Favorite fighter/interceptor?

[drgondog]

Regarding the calculations made by Crumpp, well I've talked to him over PM and his calculations are based on actual flight data on the a/c, stall speed, thrust etc etc.. So they are in the right ballpark, and are good for comparing a/c.

I didn't disagree about 'ballpark' - I noted to you (and Gene - and he agrees) that each comparison must be made for the altitudes and power curves of the engines - which they do. A Mustang will kick into a high horsepower rating under automatic boost than an Fw 190... ditto an Fw 190D or whatever. So, if you wish to present each curve - note the altitude and rated Hp of the engine at that condition? Take the rated Hp of the Fw 190A-8 against the P-51B Mustang at say, 15, 20, 25 and 30,000 feet - then make your case.

Sea Level to 5,000 feet should be easy, above that it will get more complicated

By looking at the power available to the Dora-9 and the lower drag it's quite obvious it was a better turn fighter than the A-8, and the German comparative reports and the opinions of the vets who flew the a/c agree with this.

Then by definition of low drag as the criteria, it should be 'quite obvious' that the Mustang is a better turn fighter than either of the Fw's or 109's?

And part of this debate is that the comparisons that some made, as reflected in JG26 were in opposite opinion - so what are we to believe when one set of vets disagree, anecdotally, with the others?

And where are the Comparative reports you just mentioned? I can find them from the RAF and the USAAF but nowhere else?

Even CALCULATIONS, if founded on the drag results from Flight Tests are useful


As for Caldwell, I never said he was full of it, I infact said otherwise. What I did say is that he has little insight into technical aspect of these fighters, where'as Dietmarr has covered this area extensively.

Soren - this is cut and pasted from your comments

"In short, Caldwell is talking trash and knows nothing of what he's talking about as all the vets, experts physics tell a much different story from the one told by Caldwell in that article.

This is ofcourse not your fault Bill, I'm just letting you know that the article is pure BS."

How did I mis interpret what you wrote? It isn't obvious to me.


PS: I really don't appreciate your accusations of bias Bill, I haven't been biased or selective I have just looked at and compared the data I have and have been made available. So I hope for the sake of this debate that you don't continue with these blind accusations, either that or I will cease to participate.

I looked back to find an accusation of bias. I did say we talk past each other, I did say that on one hand you dismiss Flight Tests on comparisons made by RAF and USAAF as biased, but produce no 'unbiased' flight tests for a counterpoints.

I probably mentioned that for every anecdotal comment you could find I could find one rebutting, and vice versa.

I have probably asked you tens of times "where are the referenced tests by the Luftwaffe (that you reference all the time) that demonstrate superior turn performance of say an 109 versus the Dora, or Anton versus the Dora, or 109 versus the Mustang, etc.. You zip right past that discussion and introduce the next series of claims.

In all of these clashes regarding the 'obvious superiority of say, a Me 109G or K versus the Mustang, you have yet to produce one set of flight test comparisons to substantiate your claim, but frequently dismiss other actual tests as 'biased', unfair, or simply wrong. I for one would be happy to know there is another set of tests , say at Rechlin, in which this is documented?

When I bring up Rall's comments on his reflections about comparative turning ability, when he was running the LW program at Rechlin for awhile, you dismissed his comments on the basis of his fear of using slats, but still present no test data to refute his observations.

You have zero qualms about doubting the experience of one of Germany's top warriors when it contradicts your point of view.

You do this to me and everyone who would express real curiosity, and a real interest in facts.

Is this what you mean by bias?

 

[drgondog]

It says "Optimum take off" which means the setting which yields the quickest take off, it doesn't say flaps werent used.

80% of 1600 ft (487 m) is 1280 ft (390m), which sounds reasonable at take off power. I'll happily believe that (1600 ft did sound a little high).

As to your personal experience with a restored P-51, well the P-51's in service were heavier as they were stacked with ammo and also different electrical systems I'd presume?


Soren, this is what I wrote

"I wonder if your source confused the landing roll with Take Off stats? Or was using flaps 'neutral' instead of short field 15-20 degrees. If so, their figures make sense but doesn't tell the whole story

the extra 560 pounds fro full fuse tank would mean perhaps another 100-120 ft to generate the airspeed to lift the extra weight.

These numbers closely approximate my own experience, which for the one I was flying in - would have been around 9300+ (me in back, no fuse fuel, full wing tanks, no guns/ammo, extra radio/nav/flight controls) and routine take offs in 1000 feet with flaps at 20 degrees"


The airplane had GI issue electrical and plumbing. Only Mod was, canopy, second cockpit/remove fuselage tank, no guns/ammo, second set of oxygen equipment - essentially what would be found in a TF-51D with very little weight difference.

I have the POH, it is an old ratty Manual that is missing the Tables..

With a full load plus two pilots I think it was around 9200-9300 but it might have been lighter.

 

[davparlr]

Best fighter interceptor is, as usual, difficult to nail down. I am going to address the interceptor part and assume the fighter part follows along.

In order to be a great interceptor, an aircraft must have several excellent characteristics as follows:
1. Time to climb. The interceptor must reach the altitude of the bomber, or higher, in a minimum time.
2. Firepower. The interceptor must have sufficient fire power to quickly dispatch heavily armed bombers. Most American fighters are short in this area (no need, no heavily armed bombers to shoot down).
3. Evasive capability. The interceptor must be able to evade escort fighters. This does not necessarily mean to defeat them, only evade them. I would assume airspeed and high altitude performance, for attack from above, is most valuable for evasion.
4. Endurance. The interceptor must have enough endurance to do severe damage to the bomber formation. The job of the interceptor is to disrupt the bomber formation and inflict severe losses on the attacking force.

The primary bomber threat falls into three categories, small and medium bombers, and fighter bombers, all usually operating below 15k ft., early heavy bombers, B-17 et.al., at 20-25k, and the B-29, operating above 30k.

For comparison purposes, I will address bombers at 25k and 33k. Two aircraft that should be included are the P-38L and Bf-109K. I have little data on the P-38L and limited data on the Bf-109K.

