Battle over Germany, January, 1944

[ponsford]

davparlr: I checked the German data sheets and the 190 A-6 and A-8 are within 5 mph in level flight, so not much difference. The numbers I have for the 190 A-6 are 348 mph at ground level and 404 mph at a critical altitude of 20,505 ft. without rack. Knock off around 8-9 mph with the drop tank rack so about 396 at crit. alt.. I figure the 109 G with rack would be in the same ballpark.

Other random thoughts… Going by the P-51 Tactical Planning document that kool kitty posted, P-51 B speeds (with racks which cost ~12 mph and -3 merlin) are 425 mph at 25,000', 420 mph at 25,000' and 433 mph at 30,000'. Those are fairly close to your figures. Regarding your range figures, 75 gallon drop tanks were used on P-51s in January 1944. My understanding is that it wasn't until May that the P-51 started using the 108 gallon tanks. Just looking at head to head aircraft comparisons, the USAAF appears to have a significant qualitative advantage in early 1944.

At the altitudes where the bombers flew, except maybe the B-24, the Luftwaffe fighters had performance shortcomings, especially with the P-51. January to June, '44 was a critical time for Germany, being pressured by the Russians on the East and D-Day being prepared on the West and with ever increasing bomber formations over the homeland.

I'd agree with that assessment.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

And the wing tanks were only removed on the F4U-4 because the extra range was not necessary for USN operations, so there's no reason a USAAF version would not have kept them.

Just curious, why wouldn't the USN need the extra range? The Pacific is a big place and I know that the USN did a trial with a P-51 (Seahorse) because they wanted longer range capability (I guess for raids over Japan).

 

[buzzard]

The F4U-1D, and later Corsairs, were optimized for the fighter-bomber role, and the unprotected outer wing tanks were deleted in favor of larger drop tanks. This gave them more range, and made the a/c less vulnerable to ground fire.

JL

 

[kool kitty89]

Renrich should have more info on it but, one other note should be that the wing tanks were not used often in combat, and were not self-sealing. (though they were protected with CO2 purging system) If needed for the long-range escort role, they would certainly have been retained and fitted with self-sealing.


and

My understanding is that it wasn't until May that the P-51 started using the 108 gallon tanks. Just looking at head to head aircraft comparisons, the USAAF appears to have a significant qualitative advantage in early 1944.

The 300 gal P-38 tanks weren't used in the ETO either, but they could have been.

 

[drgondog]

Just curious, why wouldn't the USN need the extra range? The Pacific is a big place and I know that the USN did a trial with a P-51 (Seahorse) because they wanted longer range capability (I guess for raids over Japan).

My 'guess' is that the escort duties for the F4U shifted from frequent escort of B-24s for example to more of the TBF, SB2C type bombers with less range?

Or sweeps inside 300 miles more often than 600 mile 'sweeps' by 51's that happened frequently in summer 44 through Spring 45.

 

[davparlr]

davparlr: I checked the German data sheets and the 190 A-6 and A-8 are within 5 mph in level flight, so not much difference. The numbers I have for the 190 A-6 are 348 mph at ground level and 404 mph at a critical altitude of 20,505 ft. without rack. Knock off around 8-9 mph with the drop tank rack so about 396 at crit. alt.. I figure the 109 G with rack would be in the same ballpark.

Thanks

Other random thoughts… Going by the P-51 Tactical Planning document that kool kitty posted, P-51 B speeds (with racks which cost ~12 mph and -3 merlin) are 425 mph at 25,000', 420 mph at 25,000' and 433 mph at 30,000'. Those are fairly close to your figures. Regarding your range figures, 75 gallon drop tanks were used on P-51s in January 1944. My understanding is that it wasn't until May that the P-51 started using the 108 gallon tanks. Just looking at head to head aircraft comparisons, the USAAF appears to have a significant qualitative advantage in early 1944.

I don't know where I came up with 216 gal of external fuel. 150 would probably be more like it. It doesn't matter for the comparison since both would make it to Berlin without the need for internal fuel consumption.

Oh, I know! I doubled the ingress fuel consumption and use that number for external fuel.

 

[kool kitty89]

216 gal is with 2x 108 gal drop tanks. (British cylindrical parer tanks, sometimes listed as 110 gal tanks)

2x 150 US gal tanks could be carried for very long range missions, as was done in the pacific. (radius over 1000 mi with fuse tank, 2,600 mi 'yardstick' range)

 

[drgondog]

I'll try to pitch in as I have more time.

