Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Was thinking that
drgondog
Major
Pilots and crews were shot in their chutes from both sides, as well as murdered by civilians when they landed safely -
The USAAF pretty much understood that there were more bomber crews in chutes than German fighter crews at any one time... so a 'shooting war' against a man hanging in his chute was not in their best interests.
Having said this I believe you need to consider which group of fighter pilots were always eager to engage the enemy fighter pilots - and which ones weren't - before making a silly statement like the one you made.
With all respect to the rules of the forum i must say that shooting german pilots after paqachuting was a quite common practice for american pilots. It is supported by several books. Me 262 Arrow to the future ,JG26 war diary, Luftwaffe fighter Ace (by Norbert Hanning),jg301/302 by Reschke , The war diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert , ( Heinz Ewald among those attacked in parachute) to name a few .Many accomplished german pilots are known to have died this way .We can not equal the many cases of american attacks with the sporadic cases of the Luftwaffe (i know an oblt. of I/JG27 in Africa being suspect of such behavior) The argument that there were much more us bomber crews in danger by susch tactics proves nothing .Further proof is the fact that it was standard procedure for german crews bailing out to open their parachutes as late as possible to minimize their exposure to such americans attacks .
Also i have readen that during the Dresden bombing american escort fighters strafed fire brigades and rescue teams that were trying to approach the burning city. Source: History of WW2 , Paris-Match I miss the author although is extremely famous.
Please dont accuse me of hating americans . The helped most for victory , but they had their dark times too.
A comment about the main subject. D9 when fuctioning properly in my opinion is clearly superior in 1vs1 to p51 but 1) its production was very late ordered without reason b) was not given the proper engine -DB603- so above 7000m was in disadvantage .AS a result its presence did not influenced at all the events. I see no reason why a DB603A FW190 could not be in production from the summer 1943
I apologise for my english
Also i have readen that during the Dresden bombing american escort fighters strafed fire brigades and rescue teams that were trying to approach the burning city. Source: History of WW2 , Paris-Match I miss the author although is extremely famous.
Please dont accuse me of hating americans . The helped most for victory , but they had their dark times too.
A comment about the main subject. D9 when fuctioning properly in my opinion is clearly superior in 1vs1 to p51 but 1) its production was very late ordered without reason b) was not given the proper engine -DB603- so above 7000m was in disadvantage .AS a result its presence did not influenced at all the events. I see no reason why a DB603A FW190 could not be in production from the summer 1943
I apologise for my english
Your point being? Luftwaffe pilots were just as likely to shoot down allied pilots in their parachutes.
And the Luftwaffe was not guilty of this? It has been documented on many occasions that the Luftwaffe strafed civilians during the invasion of Poland and the Battle of Britain and throughout the war.
Neither side was "innocent". It was total war and both sides did such things. One can not point the finger at one side however when the other is just as guilty. The allies may have been less likely to do such things had the Luftwaffe not started it first!
And the Luftwaffe was not guilty of this? It has been documented on many occasions that the Luftwaffe strafed civilians during the invasion of Poland and the Battle of Britain and throughout the war.
Neither side was "innocent". It was total war and both sides did such things. One can not point the finger at one side however when the other is just as guilty. The allies may have been less likely to do such things had the Luftwaffe not started it first!
Last edited:
my point is that americans had their dark moments too and must admit them . Of course luftwaffe is guilty too. Is guilty of Warsow , Amstrrntam ,Pireus and dozens other bombings. But i can not accept that shooting chutes was as often in Luftwaffe as in Usaaf . Not even close. During all the years that i study the period have met many times reports of american chute shootings. The opposit extremely rarely. Even Goering had spoken against such actions . I repeat that german were guilty for many other cases. My country suffered greatly from their war.What bothers me is that us do not recognise their -few-mistakes . RAF too. Bomber Harris is recognised as an Hero .
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Spellcheck, it works wonders....
drgondog
Major
Your english is better than my german so no comment there.
Only three points. Fighter pilots strafing fire brigades and rescue teams would have no clue what they were, ditto trains unless red crosses were present. Too bad they got shot up, if true, but easy to mistake for trrop carriers at 400 mph and 1000 feet above them. The same applies to a Mustang chasing a 109 or 190 on the deck and shooting at it over a city - he would not let it get away, or even consider what the 50 caliber rounds would do ut ahaed of his prey - ditto the German pilot chasing a Mustang.
Second, as you implied - killing civilians in a factory or a city or a school or a church is not what most soldires strived for.