Time to climb, 25k ft.- quickest first

Spitfire XIV 6.6 minutes
P-51B 7 minutes (75"hg boost)
P-51H 7 minutes
P-47M 7.3 minutes
F4U-4 7.5 minutes
Bf-109G about 7.5 (7.8 at 26k) minutes
Fw-190D-9 7.6 minutes
Ta-152H 8 minutes
P-51D 9.2 minutes (67"hg, probably a bit longer than the P-51B at 75"hg)


Time to climb, 33k

Spitfire XIV 9.5 minutes
P-51H 9.8 minutes
Ta -152H 10.1 minutes
Bf-109G 11.9 minuets
P-51B 12.4 minutes
Fw-190D-9 12.5 minutes
F4U-4 12.8 (mil power only)
P-51D 12.8 minutes
P-47M 13.4 minutes


Firepower – best first (a guess)

Bf-109G two 15mm, two 20mm, one 30mm-excellent
Ta-152H one 30mm, two 20mm-excellent
Fw-190D-9 two 13mm, two 20mm Very Good
Spitfire Mk XIV two 20mm, two 30 caliber-very good
F4U-4 six 50 cal-(Medium), or four 20mm (very good}
P-47M eight 50 cal.-Probably Good
P-51D six 50 cal.-Medium
P-51B four 50 cal.-Poor
P-51H four 50 cal.-Poor


Evasive potential-25k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling-fastest first

P-51H 466 mph, 2350 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-47M 453 mph, 3000 ft/min, >33k
Ta-152H 449 mph, N/A (2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500 ft
F4U-4 448 mph, 2600 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Spitfire XIV 446 mph, 3100 ft/min, 43,500 ft
P-51B 440 mph, 2120 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 440 mph, 2100 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Fw-190D-9, 422mph, 2280 ft/min, 39,370 ft
Bf-109G, 420mph, (2135 at 26k), 38,700 ft


Evasive potential-33k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling

P-47M 475 mph, N/A (2200 ft/min at 30k), >33k
Ta-152 458 mph, NA (2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500k
P-51H 440 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Spitfire XIV 438, 2000 ft/min, 43,500
F4U-4 434 mph, 1600 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-51B 423 mph, 1200 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 418 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Bf-109G 398 mph, 1175 ft/min, 38,700 ft
Fw-190D-9 391 mph, 984 ft/min, 39,370 ft


Endurance-longest first (a guess)

P-51B With 184 gallons of main fuel and a 85 gallon extended range tank-excellent
P-51D Probably a mite less than the P-51B-excellent
P-51H Unknown, probably excellent
Ta-152 With 263 gallons, excellent
P-47M With 250 gallons and a 100 gallon reserve, endurance should be excellent
F4U-4 With 237 gallons, endurance should be excellent
Fw-190D-9 No data, probably medium
Spitfire XIV With 134 gallons, medium
Bf-109G No data, probably medium

Conclusion based on this data, at 25k feet, best to last:

1. Spitfire XIV. Excellent time to climb beating the next fastest by 20-30 seconds. Good firepower. In top mix of airspeed, best in rate of climb, and very good ceiling. Let down a bit by endurance.

Next four are very close.

2. F4U-4. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower with 20s medium with 50s. In the top mix of airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

3. P-47M. Very good time to climb. Good firepower. In the top mix of airspeed (second to P-51H), second behind Spitfire in rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

4. Ta-152. Good time to climb, excellent firepower. In the top mix of airspeed, rate of climb among the best, excellent ceiling. Excellent endurance. Great performance, only let down by time to climb, almost a minute and a half slower than the Spitfire.

5. P-51H. Among the best in time to climb. Poor firepower. Excellent airspeed-best in class, very good rate of climb, very good ceiling. Firepower prevents competing for best at 25k.

The next four are all pretty equal

6. Fw-190D-9. Very good time to climb. Very good firepower. Much slower in airspeed than other contestants except the Bf-109G, 18 mph slower than the next slowest on the list. Very good rate of climb, among the lowest ceiling in mix. Airspeed would make it difficult to penetrate an equal number of escort fighters including P-51B/D/H and P-47s.

6. Bf-109G. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower. Slowest of the bunch, so comments similar to Fw-109D-9.


7. P-51D. Probably reasonable time to climb with max boost (probably would have scored higher if I had the data for 75" Hg boost). Medium firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Forte is long range escort.

8. P-51B. Excellent time to climb-tied with P-51H for second. Poor firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, lowest ceiling (maybe early model). Forte is long range escort.

Conclusion based on this data, at 33k feet, best to last:

1. At 33k, only one aircraft contending, the Ta-152H. The only aircraft in this bunch with any advantage at all at 33k ft. is the P-47M with a 17 mph airspeed advantage, but not much else.
2. Spitfire
3. F4U-4
4. P-47M
5. P-51H
6. Everybody else.

Overall, of the above choices, I think the Ta-152H would be preferred, due to its outstanding high altitude performance, and its very good capability at lower altitudes.

I think the best interceptor at all altitudes is the Me-262. Its higher speed and powerful armament supersedes slower climb and lesser ceiling than most of the listed aircraft. In flown appropriately, and with protected airfields, I think the Me-262, with a reasonable amount of aircraft available, could have stopped daylight bombing in Europe.

This is just my rationale. All of these aircraft were superb aircraft and proved to be deadly. In addition, variation from the mean has a big impact on assessment. For example, it was noted in this thread that Fw calculated data was guaranteed to 3%. Well, at 400 mph, that means it could be anywhere between 388 mph to 412 mph, a 24 mph spread. Flight test also has range variable. I have found both calculated and test data on the P-51B at SL of between 374 mph and 386 mph. And we tend to compare aircraft doing 453 to one doing 448. So, anyway, this is kind of a guess based on what I think is important and what data I have found, and so, in general, is up for interpretation.

 

[Soren]

Then by definition of low drag as the criteria, it should be 'quite obvious' that the Mustang is a better turn fighter than either of the Fw's or 109's?

