it does mean (to me) is that the F4U1 with WEP if it is running reasonably well and is reasonably clean can be an honest 400 mph AC. Same with the F6F5 under the same circumstances. All of this of course at the optimum altitude. I repeat that, to me, the average factory D9, if the engine runs OK is a good honest 400 mph airplane!


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

Bill,

The 3,329 ft/min climb rate is at Start U. Notleistung, which is 1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM. At Sondernotleistung with without ETC-504 rack and with wheel covers the climb rate was 4,400 ft/min. At the sam rating but with the ETC-504 and without the wheel covers climb rate was 21 m/s, or 4,100 ft/min. And these are flight test results.

The bottom text you have presented is from a test with a proper working engine, however the test results were all achieved at Steig u. Kampfleistung Start u. Notleistung, which is 1,590 PS @ 3,000 RPM - 1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM. Still the test results are far better than those with 0001 2 running at the same power.

I'll address the rest later tonight, providing original documents on the subject.

Bottom line though is that the top speed of a good condition production fighter was 612 km/h at SL and 702 km/h at 6.6 km. These are the official figures from when the Dora-9 had already been in service for some time.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The 3,329 ft/min climb rate is at Start U. Notleistung, which is 1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM. At Sondernotleistung with without ETC-504 rack and with wheel covers the climb rate was 4,400 ft/min. At the sam rating but with the ETC-504 and without the wheel covers climb rate was 21 m/s, or 4,100 ft/min. And these are flight test results.
> 
> ...



Soren - Why is the above series, stipulating new engine, properly tuned, for a production version of the Fw190D-9, and dated only 8 weeks prior to end of war not "official"?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

Bill,

I have the original paper on these tests, and they weren't carried out with Erhöhte Ladedrück, if they were it would've been noted. The throttle setting used was Start u. Notleistung which is 1,750 PS. SHould also be clear from looking at the speed figures. 

Als if you look at the text, it clearly says _"Engine power permissible for 30 min : 3250 rpm" _ Which is Start u. Notleistung.

And btw, Start u. Notleistung means Take Off Emergency power


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

*24.3.1945: Dora-9 Climb rate with ETC-504 and without wheel covers; 21 m/s (4,133 ft/min) at Sonder Notleistung*






*5.7.1944: Dora-9 climb rate without ETC-504 and with wheel covers; 22.5 m/s (4,429 ft/min)*





*1.10.1944: Official Focke Wulf performance chart 'Leistungs Daten' without ETC and with wheel covers; Dora-9 = 576 km/h at SL running at Start u. Notleistung, 612 km/h running at Sonder Notleistung. 685 km/h at 6.6km running at Start u. Notleistung, 702 km/h at 5.7km running at Sonder Notleistung: *





*11.3.1945: Dora-9 performance with ETC-504; 612 km/h at SL and 703 km/h at 5.7km with C3 at Sonder Notleistung. 602 km/h at SL and 691 km/h at 5.7 km/h with B4 at Sonder Notleistung. Top speed at Start u. Notleistung with B4: 568 km/h at SL and 680 km/h at 6.6km*






So the Dora-9's top speed at Sonder Notleistung without ETC-504 and with wheel covers is 612 km/h at SL and 702 km/h at 5.7 km. With ETC-504 this drops to 602 km/h at SL and 691 km/h at 5.7 km. With ETC-504 and without wheel covers top speed will drop lower yet.

And as to climb rate the Dora-9's climb rate at Sonder Notleistung without ETC-504 and with wheel covers is 22.5 m/s (4,429 ft/min), while with ETC-504 it drops to 21 m/s (4,133 ft/min). At Start u. Notleistung climb rate is 18.7 m/s (3,681 ft/min) without ETC-504 and 17.2 m/s (3,385 ft/min) with ETC-504.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I have the original paper on these tests, and they weren't carried out with Erhöhte Notleisting, if they were it would've been noted. The throttle setting used was Start u. Notleistung which is 1,750 PS. SHould also be clear from looking at the speed figures.
> 
> ...



That makes sense although there are frequent mentions of 1900 and 1.8 ata with MW50 and B-4 in all of the reports... so what engine performance were you thinking about?

To re-quote

*The condition representative of standard production Fw 190 D-9’s during 1945 is as follows: Jumo 213A operating at 1.8 ata with B4 fuel MW 50, equipped with ETC 504, main wheel fairing doors absent/fixed and engine gap not sealed. Of all the data charted in the compilation curve linked above, that curve best fitting the condition of a standard production Fw 190 D-9 is curve 4 of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9 chart dated 11.3.45 (the red line). One shortcoming of this curve, when viewed in context with other curves from Focke Wulf’s Flugmechanik Department, is that it assumes the installation of the engine gap seal and is therefore approximately 13 km/h optimistic relative to the condition of delivered production aircraft (with rack minus the drop tank). 

Dietmar Hermann summarized FW 190 D-9 performance as follows: 

I haven’t read or heard that the D-9 was tested with the Jumo 213 and C3 fuel. I know that at the beginning of development Focke-Wulf made a distinction between the normal Jumo 213 and the Jumo 213 with 100 octane fuel. I think that there was not a problem with the engine; rather there was a problem of the fuel’s availability. In my book I have published one chart from 3.1.45 (page 154) showing FW 190 D-9 performance with B4 fuel with MW 50 injection operating at 2,02 ata (Sondernotleistung ). However, I have no evidence showing that 2,02 ata was enabled by the end of the war. I think that the D-9 was flown either with the 1900 PS update or with MW50 injection (2100 PS). *


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> *24.3.1945: Dora-9 Climb rate with ETC-504 and without wheel covers; 21 m/s (4,133 ft/min) at Sonder Notleistung*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



good stuff - any notation regarding either fuel type used or whether the engine gaps were sealed in the last set of performance curves?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

Bill,

There's no evidence that any Dora-9 in operational service ever ran at 2.02ata boost pressure. The tested top speed at SL with a 2.02ata boost pressure using B4 fuel was 621 km/h, whilst top speed at alt was 691 km/h at 4.7 km.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

drgondog said:


> good stuff - any notation regarding either fuel type used or whether the engine gaps were sealed in the last set of performance curves?



Yes fuel is noted on the charts, you'll see either (C3) or (B4) noted where used. About the engine gap well this seems to have been a rather unique problem with Werknr 0001 2, and not a problem with any other good condition production model. This can probably be attributed to an unusual bad finish of Werknr. 0001 2, there being no mentioning of this engine gap in reports about other production units.


----------



## thrawn (Feb 17, 2008)

Hi all!

The engine gap problem IMHO occured to all 190d a/c, prototype or serial production.
The reason for this gap is that the engine cowling was fitted to the engine. In flight the engine turns slightly (in the opposite direction of the prop,because of the great torque) in there elastic mountings and so the position of the cowling changed to the rest of the fuselage and wing, resulting in a gap and a speed loss of 10-15 km/h. Focke Wulf developed a cowling wich was fitted to the fuselage and tsteted it with the ta 152c successfully. For the d-9, Rechlin, for unknown reasons, rejected the idea of an rubber sealing for production d-9's. So there is no evidence that this problem was ever solved.

Greetings

Thrawn


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 19, 2008)

thrawn said:


> For the d-9, Rechlin, for unknown reasons, rejected the idea of an rubber sealing for production d-9's. So there is no evidence that this problem was ever solved.
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Thrawn



Hi,

Is there a source for this ? I`ve never seen it before, and it seem to me as an oddity, ie. the 109F-K had also a 'quick access' cowling and you can see the rubber sealing in it even today.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is there a source for this ? I`ve never seen it before, and it seem to me as an oddity, ie. the 109F-K had also a 'quick access' cowling and you can see the rubber sealing in it even today.



Kurfurst - there is a fair gap in operational details about the Dora and the Ta 152 which is understandable given the state of Germany in 1945.

As evidenced by the data presented from different sources it is clear that the fw 190D series was one helluva an airplane, but anecdotal eveidence also suggests that it rarely reached its theoretical performance potential perhaps because of combinations of factors.

It is clear to me that some excellent flight tests were performed with C3, probably using real methanol for MW50, and rendering the surface as closely as possible to wind test model (Engine cover seals, landing gear covers) etc., etc.

What is very obscure for me is how much ethanol, how much C3, or even if seals were applied in combat ops. It seems that all three of these deficiencies would take perhaps 20+kts away from the Test results often documented. 

Because my German is non-existant I am also having trouble between theoretical results extrapolated from wind tunnel drag results and actual flight tests.

At any rate I love the airplane and personally not trying to detract from its capabilities - there just is a lot of confusing information out there.

Regards,


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 19, 2008)

Just a quickie.

Ie. here`s an anecdotal evidence I found in Caldwell`s JG 26 book (43-45), page 421.
_
After five months at the front, Karl-Heinz Ossenkop was now a proficient air fighter. His comments on his aircraft are worth noting:

"The Fw 190D-9 was quickly adopted by the pilots, after some initial reservations. They felt it was equal to or better than the equipment of the opposition. Its serviceability was not so good, owing to the circumstances. *I felt that aircraft built at Sorau had the best fit and finish.*They could be recognized by their dark green camouflage.* I hit 600 kph [370 mph] in my "own" green aircraft, "black 8", withfull power and MW 50 [methanol injection], clean, 20-30 meters [65-100 feet] above the ground.*

"Compared with the Fw I90A-8, the Dora-9: 

1) with 40-50 more horsepower,had a greater level speed, climb rate, and ceiling,
2) had much better visibility to the rear, owing to its bubble canopy; 
3) was much quieter - the Jumo 213A vibrated much less than the BMW 801; 4) handled better in steep climbs an turning, owing probably to its greater shaft horsepower at full throttle; 
5) had less torque effect on takeoff or landing; and 
6) had slightly greater endurance .

"Compared with the Spitfire, the Dora-9: 

1) had greater level, climbing, and diving speeds; and 
2) was inferior in turns, especially in steep climbing turns typical of combat.

Compared with the Tempest, the Dora-9: 
1) was better in the climb and in turns;
2), had the same or lower level speed, depending on its fit and finish; and 
3) had a lower diving speed.

"Compared with the Thunderbolt , the Dora-9: 

1) had a greater level and climbing speed; 
2) had a better turning ability; and 
3) was inferior past all hope in diving speed."_

It would appear to me that the 600kph-ish speed were indeed achieved in service aircraft. _It should be noted that those company curves and figures were guarenteed by Focke-Wulf within +/- 3% margin of error. B.A.L., the LWs Quality Control would simply not accept the planes that were not within tolerance._ Not even in 1945.


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2008)

Now that sounds right Kurfürst, being similar to what the vets and comparative tests say.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Just a quickie.
> 
> Ie. here`s an anecdotal evidence I found in Caldwell`s JG 26 book (43-45), page 421.
> _
> ...


_

What isn't clear is whether Ossenkop refutes the JG 26 diary entries expressing concerns that the Mustang 'appeared' to be faster and out accelerate the Dora. 

150 octane fuel was in wide use and the P-51B's were still in abundance, and the B with 1650-7 for WEP at 90" would perform at around 374mph at SL with 4380fpm climb from SL through 2,200 feet... all at 9335 pounds which is full internal fuel of 265 gallons and full ammo, external racks but no tanks. Those flight test data were also taken at Eglin in July (hot and humid) where the temperatures at sea level were 40 degrees above STP.. It might be intuited that flight tests in March 1945 in Germany would average surface temperatures in the 35-45 degree F - or 50 degrees below the P-51B-15 test conditions?

So,if Ossenkop was in a heavily loaded Dora the comparisons would be about the same would they not? and if the conditions were for reduced fuel in Ossenkop's Dora then the P-51B-15 (assuming good operational conditions for both a/c) would be favored slightly in speed, maybe acceleration, and again nearly equal in climb and turn - with edge to Dora for roll, for equal combat conditions.

All in all it is easy to conceive of III./JG54 and JG26 pilots not having a hoped for edge with fighters so closely matched?

As for the P-51D, the Dora should out climb it and be equal (+-) in turn, and superior in roll. 

The 51D was also at 368mph at SL on a hot day and would be the same at altitude for speed. If a Dora could climb same as, or better than a 109 in a steep climbing turn, that would be difficult for a Mustang to match - otherwise the Mustang could manuever with it in everything but roll below 370+ mph

Anecdotally (pure subjective viewpoint of the survivor of encounters) the 355th experiences with the Dora, were favorable in impression compared to Fw 190A-8, but often remarked that it didn't stack up to a 109 pilot of great skill and experience in a dogfight. All this tells me is that tactical position and pilot skills comparisons are uncertain, particularly at this stage of the war.

The 355th lost one Mustang to a Dora, lost one chasing a Dora to flak and were awarded 9 Dora's (we need not debate awards process) in air to air combat - mostly against airfield defense units at places like Ludwiglust and Rheine.. But on January 14, 1945 they bagged four Dora's three A-8s and 4 109s in a 'squadron on squadron mix around Munster for no losses. The Dora's and 109s were flying top cover for about 20 'heavily loaded Fws' which I assume were A-8s.

