No it is actually not even close. The Bf 108 has tandem seating and the canopy is a different layout.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was thinking thatNo it is actually not even close...
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.
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.
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 .
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
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 .
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
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
I agree - the root points. The mission envelope was however the bomber envelope and most fighter escort altitudes for USAAF was 24,000 -28,000. Water injection coupled with paddle blades boosted the Jug climb rate but it was still lower than the 109G until ~ 30,000 feet and the turbo supercharger made a significant difference. However battles were not often fought above 25-27K and most frequently went down hill
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.
Agreed, to the points of pilots and maintenance. Point still not made on 'clearly superior'.
My father flew a well maintained Dora at Gablingen after the war. His 25 hours does not make him an expert on the subject but his 2200 hours as a pilot and experience as a very talented fighter pilot flying this airplane against equally well maintained Mustangs (both B and D) flown by equally skilled pilots gave him an insight that neither you nor I have. His comment was that he liked the airplane, that it was certainly faster than the two seat 109A on the base but it was more sluggish in turn than either the 109 or the 190A or the P-51, that climb and acceleration and top speed were very close at all altitudes.
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)
The P-51H was designed at 1/2 G ultimate limit lower than D. Hard to know how that is relevant at all unless manuevering violently in compressiblity flight regime.
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.
It was not hard to maintain clean wings except for certain conditions like continent bases and muddy fields - primarily because the manufacturing quality of the wing was superb. In addition, the difference in drag also influences acceleration in subtle ways not calculable by 'power loading' calculations - ditto energy manueverability
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.
How do you make a judgment that the wing of a 190D is stronger than a 51? I would have to see the drawings, look at the structural analysis and see the destruct tests under similar conditions to make that statement..
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.
My father noted that the 190D did NOT have the same superb roll characteristics of the 190A - and both suffered degradation down to (and below) Mustang roll rates at high speeds. It is conceivable that it was not rigged properly but other USAAF test pilots had the same reaction.
Both outrolled the P-51 at medium and low speeds. Nevertheless I would give roll performance as 'superior'.. Nothing else you mentioned places it as 'clearly superior' and some are 'inferior. At the end of the day the high roll rate is essential when you are about to die. so the most essential characteristic is the eyesight of the pilots and the tactical position attainable
In the subject of high boost pressures in late war allied fighters i fully adupt the arguments of Kurfust.
Not exactly sure of which arguments you refer to but the 8th AF received 150 octane fuel in June 1944 and it delivered both the claimed performance as well as significant plug fouling issues - rendering changes every 25 hours. The Mustang had the fuel in full supply to all fighter bases by July, 1944. The 1650-7 engine was fully qualified for the fuel to your point below.
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 .
Please don't accept my 'claims' of 72" (or 75") - look it up. And it was 90" (max) for the P-51H with the 1650-9 and WI... although only 80" during WWII - Those are documented facts not opinions
Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.
Please don't accept it - just look it up in the P-51H pilot's handbook published by the USAF
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.
Jim, please be careful, you are getting close to disparging someone's family and war record. I hope thats not your intention.
I did not have any intention to insult anyone, specially a war veteran from my safe PC .I dont know how that face appeard in my post. I am not very accastomed to blog postigs.