Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

[CORSNING]

WOW! BiffF15 and silence. You guys are really making the rest of us think hard. Excellent posts, both of you. I guess I have nothing to add to the angles you are coming from. Thank you both for that kind of insight. Silence, I owned a 1983 280 ZX "cop come get me red" so I can relate to that exact point you were making. I own a Del Sol now. It actually turns slightly tighter, BUT it doesn't give you that fealing of confidence in handling that the 280 did. So the 280 could be driven right up to its limits with ease. In the 3 dimentional sky that would be a great advantage.


I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".

The numbers are altitude in meters, speed in mph and climb in fpm.



Meters..Bf.109K-4---Spitfire 14---Fw190D-9----P-51B-15----Tempest V--Ta152
S.L.......378/4830----370/5080----380/4428----388/4330----404/4380----372
.1,000..397/4840----386/5035----392/4388----404/4220----417/3860----384
.2,000..411/4645----401/4985----404/4124----418/3870----411/3340----396
.3,000..420/4440----417/4485----409/4103----420/3840----411/3000----397
.4,000..428/4235----416/4095----419/3985----420/3770----410/2603----410
.5,000..437/4035----418/4070----429/3493----430/3590----426/2151----422
.6,000..446/3445----432/4025----429/2991----441/3100----436/1705----436
.7,000..442/2950----445/3510----422/2499----442/2620----431/1242----448
.8,000..438/2450----447/2960----416/1987----436/2125----428/.-806----451
.9,000..432/1940----444/2400----406/1485----430/1675----N.G./N.G.----464
10,000.422/1435----437/1875----394/.-984----421/1200----N.G./N.G.----458
11,000.409/.-945----427/1350----NG./-482----411/.-715----N.G./N.G.----448
12,000.390/.-440----414/.-825----NG./NG.-----393/.-245----N.G./N.G.----434

Wt.-----7,497 lbs.----7,923 lbs.---9,591.75 lbs.--9,680 lbs.(9,335 lbs.speed trials)-11,490 lbs. Weight at take-off.

W.L.:-----43.25--------32.73--------48.67---------40.06--------38.04+Wing Loading at take-off ( lbs./sq.ft.).

P.L.:------4.052+------3.569--------4.631+-------4.885---------5.223-Power loading at take-off weight and max. power output
(lbs./hp.)

Power:-1,850hp./1.8ata-2,220hp./+21 psi.-2,071hp./1.8ata-1,910hp./75"Hg.-2,200hp./+11 psi.

Engines: DB 605D---Griffon 65-----Jumo 213A----V-1650-7---Sabre IIA

For more Ta 152 information see POST #864.

 

[tomo pauk]

Many thanks for the effort, Jeff

 

[BiffF15]

Silence,

There is a saying amoungst fighter pilots, and it goes, "there are those that strap in, and those that strap on". The more time a pilot gets in an aircraft the more second nature it becomes. With a fighter you are constantly max performing it, and you become VERY aware of what your plane is doing from the way the controls feel, the rumbles, sounds, thumps, etc.

Cockpit size can be a deceiving thing. F-16's have a small cockpit for a fighter (the A-4 has a TINY cockpit), and the Eagle has a large cockpit. I have 8 or 9 back seat rides in the F-16 and the cockpit has no canopy bow to block vision, feels great, the seat is reclined, the side stick controller is ergonomically outstanding, however the canopy is very close to your cranium. I actucally banged off of it once during a sortie. The Eagle has a relatively large cockpit, however I have bruised elbows from turning quickly, and it has a canopy bow to look around. In my opinion size is not as important has usability. You will quickly get to a point where you feel like you are wearing the airplane and "thinking" it to do things vice sitting in and flying it.

We had a 70 240z as a kid, loved that thing (white with wine red interior)!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[CORSNING]

F-15, F-16, A-4 and even a 240Z (back when they were very light). Wow Biff, you get all the sweet rides.


tomo,
You are quite welcome sir. I will add the Tempest Mk.V to my post #861 soon.

I will add the speed of the Ta 152H to #861 also. The following information comes from Dietmar Harmann's Ta 152.

The fastest climb rate mentioned in the book is 20 m./sec. (3,936 fpm.)

"It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."

"Not a single Ta 152 was lost in all the airfield defense missions (Me 262).

"In an ensuing dogfight with Yak-9s the Stabsschwarm lost Hptm. Herman Stahl and his Ta 152. The Ta 152s had shot down at least 10 enemy fighters for the loss of just 2 of there number."

"Stab JG 11 at Neustadt Glewe: Durring its last transfer to Leck the unit was engaged by Spitfires, resulting in the immediate loss of 2 Ta 152H. A 3rd made a belly landing at Leck."

Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.

Combat Weight: 10,473.75 lbs.

Armament: 1 x 30mm/2 x 20mm

Wing Area: 252.96 sq.ft.

Wing Loading: 41.40+lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.586 lbs./hp.

 

[davparlr]

Silence,

With a fighter you are constantly max performing it, and you become VERY aware of what your plane is doing from the way the controls feel, the rumbles, sounds, thumps, etc.

A reality that most gamers have no concept of. This is true no matter what aircraft you fly, it talks to you in many ways.

 

[BiffF15]

CORSNING,

I'm an Eagle guy, but have back seat rides in F-16B/D's, CF-18B, and the 240Z (I was 6 when we got it, family of 4 so you can guess where my usual seat was...).

As for dissimilar training (fighting), I've fought (BFM / Dogfighting) with F-16(A-D), F-15(A-E), F-14(A, A+ B), F-4G, F-18(A-F) Mig-29(A/B). The majority of my dissimilar BFM was with F-16's, followed by F-18 then Mig-29 (this is biased by which type of aircraft was nearest your base or on Temp Duty with you). The Migs were Luftwaffe drivers with one US exchange pilot. Fought them at Laage AB in Germany and at NAS Key West. Those last two places were EPIC for flying and nightlife. The Germans are a world class act!

For the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) fights I've trained against all the above plus Tornado GR-1 F-3, German F-4F (with F-18 radar), AV-8, EA-6, EF-111, F-5, AT-38, Mirage 2000 (non-export varient), various heavies (C-130, B-52, B-1), helo's (to include the Mi-24 Hind) and probably more that I've forgotten.

On topic however is how the book data fits into the way a guy uses his aircraft. The charts, books, tab data, are all how the plane performs during a snapshot of time. I used this to compare to my fighter to know where his strengths / weaknesses were compared to mine. An example of how to look at it is: P-51 rate of climb and top speed compared to the Ta-152. The Ta-152 had an advantage but how could he use it. For instance say it's 300 fpm climb and 30kts of speed difference. In a fight when could the Ta-152 leave with immunity: 90 degrees and 2000' distance apart and co speed? If they passed 180 out and even had a 50 kt difference, the Ta-152, I'm guessing could. However in the previous example even though he has a performance advantage was it enough to prevent lead poisioning the silk landing?

I'm just trying to bridge distance between the numbers (books, tabs, numbers) and what that really amounted to in a fight.

Cheers,

Biff

 

[BiffF15]

Davparlr,

That is true! I have IL-2 for my PS3 and like the game alot, however I play it with the regular game control and not a stick throttle attachment.

Something you also become just as aware of is what you opponet is doing with his aircraft and analyizing what he is doing or CAN do with it. You forcast his options and make your plans or moves based on that. I called it accounting. I could reasonable guess what his speed was at a given point in the beginning of the fight, then watching his manuevers guess how much energy (speed) he was using to accomplish it, and knowing that would layout my gameplan to counter and overcome him. It doesn't always work but you get really good at it.

Prior to the police having radar guns they would train at guessing what the speed of a vehicle was, and could get pretty close. Same with flying fighters, and if you were training against a similar plane you would get to watch his tapes (see his speeds, G load, etc.). I would say guessing an opponets speed within 20-50 knots consistantly would not be a problem.