Kurfurst- Summary for me is that the Dora-9 was an intermediate step up from the Fw 190A, was designed to meet a Mustang on equal terms - and it did. Maybe better in some envelopes and not as good in others - but for all intents and purposes a marvelous fighter.

When I looked at JG54 record, it did seem that a higher percentage of its victories were Spitfires than any other craft and 'broke even' against the Mustang, with favorable ratios against the P-47.

I wonder if Ossenkop had any meaningful encounters with Mustangs as he left them out of his comparison?

At any rate this has been a good debate.

Soren, thanks for explaining the difference between German 'max TO' and Emergency Boost comparisons - that helped explain such a large gap in actual vs theoretical performance in the March tests for the D-9 that we were debating. Has anyone basically presented the Test results you showed as a written (english) report explaining the test parameters?_


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2008)

Bill,

There are plenty of LW pilot reports which note reaching well past 600 km/h at SL in the Dora. One expression used "At max power and with ears laid back you could easily reach over 600 km/h at SL".

As for maneuverability, well the Dora-9 would out-turn the P-51B Mustang at low to medium altitude, the Dora-9 having a higher sustained turn rate, but this would turn around over 25,000 ft. The instantanous turn rate is very similar. The advantage the FW190 enjoys however is roll rate, and it enjoys a big advantage here being able to enter maneuvers much faster than the P-51. The much higher roll rate also enables the FW190 to easily Split S out of trouble, the fail safe maneuver with a Spit on the tail. So in terms of maneuverability the FW-190 has the edge.

The climb rate of a good condition production Dora-9 at SL is 4,430 ft/min clean, faster than the P-51B running at 75" Hg, but not by much.

Time to reach 6km for the Dora-9 with ETC-504 rack is 5.5 min and 10km is reached in 13.1 min. Cleanly loaded the Dora-9 is ~0.6min faster than this, reaching 6km in 5 min and 10km in 12.5 min.

The P-51B cleanly loaded at 9335 lbs and running at 75" Hg reaches 6km in 5.3 min and 10km in 12.2 min.

So climb performance is as follows:

FW-190 Dora-9 (MW50 clean)

Top SL speed: 612 km/h
Top speed at alt: 702 km/h at 5.7 km

Max climb rate: 4,430 ft/min

Time to climb;
3 km : 2.3 min
6 km : 5 min
10 km : 12.5 min

P-51B Mustang (75" Hg clean)

Top SL speed: 617 km/h
Top speed at alt: 710 km/h at 6.2 km

Max climb rate: 4,380 ft/min

Time to climb;
3 km : 2.5 min
6 km : 5.3 min 
10 km : 12.2 min

They are very close competitors.


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2008)

Oh and no the reports haven't been translated anywhere in english AFAIK.


----------



## thrawn (Feb 20, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is there a source for this ? I`ve never seen it before, and it seem to me as an oddity, ie. the 109F-K had also a 'quick access' cowling and you can see the rubber sealing in it even today.




The Rechlin statement is from Dietmar hermann. Its written in his books about the Fw and at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com as a comment to the dora charts. I think he is credible on this. But i think its possible that later the rubber seal was used, but no documentary was found yet. I also find it odd that the germans were trying all with MW50 and higher manifold pressure to gain some km/h more and on the other side they are willing to lost 15km/h because they don't want so seal a simple gap.

Btw, drgondog, I think the methanol in MW50 was only used as an anti-freeze, while the evaporating water sinks the engine temp to allow a higher power output. So pure water will be more effective but it will freeze and cause corrosion. So the Power output will be similar.

Greetings

Thrawn


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2008)

Interesting stuff guys - BTW pure "distilled" water will not corrode a coolant system providing there are no other loose impurities within the system.


----------



## renrich (Feb 20, 2008)

Bill, since you are our resident Mustang expert with outstanding credentials in that area, I have a question: Is the laminar flow wing more or less sensitive in terms of the finish being clean or smooth with regard to the effect on drag or lift compared to other wing configurations and how would ice or snow or salt water scale effect the lift characteristics of the laminar flow wing? Let me slip in another question: We know the Navy fighters had shorter takeoff distances than the AAF fighters. Was that a function of more wing area, angle of incidence, wing cross section(more camber) or a combination of factors? Thank you.


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2008)

That question is easily answered Renrich; Yes, the laminar flow wing is very sensitive to the finish of the wing, any small lumbs ruining the laminar flow, hence why no -51 in service ever achieved fully laminar flow over its wing.

The Navy fighters used higher lift airfoils, namely the NACA 23000 series as used by the FW190. The F6F had a very high CL, while the F4U's was more modest because of the radiators in the wing root's leading edge and the gull wing. The F4U benefitted from a good high lift flap system though.

Hope that answered your question Renrich.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> As for maneuverability, well the Dora-9 would out-turn the P-51B Mustang at low to medium altitude, the Dora-9 having a higher sustained turn rate, but this would turn around over 25,000 ft. The instantanous turn rate is very similar. The advantage the FW190 enjoys however is roll rate, and it enjoys a big advantage here being able to enter maneuvers much faster than the P-51
> 
> ...



Soren - I think that is what we said earlier, and I agree.

The P-51B loses in raw firepower and roll, gains in everything but roll at medium to high speeds at 25,000 and above, neutral in 15,000 to 25,000 and is at disadvantage below that. In all cases the victor is the best tactical situation or the best pilot when no advantage is present..

This has been an interesting debate for me - I think I know more about the Dora than I did before. BTW I sent Don an email today to see if he got any adverse reactions from any of the LW vets on reproduced statements contained in his book. I'll send you an email when I hear back from him.


----------



## ccheese (Feb 20, 2008)

If I read this poll correctly, the question was what was your _*favorite*
_ fighter/interceptor. Doesn't say anything about performance, rate of
climb, can it turn on a dime, can it out dive a ME-262. It said favorite...

While the poll is an old one, I think I missed it somehow. So, my "favorite"
is the P-38. Doesn't mean it was the best, fastest, sleekest.... it was my
'favorite'.

Charles


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bill, since you are our resident Mustang expert with outstanding credentials in that area, I have a question: Is the laminar flow wing more or less sensitive in terms of the finish being clean or smooth with regard to the effect on drag or lift compared to other wing configurations and how would ice or snow or salt water scale effect the lift characteristics of the laminar flow wing? Let me slip in another question: We know the Navy fighters had shorter takeoff distances than the AAF fighters. Was that a function of more wing area, angle of incidence, wing cross section(more camber) or a combination of factors? Thank you.



Depends. Mud and other debris, local damage to leading edge would affect the flow in that area. Ice affects ALL airfoils, don't believe snow fall per se unless it adhered to surface and was not cleared before take off, or accumulated in flight - in which case yes.

A 51 fully loaded (internally) had about 1020+ feet to normally clear a 50' obstacle.. this would vary on the skill of the pilot, the temperature and altitude of the airfield. For England in the winter, less - for Colorado Springs in the summer, more. The CLmax of the 51 wing in general was less than the Navy fighters, and the Drag coefficient was (much) lower.

The weight was not as important as the wing loading at Gross takeoff weights and the Max power thrust to weight ratio at takeoff roll. The latter determines the acceleration to rotation airspeed, the former determines how fast it gains enough altitude to clear an obstacle.

I once had a piece of a Mitsubishi MU-2 and learned how important that thrust to weight and wing loading combination was on a flight out of Addison airport in Dallas in August. We lost an engine right after take off, put the nose down to level flight and flew in a straight line for a couple of miles past TI before we had enough airspeed to safely turn around and return for landing. I sold my 'piece' two weeks later. If I had been in left seat that day, who knows?

That's why the Jug was such a long runner - and why an F4U fully loaded may not have had a shorther run than the 51. I would have to do some checking.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2008)

thrawn said:


> The Rechlin statement is from Dietmar hermann. Its written in his books about the Fw and at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com as a comment to the dora charts. I think he is credible on this. But i think its possible that later the rubber seal was used, but no documentary was found yet. I also find it odd that the germans were trying all with MW50 and higher manifold pressure to gain some km/h more and on the other side they are willing to lost 15km/h because they don't want so seal a simple gap.
> 
> Btw, drgondog, I think the methanol in MW50 was only used as an anti-freeze, while the evaporating water sinks the engine temp to allow a higher power output. So pure water will be more effective but it will freeze and cause corrosion. So the Power output will be similar.
> 
> ...



That makes sense Thrawn..


----------



## renrich (Feb 20, 2008)

Thanks to both of you for your answers. Bill, according to Dean, and these data are from USAAF and USN wartime references and are with full load ammo and internal fuel, hard surface, zero wind, sea level and takeoff power. P51D at a gross weight of 10176 lbs took 1185 ft to takeoff. P47D25 @ GW of 14411 lbs took 2540 ft. F4U1 @ GW 12676 took 750 ft. F4U4 @ 12281 GW took 630 ft. F6Fs took slightly longer. P51A took longer than P51D. Bill, I have a friend, a lady from Houston, very well off whose daddy used to have a Bearcat and raced it. They had a MU2 and I seem to remember an incident like you mentioned. Could it be the same airplane?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2008)

renrich said:


> Thanks to both of you for your answers. Bill, according to Dean, and these data are from USAAF and USN wartime references and are with full load ammo and internal fuel, hard surface, zero wind, sea level and takeoff power. P51D at a gross weight of 10176 lbs took 1185 ft to takeoff. P47D25 @ GW of 14411 lbs took 2540 ft. F4U1 @ GW 12676 took 750 ft. F4U4 @ 12281 GW took 630 ft. F6Fs took slightly longer. P51A took longer than P51D. Bill, I have a friend, a lady from Houston, very well off whose daddy used to have a Bearcat and raced it. They had a MU2 and I seem to remember an incident like you mentioned. Could it be the same airplane?



That F4U figure at 12K sounds like strictly internal load? where the 51D would have about 9600 pounds for full internal fuel, oil and ammo... at any rate the 51 take off roll sounds about right.

As to MU-2, who knows? Having said that it was two of us in 1983. I never flew it again. I also didn't like the way it landed. It was my first spoiler equipped (and last) a/c and was hard (for me) to fly a smooth coupled approach and seemed to always bang hell out of nosewheel when it finally lost enough lift to stay on the ground..

I loved the speed and it was a lot smoother ride in rough weather than say a King Air or Baron.. but like the monkey fornicating with a skunk, I enjoyed all I could stand.


----------



## renrich (Feb 20, 2008)

According to Dean P51D with full max internal fuel GW is 10208 lbs. Fuselage tank is 55 lbs and fuel is 1590 lbs. The number of 9611 lbs gross weight is without the fuselage tank and the internal fuel weight is 1080 lbs. I don't know where 10176 GW came from but that was the weight quoted in the table. F4U 4 w/GW of 12420 lbs is with 1404 lbs of internal fuel. I do believe there are a lot of exciting stories about the MU2 but my memory does not serve as well as it once did. The lady I mentioned is about 70 years young and when they had the MU2 would probably be in the time frame mentioned.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2008)

Ever see the fuel control/ power lever rigging in an MU2? It looks like a drunk spider's web.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2008)

renrich said:


> According to Dean P51D with full max internal fuel GW is 10208 lbs. Fuselage tank is 55 lbs and fuel is 1590 lbs. The number of 9611 lbs gross weight is without the fuselage tank and the internal fuel weight is 1080 lbs. I don't know where 10176 GW came from but that was the weight quoted in the table. F4U 4 w/GW of 12420 lbs is with 1404 lbs of internal fuel. I do believe there are a lot of exciting stories about the MU2 but my memory does not serve as well as it once did. The lady I mentioned is about 70 years young and when they had the MU2 would probably be in the time frame mentioned.



P 51D Performance Test

The 9760 Gross weight in the report is the weight with full ammo, full oil, Gentile in the cockpit, wing racks, full wing tanks (184 Gallons) plus 25 of the 85 possible gallons in the fuse tank - another 60 gallons would add 396 pounds if topped off. 

That would take Gross to 10156 for complete internal fuel. Having said that, the test really represented a normally max (internally) loaded P-51D which rarely carried more than 55-60 gallons in fuselage tank because of aft cg problems. 

So, your number of 10,208 is closer to above calculated 10,156 max TO total (for complete internal fuel, but no external load) and is closer than my recollection of 9600 (P-51B level - full internal load) gross.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ever see the fuel control/ power lever rigging in an MU2? It looks like a drunk spider's web.



There is a reason that such a high performance ship like this is pretty cheap..

I had all I wanted of it in three flights. The first time I shot a landing in it you would have been switching between laughing and cryin' - I'm glad (just this once) that He wasn't there to critique it.


----------



## renrich (Feb 20, 2008)

My table for Typical P51D in Fighter configuration is as follows: empty wgt=7205, trp fluid=61, 6 50 cal=401, pyrotech=6, basic weight=7673, pilot=200,use. oil=94, cal. 50 ammo=564, int. fuel =1080. total =9611 Fighter max fuel configuration is same except: fus. tank=55, bomb racks=32, internal fuel=1590, for total of 10208.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> There is a reason that such a high performance ship like this is pretty cheap..
> 
> I had all I wanted of it in three flights. The first time I shot a landing in it you would have been switching between laughing and cryin' - I'm glad (just this once) that He wasn't there to critique it.