Last - The Numerous accounst of B-17 and B-24 crews shot in their chutes and/or hung by German civilians or executed by their German captors. Not exactly Geneva conventions - nor was shooting a German pilot in a chute..
I suspect a riddled body dangling in the chute could also have been that way before or during bail out as much as helpless in a chute.
Last - I personally am not too bothered by strafing an airplane on the ground with the pilot still in it - I have seen combat film from both sides showing the act and the results.
I don't think anybody here thinks American soldiers and airmen and sailors were 'pure and noble' - but once you were captured by Americans you were better off than your 'free countrymen' back home.
PS One of my uncles was shot in his chute at Nijmegen (dangling in a tree) during Operation Market Garden by SS - and another one of my uncles was a 5th Ranger who liberated Dachau... you can imagine the fate of the German guards there.
Goering is not a good source for such things. The man is a fat ignorant drug abusing piece of ****, who got off easy by committing suicide!
drgondog
Major
Since you quoted JG26 War Diary you wish to go back and read the comments from the Dora pilots that expected to sweep the skies of Mustangs with it - and didn't.
As to 'clearly superior'?? in what way. They were two evenly matched fighters with the Dora ending on the short end because of lack of pilot skills, maintenance issues and poor training at that stage of the war.
But reflect backward in time when the Me 109 and Fw 190 should have been 'superior' against the P-47 in 1943. Didn't work out well then either. There is more to air combat than performance of the aircraft but you are invited to enumerate the points that make the D-9 clearly superior to a P-51D (or B) operating with 150 octane fuel at up to 75" boost.
Sir drgondog , i disagree almost always with your posts but i respect everyones opinion and i will try to back my opinion with facts.
1) In 1943 Fw 190 and Bf109 were generaly superior to P47 especialy before the advent of paddle propellers.The reason that they did not scored heavily against P47 was the mission profile of the Jug. High altitude (30000 ft) sweeps denying combat at lower altitude.German fighters controllers simply ignored them .As long as they did not involved in the lower batlles between Raf and germans they were harmless. Occasionaly did dived and scored some surprise victories. In late 1943 the main target of Luftwaffe were the bombers and did not engaged the escort( a wrong tactic in my opinion ) In the crusial months of winter and spring of 1944 P47 was clearly superior. By the time DB605AS and MW50 were intriduced it was all over
2) Reading carefully JG26 war diary can somene find that there are controversial opinions about FW190D9 flight performance. Some confirme the officials datas, some indicate under performing machines. Thats normal. In my original post i wrote "when Dora was factioning properly" . I add hear decent building quality and availability of equipment. I consider D9 superior if built ,equiped ,maintained as its designers planned. NO doubt in real life many examles were not up to specifications. If you add youngsters pilots, broken communications codes, bad tactis from Jagdwaffe divisional commanders, numerical inferiority, burned out staffel, gruppe, and geschwader commanderst, and of course inadequate performance over 7000m the results were normal.
3)Generally speaking P51 and Dora are in the same performance class. P51 is superior as escort fighter. D9 is superior as general air superiority fighter up to 7000m (D13 with jumo 213f is superior at all altitudes, with 213EB ,db603L even challenges P51H performance without sacfificing armor ,armour, and structural strength as -H did (the reason that did not see Korea service)
P51 has the lower aerodynamic resistance in level flight (as long as its wings are in perfect condition to achieve near laminar effect)but D has good aerodynamics too. The belly oil cooler of P51 is excellent performing but is vulnerable. D9s annular radiator is a good choise from aerodynamic point of view and heavily protected by 11mm armor ring (15mm in D13 and Ta152s) D9 wing produces more lift,and is much stronger with massive front spar. D9 has better power loading=better acceleretion+ wing loading (not much of a difference)+ ,wide blade propellers =better roc, guns on and near the cental axe of the aircraft , inclined seat, large ammo capacity , cannons, automatic engine controls=less pilot work load, EZ42 gyroscopic sight (okay, just a few examples), very good visibility(P51 too) , high speed manouverability ,was a good gun platform,wing fuel tanks in some sub variants, violent high speed stall characteristcs that while generaly is undesirable ,provided (by mistake) in the hands of experten a invaluable tool as last measure defence manouver. Had much more development potential ,in Ta 152 approached the limits of piston engined fighters without sacrificing anything .In addition of methanol -water had the choise of GN1 as well. Most important . The MOST important characteristic for air combat manouver is the rate of rall . Any fighter pilot of any era can confirm this . In this respect unquestionably Fw190D was superior. Was the summit. True, the pilot must be well trained to take advantage of superior roll but otherwise should not fly combat missions anyway. Boosted ailerons in future subvariants would further increase the rate. The myth that D had lower RoR than A is just that.A myth. The wing is the same minus the exterior cannons. Eric Brown tested a D9 without MW50 (no german aircraft was tested in captivity with MW50) and evaluatedit equal to Spit XIV just because of his much superior rate of roll.And he was in love with the handling of all Fws.
In the subject of high boost pressures in late war allied fighters i fully adupt the arguments of Kurfust. In additon i say that is not that simple to increase piston engines output.Just bring improve fuel and raise the boost pressure in a ALREADY operating engine. There are technical points and limitations .Dont forget we dont speak about racing cars, If break down just pull over. If break down you most propably die. If we accept your claims about 72" HG there was answer in form of C3+MW50 213A=2240ps, 213EB, 213F,DB603EC, DB603LA ,DB603L , 222E/F , all these engines ready for productin but the boys of B17s had other opinion . Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.
But P51 is the winner in the most crusial way: Was in the wright place ,in THE WRIGHT TIME. The hesitation of luftwaffe to introduce new types in order no to interupt production meant that Dora never had the chance to face the mustang in somewhat better odds.
Just my thouhts , if i wrote any inaccurancy please correct me.
1) In 1943 Fw 190 and Bf109 were generaly superior to P47 especialy before the advent of paddle propellers.The reason that they did not scored heavily against P47 was the mission profile of the Jug. High altitude (30000 ft) sweeps denying combat at lower altitude.German fighters controllers simply ignored them .As long as they did not involved in the lower batlles between Raf and germans they were harmless. Occasionaly did dived and scored some surprise victories. In late 1943 the main target of Luftwaffe were the bombers and did not engaged the escort( a wrong tactic in my opinion ) In the crusial months of winter and spring of 1944 P47 was clearly superior. By the time DB605AS and MW50 were intriduced it was all over
2) Reading carefully JG26 war diary can somene find that there are controversial opinions about FW190D9 flight performance. Some confirme the officials datas, some indicate under performing machines. Thats normal. In my original post i wrote "when Dora was factioning properly" . I add hear decent building quality and availability of equipment. I consider D9 superior if built ,equiped ,maintained as its designers planned. NO doubt in real life many examles were not up to specifications. If you add youngsters pilots, broken communications codes, bad tactis from Jagdwaffe divisional commanders, numerical inferiority, burned out staffel, gruppe, and geschwader commanderst, and of course inadequate performance over 7000m the results were normal.
3)Generally speaking P51 and Dora are in the same performance class. P51 is superior as escort fighter. D9 is superior as general air superiority fighter up to 7000m (D13 with jumo 213f is superior at all altitudes, with 213EB ,db603L even challenges P51H performance without sacfificing armor ,armour, and structural strength as -H did (the reason that did not see Korea service)
P51 has the lower aerodynamic resistance in level flight (as long as its wings are in perfect condition to achieve near laminar effect)but D has good aerodynamics too. The belly oil cooler of P51 is excellent performing but is vulnerable. D9s annular radiator is a good choise from aerodynamic point of view and heavily protected by 11mm armor ring (15mm in D13 and Ta152s) D9 wing produces more lift,and is much stronger with massive front spar. D9 has better power loading=better acceleretion+ wing loading (not much of a difference)+ ,wide blade propellers =better roc, guns on and near the cental axe of the aircraft , inclined seat, large ammo capacity , cannons, automatic engine controls=less pilot work load, EZ42 gyroscopic sight (okay, just a few examples), very good visibility(P51 too) , high speed manouverability ,was a good gun platform,wing fuel tanks in some sub variants, violent high speed stall characteristcs that while generaly is undesirable ,provided (by mistake) in the hands of experten a invaluable tool as last measure defence manouver. Had much more development potential ,in Ta 152 approached the limits of piston engined fighters without sacrificing anything .In addition of methanol -water had the choise of GN1 as well. Most important . The MOST important characteristic for air combat manouver is the rate of rall . Any fighter pilot of any era can confirm this . In this respect unquestionably Fw190D was superior. Was the summit. True, the pilot must be well trained to take advantage of superior roll but otherwise should not fly combat missions anyway. Boosted ailerons in future subvariants would further increase the rate. The myth that D had lower RoR than A is just that.A myth. The wing is the same minus the exterior cannons. Eric Brown tested a D9 without MW50 (no german aircraft was tested in captivity with MW50) and evaluatedit equal to Spit XIV just because of his much superior rate of roll.And he was in love with the handling of all Fws.
