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

[Soren]

Bill,

Your alt conditions are fine, although I think we should add SL performance as-well.

As for the P-51H, well this one didn't see service in WW2 and therefore isn't part of the comparison. Also the P-51H is more in the league of the Ta-152H-1, which was the best piston engined fighter to be developed during the war.

But perhaps we should like Kurfurst proposed make a thread with all the late war Über fighters can be compared, such as the Ta-152, Me-262, He-162, P-51H, Meteor, Spitfire 21 etc etc..

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

Your alt conditions are fine, although I think we should add SL performance as-well.

As for the P-51H, well this one didn't see service in WW2 and therefore isn't part of the comparison. Also the P-51H is more in the league of the Ta-152H-1, which was the best piston engined fighter to be developed during the war.

But perhaps we should like Kurfurst proposed make a thread with all the late war Über fighters can be compared, such as the Ta-152, Me-262, He-162, P-51H, Meteor, Spitfire 21 etc etc..

I'm fine with that and SL as well.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

so which one has the best climb performance.lee.

Still waiting for your response to the following:

Please post proof that the 109 crashes a lot on take off and landing.

I want to see:

1. Number of 109s (all models) that crashed on take off.
2. Number of 109s (all models) that crashed on landing.
3. Percentage of 109s (all models) that crashed on take off and landing.

If you are going to make innacurate posts, then please back them up.

Now having gotten past that part also please explain:

1. What is so bad about the Fw 190?
2. How is the Spit better than the P-51D? Sure the Spit is more maneuverable, but what good does that do if the Spit can not get to the battle because it does not have the range of the P-51D?

If you post facts to back up your posts that is fine, but you are rather biased in your opinions and post nothing to back it up.

Please dont keep us waiting!

 

[Hunter368]

Chris is busting the chops of a newbie. Funny

 

[davparlr]

[1]Bf-109 K-4


[2]Bf-109 G-10


[4]Fw-190 Dora-9

It should be noted in this comparison that the above three German aircraft did not become available until Fall, 1944, a full year after the P-51B appeared in Europe. The nemeses that they were designed and built to neutralize, the B-17, the B-24, and their superb long range escort, the P-51B/D, had already been ravaging the German homeland and occupied regions. They were destroying fuel supplies, manufacturing facilities, and transportation systems a full year before these planes could provide help. By that time, it was too late. They had too little fuel, too few experienced pilots, and too poor support to make an impact. They had already been defeated by the time they first got their gear in the well. No advantage of airspeed, rate of climb, or turn rate could overcome this destruction. When the Germans desperately needed them, they were not there. These great aircraft were regulated to a footnote of history as "could have been" by an even greater aircraft, one that will always be featured historically in a different tense, as "was", the P-51. The P-51 "was" an airplane with the performance needed at the time needed.

I think this kind of comparison, while may be interesting technically, adds nothing to the understanding of the aviation forces that shaped the outcome of WWII. Two of these participated in the maelstrom over Europe that was 1944 (I'm not sure how much of a role the Spitfire XIV played during this time but it was available). The other three played little to nothing to the outcome of the war, providing mostly a rearguard holding type of action.

I think the comparison of the last generation propeller fighters (in my opinion, post late '44) would be interesting and more apropos than this comparison.

 

[davparlr]

As for comparison purposes, I believe there are two valid configurations.

1) All aircraft configured with fuel, ammo, etc., that they would most likely be loaded in a typical combat situation, e.g., a P-51 would have to carry fuel to manuever and fuel to return home.
2) Mano a mano. Each aircraft is configured starting with empty weight, appropiate fluids and eqivalent crew weight are added, fuel for a fixed amount of combat time (e.g., obviously a P-38 would require more fuel) such as 30 minutes of prescribed Mil and Max power usage, and ammunition for a fixed amount of time (P-47, with its eight guns, would require more ammo than a P-51), or with an equivalent amount of ammo to reflect firepower (a two second burst of P-47 firepower is more devastating than a two second burst of a P-51 so the P-51 would have to fire longer).