Cheers,

Biff

 

[davparlr]

I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".



Meters..Bf.109K-4---Spitfire 14---Fw190D-9----P-51B-15----Tempest V--Ta152

It must be noted that the P-51B was introduced in late 1943 whereas the K-4 and D-9 were introduced in the fall of '44, well after the Luftwaffe bloodbath of early '44, and when they were really needed. The Tempest V was introduced in Jan. '44, and while prevented from the battle over Germany by limited range, was a great help post D-day. The Ta-152, coming out in '45 was never a factor and really should be compared to aircraft like the P-51H, P-47M/N, and F4U-4. Also missing is the powerful Spitfire XIV and Tempest II (which seem to be problematic).

 

[Glider]

It must be noted that the P-51B was introduced in late 1943 whereas the K-4 and D-9 were introduced in the fall of '44, well after the Luftwaffe bloodbath of early '44, and when they were really needed. The Tempest V was introduced in Jan. '44, and while prevented from the battle over Germany by limited range, was a great help post D-day. The Ta-152, coming out in '45 was never a factor and really should be compared to aircraft like the P-51H, P-47M/N, and F4U-4. Also missing is the powerful Spitfire XIV and Tempest II (which seem to be problematic).

Small comment re the Tempest and its range. In early 1944 it did escort at least one daylight raid to the Ruhr so while it wasn't to be compared to the P51, it did have the range to take a useful part in the daylight campaign. What probably hindered it was the need for its low level speed against the V1 in the defense of the UK, plus of course the reluctance of Harris to do daylight raids

 

[CORSNING]

BiffF15,

I see exactly what you are doing with the bridging and all. You are doing an excellent job of showing us that the quality of pilot is more important than the plane itself in a 1vs1 dogfight. I am hanging on every word. Carry on son, Jeff.


davparir,

I agree with your post 868 100%. I just displayed the topic vehicles along with the most recently mentioned. The reason I posted the P-51B and not the P-51D is because of the lower weight of the former. The other A/C mentioned are interceptors. Apples to oranges sort of thing. Actually it would be more apples to apples if I were to post the Mk.III using the Merlin 66 or 100 at +25psi.(80.8"Hg) boost and 8,460 to 8,800 lbs. Then you would see a 1,940 hp. vehicle more in interceptor mode and climbing in the 4,500-4,900 fpm. capable of 393 at sea level and 455 mph at 17,800 ft.

One very big advantage the Mustang had over the others: It could play longer in the bullpen and still get home while the others were getting thirsty. (RANGE!)

I forgot to confirm that the Spitfire 14 (Mk.XIV) is charted with the others. Tempest II problematic???

 

[drgondog]

Cockpit size can be a deceiving thing. F-16's have a small cockpit for a fighter (the A-4 has a TINY cockpit), and the Eagle has a large cockpit. I have 8 or 9 back seat rides in the F-16 and the cockpit has no canopy bow to block vision, feels great, the seat is reclined, the side stick controller is ergonomically outstanding, however the canopy is very close to your cranium. I actucally banged off of it once during a sortie.

Cheers,
Biff

The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.

I did a structural analysis using finite element model (STARDYNE and NASTRAN) to solve for desired cross section to sufficiently minimize the traveling wave amplitude.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, Jeff,

...
"It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."

If I'm not badly mistaking it, the MW-50 device was not fitted on the Ta-152s powered by the Jumo 213E. It was used to boost the Jumo 213F, the variant lacking an intercooler; the Ta-152s with Jumo 213F being even more rare than ones with 213E. Thanks for other excerpts

Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.

Maybe a chart would shed some light at powers developed by late war German engines? I've found the blackish chart at Kurfurt's, made a negative out of that and colored the lines, for easier reading. One can see how the two-stage engines out-power the single stagers above 7.5 km (~24200 ft).

