Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang

Colin1 · Jul 13, 2009

thor said:
pretty sure the weight of fire of many german aircraft is superior to 6 - 8 .50s and by all accounts the IL2 was very difficult to bring down ...

The Luftwaffe shot them down in droves
what the Luftwaffe couldn't do was shoot them down in enough droves
There's only so much armour you can sling around an aircraft before it becomes a barge hauling scrap iron - with all of the inherent handling characteristics.
I don't know how the P-51 would have fared against the Il-2 but I'm pretty certain in a fighter vs Il-2 scenario the weight of fire of the cannon-armed German bird would have weighed heavily in its favour vs the P-51's chances against the same aircraft.

Daviducus2 · Jul 13, 2009

I may be wrong but it is my understanding that the so called "flying tank" was the subject of a fanciful myth with respect to being extremely difficult to bring down. I seem to recall that it was a dog - a very slow, very unmanueverable dog. It's slow speed and inability to manuever gave attacking aircraft lots of opportunities for long, sustained hose downs of machine gun and cannon fire such that being able to take three times the amount of damage was offset by taking three times the offensive hits.

Am I incorrect?

lesofprimus · Jul 13, 2009

Yes and no Davidicus.... It WAS a hard plane to take down for the Germans, if u didnt know where to aim.... The Experten quickly figured out the Sturmoviks main flaw, the unarmored oil cooler under the engine...

One single rifle calibre round and the plane is done.....

Once the Luftwaffe boys realized this, thats where they aimed and the Sturmoviks started falling in droves.... Theres a reason why they decided to add a backseater, and it wasnt to take pictures...

Daviducus2 · Jul 13, 2009

I imagine they tried to stay on the deck to keep that soft white underbelly safe.

Daviducus2 · Jul 13, 2009

I just saw that IL-2 video you did to commemorate your grand dad. Very impressive.

drgondog · Jul 13, 2009

vanir said:
The Browning fifty certainly did suit US fighter training doctrine well. One point rarely considered is that different nations trained their pilots differently, well obviously due to different aircraft types in general use.
American pilots I'd give as having an emphasis of "laying down fire on the target" where Luftwaffe pilots were taught aerial marksmanship (the easiest form of which letting the target fill your windscreen before firing), for obvious reasons. Often they used centrally mounted single cannon.
Even the Lightning originally mounted the Oldsmobile cannon and a couple of defensive thirties, but this was switched almost immediately to a set of fifties with a Hispano for extra punch, maintaining that US fighter training doctrine I think.

How would you support your thesis of what seems to be 'Spray and Pray" and how do you compare German training doctrine vs US (USAAF, USN, USMC)??

But even so some P-38 pilots have said they liked the way firing at a target was a different thing than in another fighter type, you shot differently and some preferred the difference. But I think the other way was quicker to teach rookies, faster proficiency with lower expertise perhaps.

So I'd say in conclusion: centrally mounted cannon or wing mounted heavies was either/or very good.

Tow targets, skeet shooting, aircraft as targets of Frangible bullets (plus skeet shooting) were all part of each US Service Doctrine.

What was different about LW training?

drgondog · Jul 14, 2009

Soren said:
I agree with everything you say here Bill, but I can't say the same for what Caldwell writes. He has written some very odd stuff in his book on the JG 26, things which go against everything the pilots have said themselves. Some of this is listed in Dietmar Hermann's book.

Soren - The problem with accepting (or rejecting) anecdotal discussions - whether Caldwell, Rall, Galland, Carson, Brown, etc is that you have to accept the first hand experience as true for the individual quoted and then frame in context of other opinions at variance .

Ray Toliver, Trev Constable and Caldwell were accepted into the LW fighter pilot community and gained wide access to first hand perspectives as 'intermediaries'.

I am not saying Hermann is wrong, or that Georg Genth (Caldwell 109K-4) quoted 'control' issues were correct about handling qualities of the 109K anymore than I accept Kit Carson's dismissal of the 109 (at variance with my fathers observation) as an equal to the Mustang.