There's a trash hauler operating out of Centennial airport that has MU2s - they plant one about 2x a year.


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2008)

Bill,

The FW-190 Dora-9 performance figures are all at fully loaded weight, which is 4,300 kg. 

As for the maneuverability, well I can't really stress this hard enough, the Dora-9 turns better than ANY of the Antons. Also there's no difference in performance or maneuverability between the A-7 A-8, and the A-9 was a rather rare bird so they couldn't have been refering to this. All comparative tests were done with a cleanly loaded A-8 D-9.

Didn't notice the P-51B in question had wing racks, thanks for pointing that out. However in terms of climb it doesn't change much other than 10 km is reach 0.05 to 0.1 min faster. Speed is most affected.

A clean model running at +25 lbs/sq.in. boost with a British Merlin engine reached 6km in 5.25 min. 

As for diving, well the lighter FW-190A-5 out-accelerated the P-47D initially as-well.

Regarding take off roll, well according to the POH which lists minimum figures the P-51D at 10,000 lbs takes off after 1600 ft (487m) and will clear a 50 ft (15m) object after 2400 ft (731m).

Compared to other LW a/c: 

P-51D: 487m, 731m to clear 15m object.
FW-190 A-8: 430m, 715m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 A-9: 390m, 600m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 D-9: 365m, 570m to clear 20m object. 
Ta-152H-0: 295m, 495m to clear 20m object.

German data for fully loaded weight and take off power.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> As for the maneuverability, well I can't really stress this hard enough, the Dora-9 turns better than ANY of the Antons. Also there's no difference in performance or maneuverability between the A-7 A-8, and the A-9 was a rather rare bird so they couldn't have been refering to this. All comparative tests were done with a cleanly loaded A-8 D-9.
> 
> ...



Soren - I will look when I get home. The number that sticks in my head for P-51D the max gross - internal- takeoff roll, at STP, was 1080-1100+ ft. 1600 is way too far.

I know from personal experience in one that was loaded with full wing tanks, me in back seat, no 85 gallon tank.. was between a Long Par 3 and Short Par 4" - or about 1000 feet plus or minus.

I'll send you an email with more detail from Don's observations in his interviews.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 21, 2008)

thrawn said:


> Btw, drgondog, I think the methanol in MW50 was only used as an anti-freeze, while the evaporating water sinks the engine temp to allow a higher power output. So pure water will be more effective but it will freeze and cause corrosion. So the Power output will be similar.
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Thrawn



You are quite correct in your assessment of MW50; yes, the methanol was there simply to prevent freezing at high altitude. The number "50" in the designation meant it was 50% water 50% methanol; there was another formula used during the War, also, which was MW30, meaning it only had a 30% methanol ratio (to 70% water). I can only assume MW30 was used in aircraft that weren't planning on flying at high-altitudes (tactical bombers?), since it would've been more susceptible to freezing. 

In any case, it was the water that did the trick; injecting water into the incoming compressed air stream cooled the air charge down, making it denser and, therefore, more volatile for combustion, especially at high altitude.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 21, 2008)

Indeed, in fact even pure water could be used without any additive in emergency.

As for Caldwell, where did you contact him ? Personally, I found his book a great read (it was translated here, too) and an extremely well written unit history that is both very readable and yet informative. OTOH I don't think Caldwell did much research into aircraft, thing I read in his book about various aircraft types merely seem to repeat old _topos_ taken from old books like Green, and in cases uncorrect. In short I wouldn`t rely on at all how he rates different aircraft, opinions of veterans he gives is an entirely different matter of course, but I realize how subjective those are, and how much based on perception/feel/personal preference.

But that`s fine, _it`s a unit history after all_, not a danged type catalouge...!

As for anecdotes about the 109K in Caldwell`s book, I can only recall two, summerized by Caldwell; one being that the K-4s JG 26 received were at first equipped with gondolas, while G-10s were not, and this made the G-10 more popular for high altitude work - no big surprise here - so later the gondies were removed. The other being the story of a German pilot who dived sometime in the winter in his 109K and his canopy glass misted/freeze up in the dive. Again, no big surprise. Neither accounts tell too much about the type`s qualities, the only tactical experience report I own is from units on different types (Bf 110, but mainly 262), which has a couple of paragraph devoted to the experiences with the K model. Not much there either, though. I don`t want to dig up the details, but the story was something about a higher ranking pilot shooting down three Thunderbolts in his K-4, then forced landed because of a radiator hit he received during combat.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Indeed, in fact even pure water could be used without any additive in emergency.
> 
> As for Caldwell, where did you contact him ? Personally, I found his book a great read (it was translated here, too) and an extremely well written unit history that is both very readable and yet informative. OTOH I don't think Caldwell did much research into aircraft, thing I read in his book about various aircraft types merely seem to repeat old _topos_ taken from old books like Green, and in cases uncorrect. In short I wouldn`t rely on at all how he rates different aircraft, opinions of veterans he gives is an entirely different matter of course, but I realize how subjective those are, and how much based on perception/feel/personal preference.
> 
> ...



The question of subjectivity is always a difficult perspective to separate from objective evaluations. I don't exclude myself from this curse but I try to hold a balance (the engineer in me won't go away).

Don also made the comment that at that stage of the war and the early introduction of the Dora into JG 26 made for a range of reactions to this powerful new fighter - some expecting invincibility were disappointed, others expecting parity against the best the Allies had weren't disappointed.

But your point on tactical observations is a strong key point. They are largely written by survivors of air combat. It is rare that you see "Despite this pig of an airplane" my skill overcame great odds and I emerged victorious".. on both sides.

I talk to Mustang veterans all the time that seriously believe no Me 109 could ever out turn a 51. We know that statement is false - just that none he engaged with escaped in a turn, or continued, closed and shot him (MUstang pilot) down. That makes for one sided evaluations - both sides

Having said that there were very very few Mustang aces shot down in aerial combat in ETO. That is a reflection of the superb performance, the tactics of the Luftwaffe to AVOID fighter-fighter combat by orders, and the decline in pilot standards over time from 1943 on. 

So, to summarize. He stood by his words, said he was not 'chastised' for mis hearing what was discussed regarding such anecdotal reflections by the pilots, is NOT a 8th AF/US bigot on this subject and IS a great admirer of the Luftwaffe and its battle skills and aircraft. He describes his role as a trusted 'scribe', not a serious evaluator of aerodynamics and performance.

At any rate I respect your POV, as well as Soren's. I depend on my own capacity to sort facts from opinion and sometimes fail - but I do a lot of cross checking on interesting topics - this is one of them

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Regarding take off roll, well according to the POH which lists minimum figures the P-51D at 10,000 lbs takes off after 1600 ft (487m) and will clear a 50 ft (15m) object after 2400 ft (731m).
> 
> ...



I'm a little suprised that the 190D took 10% less take off run than the A-8. What were the differences in weight between the two?


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

Bill,

The figures you have presented are calculated and VERY optimistic IMO, just take a look at the Spitfires take off roll which was renowned for being very short, it's longer than that calculation. The POH lists the true minimum 1600 ft take off roll at 10,000 lbs and 1400 ft at 9,000 lbs. Don't you have the P-51D's POH ?

Interestingly though the better aerodynamics of B version made for a 200 ft shorter take off run at 1400 ft, compared to the 1600 ft of the P-51D.

Also why are you surprised about the difference between the A-8 D-9 ? While weighing roughly the same the D-9 is less draggy and it's prop produces slightly more thrust.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

Btw, also remember that down low and at slow speeds the FW-190 A-8 has a better sustained turn rate than the P-51D, hence the shorter take off roll.

The excellent charts by Crumpp:
*FW_190 A-8*





*P-51D*


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

> He was very emphatic that the Dora pilots felt they had an edge overall on the P-47 and Tempests - their main opponents but were disappointed that the Mustang still seemed to have an edge.



According to German comparisons the Dora was slightly better than the P-51 down low and about the same at high altitude.



> He finished by saying that the Anton did have an edge in manueverability but what could you expect in comparison with a heavier, longer ship against the best fighter roll rate in the ETO



Roll rate isn't turn rate 

However in short I wouldn't trust Caldwell when it comes to a/c performance, and that's not that he's untrustworthy, he just isn't much into this area.

Please also bare in mind that most Dora-9's flown by JG-26 weren't equipped with the MW-50 system, so that would explain the remarks Caldwell has recieved.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The figures you have presented are calculated and VERY optimistic IMO, just take a look at the Spitfires take off roll which was renowned for being very short, it's longer than that calculation. The POH lists the true minimum 1600 ft take off roll at 10,000 lbs and 1400 ft at 9,000 lbs. Don't you have the P-51D's POH ?
> 
> ...



Because you didn't present the Report stating each condition, and elements of test, including either corrections for STP or the actual temperatures or the field conditions for take off, definitions for what constituted the load. You present no context.

Even Combat Load has different connotations depending on the mission. I was careful to highlight the specific meaning and demonstrate the difference the internal fuselage tank load meant to Max Gross TO 'Clean External -except for racks' 

Your source is already suspect because the data you give is for clean (no flaps) take off for a P-51D. If that is what it states, the 1540-1600 ft is correct, or close enough depending on pilot skill, altitude of the airfield, hard or soft, hot or cold day.

What is your source?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> According to German comparisons the Dora was slightly better than the P-51 down low and about the same at high altitude.
> 
> *Please post the German comparisons you are alluding to. I have done so fro anecdotal reference, have never found a written comparison performed by test pilots except for the ones performed by RAF and USAAF - which you refute. Post the tests and comparisons that meet your standard for fairness.
> 
> ...



That would not explain any remarks regarding comparisons between the Anton and Dora. Nor have I seen evidence that JG26 was punished by witholding MW50 systems. Where would you direct me for evidence of this?


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

From the P-51D P-51B POH:











Those are the official average take off distances, so obviously they're with flaps Bill. The figures you presented were calculated, the doc says so itself in the beginning.

Here are the Official German figures, the same Leistung Daten chart, and ALL the take off landing distance figures are at std. atmosphere and zero wind:








Moving on to turn rate;

First Crumpp's comparison:
*FW-190 D-9*





*FW-190 A-8*





This is real physics, and they don't change.

I'll post the German comparative remarks tommorrow.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> From the P-51D P-51B POH:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have a lot of respect for Crump's charts and his math. I would also point out that the models presented are subject to the engine performance at different altitudes, depending on where the blowers kick in so even the models must be carefully used with all caveats discussed

They do not, however, represent anything more than a mathmatical model. Aerodynamics and flight mechanics are math models to arrive at estimates of predicted performance.

The reason flight tests are performed, other than for better understanding of the limits of aircraft, are to demonstrate the REAL physics and characteristics. 

An aircraft is a complicated model. Extrapolations on lift are influenced by Wing-Body interaction, laminar flow separation, unexpected wash out, complications introduced by aeroelastic effects due to wing loads when angle of attack is changed by those loads, etc, etc.

That is why we will always be talking past each other. If you make an statement that a Fw 190D-9 out turns an Anton or a P-51D and I ask you for the Test data - and you present Gene's performance calculations - I'm interested but unconvinced for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Gene would tell you the same thing about calculations versus flight tests. The calcs lead to design, tests lead to adjustment of calcs/models to fit real life, modified models lead to next design, etc. I lived in that world, but mostly airframe structures after my first two years.

Circle back to key points.

Caldwell reproduces comments and diary from JG26 during December, 1944.

Diary expresses disappointment that the Anton out turns and out rolls the Dora, and worse does not out perform the Mustang.

You say Caldwell 'full of it' and every LW pilot knows that none of that is true.

And the debate rolled on from there. I found flight tests as late as March 1945 that refuted your top numbers, you found performance charts that substantiated yours. In all candor, I don't read German so I don't know if the charts you presented on the D were Flight Test or Theoretical calculations based on wind tunnel drag results. 

and so on.

So, what do you believe substantiates your claim that the Dora was faster and out turned the Mustang? Do you have anything in the way of Flight tests or other one on one comparative tests that substantiate your claim? An anecdotal comment is interesting as part of the equation, but not the conclusive fact

You just dismissed the Calculated values from USAAF Flight Test Reports (even though the calculated figures for speed and climb were less than actual test results), but posed Gene's very nice performance charts as gospel. Why the selective embrace of one while dismissing the other?

At any rate I KNOW that the take off roll for a loaded 51 as I described it above, on a hard runway with 20 degrees of flaps is in the 1000-1100 foot range from personal experience so I had to really look at the tables you presented to try to figure the discrepancy. But by my own rules, anecdotal is interesting but not conclusive fact - I buy that.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

It says "Optimum take off" which means the setting which yields the quickest take off, it doesn't say flaps werent used. 

80% of 1600 ft (487 m) is 1280 ft (390m), which sounds reasonable at take off power. I'll happily believe that (1600 ft did sound a little high).

As to your personal experience with a restored P-51, well the P-51's in service were heavier as they were stacked with ammo and also different electrical systems I'd presume?

Moving on....

Regarding the calculations made by Crumpp, well I've talked to him over PM and his calculations are based on actual flight data on the a/c, stall speed, thrust etc etc.. So they are in the right ballpark, and are good for comparing a/c.