 

[CORSNING]

The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.

I would just like to let everyone know that no animals were hurt while filming this topic. The 5 pound chicken was wearing a suite of armor loaned to us by Stan Lee. The chicken was not harmed in any way.

 

[silence]

Christ, Biff, what amazing flying experiences! Can I have your life - just for a little bit??

 

[silence]

WOW! BiffF15 and silence. You guys are really making the rest of us think hard. Excellent posts, both of you. I guess I have nothing to add to the angles you are coming from. Thank you both for that kind of insight. Silence, I owned a 1983 280 ZX "cop come get me red" so I can relate to that exact point you were making. I own a Del Sol now. It actually turns slightly tighter, BUT it doesn't give you that fealing of confidence in handling that the 280 did. So the 280 could be driven right up to its limits with ease. In the 3 dimentional sky that would be a great advantage.


I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".

The numbers are altitude in meters, speed in mph and climb in fpm.



Meters..Bf.109K-4---Spitfire 14---Fw190D-9----P-51B-15----Tempest V--Ta152
S.L.......378/4830----370/5080----380/4428----388/4330----404/4380----372
.1,000..397/4840----386/5035----392/4388----404/4220----417/3860----384
.2,000..411/4645----401/4985----404/4124----418/3870----411/3340----396
.3,000..420/4440----417/4485----409/4103----420/3840----411/3000----397
.4,000..428/4235----416/4095----419/3985----420/3770----410/2603----410
.5,000..437/4035----418/4070----429/3493----430/3590----426/2151----422
.6,000..446/3445----432/4025----429/2991----441/3100----436/1705----436
.7,000..442/2950----445/3510----422/2499----442/2620----431/1242----448
.8,000..438/2450----447/2960----416/1987----436/2125----428/.-806----451
.9,000..432/1940----444/2400----406/1485----430/1675----N.G./N.G.----464
10,000.422/1435----437/1875----394/.-984----421/1200----N.G./N.G.----458
11,000.409/.-945----427/1350----NG./-482----411/.-715----N.G./N.G.----448
12,000.390/.-440----414/.-825----NG./NG.-----393/.-245----N.G./N.G.----434

Wt.-----7,497 lbs.----7,923 lbs.---9,591.75 lbs.--9,680 lbs.(9,335 lbs.speed trials)-11,490 lbs. Weight at take-off.

W.L.:-----43.25--------32.73--------48.67---------40.06--------38.04+Wing Loading at take-off ( lbs./sq.ft.).

P.L.:------4.052+------3.569--------4.631+-------4.885---------5.223-Power loading at take-off weight and max. power output
(lbs./hp.)

Power:-1,850hp./1.8ata-2,220hp./+21 psi.-2,071hp./1.8ata-1,910hp./75"Hg.-2,200hp./+11 psi.

Engines: DB 605D---Griffon 65-----Jumo 213A----V-1650-7---Sabre IIA

For more Ta 152 information see POST #864.

Thanks for the kind words.

I have Harmann's books, too, but I'm too lazy to reference them that late at night, so I rely on my frat party-damaged memory - which is probably a bad idea.

My 280Z was a bright yellow black interior '77 2-seater. Some previous owner had installed racing slats on it, or so I was told. I could drive Hwy 17 between San Jose and Santa Cruz at 70mph with one finger on the wheel and used to take 20mph corners at 45 without the tires even chirping. The car barely even leaned in a tight turn. Man, now I'm getting nostalgic...

 

[silence]

The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.

I did a structural analysis using finite element model (STARDYNE and NASTRAN) to solve for desired cross section to sufficiently minimize the traveling wave amplitude.

Oh, God that brings back nightmares of just studying engineering, not even applying it. I shoulda done then what I'm doing now: studying history, where the only math you need is basic arithmetic.

 

[pinsog]

With the above in mind here is my short synopsis on the core of the thread.