In the subject of high boost pressures in late war allied fighters i fully adupt the arguments of Kurfust. In additon i say that is not that simple to increase piston engines output.Just bring improve fuel and raise the boost pressure in a ALREADY operating engine. There are technical points and limitations .Dont forget we dont speak about racing cars, If break down just pull over. If break down you most propably die. If we accept your claims about 72" HG there was answer in form of C3+MW50 213A=2240ps, 213EB, 213F,DB603EC, DB603LA ,DB603L , 222E/F , all these engines ready for productin but the boys of B17s had other opinion . Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.
But P51 is the winner in the most crusial way: Was in the wright place ,in THE WRIGHT TIME. The hesitation of luftwaffe to introduce new types in order no to interupt production meant that Dora never had the chance to face the mustang in somewhat better odds.
Just my thouhts , if i wrote any inaccurancy please correct me.
drgondog
Major
We generally agree - and I admire the Dora as a superb fighter.
Mike Williams website has USAAF reports on all the subjects we have touched on. The reports he publishes are true copies - not propaganda. Some express personal and subjective opinions but those are easily identifiable.
I think both of us are technically astute and well read on the topics - and objective enough to concede certain debatable points.
My conclusions remain the same. The Mustang and the Dora were equivaelt fighters in the same vein that the Spitfire and the Me 109, generation to generation, were equivalent - as the Mustang and the Me 109G/Fw 190A until high altitudes were the battlefield. The Dora engine enabled it to compete at all altitudes
The Dora introduced high altitude capability that the 190A did not possess and improved the speed and climb - but suffered slightly with increased weight in manueverability.
Having stated my opinion I also re-affirm that the difference between these two ships was largely the guy in the cockpit.
PS - I personally had a long running and respectful debate with Brown on certain topics like Mcr on Mustang vs Fw 190 and simply, he was wrong in believing that the 190 had a higher Mcr.
At any rate I enjoyed ther debate and not too concerned that you don't agree my opinions.
BTW the two members who used the phrase 'clearly superior' when discussing the 190 Dora versus the Mustang were Ho Hun and Soren.. it brings back memories.
Last edited:
Sir drgondog ,
1) eyesight is certainly more important than any technical parameter of any fighter
2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?
3) I have not the slightest respect for M.Williams and his site. The man is biased ,cooks up evidences and documents , compares aplles with oranges. Kurfust has exposed him many times , has proven his in purpose wrong statements .
4) Kurfust is a well known researcher mainly of Bf 109 . He has presented evidence that 150octane fuel and high boost pressure in alleid fighters had many problems and sporadicaly used. Every Luftwaffe fun ,me included, who respects himself accept his arguments. I consider the 75" P51D against standard Jumo 213A +Mw50 D9 fully equal at all altitudes. (and much superior above 7000m)
5)Rate of roll important only for defence??? No sir ,i disagree . Aileron turns are most important in most offensive combat manouvers. It requires skills ,yes, e.g. deflection shooting capabielities.
6) The dominant factor in acceleration is power loading and propeller profile. Drag is secondary factor . Must be a huge diference in drug to see noticable results. P51 had a front plate equivelant surface 4,10ft2 ,d9 4,78ft2 , 190a 5,22ft2 .P51 a total wer area of 885ft2 ,d9 721 ft2 .Do you consider these diferences huges? Yes they affect speed, but not acceleration.
7) If you see 190s front wing spar you wiil understand
8) I respect your opinon .I respect ten times your father and i am certain that he reported exactly what he found. However i must notify that his impressions are in direct contradiction with dozen of reports from german pilots, both test pilots and operational pilots.As well as technical rules. Every german who flew the aircraft reported better turning than A model with normal propeller . Techically it make sense because D is slightily heavier but more powrful,have some exhaust thrust, and better aerodynamics. At least sustained turn rate must be better.
Give me a single techical reason why D should have notifiamble reduced RoR with the same wing minus external guns. Also while all accounts report that ailerons did decame heavier above 400mph all Fw had excellent high speed manouverability.