The problem is that it is unfair to cite one block of anecdotal comments over others at variance with opposite conclusions - or equally to dismiss one auther for his reproduction of interview comments because we don't like the implication?

You are a smart guy - you can take all of them and synthesize your own truth.

Soren · Jul 14, 2009

Bill,

We agree. But I wasn't really refering much to the things said about the 109, more those said about the Fw190 Dora 9 in the book. One of Caldwell's summaries go completely against all that any Fw190 Dora pilot has ever said, including the Rechlin testing results.

In his book Caldwell claims that the Dora featured worse turn performance than the Anton 8, which is at odds with all that is said by the pilots who flew both types. One of the true improvements according to the pilots to went from the A-8 to the Dora-9, was the much better turn climb performance of the Dora, and this opinion is mirrored by the Rechlin tests where both a/c were pitted against each other.

drgondog · Jul 14, 2009

Soren said:
Bill,

We agree. But I wasn't really refering much to the things said about the 109, more those said about the Fw190 Dora 9 in the book. One of Caldwell's summaries go completely against all that any Fw190 Dora pilot has ever said, including the Rechlin testing results.

In his book Caldwell claims that the Dora featured worse turn performance than the Anton 8, which is at odds with all that is said by the pilots who flew both types. One of the true improvements according to the pilots to went from the A-8 to the Dora-9, was the much better turn climb performance of the Dora, and this opinion is mirrored by the Rechlin tests where both a/c were pitted against each other.

You might recall that the same anecdotal recollection was caveated by stating that many of the early Fw 190D-9s were delivered initially without MW-50 tanks. He also noted on page 338 that the Dora climbed and dove and accelerated better than the Anton, while some expressed disappointment regarding turn and high altitude performance.

Dad (IIRC) remarked that 15-20K was 'no man's zone' where the P-51D and the Dora (only one available) were very close in turn and climb and acceleration - both ships were flown by each pilot in the unofficial four pilot review team. All remarked the climb at those altitudes were very close to each other but a 51B-15 had a better initial climb rate and seemed to turn better with the Dora. He was equally firm that the Dora fell way off at 25-30K and further as the altitude increased...

He said the Dora was a little bit faster on the deck and had a better initial climb rate than also the 51B.

25 hours will get you all you need to know on everything except wringing the last ounce out of turns in comparison... so the turn comparisons may be suspect based on long hours in a Dora. On the other hand - not very many Dora pilots had too many hours in the ship - lol!

davparlr · Jul 14, 2009

drgondog said:
Dad (IIRC) remarked that 15-20K was 'no man's zone' where the P-51D and the Dora (only one available) were very close in turn and climb and acceleration - both ships were flown by each pilot in the unofficial four pilot review team.

Flight test confirm this report. 15-20k was not a great altitude for the P-51D. I think it was kind of like in-between gears. The P-51D pilot best avoid these altitudes when fighting late '44 German fighters, like the Dora. At fighter weight, below 15k, the P-51D and the Dora were very equivalent in airspeed, swapping advantages about every 5k. The P-51D had a disadvantage to the Dora, ranging from slight to significant, in climb up to 20k. Above 20k the P-51D had an increasing edge in speed and climb.

All remarked the climb at those altitudes were very close to each other but a 51B-15 had a better initial climb rate and seemed to turn better with the Dora. He was equally firm that the Dora fell way off at 25-30K and further as the altitude increased...

The P-51B flew pretty much nose-to-nose in airspeed and climb from SL to 15k. Above 15k, the P-51B had increasingly better performance. At 20k the P-51B had about 15 mph edge and equal climb. The Dora performance fell away rather quickly after that, particularly in airspeed.

He said the Dora was a little bit faster on the deck and had a better initial climb rate than also the 51B.

Test indicate that the P-51B had a SL speed of 386 mph with the Dora at 385 mph. Both of these speeds are well within the error of the test equipment. The probable winner would be the plane that was feeling better on the test day. The Dora had a slight climb advantage over the B up to 15k

Soren · Jul 15, 2009

drgondog said:
You might recall that the same anecdotal recollection was caveated by stating that many of the early Fw 190D-9s were delivered initially without MW-50 tanks. He also noted on page 338 that the Dora climbed and dove and accelerated better than the Anton, while some expressed disappointment regarding turn and high altitude performance.