Bill, stop being anal. The P-51 features a lower lift wing, lower HP engine, is heavier etc etc, in short it's another a/c. The reason the FW-190 A-8 D-9 can be compared so directly is because they both use the same wing, but because of differences in fuselage design and another engine one has less drag and more power, hence a better turn rate. It's very simple really, and I'm pretty astounded that you haven't gotten it yet.

Soren - this is cut and pasted from your comments

"In short, Caldwell is talking trash and knows nothing of what he's talking about as all the vets, experts physics tell a much different story from the one told by Caldwell in that article.

This is ofcourse not your fault Bill, I'm just letting you know that the article is pure BS."

How did I mis interpret what you wrote? It isn't obvious to me.

Hey if you cut and paste out of context you can make it look like I said anything you want!

You might want to note that I posted that response BEFORE Kurfürst presented other datas from the book, data which conflicts with yours. Now I don't have Caldwell's book, so I took it was an article you were posting Bill, hence my first remark. That having been said Caldwell clearly hasn't got any insight into the technical aspect of these fighters, if he did he wouldn't make such claims.

 

[Soren]

Davparlr,

Pretty good comparison there, although I'm unsure about the 109G figures as it depends allot upon which version we're talking about.

Some corrections;

The Ta-152H-1 will definitely reach 25 kft allot quicker than 8 min, being a much quicker climber than the Dora-9 from SL and up, something which is quite clear from just looking at the time to climb to 10 km and the much shorter take off run.

Also the service ceiling of the Ta-152H-1 is 15.1 km (49,540 ft) with GM-1.

And top speed is 760 km/h (475 mph) with GM-1.

Note: The GM-1 system doesn't kick in unti atl 11.5 km.


Otherwise good comparison, and I can agree with your final conclusion.
___________________________________________________

Now regarding the difference in drag between the A-8 Dora-9, here's a flat plate comparison prepared by the highly respected aerodynamicist David Lednicer:

These figures are from an in depth article by Lednicer on the aerodynamics of WW2 fighters. I have attached the article at the bottom of this post for everyone to read, enjoy.

Furthermore here we have the official Focke Wulf aerodynamics charts on the FW-190 Ta-152 series fighters:

As one can see the Dora-9 benefits from both lower drag and higher thrust, and will therefore inevitably have a big advantage in turn rate over the A-8.

 

[drgondog]

Bill, stop being anal. The P-51 features a lower lift wing, lower HP engine, is heavier etc etc, in short it's another a/c. The reason the FW-190 A-8 D-9 can be compared so directly is because they both use the same wing, but one has less drag and more power, hence a better turn rate. It's very simple really, and I'm pretty astounded that you haven't gotten it yet.

You have the drag figures for comparison between the Anton and Dora?

So, Soren, explain how the P-51B was faster than both with inferior aerodynamics and power. Ditto on climb, or every close performance comparison in all regimes?

It is pretty clear that I'm a little 'slow' because I challenge quite a bit of what you say when not accompanied by a fact base... and, if the Dora was so clean, why the issues with the engine seal in attaining predicted speeds from wind tunnel drag?

And the engine power of a P-51B/D is less than an Fw 190A-8? at what altitudes? and if the performance of the 51B is better than the Dora, how could that be for a heavier aircraft with lesser aerodynamics

Hey if you cut and paste out of context you can make it look like I said anything you want!

Please illustrate how I took your specific words out of context?

You might want to note that I posted that response BEFORE Kurfürst presented other datas from the book, data which conflicts with yours.

Go back and look at what Kurfurst reproduced. Do you see one comparison of Fw 190D versus Mustang? And it conflicts with the Diary entry from the same book, How?

Now I don't have Caldwell's book, so I took it was an article you were posting Bill, hence my first remark. That having been said Caldwell clearly hasn't got any insight into the technical aspect of these fighters, if he did he wouldn't make such claims.

You didn't have the book, you didn't have the context and you pooped off - what a suprise?

Soren, for what it is worth you are an amateur Aero Engineer by your own admission. I have a MS Aero Engineering from University of Texas, was a practicing Aero for two years at Lockheed and then a practicing Structures engineer at Bell Helicopter for four years and pioneered NASTRAN acceptance by US Army and Marine Corps for Cobra programs. You make continuous snide remarks about my intellectual capability. This hurts my 'feelers' (DAN, stay the hell out of this one!).

Having said this I have been careful to dismiss your statements and references as 'BS" even when I think you are reaching. Crump (Gene) has far better credentials than you for both practical flying experience and practical aero knowledge. He has PROVEN his credentials.

Caldwell has a PhD in Chemical Engineering and teaches at Texas A&M University. Your intellectual credentials trump his in what way?

It WAS an article Soren, which happened to extract that Caldwell JG 26 diary account word for word. Just in case we debate about another of my collegures, Rich Mueller (a co-author in some of Caldwells books), he is also a PhD and teaches at the USAF Air War College at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL

Go back and note that Kutfurst (correctly) quoted Caldwells' recount of Ossenkp's remarks on speed and anecdotal performance. Where did he contradict the JG26 pilots concerns that the Mustang still held an edge?

You have an astounding capability to challenge any view opposed to yours - which I find more amusing than irritating.

Here is a hint. Be objective, fact based, and let the facts alter or solidiy your opinions. Let the testosterone and the emotions drain from you in these arguments. The facts will set you free.

You are a complete bore when you state how 'obvious' aerodynamics and physics and ALL luftwaffe vets support any point you try to make - simply because you don't have the test/empiracal facts at hand when you make unequivocal statements.

Now, if your feelings are hurt and you think I have misrepresented your positions - I apologise for your injury - but not my comments.

Please put me on 'Ignore'. I will pout for some time, maybe contemplate suicide, but somehow I know I will struggle on.

Good Day (and I mean this) Soren,

Bill

 

[drgondog]

Best fighter interceptor is, as usual, difficult to nail down. I am going to address the interceptor part and assume the fighter part follows along.

In order to be a great interceptor, an aircraft must have several excellent characteristics as follows:
1. Time to climb. The interceptor must reach the altitude of the bomber, or higher, in a minimum time.
2. Firepower. The interceptor must have sufficient fire power to quickly dispatch heavily armed bombers. Most American fighters are short in this area (no need, no heavily armed bombers to shoot down).
3. Evasive capability. The interceptor must be able to evade escort fighters. This does not necessarily mean to defeat them, only evade them. I would assume airspeed and high altitude performance, for attack from above, is most valuable for evasion.
4. Endurance. The interceptor must have enough endurance to do severe damage to the bomber formation. The job of the interceptor is to disrupt the bomber formation and inflict severe losses on the attacking force.

The primary bomber threat falls into three categories, small and medium bombers, and fighter bombers, all usually operating below 15k ft., early heavy bombers, B-17 et.al., at 20-25k, and the B-29, operating above 30k.

For comparison purposes, I will address bombers at 25k and 33k. Two aircraft that should be included are the P-38L and Bf-109K. I have little data on the P-38L and limited data on the Bf-109K.

Time to climb, 25k ft.- quickest first

Spitfire XIV 6.6 minutes
P-51B 7 minutes (75"hg boost)
P-51H 7 minutes
P-47M 7.3 minutes
F4U-4 7.5 minutes
Bf-109G about 7.5 (7.8 at 26k) minutes
Fw-190D-9 7.6 minutes
Ta-152H 8 minutes
P-51D 9.2 minutes (67"hg, probably a bit longer than the P-51B at 75"hg)


Time to climb, 33k

Spitfire XIV 9.5 minutes
P-51H 9.8 minutes
Ta -152H 10.1 minutes
Bf-109G 11.9 minuets
P-51B 12.4 minutes
Fw-190D-9 12.5 minutes
F4U-4 12.8 (mil power only)
P-51D 12.8 minutes
P-47M 13.4 minutes


Firepower – best first (a guess)

Bf-109G two 15mm, two 20mm, one 30mm-excellent
Ta-152H one 30mm, two 20mm-excellent
Fw-190D-9 two 13mm, two 20mm Very Good
Spitfire Mk XIV two 20mm, two 30 caliber-very good
F4U-4 six 50 cal-(Medium), or four 20mm (very good}
P-47M eight 50 cal.-Probably Good
P-51D six 50 cal.-Medium
P-51B four 50 cal.-Poor
P-51H four 50 cal.-Poor


Evasive potential-25k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling-fastest first

P-51H 466 mph, 2350 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-47M 453 mph, 3000 ft/min, >33k
Ta-152H 449 mph, N/A (2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500 ft
F4U-4 448 mph, 2600 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Spitfire XIV 446 mph, 3100 ft/min, 43,500 ft
P-51B 440 mph, 2120 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 440 mph, 2100 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Fw-190D-9, 422mph, 2280 ft/min, 39,370 ft
Bf-109G, 420mph, (2135 at 26k), 38,700 ft


Evasive potential-33k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling

P-47M 475 mph, N/A (2200 ft/min at 30k), >33k
Ta-152 458 mph, NA (2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500k
P-51H 440 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Spitfire XIV 438, 2000 ft/min, 43,500
F4U-4 434 mph, 1600 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-51B 423 mph, 1200 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 418 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Bf-109G 398 mph, 1175 ft/min, 38,700 ft
Fw-190D-9 391 mph, 984 ft/min, 39,370 ft


Endurance-longest first (a guess)

P-51B With 184 gallons of main fuel and a 85 gallon extended range tank-excellent
P-51D Probably a mite less than the P-51B-excellent
P-51H Unknown, probably excellent
Ta-152 With 263 gallons, excellent
P-47M With 250 gallons and a 100 gallon reserve, endurance should be excellent
F4U-4 With 237 gallons, endurance should be excellent
Fw-190D-9 No data, probably medium
Spitfire XIV With 134 gallons, medium
Bf-109G No data, probably medium

Conclusion based on this data, at 25k feet, best to last:

1. Spitfire XIV. Excellent time to climb beating the next fastest by 20-30 seconds. Good firepower. In top mix of airspeed, best in rate of climb, and very good ceiling. Let down a bit by endurance.

Next four are very close.

2. F4U-4. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower with 20s medium with 50s. In the top mix of airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

3. P-47M. Very good time to climb. Good firepower. In the top mix of airspeed (second to P-51H), second behind Spitfire in rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

4. Ta-152. Good time to climb, excellent firepower. In the top mix of airspeed, rate of climb among the best, excellent ceiling. Excellent endurance. Great performance, only let down by time to climb, almost a minute and a half slower than the Spitfire.

5. P-51H. Among the best in time to climb. Poor firepower. Excellent airspeed-best in class, very good rate of climb, very good ceiling. Firepower prevents competing for best at 25k.

The next four are all pretty equal

6. Fw-190D-9. Very good time to climb. Very good firepower. Much slower in airspeed than other contestants except the Bf-109G, 18 mph slower than the next slowest on the list. Very good rate of climb, among the lowest ceiling in mix. Airspeed would make it difficult to penetrate an equal number of escort fighters including P-51B/D/H and P-47s.

6. Bf-109G. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower. Slowest of the bunch, so comments similar to Fw-109D-9.


7. P-51D. Probably reasonable time to climb with max boost (probably would have scored higher if I had the data for 75" Hg boost). Medium firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Forte is long range escort.

8. P-51B. Excellent time to climb-tied with P-51H for second. Poor firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, lowest ceiling (maybe early model). Forte is long range escort.

Conclusion based on this data, at 33k feet, best to last:

1. At 33k, only one aircraft contending, the Ta-152H. The only aircraft in this bunch with any advantage at all at 33k ft. is the P-47M with a 17 mph airspeed advantage, but not much else.
2. Spitfire
3. F4U-4
4. P-47M
5. P-51H
6. Everybody else.

Overall, of the above choices, I think the Ta-152H would be preferred, due to its outstanding high altitude performance, and its very good capability at lower altitudes.

I think the best interceptor at all altitudes is the Me-262. Its higher speed and powerful armament supersedes slower climb and lesser ceiling than most of the listed aircraft. In flown appropriately, and with protected airfields, I think the Me-262, with a reasonable amount of aircraft available, could have stopped daylight bombing in Europe.

