Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

LTARaptr said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

My two yen on this.

:{)

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

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

LTARaptr said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Read this pal...

From another member in another post....


Fw-190 D-9 Statistics:

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

Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:

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

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

Fw-190 D-9 Additional features:

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


P-51D Mustang Statistics:

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

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:

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

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

P-51D Mustang Additional features:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evangilder said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

:{)

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

wmaxt

wmaxt said:

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

wmaxt

Click to expand...

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

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

plan_D said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

wmaxt

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

All three had both strongpoints and weaker points.

Click to expand...

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

Agreed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wmaxt

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

plan_D said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Source AAF Stastistical Digest

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

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

wmaxt

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