Your father reported exactly his founds but: He did not use Mw50 , ailerons were most propably not adjusted correctly, and general aircrafts situation acceptable for flights but not optimized.YOU CAN NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS OUT OF CAPTURED MACHINES . We dont even know if that particular example was properly built. Did your father had the knowledge to fly the aircraft to its limits? British test pilots reported poor turning for Bf109 but the were getting out of the turn as soon as slats started to deploy!!!!!Was he willing to take the risk of pushing an unKnown machine? Had the german flight instructions? Who maintenaid the aircraft? US personnel? Captured black men? Were they happy and cooperative ? Brown was sabotaged in a Ar234 by an prisoner black man. What kind of fuel they used ? I dont mean octanes , if it was cooperative with german injection and lubricants.( In no way i am saying if he was a good pilot i am sure he was excellent pilot, i ask if he was familiar with german equipment)
Anyway you are wriht after all Its close enough to consider pilot ability and tactilal situation and deploypment the desicive factors.
1) eyesight is certainly more important than any technical parameter of any fighter
2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?
3) I have not the slightest respect for M.Williams and his site. The man is biased ,cooks up evidences and documents , compares aplles with oranges. Kurfust has exposed him many times , has proven his in purpose wrong statements .
4) Kurfust is a well known researcher mainly of Bf 109 . He has presented evidence that 150octane fuel and high boost pressure in alleid fighters had many problems and sporadicaly used. Every Luftwaffe fun ,me included, who respects himself accept his arguments. I consider the 75" P51D against standard Jumo 213A +Mw50 D9 fully equal at all altitudes. (and much superior above 7000m)
5)Rate of roll important only for defence??? No sir ,i disagree . Aileron turns are most important in most offensive combat manouvers. It requires skills ,yes, e.g. deflection shooting capabielities.
6) The dominant factor in acceleration is power loading and propeller profile. Drag is secondary factor . Must be a huge diference in drug to see noticable results. P51 had a front plate equivelant surface 4,10ft2 ,d9 4,78ft2 , 190a 5,22ft2 .P51 a total wer area of 885ft2 ,d9 721 ft2 .Do you consider these diferences huges? Yes they affect speed, but not acceleration.
7) If you see 190s front wing spar you wiil understand
8) I respect your opinon .I respect ten times your father and i am certain that he reported exactly what he found. However i must notify that his impressions are in direct contradiction with dozen of reports from german pilots, both test pilots and operational pilots.As well as technical rules. Every german who flew the aircraft reported better turning than A model with normal propeller . Techically it make sense because D is slightily heavier but more powrful,have some exhaust thrust, and better aerodynamics. At least sustained turn rate must be better.
Give me a single techical reason why D should have notifiamble reduced RoR with the same wing minus external guns. Also while all accounts report that ailerons did decame heavier above 400mph all Fw had excellent high speed manouverability.
Your father reported exactly his founds but: He did not use Mw50 , ailerons were most propably not adjusted correctly, and general aircrafts situation acceptable for flights but not optimized.YOU CAN NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS OUT OF CAPTURED MACHINES . We dont even know if that particular example was properly built. Did your father had the knowledge to fly the aircraft to its limits? British test pilots reported poor turning for Bf109 but the were getting out of the turn as soon as slats started to deploy!!!!!Was he willing to take the risk of pushing an unKnown machine? Had the german flight instructions? Who maintenaid the aircraft? US personnel? Captured black men? Were they happy and cooperative ? Brown was sabotaged in a Ar234 by an prisoner black man. What kind of fuel they used ? I dont mean octanes , if it was cooperative with german injection and lubricants.( In no way i am saying if he was a good pilot i am sure he was excellent pilot, i ask if he was familiar with german equipment)
Anyway you are wriht after all Its close enough to consider pilot ability and tactilal situation and deploypment the desicive factors.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Jim, please be careful, you are getting close to disparging someone's family and war record. I hope thats not your intention.
i don't think so, jim write
"I respect ten times your father and i am certain that he reported exactly what he found." and "no way i am saying if he was a good pilot i am sure he was excellent pilot, i ask if he was familiar with german equipment"
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
No problem Jim. The smiley face appears sometimes because a character that was typed is meant as a smiley. In other words - as an example in some cases the number '7', when posted, may trigger a smiley face. Sometimes its better to spell out the word.
drgondog
Major
I didn't take it that way either.. have some work to do but will reply to your other questions soon. You have no problem with me.
Note - I am the current president of the 355th FG Association and have a lot of opportunity to question both the surviving pilots and crew chiefs... including one pilot (Bill Lyons 357FS/355FG) who shot a 190D down on February 9, 1945.
The only point I will make here and now is 'YES 150 Octane fuel was standard in July 1944 across the 8th AF - contrary to Kurfust's statements and in alignment with Williams - and YES there were problems with plugs fouling but no other performance reducing issues' - These are not statements from 'reports' they are statements from the individuals who lived and executed missions from Steeple Morden'