This is just my rationale. All of these aircraft were superb aircraft and proved to be deadly. In addition, variation from the mean has a big impact on assessment. For example, it was noted in this thread that Fw calculated data was guaranteed to 3%. Well, at 400 mph, that means it could be anywhere between 388 mph to 412 mph, a 24 mph spread. Flight test also has range variable. I have found both calculated and test data on the P-51B at SL of between 374 mph and 386 mph. And we tend to compare aircraft doing 453 to one doing 448. So, anyway, this is kind of a guess based on what I think is important and what data I have found, and so, in general, is up for interpretation.

Great summary Dave, with objective criteria.

I would add some data. The P-51H had a spec cruise range radius for same combat load (plus two more 50's) full internal fuel, etc of 50-100 miles more than the B and D.

As far as firepower, there were no bombers the LW or Japanes put in the air that six 50 calibers had to struggle with -

 

[davparlr]

Davparlr,

Pretty good comparison there, although I'm unsure about the 109G figures as it depends allot upon which version we're talking about.

I agree. This is just the data I had.

Some corrections;

The Ta-152H-1 will definitely reach 25 kft allot quicker than 8 min, being a much quicker climber than the Dora-9 from SL and up, something which is quite clear from just looking at the time to climb to 10 km and the much shorter take off run.

To be honest, I don't know where I came up with the 8 minutes. The 10.1 minutes to 10k was from the data I got from you. Other than that I have almost no information on the time to climb of the Ta-152H, or from rate of climb. I have noted that you have numbers much higher than my source of 3445 ft/min at SL which probably came from wikipedia. If you have some data on climb, I would appreciate it.

Also the service ceiling of the Ta-152H-1 is 15.1 km (49,540 ft) with GM-1.

Okay, I have updated my data base.

And top speed is 760 km/h (475 mph) with GM-1.

Note: The GM-1 system doesn't kick in unti atl 11.5 km.

Then this couldn't be at 10 km, which is where I was comparing. On a further look the chart, I noted a Ta-152H with an EB engine obtained a speed 468 mph at 10 km instead of the 458 mph I showed. I don't know what the significance of the EB engine was.

As far as firepower, there were no bombers the LW or Japanes put in the air that six 50 calibers had to struggle with -

I agree, but I was trying to normalize the competition. In my mind, the B-17/B-24, and the B-29 were the most armed bombers and were the most difficult to attack, so I chose them as the interceptor target for both sides.

 

[Soren]

Bill,

You need to start controlling yourself buddy! Take your own advice, let yourself drain from the excessive testosterone emotions !

You have the drag figures for comparison between the Anton and Dora?

YES! Read my posts for crying out loud! I've already added two charts, one with flat plate comparisons and another from FW with the aerodynamics of the FW190 Ta-152 series in detail!

Geeez!

So, Soren, explain how the P-51B was faster than both with inferior aerodynamics and power. Ditto on climb, or every close performance comparison in all regimes?

Christ! I wasn't even talking about the P-51 !! I was comparing the FW-190 A-8 to the D-9. And I never claimed that the P-51 had inferior aerodynamics! Infact if you took the time to actually read my posts you'll notice that the chart I presented just below prepared by Lednicer shows that the P-51 has markedly less drag than the other a/c pr. surface area (Thank the laminar wings). Take a look at the flat plate comparison, if you even know what this is (Sorry couldn't help myself seeing how you just tried to patrionize me in the roughest manner), the flat plate area of the P-51 is 4.65 sq.ft. vs the D9's 4.77 sq.ft.

All I ever said about the P-51 was that it features a lower lift wing (Albeit also a lower drag one) and a lower HP engine than the A-8 D-9, and so it's a DIFFERENT aircraft (The design is completely different) and thus can't be compared directly with the FW190 when you have an increase in HP and decrease in drag. The A-8 D-9 are after-all similar a/c, sharing the same wing and fuselage (The D-9's being longer but narrower), and thus they can be compared directly with increases in thrust or with decreases in drag.

Do you get it now?

Please illustrate how I took your specific words out of context?

No problem. I made the remark in question BEFORE Kurfürst presented completely contradicting info from the book compared to the article presented by you!

Take a look at the quote presented by Kurfürst please, and then tell me what does it say?

Furthermore I later made it clear that Caldwell isn't trying to descieve anyone, he just says what he knows. HOWEVER Caldwell has clearly shown that he knows little about the technical aspect of these fighters.

Soren, for what it is worth you are an amateur Aero Engineer by your own admission

I am a fully educated engineer Bill, and I've had an interest within the aerodynamics field for many years, studying the subject, and so far it seems I have a better understanding of how things work than you. (Again sorry, but you get what you give)

So I'm no freaking amateur!

I have a MS Aero Engineering from University of Texas, was a practicing Aero for two years at Lockheed and then a practicing Structures engineer at Bell Helicopter for four years and pioneered NASTRAN acceptance by US Army and Marine Corps for Cobra programs. You make continuous snide remarks about my intellectual capability.

Funny then how you don't seem know what the flat plate area refers too..

Go back and look at what Kurfurst reproduced. Do you see one comparison of Fw 190D versus Mustang?

NO I DON'T, and that is exactly my point!

We were comparing the A-8 to the D-9 because Caldwell claimed that the A-8 turned better than the D-9, which is untrue. Kurfurst then presented quotes from Caldwell's very own book completely contradicting what Caldwell claimed in that article presented by you !! The P-51 wasn't even part of it!!

You need to learn to focus on the subject at hand Bill, cause now you're all over the place!

It seems that you blow up in a wild rampage anytime someone mentions the P-51, emmidiately turning on the defensive as if someone had just said that the P-51 is the worst a/c on the planet! Cool the f**k down for crying out loud and don't pull things out of context!

So take you own advice, let the testosterone emotions drain from your body and come back!


So bloody ridiculous!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Soren you make me laugh so hard.

You are so guilty of everything you accuse everyone else of.