Dad (IIRC) remarked that 15-20K was 'no man's zone' where the P-51D and the Dora (only one available) were very close in turn and climb and acceleration - both ships were flown by each pilot in the unofficial four pilot review team. All remarked the climb at those altitudes were very close to each other but a 51B-15 had a better initial climb rate and seemed to turn better with the Dora. He was equally firm that the Dora fell way off at 25-30K and further as the altitude increased...

He said the Dora was a little bit faster on the deck and had a better initial climb rate than also the 51B.

25 hours will get you all you need to know on everything except wringing the last ounce out of turns in comparison... so the turn comparisons may be suspect based on long hours in a Dora. On the other hand - not very many Dora pilots had too many hours in the ship - lol!

I agree, it also sounds about right. Do you know wether MW-50 was used ?

Btw I was wondering, the Dora tested, might that have been the same Dora-13 as tested by the British? They didn't use MW-50, that I know, and the Dora outperformed the Tempest in their tests.

drgondog · Jul 15, 2009

Soren said:
I agree, it also sounds about right. Do you know wether MW-50 was used ?

Btw I was wondering, the Dora tested, might that have been the same Dora-13 as tested by the British? They didn't use MW-50, that I know, and the Dora outperformed the Tempest in their tests.

Soren - I do have pics of the FW 190A two seater and the Me 109 two seater but not the Dora at Gablingen. I have no clue regarding the MW 50 but AFAIK it would have been up to date. There were several LW Ground Crew which kept the a/c in 'good shape' (whatever that means). He was certain it was a D-9 but who knows.

This wasn't a test vehicle - just one of several scattered all over Gablingen airfield when the 355th got there in July 1945. My guess is that the best one was rigged for flying and the others were used for spares. He also mentioned getting the correct fuel required some creative 'scrounging' by his crew chief.

He liked the Dora but felt the two seater 190A was more fun to fly, even if slower.

Anybody have a notion regarding specific model number for these two?

wwii:)aircraft · Jul 25, 2009

Overall I think the p-51d was superior to the dora: it was faster, had a better dive, better armament, and was probably just as maneuverable. If the dora came in earlier in the war like in 1943, it would have dominated the skies the main reason being that the german pilots were much more experienced than the american or british. And also Soren, the maximum speed of the dora was 426 mph.

Other fw190ds such as the D-12 were more superior to the p51d and would have conquered the skies until planes like the p-51h and spitfire xiv entered serivce.

butcher bird · Mar 9, 2010

my favorite airplane of ww2! mustang pilots were very barbaric flyers. they must have been terrified of
the german flyers. they made a habit of shooting the poor fellows hanging in the silk.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 9, 2010

butcher bird said:
my favorite airplane of ww2! mustang pilots were very barbaric flyers. they must have been terrified of
the german flyers. they made a habit of shooting the poor fellows hanging in the silk.

That is about the 3rd dumbest post I've ever seen on here. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and review the rules of this forum before you go off making ignorant post like this - and I'm only going to give you one warning!!!

For that gem of a post, you get an avatar

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 9, 2010

Why do I see a dim future here?

beaupower32 · Mar 9, 2010

This one seems to be a real winner here.........

Njaco · Mar 10, 2010

Bill, didn't find a wk number but 2 more pics of Bf 109 2 seaters. One might be a different angle of the pic you posted?

drgondog · Mar 10, 2010

Njaco said:
Bill, didn't find a wk number but 2 more pics of Bf 109 2 seaters. One might be a different angle of the pic you posted?

The one I posted had a "60" on the Fuselage in front of cross...nothing aft... plus a white spiral on the spinner. Doesn't seem to be a match

bobbysocks · Mar 10, 2010

looks like almost the same canopy configuration as the me 108...

Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Brigadier General

Airman

Airman

Major

Major

1st Lieutenant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Major

Attachments

Airman

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Attachments

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads