Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

pbehn said:

The same would apply today to a squadron of F-22s confronted with 600 P 51s.

Click to expand...

Me262s were shot down in flight by Allied aircraft, not just on approach. The only way a P-51 could down an F-22 in flight would be as FOD.

tomo pauk said:

...but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.

Click to expand...

WOW, now that was a cheap shot if I ever saw one! So in essence what you are saying is that the thousands of allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen who fought and died in the Pacific theater wasn't necessary? Don't ever say that in front of someone who either served there or has family/ friends that did as well. You must think that the allied military planners were a bunch of buffoons back then, don't you?

DarrenW said:

WOW, now that was a cheap shot if I ever saw one! So in essence what you are saying is that the thousands of allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen who fought and died in the Pacific theater wasn't necessary? Don't ever say that in front of someone who either served there or has family/ friends that did as well. You must think that the allied military planners were a bunch of buffoons back then, don't you?

Click to expand...

So you are acusing me of the things I didn't say, and decided not to quote the part of my post that does not serve to your purpose? Here it goes:

tomo pauk said:

Be is at it is, and not trying to take anything from anone, but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.

Click to expand...

Allied military planers didn't came out with 'Europe 1st' doctrine for nothing. BTW, here is what Americans, authors of the book 'Shattered sword' said in their Midway-related book: "This is because the real strategical focus of the war as a whole lay not in the Pacific, but rather in Europe in general and the steppes of Russia in particular' (pg. 429).

swampyankee said:

Me262s were shot down in flight by Allied aircraft, not just on approach. The only way a P-51 could down an F-22 in flight would be as FOD.

Click to expand...

True, I was just making the point that you gotta land sometime, there is a limit to what technical superiority can overcome.

tomo pauk said:

So you are acusing me of the things I didn't say, and decided not to quote the part of my post that does not serve to your purpose? Here it goes:

Allied military planers didn't came out with 'Europe 1st' doctrine for nothing. BTW, here is what Americans, authors of the book 'Shattered sword' said in their Midway-related book: "This is because the real strategical focus of the war as a whole lay not in the Pacific, but rather in Europe in general and the steppes of Russia in particular' (pg. 429).

Click to expand...

Please create another thread if you are hell-bent on starting another debate that has nothing to do with the thread's original purpose....

tomo pauk said:

The F6F will not be able to compete in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and best part of 1943. Leaves on third of the ww2 for the F6F to prove it's worth, vs. Spitfire being there and proving it's worth in 1939, 1942 as well as 1945. Be is at it is, and not trying to take anything from anone, but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.

Click to expand...

I give credit for "being there", in the skies over Kent in 1940 there were few dogs available to fight. Discussing maritime aircraft why not involve the later Seafires although to be honest I think the only thing a Spitfire Mk1 and a Seafire Mk47 had in common was use of the word "fire" like a Wildcat and Bearcat

DarrenW said:

Please start another thread if you are hell-bent on starting another debate that has nothing to do with the thread's original purpose....

Click to expand...

I didn't started it.

Hello All,

I just found this poll a couple days ago after it has degenerated a bit.
For Best DOGFIGHTER from 15,000 feet to 35,000 feet, my vote is for Spitfire Mk.XIV.
It may not be the best at all altitudes, but would have been competitive anywhere within this range while many of the other candidates either are not good knife-fighters or poor somewhere within this altitude range. The Spitfire XIV may not be the most maneuverable aeroplane on the list, but it doesn't give up much in other performance characteristics either.

Regarding the secondary discussion of Hellcat versus FW 190, my belief is that the FW 190A had almost all the advantages with the exception of turning circles. The report Project TED PTR 1107 that is often quoted of Hellcat versus Corsair versus FW 190A is interesting because although the numbers are almost all in favour of the FW 190A, the conclusion was that the USN fighters were better. Consider that the USN fighters were well maintained new aircraft while the FW 190A was a captured example and not running War Emergency Power.
The American fighters did have WEP available but only used it for 2 minutes per speed run and may not have reached absolute maximum speed at each altitude.

Absolute Speed: Advantage FW 190A 410 MPH to Hellcat 391 MPH.
Under the SAME test conditions it should have been 410 MPH to 380 MPH.
Now keep in mind that this was a F6F-3 Hellcat and although the F6F-5 may have been a few MPH faster, the difference would not have changed the results. As Shorround6 pointed out earlier, the -3 and -5 have basically the same engine with same basic airframe. There were no changes that should greatly improve speed.

Acceleration: Slight advantage to FW 190A.
Note that without Emergency Power available, the FW 190A would only have been making around 1700 HP (Plus or minus 50 HP or so depending on the exact version of the BMW 801D-2 engine installed.
With Emergency Power available: MW 50, C3 Injection or "Increased Boost" (Erhohte Notleistung), the engine output would have been around 2050 HP.

Climb Rates: Significant Advantage to FW 190A in this test.
I came to this conclusion by observing that at the best climbing speeds of the Corsair and Hellcat, the FW 190A was about equal but at the FW 190A's best climbing speed, it was greatly superior to the USN fighters.
The Climb Rate of the FW 190A differed quite a bit depending on the version with some being significantly better than Hellcat and some heavier late models being pretty comparable at rated power.

Roll Rates: FW 190A is greatly superior.
At low to medium speeds, the FW 190A is one of the best rolling fighters ever built.
Although the F6F-5 with spring tab ailerons was not tested here, it improved high speed roll rate at the cost of low speed roll rate as compared to the F6F-3.

Turning Circles: Hellcat is greatly superior.
In a sustained horizontal turn, the FW 190A simply is not competitive with either USN fighter.

Now keep in mind that by the end of WW2, the Hellcat was no longer competitive from a performance standpoint.
It was still winning because of aircrew superiority and not because of aircraft superiority.
The next generation of USN fighter was the F4U-4 and F8F. The F6F-6 with the same engine as the F4U-4 did not gain the same performance as the Corsair did so it did not make sense to build it.

- Ivan.

It's a rather pointless debate. Fun, but pointless. Every fighter ever made was made for a reason. They were made to carry out a mission and fight as compentently as possible under their individual circumstances.

The P-51D might have been the best dogfighter that could also fly a round trip mission to Berlin.

The F6F might have been the best dogfighter that also had to be tough enough for long missions over open water and take the abuse of carrier landings after returning damaged.

The Spitfire might have been the best dogfighter that had to rise and fight, in some case, right over its own airbase.

The Zero might have been the best dogfighter that also had to fly long missions from Timor to Darwin and return.

The Fw-190 may have had some performance advantages over the F6F, but it couldn't do the F6F's job.

*SkyChimp* said:

It's a rather pointless debate. Fun, but pointless. Every fighter ever made was made for a reason. They were made to carry out a mission and fight as compentently as possible under their individual circumstances. The P-51D wasn't the best dogfighter, e

Click to expand...

No dog ever got close to a US bomber formation

pbehn said:

No dog ever got close to a US bomber formation

Click to expand...

Given some of the nose art, I'm suprised there wasn't a cat fight.

*SkyChimp* said:

It's a rather pointless debate. Fun, but pointless. Every fighter ever made was made for a reason. They were made to carry out a mission and fight as compentently as possible under their individual circumstances.

The P-51D might have been the best dogfighter that could also fly a round trip mission to Berlin.

The F6F might have been the best dogfighter that also had to be tough enough for long missions over open water and take the abuse of carrier landings after returning damaged.

The Spitfire might have been the best dogfighter that had to rise and fight, in some case, right over its own airbase.

The Zero might have been the best dogfighter that also had to fly long missions from Timor to Darwin and return.

The Fw-190 may have had some performance advantages over the F6F, but it couldn't do the F6F's job.