 

[drgondog]

YES! Read my posts for crying out loud! I've already added two charts, one with flat plate comparisons and another from FW with the aerodynamics of the FW190 Ta-152 series in detail!

Didn't see either one or I wouldn't have asked


Christ! I wasn't even talking about the P-51 !! I was comparing the FW-190 A-8 to the D-9. And I never claimed that the P-51 had inferior aerodynamics! Infact if you took the time to actually read my posts you'll notice that the chart I presented just below prepared by Lednicer shows that the P-51 has markedly less drag than the other a/c pr. surface area (Thank the laminar wings). Take a look at the flat plate comparison, if you even know what this is (Sorry couldn't help myself seeing how you just tried to patrionize me in the roughest manner), the flat plate area of the P-51 is 4.65 sq.ft. vs the D9's 4.77 sq.ft.

Why, yes I do Soren. The subject has never come up in posts you and I have debated. I knew the answer before I posed the question. Perhaps I was too subtle for you? Drag is a major factor in retaining energy in a turn.. having said that direct me to the flat plate comparisons that you posted.

All I ever said about the P-51 was that it features a lower lift wing (Albeit also a lower drag one) and a lower HP engine than the A-8 D-9, and so it's a DIFFERENT aircraft (The design is completely different) and thus can't be compared directly with the FW190 when you have an increase in HP and decrease in drag.

Soren, you completely freaked out when I posted the JG26 pilots recounts of their disappointment regarding turn performance of Dora versus Anton. You went into a deeper depression when they (the JG26 pilot author of the comments) expressed dismay regarding the relative performance of the Dora versus the Mustang - go back and read your comments

No problem. I made the remark in question BEFORE Kurfürst presented completely contradicting info from the book compared to the article presented by you!

Go back for the third time Soren. The anecdotal quotes from Ossenkop (That Kurfurst accurately captured) made in reference to Dora Performance versus Allied Fighters made no mention of contrasts against the Mustang - which was one of the points (anecdotal) that Caldwell's book captured. You dismissed all of his 'transcript' as BS - how would you know what Caldwell's academic or theoretical expertise is?

Take a look at the quote presented by Kurfürst please, and then tell me what does it say?

I have, and have again, and once more posed the contrasts. The circular argument we seem to be in is as follows.

One set of Luftwaffe pilots say they are disappointed in Dora performance (from expectations) against the Anton in turn and roll. You boldly claim that Caldwell is BS and ALL LW pilots hold a different point of view.

So far, its anecdotal, right?

Next the same batch of pilots in Caldwell's book that expressed disappointment in Dora versus Anton also are concerned that it isn't outperforming the Mustang. You boldly claim that the Dora is far better and that all LW pilots that REALLY flew the Dora would agree with you.

So far, it's anecdotal

I ask for technical data from you that would prove your thesis regarding your anecdotal claims. You produce one set of charts with no context that look official and you reproduce the charts Gene posted regarding G loads versus airspeed. I point out that the charts are for one set of power range at one altitude and have always conceeded that the Anton and the Mustang turn equally well in most altitudes.. and anecdotally that the Dora and Mustang are pretty close also.

But you do not have flight test info, no have you ever had any to show the results of Mustang versus Anton or Dora - other than the well documented tests of RAF and USAAF which you dismiss out of hand.

I suppose you do so, because your intellectual and academic and industry practices enable you to make those statements -anecdotally- and everyone will agree? Well they don't!

Furthermore I later made it clear that Caldwell isn't trying to descieve anyone, he just says what he knows. HOWEVER Caldwell has clearly shown that he knows little about the technical aspect of these fighters.

And you have proven this how?


I am a fully educated engineer Bill, and I've had an interest within the aerodynamics field for many years, studying the subject, and so far it seems I have a better understanding of how things work than you. (Again sorry, but you get what you give)

So I'm no freaking amateur!

Yes, you are. Despite my own academic and industry practice which far exceeds your own in this field, I am also an amateur.

Funny then how you don't seem know what the flat plate area refers too..

Amusing that you make this statement with no context, proof points or, in this specific case, knowledge of what I know.

We were comparing the A-8 to the D-9 because Caldwell claimed that the A-8 turned better than the D-9, which is untrue.

Ah, of course. Caldwell is a liar, for believeing cowardly liar JG26 pilots who would make such lying statements?

Kurfurst then presented quotes from Caldwell's very own book completely contradicting what Caldwell claimed in that article presented by you !! The P-51 wasn't even part of it!!

The Mustang comparison WAS part of Caldwell recount as noted above and several posts in this thread. Interesting that Caldwell would pose reflections from both sides of this discussion, anecdotally, and you choose one while dismissing the other? and your feelings are hurt when someone says you are biased?

You need to learn to focus on the subject at hand Bill, cause now you're all over the place!

The wandering is you sir. No test facts to substantiate any claim you have made with respect to turn for example. No LW test reports for one on one comparisons of Fw 190 versus Me 109 versus Mustang - but you will dispute the words of one of LW greatest pilots Rall on this subject.




It seems that you blow up in a wild rampage anytime someone mentions the P-51, emmidiately turning on the defensive as if someone had just said that the P-51 is the worst a/c on the planet! Cool the f**k down for crying out loud and don't pull things out of context!

LOL - illustrate "rampage" Sir.

So take you own advice, let the testosterone emotions drain from your body and come back!


So bloody ridiculous!

Yes, it is Soren

 

[renrich]

Dav, I enjoyed your analysis about interceptors. A lot of research there. Am wondering if you researched ammunition load on the various AC. Doesn't do much good to be in a position to shoot down a bomber if you are out of ammo. Also it would be interesting to know about the rate of climb figures versus that ammo load. For instance, I know the P47 had the capacity to carry a big load of 50 cal ammo but I have read that in some cases the pilots took only a partial load. Was that to decrease takeoff run, increase rate of climb, increase endurance or performance? I know the following data from "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" won't be met with favor by some members of this forum but I have found that source to be pretty consistent with others and the article on the FW was from 8 different German contributers: Initial rate of climb for TA152H-1 is 3445 ft/min w/MW50.