Method 1) would more accurately reflect the air warfare affect on WWII. Method 2) would be more appropiate to compare the aircrafts basic performance. This would also be more appropiate in comparing aerodynamic capabilities of various aircraft.

 

[kool kitty89]

Those are excellent point, and ones I've been meaning to point out on these comparisons, but that is a very comprehensive discription of it.
More eliquent and precise than when I tried to do it a while back. (I think it just got further off topic)


But to do selection 2) we need a lot on the (often variable) armaments carried and then fuel consumption levels in comparable combat conditions. (similar engine operation levels, ie max cont, Mil, or WEP, etc)

ANd on a similer note, on the 2) condition, it would also be more fair to use the lower fual capacity for the longer range a/c, so use P-51B/C w/out any fuse tank, P-38J w/out LE wing tanks, pre -25 P-47 with earlier 305 gal. capacity. (and these still had longer range than most contemproaries) And probably more fair to be w/out wing racks as well.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Chris is busting the chops of a newbie. Funny

I am not busting anybody's chops. If you are going to come in and make the same false statements in every thread that pertains to the subject, then you better back yourself up!

 

[KrazyKraut]

True that davparlr, let's make a thread comparing P-51 B/D and P-47 (C?/D?) against Me-109 G-6/G-14 (no /AS) and Fw-190 A-6/A-8... would be more representative.

 

[ponsford]

Placing things in perspective and context goes a long way towards increasing understanding, nicely stated davparlr.

 

[Hunter368]

I am not busting anybody's chops. If you are going to come in and make the same false statements in every thread that pertains to the subject, then you better back yourself up!

No problem Chris, I was just kidding around. I agree with your statements about the Bf-109 100%.

I just found it funny that you were repeated asked him to "back up his statements". Meaning you were not letting him go or off the hook by making false claims without proof. I just found it funny is all.

 

[renrich]

The assertion that the TA152H was the best fighter developed in WW2 once again strikes me as comical. This vaunted AC keeps jumping up in this forum as the "best" without much evidence except paper numbers which may or may not reflect it's true operational capabilities. Let us examine that assertion. My source ,"The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft," has a whole section on the various FW fighters and it states that only a several TA152Hs reached combat units. It was essentially a prototype aircraft purpose built to intercept high flying bombers. It's performance figures showed very high speeds(similar to the P47N) at very high altitudes where little ACM took place. It's low altitude performance was substantially worse(not as good as P51D.) It's armament was obviously fitted for bomber shootdowns(3 cannon) although pilot visibility would probably limit it's ability to use full deflection shots so it would have to, of necessity, stick with headon or rear quarter attacks with the attendent danger of defensive gunfire. It's initial rate of climb, 3345 fpm with boost was good but not exceptional. The 3 cannon armament would not necessarily stand it in good stead in ACM against allied fighters and it of course labored with the handicap of the vulnerable cooling system of the liquid cooled engine. As with most European fighters it was range challenged with a max range clean of 755 miles and 1250 miles with a drop tank. These are yardstick ranges which would probably translate to combat radiuses of perhaps 275 to 400 miles. These were good for an interceptor but not competitive with P51D, P47N, P38L or F4U4. Now let us get away from paper numbers and talk about combat experience. How many kills did the TA152 have? Not many! How many AC did it destroy strafing? Probably none. How many tons of bombs and rockets did it belabor the enemy with? Probably none. How many bombers did it succesfully escort to their targets and back? Probably none. How reliable was it and how many were operational for a certain mission of the AC available? We don't know. What would have been the mission of the TA152 in the Pacific with tropical temperatures, coral landing strips and long distances? Probably very mission limited. How well could the TA152 have executed carrier landings and takeoffs? It could not have done any! The TA152 was essentially an experimental fighter, an elegant looking airplane with seductive performance figures on paper in certain flight regimes. "Best" fighter design in WW2. Not in my book!

 

[davparlr]

ANd on a similer note, on the 2) condition, it would also be more fair to use the lower fual capacity for the longer range a/c, so use P-51B/C w/out any fuse tank, P-38J w/out LE wing tanks, pre -25 P-47 with earlier 305 gal. capacity. (and these still had longer range than most contemproaries) And probably more fair to be w/out wing racks as well.

The point is to equate the amount of load each comparison aircraft is carrying. Say, for instance, 150 gallons of gas was allocated to each aircraft for comparison purpose. This number would be adjusted for fuel consumption for a given amount of specified combat power usage. Without this adjustment, it would not be fair to compare a P-38, which would use more fuel to perform the given profile, with the Bf-109, which is more efficient. Supposing it would take the P-38 130 gallons to perform the profile and the Bf-109 100 gallons, then the test weigh of the P-38 would include 180 gallons of fuel as compared to the 150 gallons for the Bf-109.

Another way of stating this would be to calculate the fuel used by each aircraft to perform the mission profile and add a fixed amount, say 50 gallons. This would be the base comparison fuel weight for each associated aircraft.

 

[davparlr]

Not in my book!

Come on renrich, just because the p-51H and F4U-4 had significant performance advantage over the Ta-152H-1 below 25k ft and the P-47M had eqivalent performance doesn't mean that the Ta-152H-1 wasn't the best piston powered fighter the world ever had. After all it had those magical wings whose wonderful technology must have been lost since no later fighter adopted them. And don't forget, it was German.

Oh, by the way, my data shows the Ta-152H-1 having an internal fuel capacity of 263 gallons, more than the F4U-4.

 

[drgondog]

I agreed Dave's point earlier, but at a minimum the 51B needs to be in the mix.

The P-51D was perhaps a better overall weapon system with more firepower and ammo, built in safety mods for the gear door uplock, beefed up tail vertical spar, bubble canopy, 1000 pound external rack capabilitiy - but at the cost of 10 percent weight increase over the P-51B and same Hp (engine)in summer 1944..

The 51B/C upgraded engines and stayed with the P-51D's 1650-7 and 150 octane fuel to simplify logistics... but that complicates this model slightly as the USAAF did not perform flight tests to get dash speed comparisons with the lighter airframe of the B. The 51B/C also fought against all the 109s and 190s that fought against the D's. To be anal - one could solve for Thrust of P-51D at it's rated top speed Hp and altitude and Plug it into P-51B Thrust.

I do agree the boundary condition of equal ammo/fuel load for One set, and T.O. Combat Load without internal fuselage tank fuel and without drop tanks as the other extreme.

Back to the model. I was waiting for an explanation regarding 'how' this exercise was going to proceed but offer the following - and hope that Marcel stays awake

The reason we have to get Hp converted to Thrust, and assume Thrust for that Hp/Altitude/Boost is constant, is that the freebody force diagram in the horizontal axis has Thrust opposite Drag (Induced and Parasite(everything other than wing)). The Parasite Drag Coefficient (Cdwet) is given for multiple sources in Lednicer's oft quoted reports, as well as Fw 190D-9 and A-8 and Spit IX.

To Continue:

When velocity is changed, the Total Drag is changed, but the Thrust remains the same at peak Hp/Boost and RPM. At max speed - no acceleration, below that you can accelerate from a lower boost/rpm back to max thrust and accelerate until the increase in velcity increase drag to equally balance the Thrust. Every engine and propeller and gearing set up converts Hp to thrust slightly differently and every propeller is a compromise design - so there really should not be an assumption that Hp is analogous to Thrust for any of these a/c COMPARISONS

At THAT maximum Thrust (we haven't solved for it yet) for That altitude and density, the Velocity is found from the Flight Test Speed at That Altitude. For that altitude and standard temp/pressure, or whatever you want to use for temp and pressure, you now have density. As noted below you need to normalize TAS to surface tem/pressure conditions at that test location

You look up the aspect ratio's, the tip chord ratio's, the Cdwet for Parasite drag at zero lift (say Cdwet) for each of the a/c.

That enables us now to plug velocity, density, and airfoil efficiency factors of Aspect Ratio and Tip/Chrord ratio to get the Induced Drag Coefficient. We have the Parasite Drag - now we can solve the equation for maximum Thrust.