Click to expand...

Excellent overall evaluation IMHO.

Ivan1GFP said:

The report Project TED PTR 1107 that is often quoted of Hellcat versus Corsair versus FW 190A is interesting because although the numbers are almost all in favour of the FW 190A, the conclusion was that the USN fighters were better....

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that the FW 190 was in poor condition? And the answer to why the US aircraft were judged superior is simple: the performance edge that the FW 190 happened to possess in certain flight parameters was deemed to be insignificant and could be overcome by the greater handling and maneuverability of the US fighters. This is why you cannot just look at numbers and be done with it. Or are you saying that you are a better evaluator of what was occurring that day than the pilots and engineers who were actually present ?

Most of the other points you mentioned were already voiced by Tomo so there really wasn't any need to reiterate them here....

DarrenW said:

Why do you assume that the FW-190 was in poor condition? And the answer to why the US aircraft were judged superior is simple: the performance edge that the FW-190 happened to possess in certain flight parameters was deemed to be insignificant and could be overcome by the greater handling and maneuverability of the US fighters. This is why you cannot just look at numbers and be done with it. Or are you saying that you are a better evaluator of what was occurring that day than the pilots and engineers who were actually present ?

Click to expand...

Hello DarenW,

Please show me WHERE I stated the FW 190A was in "poor condition".
I stated that it was a captured aircraft and not running Emergency Power during these tests.

Now that you mentioned the subject, this FW 190A was, according to the report, in "fairly good condition".
From the Report:
"At the request of the Technical Air Intelligence Section of Operations 16-V-Division of Naval Intelligence, the Army Air Forces/A-2 obtained a captured Focke Wulf 190A-5/U4 fighter bomber aircraft for test by the Bureau of Aeronautics. The aircraft was forwarded to the Captured Enemy Aircraft Unit of Technical Air Intelligence, Naval Air Station, Anacostia, D.C., and arrived on January 24, 1944 in fairly good condition, but minus all armament, radio, center fairing for wheels, and port wing bolt. Necessary repairs to the fuselage, wings, engine (BMW801D2), canopy, and electrical system were completed by CEAU on 22 Febr. '44, and the aircraft was flown from Anacostia to Patuxent on Febr. 24 '44."

This hardly compares to the F6F-3 and F4U-1D in the test which were stated to be new production aircraft.

US Reports of this type have a tendency to favour US equipment over the enemy equipment being tested. The quoted performance numbers are generally accurate (though there are occasional issues and reinterpretations) but often the testing is set up to make the US equipment appear superior even if it is not necessary. The reports on the Aleutian A6M2 Type Zero are a perfect example.

As for comparisons of flight handling, one needs to read a few more reports to come to a reasonable conclusion. Captain Eric Brown had a pretty good evaluation of all the aircraft listed here though I believe that on some subjects he was wrong on occasion. Just like anyone else, he had his biases. The British themselves rated Faber's FW 190A as superior in maneuverability to their Spitfire Mk.IX "except for turning circles".

Leroy Grumman himself and one of his engineers made the comment after testing a captured FW 190A that, "This was the fighter we should have built". The F8F Bearcat was the result and in a lot of ways is quite similar to the FW 190A.

- Ivan.

Ivan1GFP said:

Consider that the USN fighters were well maintained new aircraft while the FW 190A was a captured example.....

Click to expand...

Hi Ivan

Just to clarify, you were comparing the condition of the aircraft involved, so why mention that it was a "captured example" when everyone's obviously already aware of this fact? I believe you were and still are implying that the FW 190 wasn't up to the same quality as the American fighters and therefore it wasn't a fair evaluation but you have no basis in fact to suggest this. The testing facility went as far as to strip the aircraft of it's cruddy old paint and reapply a smooth painted camouflage finish (this action would normally enhanced the performance). If the Navy wasn't interested in the truth and already picked the Hellcat and Corsair as clear winners, why go through all that trouble?

I am positive that the aircraft was in good operating condition, which normally means it will perform as one would expect with no deficiencies or problems. The standards held by the American aeronautical community during this time were second to none and they would not fly the aircraft without ensuring it was in service condition and could give an accurate representation of the machine's characteristics. Why waste everyone's time otherwise?

Grumman's remark has to be taken in the right context. Can you tell me more concerning this supposed adulation of the FW 190, I'd love to know more about it.

Also, could you verify the actual report that you are quoting? The report that I have, which is numbered PTR-1107, is dated 17 January 1944, and the aircraft is described as an A-4 model, not an A-5.

Hello DarrenW,

I can confirm that in my version of the report the FW 190 is a FW 190A-5/U4.
I can also see that the only easily found version of this report on an Internet search is on Mike Williams' site and calls the aircraft a FW 190-A/4 and does not have the cover page with introduction that I quoted in my prior post.
There are also other minor differences in the report such as the speeds which are listed in knots, MPH, and Kilometers/Hour in my version but without the kilometers/hour in the other version.
Other than that, I see formatting changes but no substantive differences.
I will need to poke around to figure out which version is actually more correct.
One thing worth noting is that FW 190A-5/U4 is a proper designation while FW 190-A/4 is not.
Perhaps another source such as the BuAer documents listed will specify the serial of the captured aircraft which MIGHT settle things.

Note that if your reference is the Mike Williams version of the PTR 1107 report, you are reading the date incorrectly.
17 January 1944 is only the date of the first BuAer Letter which is one of the references in either copy of the report.

Regarding condition of a captured aircraft that has had repairs and remanufactured parts:
Although the aeroplane is safe to fly, I am not convinced that it is 100% as a new aircraft would be.
There are not a lot of spare parts and there are no manuals or jigs to assure that things are set up properly.
Again, I can refer you to the rebuild of the Aleutian A6M2. One of its test pilots was asked whether it was 100%.
His reply was that it was about 95%. The A6M2 was a much simpler aeroplane and was not rebuilt perfectly.
I remember seeing a comment that the gear doors did not fit flush which would not have helped.
There were vibrations at high speed which might have been common to the type or an indication something was bent.

Regarding this FW 190A-Whatever in particular:
Note that the FW 190A-4 was a simple fighter variant carrying an early BMW 801D-2 engine with only 1677 HP (1700 PS).
It was lighter than later variants but engine power especially at altitude was not as good.
Note that the FW 190A-5/U4 was a photo recon variant which is not in line with the later note in the report that this was a fighter bomber.
The armament load is a match for the U4 variant though, but was there a difference in engine calibrations because it was originally a fighter bomber?

Note that in Service Ceiling tests, all power was lost abruptly at 33,000 feet. Cause unknown.
This is one indication that something was not right and there was not the expertise available to fix things.
Some rough running of the engine was experienced which was caused by fouled plugs.
I wonder if that issue even could have been addressed in a captured aircraft without spares?
Note that some of the odd stall characteristics and high speed vibration COULD HAVE been caused by Ailerons that were out of adjustment. I have seen that in discussion but do not know the validity.

One other thing worthy of note is that the test pilots preferred the engine controls of the USN fighters over the single throttle lever of the FW 190A because they felt that the multiple levers gave them "more actual control" of the engine.
With this in mind note that later versions of many US Fighters went to controls that were closer in design to those on the FW 190A....

- Ivan.

Oops. Almost forgot to mention:
If anyone has a clear photograph of the FW 190A used for this test, it is fairly easy to tell whether this was a A-4 or A-5 variant.
The A-5 is 15 cm longer and this can be seen at the junction of the Cowl and Wing Root.
I have a very very grainy photograph on the first page of my report but can't tell without doing a bunch of comparisons with other photgraphs and even then I may not be so sure.