 

[Soren]

Bill,

You're still skidding all over the place, let me put things into context here:

This whole argument started with you refering to an article by Caldwell which claimed that the Anton was a better turn fighter than the D-9 and that the only improvement with the D-9 was increased dive speed high alt performance.

I then responded:

"well I can't really stress this hard enough, the Dora-9 turns better than ANY of the Antons. Also there's no difference in performance or maneuverability between the A-7 A-8, and the A-9 was a rather rare bird so they couldn't have been refering to this. All comparative tests were done with a cleanly loaded A-8 D-9."

Note: No P-51 ever mentioned by me!

You then replied:

"Soren - I did get a reply back from Don. He did not get disagreement from the JG26 pilots regarding either the diary comments in his JG26 War Diaries or his JG26 Top Gun book comments regarding anecdotes on the 109K-4.

He did say that the JG26 vet comparisons were largely not about high altitude performance as the Geschwader was largely tactical at that time in the war and most of the reflections were at low to medium altitude.

He was very emphatic that the Dora pilots felt they had an edge overall on the P-47 and Tempests - their main opponents but were disappointed that the Mustang still seemed to have an edge. He also emphasized that the pilots were getting aircraft of varying quality so performance figures had to be taken with a grain of salt.

He finished by saying that the Anton did have an edge in manueverability but what could you expect in comparison with a heavier, longer ship against the best fighter roll rate in the ETO"

To which I responded:

"Roll rate isn't turn rate

However in short I wouldn't trust Caldwell when it comes to a/c performance, and that's not that he's untrustworthy, he just isn't much into this area.

Please also bare in mind that most Dora-9's flown by JG-26 weren't equipped with the MW-50 system, so that would explain the remarks Caldwell has recieved.
"

Note: Again no P-51 ever mentioned!

You then responded:

"Soren -When did you come to that realization? Having said that how would you prove that D-9 out turned an A8 or A9? The anecdotal evidence that came from Caldwell's book indicated the Anton out turned and out rolled it. You say no. What is the German Report making these comparisons that I should look at? The D-9 is heavier, I suppose the W/L is higher for exactly the same comparison combat load? - but tell me other wise if you have the facts. What difference in wing parameters would favor the Dora and overcome the weight and possible length influence?

Additionally, unless you have flight test comparisons between Fw 190D-9 and P-51B/C/D for turn or acceleration or roll, what factual base are you arguing from. The P-51D and B could turn with a Fw 190A. Altitude and speed would dictate which one had an advantage however slight.

If the Anton indeed out turned the Dora, as related, it is logical to conclude that the Dora DID NOT out turn a Mustang - unless you have evidence to the contrary.
"

Note: YOU bring up the P-51.

To which I responded by presenting the excellent charts prepared by Crumpp, clearly showing that the D-9 has a big advantage in terms of turn rate. And then I made it clear these are based on real physics, and they don't change.

You then responded:

"I have a lot of respect for Crump's charts and his math. I would also point out that the models presented are subject to the engine performance at different altitudes, depending on where the blowers kick in so even the models must be carefully used with all caveats discussed

They do not, however, represent anything more than a mathmatical model. Aerodynamics and flight mechanics are math models to arrive at estimates of predicted performance.

The reason flight tests are performed, other than for better understanding of the limits of aircraft, are to demonstrate the REAL physics and characteristics.

An aircraft is a complicated model. Extrapolations on lift are influenced by Wing-Body interaction, laminar flow separation, unexpected wash out, complications introduced by aeroelastic effects due to wing loads when angle of attack is changed by those loads, etc, etc.

That is why we will always be talking past each other. If you make an statement that a Fw 190D-9 out turns an Anton or a P-51D and I ask you for the Test data - and you present Gene's performance calculations - I'm interested but unconvinced for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Gene would tell you the same thing about calculations versus flight tests. The calcs lead to design, tests lead to adjustment of calcs/models to fit real life, modified models lead to next design, etc. I lived in that world, but mostly airframe structures after my first two years.

Circle back to key points.

Caldwell reproduces comments and diary from JG26 during December, 1944.

Diary expresses disappointment that the Anton out turns and out rolls the Dora, and worse does not out perform the Mustang.

You say Caldwell 'full of it' and every LW pilot knows that none of that is true.

And the debate rolled on from there. I found flight tests as late as March 1945 that refuted your top numbers, you found performance charts that substantiated yours. In all candor, I don't read German so I don't know if the charts you presented on the D were Flight Test or Theoretical calculations based on wind tunnel drag results.

and so on.

So, what do you believe substantiates your claim that the Dora was faster and out turned the Mustang? Do you have anything in the way of Flight tests or other one on one comparative tests that substantiate your claim? An anecdotal comment is interesting as part of the equation, but not the conclusive fact
"


Regarding the calculations made by Crumpp, well I've talked to him over PM and his calculations are based on actual flight data on the a/c, stall speed, thrust etc etc.. So they are in the right ballpark, and are good for comparing a/c.

The elastic deformation of the wings is something which needs be considered yes, and it has been. Infact this very effect actually gave the FW-190's wings elliptical lift distribution in tight turns, hence the violent stall. (Elliptical lift distribution makes for violent stalls)

By looking at the power available to the Dora-9 and the lower drag it's quite obvious it was a better turn fighter than the A-8, and the German comparative reports and the opinions of the vets who flew the a/c agree with this. Actually I have a very nice original aerodynamics chart on the FW190 Ta-152 series I'll post here tommorrow when I get home, then you can see the difference between the a/c for yourself.

As for Caldwell, I never said he was full of it, I infact said otherwise. What I did say is that he has little insight into technical aspect of these fighters, where'as Dietmarr has covered this area extensively.

Note: Do you see me mention the P-51 anywhere ???! NO!


You then responded:

"Then by definition of low drag as the criteria, it should be 'quite obvious' that the Mustang is a better turn fighter than either of the Fw's or 109's?

And part of this debate is that the comparisons that some made, as reflected in JG26 were in opposite opinion - so what are we to believe when one set of vets disagree, anecdotally, with the others?

And where are the Comparative reports you just mentioned? I can find them from the RAF and the USAAF but nowhere else?