T=Drag induced + Drag parasite .....at Maximum Velocity

At that altitude, that hp, that rpm/boost, for level flight at maximum speed in a flight test. Normalize each of the flight test densities for the altitude by the surface temperature and pressure of the tests to normalize True Airspeed for each of the recorded flight tests conducted in different locatopns (i.e Augsburg, GY versus Palmdale, CA).

As Soren said once, this isn't rocket science, and it doesn't need to be as long as we realize this is a perfromance 'speculation' based on rigid wing, airfoil, no consideration for factoring pitching and rolling loads on the airframe, etc. We are not factoring in the induced drag for Rudder or Elevator trim

Now, on to turn/G load/Velocity plots

As the bank of the turn increases from zero/level flight, the Load factor increases with Cosine of the Angle of Bank.. The turn requires increasing the angle of attack and rudder deflection to carve the turn horizontally. The actual lift and drag vectors change with angle of attack of the free stream velocity similar to an initial climb but we won't 'do that' - as we begin to complicate the model by incorporating real life effects and start to factor in elevator and rudder loads and pitching/yawing moments which must be accounted for when solving for the Free Body Force Diagram for Manuevering Flight

As the angle of attack increases, the Thrust remains constant from our solution above, but the velocity will move to a lower value based on the angle of bank (but not linear with the change in bank). The relative angle of attack from free stream angle of the wing/body system increases as the stick is pulled back in the turn. The Lift Coefficient increases as the Angle of Attack increases to sustain the vertical Lift vector required to balance the Weight to keep same altitude in the new increased bank angle.

At each altitude and constant thrust, there is one maximum bank angle and velocity which will still sustain a component of Vertical Lift (equal and opposite to the Weight vector - which is greater than the Lift Vector in level flight) while still holding altitude constant... This Vertical Lift Vector is Different from the Normal Lift Vctor to the Wing

As the angle of attack increases from the local angle of attack and CL setting for maximum speed - the drag increases beyond Thrust and the a/c slows down, as the bank increases, the local angle of attack increases to sustain a higher CL to maintain altitude and the resultant Drag again is higher than the available Thrust and it slows down more.

Going at a steeper bank angle from this point while maintaining constant altitude continuously causes the local Angle of Attack to increase - taking it to, and then past, CLmax for the wing - and into a stall.

The net - is that no aircraft can sustain a bank angle at its rated top speed and still maintain it's altitude. If it enters a turn at less than max power and speed, throttles up and increases the bank, there will be a speed lower than its max level speed at which it can sustain THAT bank angle and load factor.

Solving for the above will get us to a point where we can talk. I am a little busy at the moment... but I can check the math.

 

[renrich]

My book shows internal fuel of 364 imperial gallons(1618 ltrs) and ability to have one 66.2 imp gallon drop tank. Could that be a misprint? The range clean is 755 miles at 376 mph at 32810 feet. F4U4 could carry a total of 534 gallons. Obviously Vmax, service ceiling, max fuel carried and max range don't all happen in the same airplane at the same time which to me is part of the problem with the performance numbers which float about. Also I suspect that some numbers might be either bogus or honest mistakes. That is the reason I go with AC that have a lengthy operational history. The Mustang fought in two major wars and some minor wars, the Corsair likewise. The Corsair was in production longer than any piston engined fighter, I believe, and was a tried and true design.

 

[claidemore]

In defense of the Ta152 weapons, the two MG151/20s would be very effective against fighters, similar to the two cannons on a Spitfire, or La5/7. The 30mm cannon would also be effective in any sort of surprise attack, (which the majority of kills were).

OTOH, the famous 'shootdown' of a Tempest V by Willy Reschke appears not to be a shootdown at all, though definately a victory for the Reschke and the Ta152.