To help you back out some numbers here are some of the targets and times from Steeple Morden involving combat. Here are a few samples from 'his' logbook

Politz - battle near Rugen north of Berlin - no escort on return as they were relieved NNe of Berlin. June 20 1944 ...2 Me 109s destroyed 1 probable in turning combat - 5.15 hours

July 28 - Leipzig and back to B/E.. R/V near Mulhausen and combat near Mulhausen on way back1 Me 109 destroyed in diving combat.. 6.15 hours

FO 469 T.O. 0639 to 1250.. R/V E Kassel at 0922.. target 0940..Fight one at 1000 near Erfurt, Fight two at 1020 near Mulhausen.. BE at 1130 near Liege, down at 1250

June 21 - Ruhland. No combat. 7.15 hours

FO 407 T.O. 0732 to 1450 ... R/V S Belzig at 1022 at 22,000 feet.. target 1035.. B/E 1130 near Warta River Poland .. L/F at 24,000 feet over Zuider Zee at 1345.. down at 1450

July 31 - Munich. No combat. 6.25 hours

FO 472 T.O. 0944 L/F Ostend at 18,000 feet (stll climbing), No bombers at R/V proceed to Munich at 1325hrs at 22,000 feet, swept target area but no bombers, left target area at 1335. L/F made at Le Torquet at 1525 at 18,000 feet. Down at 1620.

(THIS is a good profile because cruise based on best sfc made from L/F at Ostend - all the way through Munich area and back to Le Torquet - 0944 to 1525 hrs... this will be good study of operations cruise unencumbered by bombers for calculated straight lines.. also nice to get 'StartT.O. to cruise altitude on a straight line from Steeple Morden to Ostend in 1hr 10 minutes)

Sep 11 - Misburg. 2 Me 109s destroyed- 1 damaged - near Marburg on way to target in a diving and a turning combat.

Can't do as much good here because the fight started well short of the target.

FO 563 T.O. 0943, straight line to Koblenz for R/V at 1130 at 24,500 feet.. fight started at noon and lasted till 1225. Fight w/JG53 and JG 300. The unmolested squadrons continued to Magdeburg and reached the SW Brunswick to R/V with Target Escort around 1220 to return home - down at 1415

Sept 18 - Piryatin Russia after dropping supplies over Warsaw. Optimum cruise to R/V near Stettin Poland, then SW over target, break into a flight of Me 109s but no chase - low on fuel. 7.55 hours

FO 577 Frantic VII T.O. at 0944 straight line cruise from north of Ostend to Bydgosc, Poland at 1145 at 14,000 feet (target Warsaw underground for a supply drop) - fight at 1200 with JG 51.. land at 1738 Pryatin Russia.

I would have to really dig but I can get some R/V points on the above missions to help your cruise to R/V and R/V to Target times to help you out on fuel consumtion for those two specific Different Cruis settings.

Hope this helps start the mission planning profile. I have all the data on lowest fuel consumption cruise, best specific fuel consumption. fuel consumption at WEP (~260 gal/h IIRC), and fule consumption for climb to altitude at MP.. I don't know what to suggest for let down but worst case would be best sfc (better because ostly downhill).

 

[Soren]

Manouverability: F4U was far superior in tight turns at any speed.

That is incorrect, the Fw-190 could compete.

At low speeds the 190 tended to exhibit aileron reversal and stall without warning, esp in left turns.

Only if the ailerons where improperly adjusted.

The F4U could also easily evade a rear attack by going into a tight loop.

Wrong, that would infact just spell a near certain death as it would allow the 190 pilot to quickly pull lead for a sec or two and pour in a deadly load of cannon fire.

 

[Soren]

Davparlr,

The max climb rate of the Fw-190A-8 in fighter configuration was 18 m/s (3,543 ft/min).

EDIT: Just noted that you listed performance at 20kft 25 kft, in which case 2,204 ft/min is correct, sorry Davparlr!

 

[Soren]

EDIT (Past post)

 

[buzzard]

Here's what another test of the '190 revealed at Wright field in the spring of '44...

Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test

The same site includes the original document, re: F4U-1D/F6F-3 vs Fw190A-4, from which my post was drawn.

Both tests show that the '190 was inferior in turn rate compared to the top US fighters. Both also say that the '190 tended to stall abruptly in tight turns.