During the war there was a slow but constant improvement in the performance of fighters. Sometimes it resulted in a leap frog event, other times it didn't. Also realize that early war fighters were more point defense fighters (short ranged, very manuervable), and evolved into longer ranged, faster aircraft that in some instances didn't turn as well (that trend has continued almost to this day). The early Spits and 109's as compared to B-D Mustangs and late model 190's and it's variants (smaller lighter gave way to bigger heavier).

Also the ground rules at the start of this discussion might have alleviated some of the "groveling at the floor" that occured. And example might have been to compare the four types during different time frames, or at one certain time (which aircraft do you THINK was best and why). Or it could have been "which one would you have wanted to fly and why".

Using the comparing the types at a certain time mentality, I will nail it down to the last six months of WW2 and only the four types mentioned. I will also take the Hubble Telescope, turn it to face earth and WW2, zoom into these four aircraft types, and then zoom further in to 1 versus 1 (1 v 1) combat. If time allows I will back that out a little bit but will include my qualifiers.

1 v 1 only: Ta-152H (Remember I'm removing all other qualifiers and am assuming that it's me and him only, and that I'm a mercenary or have no allegiance to the combatants).

Pro's: Faster, higher ceiling, good armament (though not optimum for fighter on fighter), better or equal turn performance to Mustang (bit of an assumption here do to lack of actual combat reports and I didn't examine in detail all of Soren's charts), motor management much easier than contemporaries (less distraction to the pilot), flying over safe territory so jumping out left little fear of capture AND I could run myself low on gas and could land anywhere there was room.

Con's: Quality control (some were put together by slaves who had no problem sabatoging equipment), not completely tested or vetted, degraded maintenance (closing days of the war), limited fuel and of lower octane, pilots had less training and lower total time, not trained well for combat

If I were to zoom out one with the telescope and stipulate what would I have wanted to be flying in the last 6 months of the war, and it's not a pristine fight (not a pure 1 v 1) I would change to the P-51D.

Pro's: Better pilot training and in theater indoctrination, more experience before entering combat, better trained pilots, better quality control with equipment (aircraft in particular), armament (would take more "smaller" rounds over less "larger" rounds - this is a discussion all unto itself), better gun sight, tremendous visability and last but not least, way MORE of us than there are of them (when two almost equally talented / equipped groups fight, would definately want to be in the one with a serious numerical advanted)

Con's: Small speed disadvantage (as compared to the Ta-152 / Fw-190D), fighting over someone elses country, longer more tiring sorties (more opportunity to become complacent and therefor killed)

Okay, let the darts be thrown!

Biff

What about the P47N? I know it was only used in the Pacific, but since we are dreaming anyway. It was FAST, REALLY FAST, climbed well, TOUGH, good FvsF armament, dived like a rock, had that ultra reliable R2800, and was PROVEN IN COMBAT(unlike the TA152 which we know little about). At 30,000 feet if you keep your speed up, your going to be hard to touch.

What are your thoughts?

 

[silence]

The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.

I would just like to let everyone know that no animals were hurt while filming this topic. The 5 pound chicken was wearing a suite of armor loaned to us by Stan Lee. The chicken was not harmed in any way.

I wanna know how you get the job of chicken-shooter; I'd be real good at it.

As a side note, my grandmother's brother was a P-47 pilot over France. In an newspaper interview he did while training he stated that the scariest thing that ever happened to him while flying (up to that time) was a mid-air bird strike. I get the impression that the bird was not a chicken fired from an AA gun.

 

[drgondog]

You load a five pound chicken (Headless) into a special air cannon which has adjustable pressure. IIRC it had a limit of about 220Kts MV - to simulate an aircraft in the Pattern where Most of the big bird strikes occur.

 

[CORSNING]

San Jose? Santa Cruz? F-15s, F-16s and Mig 29s? I have got to be in the wrong place. I'm stuck here in Clyde, Ohio heading for the Twilight Zone and you all are playing in Wonderland....Sombody get me the Hell out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!