The elastic deformation of the wings is something which needs be considered yes, and it has been. Infact this very effect actually gave the FW-190's wings elliptical lift distribution in tight turns, hence the violent stall. (Elliptical lift distribution makes for violent stalls)

By looking at the power available to the Dora-9 and the lower drag it's quite obvious it was a better turn fighter than the A-8, and the German comparative reports and the opinions of the vets who flew the a/c agree with this. Actually I have a very nice original aerodynamics chart on the FW190 Ta-152 series I'll post here tommorrow when I get home, then you can see the difference between the a/c for yourself.

As for Caldwell, I never said he was full of it, I infact said otherwise. What I did say is that he has little insight into technical aspect of these fighters, where'as Dietmarr has covered this area extensively.

Finally like I said, I'll provide the German comparative report tommorrow.

PS: I really don't appreciate your accusations of bias Bill, I haven't been biased or selective I have just looked at and compared the data I have and have been made available. So I hope for the sake of this debate that you don't continue with these blind accusations, either that or I will cease to participate.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Regarding the calculations made by Crumpp, well I've talked to him over PM and his calculations are based on actual flight data on the a/c, stall speed, thrust etc etc.. So they are in the right ballpark, and are good for comparing a/c.
> 
> *I didn't disagree about 'ballpark' - I noted to you (and Gene - and he agrees) that each comparison must be made for the altitudes and power curves of the engines - which they do. A Mustang will kick into a high horsepower rating under automatic boost than an Fw 190... ditto an Fw 190D or whatever. So, if you wish to present each curve - note the altitude and rated Hp of the engine at that condition? Take the rated Hp of the Fw 190A-8 against the P-51B Mustang at say, 15, 20, 25 and 30,000 feet - then make your case.
> 
> ...




I looked back to find an accusation of bias. I did say we talk past each other, I did say that on one hand you dismiss Flight Tests on comparisons made by RAF and USAAF as biased, but produce no 'unbiased' flight tests for a counterpoints. 

I probably mentioned that for every anecdotal comment you could find I could find one rebutting, and vice versa.

I have probably asked you tens of times "where are the referenced tests by the Luftwaffe (that you reference all the time) that demonstrate superior turn performance of say an 109 versus the Dora, or Anton versus the Dora, or 109 versus the Mustang, etc.. You zip right past that discussion and introduce the next series of claims.

In all of these clashes regarding the 'obvious superiority of say, a Me 109G or K versus the Mustang, you have yet to produce one set of flight test comparisons to substantiate your claim, but frequently dismiss other actual tests as 'biased', unfair, or simply wrong. I for one would be happy to know there is another set of tests , say at Rechlin, in which this is documented?

When I bring up Rall's comments on his reflections about comparative turning ability, when he was running the LW program at Rechlin for awhile, you dismissed his comments on the basis of his fear of using slats, but still present no test data to refute his observations. 

You have zero qualms about doubting the experience of one of Germany's top warriors when it contradicts your point of view.

You do this to me and everyone who would express real curiosity, and a real interest in facts. 

Is this what you mean by bias?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> It says "Optimum take off" which means the setting which yields the quickest take off, it doesn't say flaps werent used.
> 
> 80% of 1600 ft (487 m) is 1280 ft (390m), which sounds reasonable at take off power. I'll happily believe that (1600 ft did sound a little high).
> 
> ...



I have the POH, it is an old ratty Manual that is missing the Tables..

With a full load plus two pilots I think it was around 9200-9300 but it might have been lighter.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 24, 2008)

Best fighter interceptor is, as usual, difficult to nail down. I am going to address the interceptor part and assume the fighter part follows along. 

In order to be a great interceptor, an aircraft must have several excellent characteristics as follows:
1.	Time to climb. The interceptor must reach the altitude of the bomber, or higher, in a minimum time.
2.	Firepower. The interceptor must have sufficient fire power to quickly dispatch heavily armed bombers. Most American fighters are short in this area (no need, no heavily armed bombers to shoot down).
3.	Evasive capability. The interceptor must be able to evade escort fighters. This does not necessarily mean to defeat them, only evade them. I would assume airspeed and high altitude performance, for attack from above, is most valuable for evasion.
4.	Endurance. The interceptor must have enough endurance to do severe damage to the bomber formation. The job of the interceptor is to disrupt the bomber formation and inflict severe losses on the attacking force.

The primary bomber threat falls into three categories, small and medium bombers, and fighter bombers, all usually operating below 15k ft., early heavy bombers, B-17 et.al., at 20-25k, and the B-29, operating above 30k.

For comparison purposes, I will address bombers at 25k and 33k. Two aircraft that should be included are the P-38L and Bf-109K. I have little data on the P-38L and limited data on the Bf-109K.

Time to climb, 25k ft.- quickest first

*Spitfire XIV 6.6 minutes*
P-51B 7 minutes (75”hg boost)
P-51H 7 minutes
P-47M 7.3 minutes 
F4U-4 7.5 minutes
Bf-109G about 7.5 (7.8 at 26k) minutes 
Fw-190D-9 7.6 minutes
Ta-152H 8 minutes
P-51D 9.2 minutes (67”hg, probably a bit longer than the P-51B at 75”hg)


Time to climb, 33k

*Spitfire XIV 9.5 minutes*
P-51H 9.8 minutes
Ta -152H 10.1 minutes
Bf-109G 11.9 minuets
P-51B 12.4 minutes
Fw-190D-9 12.5 minutes
F4U-4 12.8 (mil power only)
P-51D 12.8 minutes 
P-47M 13.4 minutes


Firepower – best first (a guess)

*Bf-109G two 15mm, two 20mm, one 30mm-excellent*
Ta-152H one 30mm, two 20mm-excellent
Fw-190D-9 two 13mm, two 20mm Very Good 
Spitfire Mk XIV two 20mm, two 30 caliber-very good
F4U-4 six 50 cal-(Medium), or four 20mm (very good}
P-47M eight 50 cal.-Probably Good
P-51D six 50 cal.-Medium
P-51B four 50 cal.-Poor
P-51H four 50 cal.-Poor


Evasive potential-25k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling-fastest first

*P-51H 466 mph*, 2350 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-47M 453 mph, 3000 ft/min, >33k
Ta-152H 449 mph, N/A *(2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500 ft*
F4U-4 448 mph, 2600 ft/min, 41,600 ft 
Spitfire XIV 446 mph, *3100 ft/min*, 43,500 ft 
P-51B 440 mph, 2120 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 440 mph, 2100 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Fw-190D-9, 422mph, 2280 ft/min, 39,370 ft
Bf-109G, 420mph, (2135 at 26k), 38,700 ft


Evasive potential-33k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling

*P-47M 475 mph*, N/A (2200 ft/min at 30k), >33k
Ta-152 458 mph, NA (*2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500k *
P-51H 440 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Spitfire XIV 438, 2000 ft/min, 43,500
F4U-4 434 mph, 1600 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-51B 423 mph, 1200 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 418 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Bf-109G 398 mph, 1175 ft/min, 38,700 ft
Fw-190D-9 391 mph, 984 ft/min, 39,370 ft


Endurance-longest first (a guess)

*P-51B With 184 gallons of main fuel and a 85 gallon extended range tank-excellent*
P-51D Probably a mite less than the P-51B-excellent
P-51H Unknown, probably excellent
Ta-152 With 263 gallons, excellent 
P-47M With 250 gallons and a 100 gallon reserve, endurance should be excellent
F4U-4 With 237 gallons, endurance should be excellent
Fw-190D-9 No data, probably medium
Spitfire XIV With 134 gallons, medium
Bf-109G No data, probably medium

Conclusion based on this data, at 25k feet, best to last:

1. Spitfire XIV. Excellent time to climb beating the next fastest by 20-30 seconds. Good firepower. In top mix of airspeed, best in rate of climb, and very good ceiling. Let down a bit by endurance.

Next four are very close.

2. F4U-4. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower with 20s medium with 50s. In the top mix of airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

3. P-47M. Very good time to climb. Good firepower. In the top mix of airspeed (second to P-51H), second behind Spitfire in rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

4. Ta-152. Good time to climb, excellent firepower. In the top mix of airspeed, rate of climb among the best, excellent ceiling. Excellent endurance. Great performance, only let down by time to climb, almost a minute and a half slower than the Spitfire.

5. P-51H. Among the best in time to climb. Poor firepower. Excellent airspeed-best in class, very good rate of climb, very good ceiling. Firepower prevents competing for best at 25k.

The next four are all pretty equal

6. Fw-190D-9. Very good time to climb. Very good firepower. Much slower in airspeed than other contestants except the Bf-109G, 18 mph slower than the next slowest on the list. Very good rate of climb, among the lowest ceiling in mix. Airspeed would make it difficult to penetrate an equal number of escort fighters including P-51B/D/H and P-47s.

6. Bf-109G. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower. Slowest of the bunch, so comments similar to Fw-109D-9.


7. P-51D. Probably reasonable time to climb with max boost (probably would have scored higher if I had the data for 75” Hg boost). Medium firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Forte is long range escort.

8. P-51B. Excellent time to climb-tied with P-51H for second. Poor firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, lowest ceiling (maybe early model). Forte is long range escort.

Conclusion based on this data, at 33k feet, best to last:

1. At 33k, only one aircraft contending, the Ta-152H. The only aircraft in this bunch with any advantage at all at 33k ft. is the P-47M with a 17 mph airspeed advantage, but not much else.
2. Spitfire 
3. F4U-4
4. P-47M
5. P-51H
6. Everybody else.

Overall, of the above choices, I think the Ta-152H would be preferred, due to its outstanding high altitude performance, and its very good capability at lower altitudes.

*I think the best interceptor at all altitudes is the Me-262*. Its higher speed and powerful armament supersedes slower climb and lesser ceiling than most of the listed aircraft. In flown appropriately, and with protected airfields, I think the Me-262, with a reasonable amount of aircraft available, could have stopped daylight bombing in Europe.

This is just my rationale. All of these aircraft were superb aircraft and proved to be deadly. In addition, variation from the mean has a big impact on assessment. For example, it was noted in this thread that Fw calculated data was guaranteed to 3%. Well, at 400 mph, that means it could be anywhere between 388 mph to 412 mph, a 24 mph spread. Flight test also has range variable. I have found both calculated and test data on the P-51B at SL of between 374 mph and 386 mph. And we tend to compare aircraft doing 453 to one doing 448. So, anyway, this is kind of a guess based on what I think is important and what data I have found, and so, in general, is up for interpretation.


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2008)

> Then by definition of low drag as the criteria, it should be 'quite obvious' that the Mustang is a better turn fighter than either of the Fw's or 109's?



Bill, stop being anal. The P-51 features a lower lift wing, lower HP engine, is heavier etc etc, in short it's another a/c. The reason the FW-190 A-8 D-9 can be compared so directly is because they both use the same wing, but because of differences in fuselage design and another engine one has less drag and more power, hence a better turn rate. It's very simple really, and I'm pretty astounded that you haven't gotten it yet.



> Soren - this is cut and pasted from your comments
> 
> "In short, Caldwell is talking trash and knows nothing of what he's talking about as all the vets, experts physics tell a much different story from the one told by Caldwell in that article.
> 
> ...



Hey if you cut and paste out of context you can make it look like I said anything you want! 

You might want to note that I posted that response BEFORE Kurfürst presented other datas from the book, data which conflicts with yours. Now I don't have Caldwell's book, so I took it was an article you were posting Bill, hence my first remark. That having been said Caldwell clearly hasn't got any insight into the technical aspect of these fighters, if he did he wouldn't make such claims.


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2008)

Davparlr, 

Pretty good comparison there, although I'm unsure about the 109G figures as it depends allot upon which version we're talking about.

Some corrections;

The Ta-152H-1 will definitely reach 25 kft allot quicker than 8 min, being a much quicker climber than the Dora-9 from SL and up, something which is quite clear from just looking at the time to climb to 10 km and the much shorter take off run. 

Also the service ceiling of the Ta-152H-1 is 15.1 km (49,540 ft) with GM-1.

And top speed is 760 km/h (475 mph) with GM-1.

Note: The GM-1 system doesn't kick in unti atl 11.5 km.


Otherwise good comparison, and I can agree with your final conclusion.
___________________________________________________

Now regarding the difference in drag between the A-8 Dora-9, here's a flat plate comparison prepared by the highly respected aerodynamicist David Lednicer:







These figures are from an in depth article by Lednicer on the aerodynamics of WW2 fighters. I have attached the article at the bottom of this post for everyone to read, enjoy.

Furthermore here we have the official Focke Wulf aerodynamics charts on the FW-190 Ta-152 series fighters:






As one can see the Dora-9 benefits from both lower drag and higher thrust, and will therefore inevitably have a big advantage in turn rate over the A-8.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill, stop being anal. The P-51 features a lower lift wing, lower HP engine, is heavier etc etc, in short it's another a/c. The reason the FW-190 A-8 D-9 can be compared so directly is because they both use the same wing, but one has less drag and more power, hence a better turn rate. It's very simple really, and I'm pretty astounded that you haven't gotten it yet.
> 
> *You have the drag figures for comparison between the Anton and Dora?
> 
> ...



You didn't have the book, you didn't have the context and you pooped off - what a suprise?

Soren, for what it is worth you are an amateur Aero Engineer by your own admission. I have a MS Aero Engineering from University of Texas, was a practicing Aero for two years at Lockheed and then a practicing Structures engineer at Bell Helicopter for four years and pioneered NASTRAN acceptance by US Army and Marine Corps for Cobra programs. You make continuous snide remarks about my intellectual capability. This hurts my 'feelers' (DAN, stay the hell out of this one!). 

Having said this I have been careful to dismiss your statements and references as 'BS" even when I think you are reaching. Crump (Gene) has far better credentials than you for both practical flying experience and practical aero knowledge. He has PROVEN his credentials.

Caldwell has a PhD in Chemical Engineering and teaches at Texas A&M University. Your intellectual credentials trump his in what way?

It WAS an article Soren, which happened to extract that Caldwell JG 26 diary account word for word. Just in case we debate about another of my collegures, Rich Mueller (a co-author in some of Caldwells books), he is also a PhD and teaches at the USAF Air War College at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL

Go back and note that Kutfurst (correctly) quoted Caldwells' recount of Ossenkp's remarks on speed and anecdotal performance. Where did he contradict the JG26 pilots concerns that the Mustang still held an edge?

You have an astounding capability to challenge any view opposed to yours - which I find more amusing than irritating.

Here is a hint. Be objective, fact based, and let the facts alter or solidiy your opinions. Let the testosterone and the emotions drain from you in these arguments. The facts will set you free.

You are a complete bore when you state how 'obvious' aerodynamics and physics and ALL luftwaffe vets support any point you try to make - simply because you don't have the test/empiracal facts at hand when you make unequivocal statements.

Now, if your feelings are hurt and you think I have misrepresented your positions - I apologise for your injury - but not my comments.

Please put me on 'Ignore'. I will pout for some time, maybe contemplate suicide, but somehow I know I will struggle on.

Good Day (and I mean this) Soren,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Best fighter interceptor is, as usual, difficult to nail down. I am going to address the interceptor part and assume the fighter part follows along.
> 
> In order to be a great interceptor, an aircraft must have several excellent characteristics as follows:
> 1.	Time to climb. The interceptor must reach the altitude of the bomber, or higher, in a minimum time.
> ...



Great summary Dave, with objective criteria.

I would add some data. The P-51H had a spec cruise range radius for same combat load (plus two more 50's) full internal fuel, etc of 50-100 miles more than the B and D.

As far as firepower, there were no bombers the LW or Japanes put in the air that six 50 calibers had to struggle with -


----------



## davparlr (Feb 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> Pretty good comparison there, although I'm unsure about the 109G figures as it depends allot upon which version we're talking about.



I agree. This is just the data I had.



> Some corrections;
> 
> The Ta-152H-1 will definitely reach 25 kft allot quicker than 8 min, being a much quicker climber than the Dora-9 from SL and up, something which is quite clear from just looking at the time to climb to 10 km and the much shorter take off run.



To be honest, I don’t know where I came up with the 8 minutes. The 10.1 minutes to 10k was from the data I got from you. Other than that I have almost no information on the time to climb of the Ta-152H, or from rate of climb. I have noted that you have numbers much higher than my source of 3445 ft/min at SL which probably came from wikipedia. If you have some data on climb, I would appreciate it.



> Also the service ceiling of the Ta-152H-1 is 15.1 km (49,540 ft) with GM-1.



Okay, I have updated my data base.



> And top speed is 760 km/h (475 mph) with GM-1.
> 
> Note: The GM-1 system doesn't kick in unti atl 11.5 km.



Then this couldn’t be at 10 km, which is where I was comparing. On a further look the chart, I noted a Ta-152H with an EB engine obtained a speed 468 mph at 10 km instead of the 458 mph I showed. I don’t know what the significance of the EB engine was.




drgondog said:


> As far as firepower, there were no bombers the LW or Japanes put in the air that six 50 calibers had to struggle with -



I agree, but I was trying to normalize the competition. In my mind, the B-17/B-24, and the B-29 were the most armed bombers and were the most difficult to attack, so I chose them as the interceptor target for both sides.


----------



## Soren (Feb 25, 2008)

Bill,

You need to start controlling yourself buddy! Take your own advice, let yourself drain from the excessive testosterone emotions !



> You have the drag figures for comparison between the Anton and Dora?



YES! Read my posts for crying out loud! I've already added two charts, one with flat plate comparisons and another from FW with the aerodynamics of the FW190 Ta-152 series in detail!

Geeez!



> So, Soren, explain how the P-51B was faster than both with inferior aerodynamics and power. Ditto on climb, or every close performance comparison in all regimes?



Christ! I wasn't even talking about the P-51 !! I was comparing the FW-190 A-8 to the D-9. And I never claimed that the P-51 had inferior aerodynamics! Infact if you took the time to actually read my posts you'll notice that the chart I presented just below prepared by Lednicer shows that the P-51 has markedly less drag than the other a/c pr. surface area (Thank the laminar wings). Take a look at the flat plate comparison, if you even know what this is (Sorry couldn't help myself seeing how you just tried to patrionize me in the roughest manner), the flat plate area of the P-51 is 4.65 sq.ft. vs the D9's 4.77 sq.ft.

All I ever said about the P-51 was that it features a lower lift wing (Albeit also a lower drag one) and a lower HP engine than the A-8 D-9, and so it's a DIFFERENT aircraft (The design is completely different) and thus can't be compared directly with the FW190 when you have an increase in HP and decrease in drag. The A-8 D-9 are after-all similar a/c, sharing the same wing and fuselage (The D-9's being longer but narrower), and thus they can be compared directly with increases in thrust or with decreases in drag. 

Do you get it now?



> Please illustrate how I took your specific words out of context?



No problem. I made the remark in question BEFORE Kurfürst presented completely contradicting info from the book compared to the article presented by you!

Take a look at the quote presented by Kurfürst please, and then tell me what does it say?

Furthermore I later made it clear that Caldwell isn't trying to descieve anyone, he just says what he knows. HOWEVER Caldwell has clearly shown that he knows little about the technical aspect of these fighters. 



> Soren, for what it is worth you are an amateur Aero Engineer by your own admission



I am a fully educated engineer Bill, and I've had an interest within the aerodynamics field for many years, studying the subject, and so far it seems I have a better understanding of how things work than you. (Again sorry, but you get what you give)

So I'm no freaking amateur!



> I have a MS Aero Engineering from University of Texas, was a practicing Aero for two years at Lockheed and then a practicing Structures engineer at Bell Helicopter for four years and pioneered NASTRAN acceptance by US Army and Marine Corps for Cobra programs. You make continuous snide remarks about my intellectual capability.



Funny then how you don't seem know what the flat plate area refers too..



> Go back and look at what Kurfurst reproduced. Do you see one comparison of Fw 190D versus Mustang?



NO I DON'T, and that is exactly my point! 

We were comparing the A-8 to the D-9 because Caldwell claimed that the A-8 turned better than the D-9, which is untrue. Kurfurst then presented quotes from Caldwell's very own book completely contradicting what Caldwell claimed in that article presented by you !! The P-51 wasn't even part of it!!

You need to learn to focus on the subject at hand Bill, cause now you're all over the place! 

It seems that you blow up in a wild rampage anytime someone mentions the P-51, emmidiately turning on the defensive as if someone had just said that the P-51 is the worst a/c on the planet! Cool the f**k down for crying out loud and don't pull things out of context!

So take you own advice, let the testosterone emotions drain from your body and come back!


So bloody ridiculous!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2008)

Soren you make me laugh so hard. 

You are so guilty of everything you accuse everyone else of.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> YES! Read my posts for crying out loud! I've already added two charts, one with flat plate comparisons and another from FW with the aerodynamics of the FW190 Ta-152 series in detail!
> 
> *Didn't see either one or I wouldn't have asked*
> 
> ...



Yes, it is Soren


----------



## renrich (Feb 25, 2008)

Dav, I enjoyed your analysis about interceptors. A lot of research there. Am wondering if you researched ammunition load on the various AC. Doesn't do much good to be in a position to shoot down a bomber if you are out of ammo. Also it would be interesting to know about the rate of climb figures versus that ammo load. For instance, I know the P47 had the capacity to carry a big load of 50 cal ammo but I have read that in some cases the pilots took only a partial load. Was that to decrease takeoff run, increase rate of climb, increase endurance or performance? I know the following data from "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" won't be met with favor by some members of this forum but I have found that source to be pretty consistent with others and the article on the FW was from 8 different German contributers: Initial rate of climb for TA152H-1 is 3445 ft/min w/MW50.


----------



## Soren (Feb 25, 2008)

Bill,

You're still skidding all over the place, let me put things into context here:

This whole argument started with you refering to an article by Caldwell which claimed that the Anton was a better turn fighter than the D-9 and that the only improvement with the D-9 was increased dive speed high alt performance.

I then responded:

_"well I can't really stress this hard enough, the Dora-9 turns better than ANY of the Antons. Also there's no difference in performance or maneuverability between the A-7 A-8, and the A-9 was a rather rare bird so they couldn't have been refering to this. All comparative tests were done with a cleanly loaded A-8 D-9."_

*Note: No P-51 ever mentioned by me!*

You then replied:

_"Soren - I did get a reply back from Don. He did not get disagreement from the JG26 pilots regarding either the diary comments in his JG26 War Diaries or his JG26 Top Gun book comments regarding anecdotes on the 109K-4.

He did say that the JG26 vet comparisons were largely not about high altitude performance as the Geschwader was largely tactical at that time in the war and most of the reflections were at low to medium altitude.

He was very emphatic that the Dora pilots felt they had an edge overall on the P-47 and Tempests - their main opponents but were disappointed that the Mustang still seemed to have an edge. He also emphasized that the pilots were getting aircraft of varying quality so performance figures had to be taken with a grain of salt.

He finished by saying that the Anton did have an edge in manueverability but what could you expect in comparison with a heavier, longer ship against the best fighter roll rate in the ETO"_

To which I responded:

_"Roll rate isn't turn rate 

However in short I wouldn't trust Caldwell when it comes to a/c performance, and that's not that he's untrustworthy, he just isn't much into this area.

Please also bare in mind that most Dora-9's flown by JG-26 weren't equipped with the MW-50 system, so that would explain the remarks Caldwell has recieved.
"_

*Note: Again no P-51 ever mentioned!*

You then responded:

_"Soren -When did you come to that realization? Having said that how would you prove that D-9 out turned an A8 or A9? The anecdotal evidence that came from Caldwell's book indicated the Anton out turned and out rolled it. You say no. What is the German Report making these comparisons that I should look at? The D-9 is heavier, I suppose the W/L is higher for exactly the same comparison combat load? - but tell me other wise if you have the facts. What difference in wing parameters would favor the Dora and overcome the weight and possible length influence?

Additionally, unless you have flight test comparisons between Fw 190D-9 and P-51B/C/D for turn or acceleration or roll, what factual base are you arguing from. The P-51D and B could turn with a Fw 190A. Altitude and speed would dictate which one had an advantage however slight.

If the Anton indeed out turned the Dora, as related, it is logical to conclude that the Dora DID NOT out turn a Mustang - unless you have evidence to the contrary.
"_

*Note: YOU bring up the P-51.*

To which I responded by presenting the excellent charts prepared by Crumpp, clearly showing that the D-9 has a big advantage in terms of turn rate. And then I made it clear these are based on real physics, and they don't change.

You then responded:

_"I have a lot of respect for Crump's charts and his math. I would also point out that the models presented are subject to the engine performance at different altitudes, depending on where the blowers kick in so even the models must be carefully used with all caveats discussed

They do not, however, represent anything more than a mathmatical model. Aerodynamics and flight mechanics are math models to arrive at estimates of predicted performance.

The reason flight tests are performed, other than for better understanding of the limits of aircraft, are to demonstrate the REAL physics and characteristics. 

An aircraft is a complicated model. Extrapolations on lift are influenced by Wing-Body interaction, laminar flow separation, unexpected wash out, complications introduced by aeroelastic effects due to wing loads when angle of attack is changed by those loads, etc, etc.

That is why we will always be talking past each other. If you make an statement that a Fw 190D-9 out turns an Anton or a P-51D and I ask you for the Test data - and you present Gene's performance calculations - I'm interested but unconvinced for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Gene would tell you the same thing about calculations versus flight tests. The calcs lead to design, tests lead to adjustment of calcs/models to fit real life, modified models lead to next design, etc. I lived in that world, but mostly airframe structures after my first two years.

Circle back to key points.

Caldwell reproduces comments and diary from JG26 during December, 1944.

Diary expresses disappointment that the Anton out turns and out rolls the Dora, and worse does not out perform the Mustang.

You say Caldwell 'full of it' and every LW pilot knows that none of that is true.

And the debate rolled on from there. I found flight tests as late as March 1945 that refuted your top numbers, you found performance charts that substantiated yours. In all candor, I don't read German so I don't know if the charts you presented on the D were Flight Test or Theoretical calculations based on wind tunnel drag results. 

and so on.

So, what do you believe substantiates your claim that the Dora was faster and out turned the Mustang? Do you have anything in the way of Flight tests or other one on one comparative tests that substantiate your claim? An anecdotal comment is interesting as part of the equation, but not the conclusive fact
"_


_Regarding the calculations made by Crumpp, well I've talked to him over PM and his calculations are based on actual flight data on the a/c, stall speed, thrust etc etc.. So they are in the right ballpark, and are good for comparing a/c.

The elastic deformation of the wings is something which needs be considered yes, and it has been. Infact this very effect actually gave the FW-190's wings elliptical lift distribution in tight turns, hence the violent stall. (Elliptical lift distribution makes for violent stalls)

By looking at the power available to the Dora-9 and the lower drag it's quite obvious it was a better turn fighter than the A-8, and the German comparative reports and the opinions of the vets who flew the a/c agree with this. Actually I have a very nice original aerodynamics chart on the FW190 Ta-152 series I'll post here tommorrow when I get home, then you can see the difference between the a/c for yourself.

As for Caldwell, I never said he was full of it, I infact said otherwise. What I did say is that he has little insight into technical aspect of these fighters, where'as Dietmarr has covered this area extensively._

*Note: Do you see me mention the P-51 anywhere ???! NO!*


You then responded:

_"Then by definition of low drag as the criteria, it should be 'quite obvious' that the Mustang is a better turn fighter than either of the Fw's or 109's?

And part of this debate is that the comparisons that some made, as reflected in JG26 were in opposite opinion - so what are we to believe when one set of vets disagree, anecdotally, with the others? 

And where are the Comparative reports you just mentioned? I can find them from the RAF and the USAAF but nowhere else?

Even CALCULATIONS, if founded on the drag results from Flight Tests are useful" _

So suddenly the Mustang gets involved while all I was doing was comparing the FW-190 D-9 A-8. So I get abit confused cause how could what I wrote be misunderstood so badly?

Anyway I then responded:

_"Bill, stop being anal. The P-51 features a lower lift wing, lower HP engine, is heavier etc etc, in short it's another a/c. The reason the FW-190 A-8 D-9 can be compared so directly is because they both use the same wing, but because of differences in fuselage design and another engine one has less drag and more power, hence a better turn rate. It's very simple really, and I'm pretty astounded that you haven't gotten it yet."_

Note again I'm just trying to stick to the original argument about the turn performance of the D-9 A-8, but somehow you insist upon the P-51 getting involved.

I then proceeded in my next post to present the flat plate areas of the FW-190A D amongst other a/c, as-well as the official FW aerodynamics charts of the 190 152 series, again just to show the lower drag of the D-9 vs the A-8. You however didn't get the message and emmidiately got on the defensive and responded:

_"You have the drag figures for comparison between the Anton and Dora?

So, Soren, explain how the P-51B was faster than both with inferior aerodynamics and power. Ditto on climb, or every close performance comparison in all regimes?

It is pretty clear that I'm a little 'slow' because I challenge quite a bit of what you say when not accompanied by a fact base... and, if the Dora was so clean, why the issues with the engine seal in attaining predicted speeds from wind tunnel drag?

And the engine power of a P-51B/D is less than an Fw 190A-8? at what altitudes? and if the performance of the 51B is better than the Dora, how could that be for a heavier aircraft with lesser aerodynamics"_

So I'm thinking WTF is going on here ?? Is the guy at all reading what I write or does he just want to pick a fight ???


----------



## Soren (Feb 25, 2008)

Now you still don't seem to know what flat plate area refers to considering you can't read the chart I presented. _f_ is the mathematical expression for flat plate area, and flat plate area represents the total drag of the a/c in the form of a flat plate held at 90 degrees against the airstream.






So is this chart hard to read or something?


Now as to what Caldwell wrote in his article compared to the data from his very own book provided by Kurfürst. Well; 

_Compared with the Fw I90A-8, the Dora-9: 

1) with 40-50 more horsepower,had a greater level speed, climb rate, and ceiling,
2) had much better visibility to the rear, owing to its bubble canopy; 
3) was much quieter - the Jumo 213A vibrated much less than the BMW 801; 4) handled better in steep climbs an turning, owing probably to its greater shaft horsepower at full throttle; 
5) had less torque effect on takeoff or landing; and 
6) had slightly greater endurance ._

Now if this isn't contradicting what he earlier said then what ??

Like I said, Caldwell has shown quite clearly that he has little insight into the technical aspect, where'as Dietmar has covered this subject extensively.


----------



## Soren (Feb 25, 2008)

As to the German comparative notes on the Dora-9 vs the Mustang as-well as a number of other a/c, well already out of town again so I can't provide them. But Thrawn I'm sure has Dietmar's book, and thus can provide the notes. Otherwise you'll have to wait.

Oh and regarding the A-8 vs D-9 subject, the D-9 isn't heavier than the A-8, it's 30 kg lighter and has available far more thrust and less drag (Read the FW chart). Now seeing that you were an aero engineer figuring out the rest should be a piece of cake for you Bill.

FW-190 D-9 thrust at 1,750 PS: 2,072 kg (2,227 kg at 2,100 PS with MW-50)
FW-190 A-8 thrust at 1,800 PS: 1,836 kg

So that's 250 kg more thrust with 50 less PS for the Dora-9, and on top of this it's lighter and less draggy. 

It's really a no-brainer for anyone with even a slight insight into aerodynamics....


----------



## renrich (Feb 25, 2008)

Hmmmmm, my reference shows A8 empty weight as 3470 kg whereas D9 as 3490 kg empty weight.


----------



## Soren (Feb 25, 2008)

And your reference is more accurate than the actual original FW specs ?

Btw, the Ta-152H-1's 3,449 ft/min climb rate is at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM). 

Davparlr,

Without the ETC-504 the Dora-9 climbs quicker than in your comparison, with an increase of 1.5 m/s in climb rate, so time to climb figures will be lower.


----------



## renrich (Feb 25, 2008)

I have no idea. The infromation is from an article written by Robert Grinsell. He credits the following for helping him on the research: Herbert Kaiser, Oskar Romm,Guenther Schack, Werner Schroer, Dipl. Ing. Kurt Tank, Gerhard Thyben, Bundesarchiv, West Germany, Fokker G. m. b. H., Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm and United States Air Force. To me, reasonable people would concede that data on machinery built many decades ago can vary quite a bit based on many factors not the least of which is the individual machines. Therefore to maintain that one set of data is absolutely correct and another set that differs somewhat is incorrect does not seem reasonable to me. When debating about empty weight of an AC one does not know what piece of equipment may have been added or subtracted to cause a slight variance.


----------



## chuckn49 (Feb 25, 2008)

While I have no where near the technical expertise of many if not most of the posters in this forum I will, for old times sake, champion my favorite fighter/interceptor, the P-38L. I confess to a bias because my brother flew them with the 479th and later flew the P-51D. He always said that of the two, given his choice, he'd rather fly the P-38. I suppose he may have had a preference based on the fact that it was the first plane he flew in combat but, he said that his experience in air combat lead him to like the P-38's sub-20,000 ft. performance better than the 51's. Apparently, by the time he got into combat _mid-'44) many of the dogfights quickly got down below 20,000 and he felt no plane could out dive the 38. That's my recollection of his preferences. I wish he were here to participate but, sadly, he passed away 8 years ago.

Drgondog, I didn't realize your credentials until you posted them here since I am so new to this wonderful site. Let me say that as an old Army pilot, I really appreciated the effort of those Bell engineers when it came to the Huey and the Cobra. I flew both and loved them.


----------



## renrich (Feb 25, 2008)

chuck, I don't have anything to add about P38 v P51 but I was glad to hear you mention your brother's comments about ACM at 20000 ft. I believe many of us on this forum wrongly put too much emphasis on high altitude combat and capabilities. I would bet that only a tiny minority of ACM took place above 25000 feet and most was well below that.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 25, 2008)

renrich said:


> chuck, I don't have anything to add about P38 v P51 but I was glad to hear you mention your brother's comments about ACM at 20000 ft. I believe many of us on this forum wrongly put too much emphasis on high altitude combat and capabilities. I would bet that only a tiny minority of ACM took place above 25000 feet and most was well below that.



ACM at 20-30,000 was largely important only for 8th and 12/15th AF bomber escort as that is where the 'targets were' (both the bombers and the German fighters).

In winter of 1944-1945 many of the missions, particularly in bad weather, were flown in the middle altitudes in the ETO.. There were a lot more combats at low to medium altitude in this period than before.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 25, 2008)

chuckn49 said:


> While I have no where near the technical expertise of many if not most of the posters in this forum I will, for old times sake, champion my favorite fighter/interceptor, the P-38L. I confess to a bias because my brother flew them with the 479th and later flew the P-51D. He always said that of the two, given his choice, he'd rather fly the P-38. I suppose he may have had a preference based on the fact that it was the first plane he flew in combat but, he said that his experience in air combat lead him to like the P-38's sub-20,000 ft. performance better than the 51's. Apparently, by the time he got into combat _mid-'44) many of the dogfights quickly got down below 20,000 and he felt no plane could out dive the 38. That's my recollection of his preferences. I wish he were here to participate but, sadly, he passed away 8 years ago.
> 
> *Chuck - it is a curious fact that the 479th had the best air to air ratio of all the P-38 equipped groups I have studied (FAR better than the 20th, 55th and 364th) - and higher than say the 56th FG as well. Having said that the comparisons of the competition the 479th faced was lower to significantly lower than the 'early' 8th AF FC Groups.*
> 
> Drgondog, I didn't realize your credentials until you posted them here since I am so new to this wonderful site. Let me say that as an old Army pilot, I really appreciated the effort of those Bell engineers when it came to the Huey and the Cobra. I flew both and loved them.



I was fortunate to work with and for two giants in the airframe biz before I got out in 1973. Kelley Johnson at Lockheed and Bart Kelly at Bell. 

Although I did design work I was brought in from Lockheed to jump start Bell in the use of advanced structural computer modelling - mostly NASTRAN. At Lockheed I worked on a team supporting the Skunkworks trying to develop advanced aero models using relaxation computational methods for distributed source-sink pairs. 

The Marine J Cobra was my favorite because the USMC was always trying to move the needle on advanced ground support capability. We put a Wecom 30mm (Col Chinn's stolen Mk103/108 concepts) to replace the Ge 20mm and we put 5" Zuni Rockets on the outer pylon. We also 'did' an XM-97 20mm system hanging on the outer pylons

I am reasonably sure You personally can identify with the blast effects of a Zuni on the ammo doors and canopy latches of a Cobra!! 

We shut down the 30mm short recoil system immediately because it fired at the natural frequency of the Cobra airframe - and damn near had a tail boom 'diverge' on us.

We never did completely solve the Zuni launch blast effect. The over pressure wave deflected the canopy so much we couldn't design a latch system that would keep her buttoned up. I was riding a J during one of the tests and we not only lost the canopy but it clattered around in the rotors before going away.

Bell was a great place to work and got me back to Texas.

Regards,


----------



## drgondog (Feb 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> It's really a no-brainer for anyone with even a slight insight into aerodynamics....



So, where do you want to start?

Flat plate drag, zero lift drag, wetted surface drag, friction drag, transonic drag, drag rise, drag buckets, induced drag, lifting line theory, tip vortices, laminar flow, turbulent flow, laminar flow transition to turbulent flow and boundary layer theory?

Do you want to discuss solutions to Navier-Stokes and the applied computational mathematics to solve it? How about boundary conditions which must be applied to temperature thresholds approximating 'yield' and must be accounted for in aeroelasticity for mach 3 capable craft?

Do you want to trip into orthogonal matrix decompositions for Performance calculations along all three axes? six degrees of freedom?

How about simulating lift lines or lift by the use of complex variables or distribution of sources and sinks to model lift and pressure distributions and moment coefficients? How would you model the pressure distribution on a centerbody covering at the axis of a ducted fan rotor? What assumptions would you use for the flow around that centerbody at the blade/centerbody axis?

Are you more interested in modelling wing/body interference and the effects it has on airflow and drag calculations? How about talking about Karman doublets and therories of alternating vortices in stimulating resonance?

Have you done any aero modelling using finite element, relaxation model techniques? any structural modelling using NASTRAN or STARDYNE to design a helicopter or something as simple as an F-16 canopy that will survive a Mil Spec Chicken test - do you know what that is?

You are a pro Soren, I know, you assured everybody that you are a giant among men in this field and certainly far more competent than me.

I am NOT a 'pro' but I can discuss each of theses topics plus many more.. so I am confident that you have many, many more levels of expertise in aero than I do.

BTW an amateur in this field often thinks of themselves as 'pros' - because they don't know what they don't know. I know there is a lot that I don't know - but flat plate drag ain't one of those subjects.


----------



## chuckn49 (Feb 25, 2008)

Thanks for the information on the 479th air-to-air kill ratio, Drgondog. I was not aware of that. My brother, in many ways, was a hero to me. I used to listen to him talk about flying in the P-38 and the P-51. He did 100 missions before rotating stateside. Once home, he thought he'd be put into a training role like so many others before him but, instead, ended up preparing for the pacific. He was in California, though, when the war finally ended. Eventually, he retired as a Colonel.

I flew the AH-1G, not the J. We had the 2.75" rockets, 40 mm grenade launcher and, of course, the mini-guns. It was the first helicopter I ever knew to be looped though never officially as far as I know. I know, now, that others were but, I can assure you it was not a maneuver taught in flight school. I liked flying the Loach even better, though.


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2008)

Let the fight begin! 

Again you come up with something I never said Bill, you're the master of blowing things up to something they're not.

I have never refered to myself as an expert or "pro" within aerodynamics Bill, but I am neither an amateur, and with your background you're not an amateur either. What surprises me though, considering your background, is that you need so much time to figure these things out;

I presented the FPA chart where both the Spitfire, D-9, A-8, -51B D were all included, and what was exceedingly clear was that the P-51 had the lowest drag. Yet you somehow saw it fit to jump on me with these snide remarks"_So, Soren, explain how the P-51B was faster than both with inferior aerodynamics and power. Ditto on climb, or every close performance comparison in all regimes?_ and _"It is pretty clear that I'm a little 'slow' because I challenge quite a bit of what you say when not accompanied by a fact base... and, if the Dora was so clean, why the issues with the engine seal in attaining predicted speeds from wind tunnel drag?_

So if you understand the chart why the comments above ?


Furthermore in the very same post I provided the FW aerodynamics charts for the FW190 Ta152 series, where you can clearly see the lower drag and higher thrust values of the D-9 vs the A-8. Why do you ignore this ?


Now as to discussing various aerodynamical subjects, I'd be more than happy to do that with you Bill.


----------



## Wayne Little (Feb 26, 2008)

While you blokes are having your 'discussion' my vote is for the Ta152.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2008)

I am actually having fun reading this. Eventually it will get to the point of the thread being closed.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 26, 2008)

Unfortunately. My favorite, my opinion would be to fly the Me 262.

Because I like it.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 26, 2008)

chuckn49 said:


> Thanks for the information on the 479th air-to-air kill ratio, Drgondog. I was not aware of that. My brother, in many ways, was a hero to me. I used to listen to him talk about flying in the P-38 and the P-51. He did 100 missions before rotating stateside. Once home, he thought he'd be put into a training role like so many others before him but, instead, ended up preparing for the pacific. He was in California, though, when the war finally ended. Eventually, he retired as a Colonel.
> 
> I flew the AH-1G, not the J. We had the 2.75" rockets, 40 mm grenade launcher and, of course, the mini-guns. It was the first helicopter I ever knew to be looped though never officially as far as I know. I know, now, that others were but, I can assure you it was not a maneuver taught in flight school. I liked flying the Loach even better, though.



HugHes LOH?

Lol Chuck - I had the difference between G and J doped when you indicated USA. 

Naw, the only reason I brought up the J is that the Marine Program Officer, Major Kragaskis had so many cute things he wanted to try and convinced USMC to do it. AFAIK he was the first to loop a J - which for most pilots in 1969-1970 could be a fatal expression of 'free to be me'. 

As you well know the blades would have had a tendency with the semi articulated rotor system to unload' in a loop, and the abrubt 'reload' could be non repeating experience. I seem to recall a G going down at Rucker with some confusion regarding either a very tight turn or attempted loop?

No, We had no data on the exhaust characteristics, and discovered the amazing difference firing the 5" Zuni versus even ripple fire w/2.75's. The first tests were on the ground and blew the ammo door cover off and sprung the canopy. The bird was grounded while we had a new door flown in and found the latches damaged also. 

The 7.62 was a whole different experience from the 3 barrel XM-188(? CRS) 20mm also .. felt like a pogo stick in the gunner's seat. 

I was in that ship coming back from the Flight Test center in South Arlington when Major Krazy looped it. 

I might have had a 'swab test' when we got on the ground.


----------



## chuckn49 (Feb 26, 2008)

I did, indeed, fly the Mattel Messcherschmidt, the OH-6 by Hughes. It was a wonderful flying machine and very, very crashable (a big plus when you find yourself hovering over a quad-fifty at 30'). I irreverently call it the Mattel Messcherschmidt because it reminded me so much of the ubiquitous TH-55 also by Hughes which we all called by that name.

I heard, but never saw a Cobra looped by an Army Warrant in 'Nam in '68 or so and heard other stories of people doing it. I was too fond of my butt to ever try it (no guts) but it could sure be honked around pretty hard. 

There was a problem, briefly, with a couple of Cobra's lost due to rotor failure -- an event sure to increase the pucker factor in any aviator, methinks. I believe there were cracks that appeared in them requiring a fix from Bell. As you know, it was essentially the same rotor system as the "C" model Huey which I had the pleasure of flying. 

Never heard of a Cobra lost at Rucker, though. Most, in those years. were at Hunter but, I didn't follow up on a lot of them so I'm sure it may have happened.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 26, 2008)

chuckn49 said:


> I did, indeed, fly the Mattel Messcherschmidt, the OH-6 by Hughes. It was a wonderful flying machine and very, very crashable (a big plus when you find yourself hovering over a quad-fifty at 30'). I irreverently call it the Mattel Messcherschmidt because it reminded me so much of the ubiquitous TH-55 also by Hughes which we all called by that name.
> 
> I heard, but never saw a Cobra looped by an Army Warrant in 'Nam in '68 or so and heard other stories of people doing it. I was too fond of my butt to ever try it (no guts) but it could sure be honked around pretty hard.
> 
> ...



Chuck - it could have been at Hunter.. we are dealing with 40 years of memories that have been abused by single malt and Hops of various types and vintages

What I recall is that the blade failed but not in the normal manner - it was unloaded somehow and deflected (or out right bending failure) and came through cockpit.

The G had a beefed up rotor which came from the J as I recall. It was rated for higher performance and gross weight than Army G.

Hughes beat us on the Apache because they had a lower vibration 'load' and crash survivability than our King Cobra (model 309). The King had the first semi rigid four blade we ever designed - primarily because of performance and attempts to isolate/reduce vibration loads due to two rotor articulated systems.

We had a very bright Brit leading the crash survivability team but he left in middle of program to go lead Hughes Airframe Structures. My first exposure to concept of 'elastic deformation' to absorb energy in crash while protecting crew area (not first 'awareness' but first serious design effort)..

Suprisingly it was easily modelled in Nastran with very good agreement to actual crash test deformations later.

It has been a LONG time since I even thought about this stuff. The thing I reflect on is that I have my name on a lot of drawings and even one patent (as a contributor) on the Nodal Pylon Vibration Isolation System.. I'm going to have to search on the precise name but Bart Kelly and Jan Drees (aero and performance) were the principals. You would have been amazed at how smooth the ride was on a UH-1H and Jet Ranger at 130-140 kts


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 26, 2008)

renrich said:


> chuck, I don't have anything to add about P38 v P51 but I was glad to hear you mention your brother's comments about ACM at 20000 ft. I believe many of us on this forum wrongly put too much emphasis on high altitude combat and capabilities. I would bet that only a tiny minority of ACM took place above 25000 feet and most was well below that.



Yes; my (limited) experience has been that, even though a furball might start out at 25,000 ASL+, it would quickly degenerate below that, as each contestant would try to get into an advantageous position, trading altitude for speed. I have no doubt that many an aerial engagement that started out at ~20-25,000 ASL ended up (for better or worse) at treetop height. As chuck stated, this is where the P-38 (particularly the J L models) shined, as they were able to sustain a tighter turn at lower speeds than most of their adversaries at those altitudes (or lack thereof!).


----------



## drgondog (Feb 26, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Yes; my (limited) experience has been that, even though a furball might start out at 25,000 ASL+, it would quickly degenerate below that, as each contestant would try to get into an advantageous position, trading altitude for speed. I have no doubt that many an aerial engagement that started out at ~20-25,000 ASL ended up (for better or worse) at treetop height. As chuck stated, this is where the P-38 (particularly the J L models) shined, as they were able to sustain a tighter turn at lower speeds than most of their adversaries at those altitudes (or lack thereof!).



IIRC the P-38L was a distinct step above the J in nearly every important category including climb, roll, acceleration, turn and dive management - to the point it was for all intents and purposes the equal (except cost) of the P-51B and H, the F4U-4, the P47D-30 and above. 

I would have to give an edge of the 38L over the P-51D/K in several areas including low and high speed roll, climb and acceleration. Usually one of those will work for you.

The dive brakes, boosted ailerons, upgraded engines took the L to the point that the P-38 should have been in 1943 except for the disaster on the prototypes.


----------



## chuckn49 (Feb 26, 2008)

Drgondog, again your superior knowledge has me at a distinct disadvantage. After all, I was just a dumb pilot and all the mechanics would start my day by telling me: "I told Orville and I told Wilbur and I'm telling you; it'll never get off the ground." Well, they were wrong. Getting it off the ground wasn't the hard part: keeping it off the ground was.

Anyway, I didn't realize the G model's rotor system was from the J model. It must have been a retro-fit because I'm pretty sure the models I flew had rotor systems originally from the C model Huey which I also flew (much harder to fly than the Cobra due to weight problems -- the aircraft's, not mine  .
As you say, though, we're both trying to remember 40 years ago (I wish you hadn't reminded me of how much time has gone by  ).

That J model must have been some bird with those twin engines, etc. We thought the G model was pretty hot stuff and, compared to the C model it replaced it really was. A loaded C model was almost impossible to autorotate -- it would just fall through the flare and break backs.

I flew H models and I flew Rangers but, I don't remember the vibration system you mentioned. Here again, it has been 40 years. I do know I suffered high frequency hearing loss in my right ear as a result of that darn turbine whine, though.


----------



## magnocain (Feb 26, 2008)

(ducking)
(technobable bullets whistling over my head)
while your p38's (i think you are talking about p38's) are dogfighting, the F4U will zoom by and accomplish the mission
"ahh!"
(technobable bullets whistling past my face)
(ducking)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2008)

chuckn49 said:


> Drgondog, again your superior knowledge has me at a distinct disadvantage. After all, I was just a dumb pilot and all the mechanics would start my day by telling me: "I told Orville and I told Wilbur and I'm telling you; it'll never get off the ground." Well, they were wrong. Getting it off the ground wasn't the hard part: keeping it off the ground was.
> 
> Anyway, I didn't realize the G model's rotor system was from the J model. It must have been a retro-fit because I'm pretty sure the models I flew had rotor systems originally from the C model Huey which I also flew (much harder to fly than the Cobra due to weight problems -- the aircraft's, not mine  .
> As you say, though, we're both trying to remember 40 years ago (I wish you hadn't reminded me of how much time has gone by  ).
> ...



I lost all of my high frequency hearing (both ears) due to recip engines and shooting over 45+ years. I shot both hand thrown and box flyers for a long time and din't wear ear protection in the case of Box birds because I wanted to hear and see when the bird was released... and I never use them for any kind of hunting these days as there ain't much to protect..

As to the nodal platform - I don't know whether it was used on military birds. I went out of airframe biz in 1973.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I lost all of my high frequency hearing (both ears) due to recip engines and shooting over 45+ years.



My high freq hearing is terrible as well and that is just from flying Blackhawks for 6 years, so I can imagine how your hearing is after 45+!


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My high freq hearing is terrible as well and that is just from flying Blackhawks for 6 years, so I can imagine how your hearing is after 45+!



The real long term damage is shooting Chris. most of the hours in a recip were with earphones of sometype - whereas I have careless guys in a duck blind or hunting quail let one loose close to an ear... a lot of times.

I don't imagine that the Blackhawk or a CH 53 would be much less punishing. At least I haven't spent a lot of time next to an amplifier for a head banger group..


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

I'm sure many of us have suffered some hearing damage, I myself have been very careful to look out for my hearing, but walking around with ear plugs just isn't an option always and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 27, 2008)

What hearing? I would feel lost without my friend the little bell ringing all the time. The only advantage is that I cannot hear crickets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The real long term damage is shooting Chris. most of the hours in a recip were with earphones of sometype - whereas I have careless guys in a duck blind or hunting quail let one loose close to an ear... a lot of times.
> 
> I don't imagine that the Blackhawk or a CH 53 would be much less punishing. At least I haven't spent a lot of time next to an amplifier for a head banger group..



Thats true. Whenever I would go shooting I allways had ear plugs. I think that most of my hearing loss comes from working on the flightline and flying but I am sure that all those Metallica concerts have not helped...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 29, 2008)

Soren those figures on the Fw-190A-9 don't seem totaly right. (the first chart moreso than the second) It says the BMW 801-F was used and I've read that this was the planned engine (with 2000 hp take-off and 2,400 hp special emergency power) but it was not yet available so the 801-E/S was used instead with 2000 hp takeoff (and 2,200-2,300 hp when special emergency power was available, though I'm not sure if all of these engines could do this)

The A-8 also should have used the same wider chord propeller of the D-9 (which was more efficient for these power ratings). This propeller, along with the increased power, (and only modest increase in weight) should have raised climb rate to at least that of the D-9, certainly if the same armament was carried. (and better than the D-9 w/out MW50) Though it would be slower than the D-9 with MW50 due to the higher drag of the radial engine and the wing and belly racks.