Even CALCULATIONS, if founded on the drag results from Flight Tests are useful"

So suddenly the Mustang gets involved while all I was doing was comparing the FW-190 D-9 A-8. So I get abit confused cause how could what I wrote be misunderstood so badly?

Anyway I then responded:

"Bill, stop being anal. The P-51 features a lower lift wing, lower HP engine, is heavier etc etc, in short it's another a/c. The reason the FW-190 A-8 D-9 can be compared so directly is because they both use the same wing, but because of differences in fuselage design and another engine one has less drag and more power, hence a better turn rate. It's very simple really, and I'm pretty astounded that you haven't gotten it yet."

Note again I'm just trying to stick to the original argument about the turn performance of the D-9 A-8, but somehow you insist upon the P-51 getting involved.

I then proceeded in my next post to present the flat plate areas of the FW-190A D amongst other a/c, as-well as the official FW aerodynamics charts of the 190 152 series, again just to show the lower drag of the D-9 vs the A-8. You however didn't get the message and emmidiately got on the defensive and responded:

"You have the drag figures for comparison between the Anton and Dora?

So, Soren, explain how the P-51B was faster than both with inferior aerodynamics and power. Ditto on climb, or every close performance comparison in all regimes?

It is pretty clear that I'm a little 'slow' because I challenge quite a bit of what you say when not accompanied by a fact base... and, if the Dora was so clean, why the issues with the engine seal in attaining predicted speeds from wind tunnel drag?

And the engine power of a P-51B/D is less than an Fw 190A-8? at what altitudes? and if the performance of the 51B is better than the Dora, how could that be for a heavier aircraft with lesser aerodynamics"

So I'm thinking WTF is going on here ?? Is the guy at all reading what I write or does he just want to pick a fight ???

 

[Soren]

Now you still don't seem to know what flat plate area refers to considering you can't read the chart I presented. f is the mathematical expression for flat plate area, and flat plate area represents the total drag of the a/c in the form of a flat plate held at 90 degrees against the airstream.

So is this chart hard to read or something?


Now as to what Caldwell wrote in his article compared to the data from his very own book provided by Kurfürst. Well;

Compared with the Fw I90A-8, the Dora-9:

1) with 40-50 more horsepower,had a greater level speed, climb rate, and ceiling,
2) had much better visibility to the rear, owing to its bubble canopy;
3) was much quieter - the Jumo 213A vibrated much less than the BMW 801; 4) handled better in steep climbs an turning, owing probably to its greater shaft horsepower at full throttle;
5) had less torque effect on takeoff or landing; and
6) had slightly greater endurance .

Now if this isn't contradicting what he earlier said then what ??

Like I said, Caldwell has shown quite clearly that he has little insight into the technical aspect, where'as Dietmar has covered this subject extensively.

 

[Soren]

As to the German comparative notes on the Dora-9 vs the Mustang as-well as a number of other a/c, well already out of town again so I can't provide them. But Thrawn I'm sure has Dietmar's book, and thus can provide the notes. Otherwise you'll have to wait.

Oh and regarding the A-8 vs D-9 subject, the D-9 isn't heavier than the A-8, it's 30 kg lighter and has available far more thrust and less drag (Read the FW chart). Now seeing that you were an aero engineer figuring out the rest should be a piece of cake for you Bill.

FW-190 D-9 thrust at 1,750 PS: 2,072 kg (2,227 kg at 2,100 PS with MW-50)
FW-190 A-8 thrust at 1,800 PS: 1,836 kg

So that's 250 kg more thrust with 50 less PS for the Dora-9, and on top of this it's lighter and less draggy.

It's really a no-brainer for anyone with even a slight insight into aerodynamics....

 

[renrich]

Hmmmmm, my reference shows A8 empty weight as 3470 kg whereas D9 as 3490 kg empty weight.

 

[Soren]

And your reference is more accurate than the actual original FW specs ?

Btw, the Ta-152H-1's 3,449 ft/min climb rate is at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM).

Davparlr,

Without the ETC-504 the Dora-9 climbs quicker than in your comparison, with an increase of 1.5 m/s in climb rate, so time to climb figures will be lower.

 

[renrich]

I have no idea. The infromation is from an article written by Robert Grinsell. He credits the following for helping him on the research: Herbert Kaiser, Oskar Romm,Guenther Schack, Werner Schroer, Dipl. Ing. Kurt Tank, Gerhard Thyben, Bundesarchiv, West Germany, Fokker G. m. b. H., Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm and United States Air Force. To me, reasonable people would concede that data on machinery built many decades ago can vary quite a bit based on many factors not the least of which is the individual machines. Therefore to maintain that one set of data is absolutely correct and another set that differs somewhat is incorrect does not seem reasonable to me. When debating about empty weight of an AC one does not know what piece of equipment may have been added or subtracted to cause a slight variance.

 

[chuckn49]

While I have no where near the technical expertise of many if not most of the posters in this forum I will, for old times sake, champion my favorite fighter/interceptor, the P-38L. I confess to a bias because my brother flew them with the 479th and later flew the P-51D. He always said that of the two, given his choice, he'd rather fly the P-38. I suppose he may have had a preference based on the fact that it was the first plane he flew in combat but, he said that his experience in air combat lead him to like the P-38's sub-20,000 ft. performance better than the 51's. Apparently, by the time he got into combat _mid-'44) many of the dogfights quickly got down below 20,000 and he felt no plane could out dive the 38. That's my recollection of his preferences. I wish he were here to participate but, sadly, he passed away 8 years ago.

Drgondog, I didn't realize your credentials until you posted them here since I am so new to this wonderful site. Let me say that as an old Army pilot, I really appreciated the effort of those Bell engineers when it came to the Huey and the Cobra. I flew both and loved them.

 

[renrich]

chuck, I don't have anything to add about P38 v P51 but I was glad to hear you mention your brother's comments about ACM at 20000 ft. I believe many of us on this forum wrongly put too much emphasis on high altitude combat and capabilities. I would bet that only a tiny minority of ACM took place above 25000 feet and most was well below that.