- Ivan.

have

Ivan1GFP said:

Note that if your reference is the Mike Williams version of the PTR 1107 report, you are reading the date incorrectly.
17 January 1944 is only the date of the first BuAer Letter which is one of the references in either copy of the report.

Click to expand...

You mentioned a date of 24 January 1944. I was just informing you that the only date on the report in front of me was chronologically before this so we can get some bearing on whether in fact we were looking at the exact same report. Ditto in regards to the aircraft designation. Is there really a problem here?

Ivan1GFP said:

One other thing worthy of note is that the test pilots preferred the engine controls of the USN fighters over the single throttle lever of the FW 190A because they felt that the multiple levers gave them "more actual control" of the engine.
With this in mind note that later versions of many US Fighters went to controls that were closer in design to those on the FW 190A....

Click to expand...

What does this really have to do with the discussion at hand?

Ivan1GFP said:

Regarding condition of a captured aircraft that has had repairs and remanufactured parts:
Although the aeroplane is safe to fly, I am not convinced that it is 100% as a new aircraft would be.
There are not a lot of spare parts and there are no manuals or jigs to assure that things are set up properly.
Again, I can refer you to the rebuild of the Aleutian A6M2. One of its test pilots was asked whether it was 100%.
His reply was that it was about 95%. The A6M2 was a much simpler aeroplane and was not rebuilt perfectly.
I remember seeing a comment that the gear doors did not fit flush which would not have helped.
There were vibrations at high speed which might have been common to the type or an indication something was bent.

Click to expand...

I think it's best if we try to focus on the report that's actually under scrutiny at the moment.

DarrenW said:

You mentioned a date of 24 January 1944. I was just informing you that the only date on the report in front of me was chronologically before this so we can get some bearing on whether in fact we were looking at the exact same report. Ditto in regards to the aircraft designation. Is there really a problem here?

Click to expand...

Just pointing out that a date ON A REPORT may not be the date of the report.
You need to read the report for context which it seems you have not done.

DarrenW said:

What does this really have to do with the discussion at hand? Are you going to denounce every aspect of this report before you are finished? I hope you can be objective about this as I really do not have time for these little tangents you keep taking us on. Please try to stick to what is actually printed in the report, and refrain from the water cooler talk for the moment.....

Click to expand...

This is an illustration of the validity of pilots' opinions as versus the views of the engineers who found the systems on the FW 190 to be a good enough idea to copy them on future designs.

DarrenW said:

...another useless bit of information concerning a completely different set of circumstances. I have a great idea, why not focus on the report that's actually under scrutiny at the moment? THANK YOU!

Click to expand...

This is an illustration of the limitations of repairing a foreign aircraft without adequate documentation or materials.
It is a different aircraft but the circumstances are pretty similar and it would have been the same organizations involved.

DarrenW said:

Actually I've grown tired of the entire topic. Tomo and I have hashed this back and forth for two entire days so at this point I could care less if it was an A-4 or an A-5 variant. Bottom line is the US Navy wasn't as impressed as some FW-190 fans want to believe so they try to nit-pick the subject to death. If they were as critical of themselves as they are of the report they would see the error of their ways and just let things be. I'm finished here because I feel that I made my point and said all I need to say on the subject. Ivan is more than welcome to continue but I wonder how many people here will be suckered into his con game. Thankfully not me anymore.....

Click to expand...

Read the report again. It seems to me that the USN was VERY impressed.
The designation question is a good illustration of how little they actually knew about the enemy at the time.
It would be interesting if this really was a FW 190A-4 which first was produced in mid 1942 and even without emergency power and not in the best shape and was STILL outperforming current production USN fighters in early 1944.
It would also be interesting that an old "mud mover" was outrunning brand new USN fighters on War Emergency Power.

This is also a pretty good illustration of why the Hellcat simply would have been outclassed over continental Europe where competition was a whole lot stronger. A couple other folks have already pointed this out.

- Ivan.