I do agree that the D-9 should turn better though, but some pre A-8 models may have had a (slightly) smaller radius (and about the same as the A-8), while the turn-time for the D-9 would be ~10% better due to better sustained speed in turns. As for roll, I'd expect it to be the same. (though late 190's did have better high-speed roll than early models iirc)


*davparlr*, 
I think the Fw-190A-8 would be a good interceptor to add to that list, as its climb should be similar to the D-9 (at least down low) but could carry 4x 20mm cannon and 2x 13mm nose guns. (though the outer wing 20mm's were often removed)

You also didn't list the Tempest Mk.V

It should also be noted that many of the planes up there could have carried better interceptor gun armaments. (though I've never heard of any operational Me 109s carrying 2x 15mm cannons) The P-51 could (and did) carry 4x 20mm cannons without trouble. The spitfire tried 4x 20mm but this was unsatisfactory. The P-47 couldcertainly cary 4x 20mm abd maby even 6x 20mm guns. The P-38 could likely carry 4x 20mm guns. 

Also you didn't consider rocket armaments. The P-38L, for example, could carry 10x 5" HVAR, or 4x rocket launchers each carrying a cluster of 3x 4.5" rockets. The 4.5" rockets were intended for ground attack but could be used as an interception weapon in a pinch. And don't forget the R4M!

I don't think the Me 262 could have ended daylight bombing on its own (maby by psycological affect) even if there weren't engine problems there were plenty of problems with production and development (plus there's training conversion time) to be fielded before mid 1944. The He 280 could have served as an intrim measure and could have been feilded as early as mid 1943 if the wings had been redesignd to accept HeS-6 engines. (the HeS 6 was the only engine with enough thrust that could have been mass produced by 1942, it was an inferior engine of greater weight and diameter than the HeS-8 and would have given lower performance, but it ran in 1940 and produced 550-590 kp, wich the HeS-8 wasn't making untill late 1941 and even then with much other trouble, plus it was still narrower than Whittle's engines)

That said there was an even more effective weapon that was simple, cheap, realitively low-tech, and could easily have been feilded by 1942 if work on (or intrest in) such a device had started sooner. The R4M rocket: simple cheap, easy to build, and very effective. (without the need for a proximity fuse, though one would certainly increase effectiveness, but a simple time fuse was sufficient, just set to detonate at the desired range) It also had the great advantage of having the same trajectory as the Mk 108, so they could be sited the same. Fw 190s could easily have carried these weapons as could the He 280 have. This truely could have stopped daylight bombing before the LW was outnumbered.


*
chuckn49, * 
While I mean no disrespect to your brother, diving was one thing the P-38 could not do well, it could not maintain controll in excess of .68 Mach, and even then it needed the dive flaps to remain stable. The P-51 could safely dive to .75 mach (pilots often pushed farther), while the late P-47D could do mach .80 (more with dive flaps) and accelerated much faster than either the 51 or the 38. And the P-47D,M,N and the F4U-4 could out roll the P-38 at all but very high speeds (nearing the P-38's limit) and even then it might not have beaten the P-47N. The P-38L could out-roll a P-51 at evry speed and could out turn most other US fighters (probably not the Hellcat and maybe not the Corsair) especially if independent throttles were coordinated for turns. And it had longer range than any of the others (similar to the P-47N) and had a better chance of getting home and more concentrated firepower than the P-51. The P-38J/L could also out-climb any US or axis a/c that saw servise in the war. The P-38 could aso out maneuver any other USAAF fighter down low, plus there's no diving issue below 15,000 ft. (except maybe for the P-40, but the P-38 has so many other advantages, even down low) 

The P-47 was more comfortable to fly in with a large padded "armchair" seat and good heating and (I've read) air conditioning. The P-47 had better high-speed control and stability than almost any other WWII fighter and could out zoom climb almost anything.



The P-51A (the higest performing Allison Mustang) had the V-1710-81 engine with takeoff 1,200 hp, WEP 1,480 hp from 5,000-10,400 ft, and military power of 1,125 hp up to 17,500 ft. (this engine was also used on the P-40M/N and out performed the 1,300 hp Merlin engined P-40F/L at all useful altitudes)

When introduced the P-51A could outperform any other allied fighter (and maby the Fw 190) at medium altitudes. With 394 mph at 5,000 ft in WEP, 415 mph at 10,400 ft, 408 mph at 17,500 ft at millitary, and a decent 395 mph at 25,100 ft with only 836 hp. Though the Spit could out climb it. It could climb to 20,000 ft in ~6.5 min. at 8,000 lbs. (compared to ~7.3 min for the P-40M)

See: Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg


----------



## chuckn49 (Feb 29, 2008)

No disrespect taken -- I know my brother would not have disagreed with you on any of what you say. The story of the P-38 student pilot diving the P-38 beyond its envelop was one of an aeronautical engineer believing it could be done and be recoverable when some pilots of the day who exceeded that envelop died. I remember him distinctly telling me of getting into a dive and encountering the control problems you allude to himself. I believe what he experienced was a great deal of difficulty getting the elevators to be effective. I know it scared him.

Anyway, until the day he died, his favorite fighter, overall, was the P-38. He said he felt safer in it, felt it could hold its own against any enemy plane likely to be encountered and was likely to bring its pilots home. This dispite its well documented shortcomings in the ETO.

When he shot down the ME-262 with Zemke, though, he was flying the P-51. He liked the P-51 well enough. Still, he liked the concentrated fire power of the P-38 better because of the 20 mm and 50 cals all being in the nose.


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2008)

Dav, I roger that ringing noise. When I was in basic training with the Garand the only hearing protection was cotton and when one was in the "coach" position your right ear was only two or three feet from the muzzle blast. Years of bird hunting with some big game hunting thrown in with no ear protection added to the problem but the worst offender for noise as far as I am concerned is the magnum handgun. The first 15 or 20 rounds I ever fired from a 41 mag was with no ear protection and that did it. The good news is the only time I hear the ringing is when I think about it.


----------



## broke91hatch (Mar 13, 2008)

Mine is the Corsair. I just love the way that plane looks. And it was a handful in the pacific.


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 29, 2008)

My favourite fighter is P-40, from those I choose P-47 - huge killer.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

I don't think that the la-7 was a intereptore, But it was a killer low level dog fighter. I like the fiat g55 the best but the ta 153 or fw 190d were superior.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

You mean the Ta 152 (not 153) right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> I don't think that the la-7 was a intereptore, But it was a killer low level dog fighter. I like the fiat g55 the best but the ta 153 or fw 190d were superior.



You mean Ta 152 right?


----------



## Bluehawk (Sep 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats true. Whenever I would go shooting I allways had ear plugs. I think that most of my hearing loss comes from working on the flightline and flying but I am sure that all those Metallica concerts have not helped...


Yup... same problem, same reason(s).

Resulting in 2, count 'em TWO, VA provided hearing aids. 

As for this thread, it's so difficult to decide which fighter/interceptor of that era... on the American side each of the ones listed had such different strengths.

I'm having all I can do to surpass the Warthog, at the moment.


----------



## runningdog (Sep 18, 2008)

davparlr said:


> The only advantage is that I cannot hear crickets.


A spell playing sniper in the fifties did for my hearing. The strange thing is the first time I noticed it was when, walking through a field teeming with grasshoppers, I couldn't hear them. Funny though, I can hear recordings of them.
When I saw a quack about my hearing, he was quite cheerful about it, told me I'd got the 60/40 syndrome. I've got 40% hearing one side and have lost 60% hearing on the other side.
Took me a long time to work the joke out............


----------



## icepick (Oct 4, 2008)

Why wasn't the Meteor a choice in the poll? The only true interceptor in the choices was the Me262, and it would be hard to choose it since the P-51 managed such a good record against it. Why is one strange mystery. 

So I found myself voting for the P-38, even though it was a pursuit like most of the choices. Britain's rocket killer, the Meteor, would be my top choice.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 4, 2008)

The V-1 wasn't a rocket, it was pulse-jet powered.

And the only Metoer produced durring the war that was really combat capable was the late F.III with Derwent engines and long engine nacelles. (with a top speed of ~490-520 mph)

The Mk.I was slower than the P-51 and the short-nacelled Derwent powered F.III was only marginally faster at low altitudes. (top speed ~450 mph, ~410-420 with Wellands)


But this is a favorites thread, so performance isn't necessarily the deciding factor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2008)

icepick said:


> Why wasn't the Meteor a choice in the poll? The only true interceptor in the choices was the Me262, and it would be hard to choose it since the P-51 managed such a good record against it. Why is one strange mystery.
> 
> So I found myself voting for the P-38, even though it was a pursuit like most of the choices. Britain's rocket killer, the Meteor, would be my top choice.



What great track record did the P-51 have against the Me 262? Sure they did shoot some down in air to air, but the majority of Me 262s were shot down when they were most vulnerable, that being during landing.


----------



## wesleyp47 (Oct 9, 2008)

For ETO gotta be the P-47, For PTO gotta be the P-38.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 9, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What great track record did the P-51 have against the Me 262? Sure they did shoot some down in air to air, but the majority of Me 262s were shot down when they were most vulnerable, that being during landing.



Chris - I don't have the exact numbers as I don't have all of the encounter reports but ~ 50% were taken out starting with hits at high altitude resulting in damage or destruction, and usually for the damaged ones it was a hit to one engine.. after which a long chase until destroyed.

At least 20% were shortly before landing or shortly after take off.

In context of Me 262 vs P-51, it came out on the short end but not because it wasn't a superior a/c. It simply had no place to hide if it engaged with several 51's without advantage of suprise - and didn't have enough fuel to get way out of sight and have enough time to land safely.

If it lost an engine it was toast.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Chris - I don't have the exact numbers as I don't have all of the encounter reports but ~ 50% were taken out starting with hits at high altitude resulting in damage or destruction, and usually for the damaged ones it was a hit to one engine.. after which a long chase until destroyed.
> 
> At least 20% were shortly before landing or shortly after take off.
> 
> ...



That I was aware of, but I was not aware that it was that high of a percentage. Thanks.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 9, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That I was aware of, but I was not aware that it was that high of a percentage. Thanks.



When the Me 262 appeared, the 8th AF developed tactics for a four ship flight to counter the threat. Most of the 262's shot down had an over optimistic view of the superiority (which it had one on one) and thought presumably they could take on four.

It basically reduced to a four ship Thatch weave and if the 262 made a pass and didn't capitalize on its energy to get back to greater altitude, and subsequently try to get a lead on the first two 51s - the second flight would cut the circle for high deflection shots. The K-14 made this possible.

Galland once told me that the doctrine in the march-April timeframe was to only make one pass when allied fighters were in the area.. boom and sail on - never looking back to engage with the escorts


----------



## arado234d (Oct 12, 2008)

from the ta-book,it only got into limited serv. late jan. 45 but easly shot down p-47..tempest mk5.. mustangs, it to me was the best fighter,even if only having about 550 mile range


----------



## Smoke (Nov 6, 2008)

Mustang, hand down. But the P-38 Lightning is a close second.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 6, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Galland once told me that the doctrine in the march-April timeframe was to only make one pass when allied fighters were in the area.. boom and sail on - never looking back to engage with the escorts



That's what the -262 pilots were SUPPOSED to do; but, as we know, the less disciplined pilots sometimes decided they could turn and fight with the more maneuverable Mustangs, which usually ended in disaster.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> That's was what the -262 pilots were SUPPOSED to do; but, as we know, the less disciplined pilots sometimes decided they could turn and fight with the more maneuverable Mustangs, which usually ended in disaster.



Very True Stitch... plus a hit to one engine usually spelled disaster as few were able to get out of range/sight at the reduced speed...


----------



## Erich (Nov 6, 2008)

actually gents it was all entirely up to the Schwarführer. If P-51 escorts had been called away or were not present it was felt the speed of the jet and turn around would be beneficial to allow a second pass either single or in 3-4's. It was obvious that even higher orders did not dictate the realities in combat


----------



## Yerger (Jun 13, 2009)

Favorites polls are harder than best, one a mental the other facts.

In favorites I imagine someone offering me a new mint one to keep 

This one to hard for 1, even hard by country:

US: P-61 and P-38 tie

German: 190D-9, Do-335, and 109F are a 3 way tie

Japanese: Ki-84, Ki-61, early model Zero, and Shiden-Kai are a 4 way tie

British: Sea Fury, but for operational WWII: Tempest, Typhoon and latest Spit 3 are a 3 way tie

So if I win a give away, I need a bigger garage


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Hello
I made my choice after pondering the question a while, in fact my favourites are Spitfire Mk VIII, which was designed for Merlin 60 series engine and not an emergency solution as Mk IX, and P-51B, closely followed by 109G-10, Tempest, La-5FN, Ta-152C, Spitfire Mk XIVE and late P-47Ds. Not able to choose neither of my two favourites I at end chose Spit XIV, after all Mk VIII with 2-stage Griffon with some strengthening. Not so nice plane to fly but with more raw power.

Juha


----------