Three Ta152s jumped two Tempests that were strafing trains. One Tempest managed to shoot down one of the Ta152s and escape. The other one, flown by Mitchell, was caught by Reschke as he climbed up after completing his strafing run. They both went into a left hand turn with Reschke firing his two 20mmms (he calls them machine guns). Mitchells plane exhibited some erratic movements when Reschke fired (according to Reschkes account). Question is, was this because he was hit, or was he jinking to avoid being hit? I suspect he was not hit, as Resche does not mention seeing any strikes, pieces flying off etc, he just mentions the erratic movement and leaves interpretation to the reader. In any case, the Ta152 20mms jammed, Mitchell tightened his turn, his plane stalled, spun in, and Mitchell was killed in the crash. (As we can see, the Ta152 was able to pull lead for a deflection shot, though it's arguable whether or not it got any hits)

Score in this combat, 1 TA152 lost, 1 Tempest Mk V lost.

 

[Soren]

Wrong Claidemore, no Ta-152 was ever shot down. One crashed for unknown reasons long before the fight during the patrol of the day where Reschke shot down the Tempest, that's it. And Reschke notes that the Ta-152 wasn't even close to reaching its limits, while the Tempest obviously was riding right on the stall. Conclusion is that the Ta-152H clearly turns A LOT better than the Tempest, and the specs of the a/c support this fact.

Infact the Ta-152H turns as-well as the Spitfire Mk.XIV, and retains speed in turns better.

 

[Soren]

The assertion that the TA152H was the best fighter developed in WW2 once again strikes me as comical. This vaunted AC keeps jumping up in this forum as the "best" without much evidence except paper numbers which may or may not reflect it's true operational capabilities. Let us examine that assertion. My source ,"The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft," has a whole section on the various FW fighters and it states that only a several TA152Hs reached combat units. It was essentially a prototype aircraft purpose built to intercept high flying bombers. It's performance figures showed very high speeds(similar to the P47N) at very high altitudes where little ACM took place. It's low altitude performance was substantially worse(not as good as P51D.) It's armament was obviously fitted for bomber shootdowns(3 cannon) although pilot visibility would probably limit it's ability to use full deflection shots so it would have to, of necessity, stick with headon or rear quarter attacks with the attendent danger of defensive gunfire. It's initial rate of climb, 3345 fpm with boost was good but not exceptional. The 3 cannon armament would not necessarily stand it in good stead in ACM against allied fighters and it of course labored with the handicap of the vulnerable cooling system of the liquid cooled engine. As with most European fighters it was range challenged with a max range clean of 755 miles and 1250 miles with a drop tank. These are yardstick ranges which would probably translate to combat radiuses of perhaps 275 to 400 miles. These were good for an interceptor but not competitive with P51D, P47N, P38L or F4U4. Now let us get away from paper numbers and talk about combat experience. How many kills did the TA152 have? Not many! How many AC did it destroy strafing? Probably none. How many tons of bombs and rockets did it belabor the enemy with? Probably none. How many bombers did it succesfully escort to their targets and back? Probably none. How reliable was it and how many were operational for a certain mission of the AC available? We don't know. What would have been the mission of the TA152 in the Pacific with tropical temperatures, coral landing strips and long distances? Probably very mission limited. How well could the TA152 have executed carrier landings and takeoffs? It could not have done any! The TA152 was essentially an experimental fighter, an elegant looking airplane with seductive performance figures on paper in certain flight regimes. "Best" fighter design in WW2. Not in my book!

Well Renrich despite getting all the performance figures wrong you need to consider the following; In the very limited time the Ta-152H saw service it established itself a 11 to 0 kill ratio in the air, and its pilots all note that it was completely the superior a/c in all of these engagements.


As for performance figures, find me a single Allied a/c that could match the below which is the actual performance of the a/c at full boost:

Top speed: 760 km/h (472 mph) at alt, 597 km/h (371 mph) at SL
Climb rate: 5,100 + ft/min (With MW50)
Time to climb 10km (32,808 ft): 10 min 06 sec.
Service ceiling: 15.1 km (49,540 ft)

The climb rate figure you presented (3,444 ft/min) was achieved at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS), while 19.2 m/s (3,779 ft/min) was achieved at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS).

 

[Soren]

Come on renrich, just because the p-51H and F4U-4 had significant performance advantage over the Ta-152H-1 below 25k ft and the P-47M had eqivalent performance

Get your facts straight, that's all there is to say to that.