Whether the ailerons in the test craft were 'improperly adjusted' must remain conjecture. I'm only reporting on how that particular a/c performed.

In reference to the looping manouver as an evasive tactic against the '190, I should have said that it was useful when being followed by the FW, rather than when being stern-attacked at close range. However, it does seem that the '190 did not pitch-up with the same authority as the F4U.

JL

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think that in order to make a full unbiased assessment, one can not use tests only conducted by one side of the house. For instance one would have to use German and American or German and British to get a real idea.

 

[buzzard]

I think that in order to make a full unbiased assessment, one can not use tests only conducted by one side of the house. For instance one would have to use German and American or German and British to get a real idea.

I completely agree. I'm not presenting this as gospel...just as reasonably credible info, esp as the two separate tests (one USN, the other USAAF) seem to come to very similar conclusions.

That the Fw190 may have been somewhat inferior in a tight-turning battle, does not mean that it was not superb combat a/c...The Corsair couldn't out-turn a Zero, but it was still the superior fighter.

JL

 

[kool kitty89]

Even if tests are unbiased a country testing a foreign a/c (particularly a captured one with combat use) they are not likely to get the same kind of performance as experienced users with proper operating and technical knolege with an aircraft in new condition.

Soren has mentioned there aparently being improper trim and aileron balancing (hence the heavy elevator in turns, and lack of any stall warning)
in addition to an engine not running at its best.

 

[drgondog]

Even if tests are unbiased a country testing a foreign a/c (particularly a captured one with combat use) they are not likely to get the same kind of performance as experienced users with proper operating and technical knolege with an aircraft in new condition.

Soren has mentioned there aparently being improper trim and aileron balancing (hence the heavy elevator in turns, and lack of any stall warning)
in addition to an engine not running at its best.

Ah, but Soren fails to produce similar luftwaffe test cases in which the LW a/c are SURE to be properly trimmed and we can question their tests against Allied aircraft.

Your reports are where Soren?

 

[Kruska]

Hello drgondog,

Could you pleeeeease stop on "indicating" towards Soren. I am sure that you as well as Soren are matured persons right?

BTW how were the reports on the German side, evaluating P-47's and P-51's, does anyone have reports on this topic?

Regards
Kruska

 

[kool kitty89]

Well my comment had been about comments made by soren though he's hardly the only one to argue the topic. Kfurst has some good data, particularly on 109's.

And Henning (HoHun) has some good info on a lot of this kind of stuff. (particularly some nice charts he's posted). In particular he's posted some comprehenseve comparative turn rate charts. (Zero, Ki-43, Spitfire, Huricane, F4F, Seafire)


And on either side comparison tests (inless the aircraft are running well with pilots that can fly the a/c close to their limits) are not the best thing to go by, even moreso anedotal dada. (where pilot skill and situation can have a huge effect, plus the particular models of a/c are not varified in most combat accounts and sometimes mistaken)


THe best to use is data from testing from the manufaturer or millitary using the a/c, short of that comprehensive tests from foreign reports help, though may be suspect due to the previously mentioned margins of error. (however the Russians seem to have done some good trials, particularly pertaining to turn times which seem to stack up very well to most other data both of a/c they used, including foreign types -P-39,P-40, Hurri- and German fighters)

(one interesting note is that the Il-2 flight sim includes a lot of this data in the plane specs section)

The Finns also did some good testing on foreign types they used, again turn times in particular. (another interesting example on the B-239 with a sustained turn time of 7 sec. for 180 degrees; so 14 sec. complete turn)

 

[Soren]

What Bill is unaware of (or perhaps just ignoring) is that I have posted two seperate Germans tests with the 190 109. I have also posted official German notes on the characteristics of the 190 and the problem with the adjustment of the ailerons.

The Fw-190 A-5 tested by the USN for suffered seriously from ill adjusted ailerons, causing the a/c stall prematurely in turns. And that the engine didn't run properly didn't help matters either.

 

[Soren]

Both tests show that the '190 was inferior in turn rate compared to the top US fighters. Both also say that the '190 tended to stall abruptly in tight turns.

Whether the ailerons in the test craft were 'improperly adjusted' must remain conjecture. I'm only reporting on how that particular a/c performed.

Again the cause was ill adjusted ailerons. When adjusted properly the a/c gave ample warning of an approaching stall with some slight buffeting and a slight notching of the stick.