Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang (1 Viewer)

[Kurfürst]

eh, Contrary to what?

I would rather represent myself, thank you... Besides just to make it clear, and short, my position being:

8th AAF FC had it,
15th AAF FC did not (to my best knowledge)
the RAF FC/ADGB didnt, save for a handful of Sqns on anti diver missions, when that ended, even those didnt get it anymore
the 2nd TAF didnt get it either, not until jan/febr 45, and only for Spit sqns (tiffies/tempest wouldnt benefit anways). As per Berger, the stuff was troublesome and they reverted back to lower graded b4 the war ended.. in short in real operstional use, they had, for about two months at the wars end, at +25 a spit 9 that was equal to the boosted G6s and G14s the jerries had for a year by then, and were already phasing out by 1945...

A couple of ironies I like to mention...

- Though the brits produced the stuff mostly, yanks used almost all of it for their fighters
- while MW and his bunch were campaigning for this 150 stuff for years, quite obviously in hope that this was the magic stuff Allied planes had and LW ones didnt, our research reveals the jerries had it a year before the brits, and produced and used the magic stuff in far greater quanties.. not that it would matter IMHO that much, just being a bit here

 

[drgondog]

eh, Contrary to what?

I would rather represent myself, thank you... Besides just to make it clear, and short, my position being:

8th AAF FC had it,
15th AAF FC did not (to my best knowledge)
the RAF FC/ADGB didnt, save for a handful of Sqns on anti diver missions, when that ended, even those didnt get it anymore
the 2nd TAF didnt get it either, not until jan/febr 45, and only for Spit sqns (tiffies/tempest wouldnt benefit anways). As per Berger, the stuff was troublesome and they reverted back to lower graded b4 the war ended.. in short in real operstional use, they had, for about two months at the wars end, at +25 a spit 9 that was equal to the boosted G6s and G14s the jerries had for a year by then, and were already phasing out by 1945...

A couple of ironies I like to mention...

- Though the brits produced the stuff mostly, yanks used almost all of it for their fighters
- while MW and his bunch were campaigning for this 150 stuff for years, quite obviously in hope that this was the magic stuff Allied planes had and LW ones didnt, our research reveals the jerries had it a year before the brits, and produced and used the magic stuff in far greater quanties.. not that it would matter IMHO that much, just being a bit here

Kurfurst - if my memory of your dispute with Mike Williams regarding the delivery of 150 fuel is correct you made several statements that the 8th AF did not have the fuel operational until the fall of 1944.

If my memory is not correct and you supported his claims that the fuel was delivered in June and operational in all 15 Fighter Groups then let me apologize. Are you now in agreement with the timing?

As to 8th had it and Jerries didn't - that isn't my thesis. Mine is the 8th had it and used it effectively to boost emergency power quite effectively and it was in service from late June through the end of the war. Period. The end.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Kurfürst]

To cut it short, I have no problem with the 8th AAF deliveries... the numbers are there (20 000 tons per month IIRC, and that through the conflict from about June 44.)

The only thing I am unsure about are P-47s and esp. the P-38s - the latter were, more or less, withdrawn at around the time the new juice arrived. The other thing that is hazy is wheater 72" or 75" was the limit on Mustangs; that they used the fuel and enjoyed a significant boost in performance (and some maintance difficulties, re: spark plug life) is not.

The RAF otoh is another question though.

 

[drgondog]

Sir drgondog ,
1) eyesight is certainly more important than any technical parameter of any fighter

We both agree

2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?

Because it was still a first line long range interceptor and escort for SAC and the 18th and 35th FBW were equipped with D's - on location in Japan - further there was zero advantage to deploying the P-51H to Korea when its enhanced performance over a D made no difference in ground support role.

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 .

OK to disagree but not necessarily correct - Kurfurst has been damaged from time to time, as all of us have, in these debates

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)

Kurfust would be correct if the assertion you refer to is fouling of plugs - 'sporadic use' would not be correct. Early plug failures, not fully resolved until a new plug with different operating temperatures, limited normal plug life to 25 hours before complete change.

Except for his first three weeks of combat June 6-June 30 he used 150 octane fuel in his Mustang 100% through April 1945. The Fighter Groups did not have the 'option' to pick and choose the type fuel delivered to their storage batteries - that was WAY above their pay grade.

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.

Max Roll is critical to evade an opponent on your tail - to a.) get out of line of fire, and b.) enter either a sharp turn or c.) continue to roll and reverse when you have the advantage. Deflection shots based on max aileron input and hard stick would be luck - not skill

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.

Of course drag affects acceleration but power loading and propeller efficiency is more important if drag is close. They all (parasite, induce drag) influence acceleration but power loading is more important initially and while in the middle range of the drag bucket. At the high end of the drag bucket, drag becomes increasingly important when the available thrust of the engine/propeller system diminishes.

7) If you see 190s front wing spar you wiil understand

Here is what I understand - the spar design of any airframe (WWII for sure) is calculated to take out bending loads by translating the bending to compression on one cap/skin component and tension on the opposite cap/skin component. The web in a classic "I of H" spar has to be sized to ensure the shear stress between the tension and compression cap are not in excess of allowable stresses.

Next - that height of the beam is limited by the depth (or thickness) of the airfoil at the point on the chord where the spar is located. For a thin wing you need greater cap area, top and bottom, for a tall wing smaller cap areas may be considered. Local skin thickness (top and bottom) of the wing is an important consideration in sizing the spar caps.

Next - torsion due to the resultant loads applied eccentrically to the spar as well as aereoelastic bending caused by such eccentric loads as aileron input, wing stiffness, etc offer different approaches to sizing (and placement of secondary beam member - like wing/flap intrerface) of primary and secondary spars.

Soren and I got into a lengthy and heated discussion of probable cause of Fw 190 violent stall characteristics - I suspected that it was a combination of no washout for the last 20% of the wing couples with a possible torsion over load due to the aileron input of the high wing (higer lift/higher relative AoA)

But I am not sure. The Fw 190D also had the same wing - correct?

The point I want to make is that a mark one eyeball inspection of a spar tells you nothing - you need the drawings, the loads, and the structural analysis to read between the lines.

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.

I have no problem with your comments. There is no way to postulate that my father's impressions of the Gablingen Dora versus the two seater Fw190A are valid, but they are against the Mustang, at least to the point that he was flying against very good pilots in well maintained Mustangs and made the judgment that the Dora was an excellent airplane.

My father's conclusions were certainly "anecdotal' based on informal rat racing with fellow highly skilled Mustang pilots - with no controlled set of tests other than flying in line abreast formation and evaluating climb and acceleration, flying in trail to evaluate turn.

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.

Simply stated there is No technical reason I would offer to differentiate roll rate for the A versus the D. Removal of most wing armament for the D should reduce the rolling rate of intertia, the wing span and shape are the same because it is the same wing and I am not aware of any additions to outboard wing stations for the Dora.

Having said this, engine torque probably was higher in the Dora so a roll complimenting the engine torque should slightly enhance the Dora over the Anton for that vector while the roll direction opposite the torque vector should reduce the roll rate in comparison with the Anto for the same turn.

Rigging can also bequestioned for my father's experience- but not necessarily

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 .

Ergo - no conclusions may be drawn as all comparisons between a Dora and a Mustang were made with captured machines - yes? As to optimization no conclusions may be drawn either. I don't know that Mw50 was or was not used.

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.

The aircraft was maintained by a former Luftwaffe crew chief that my father personally paid to keep the three servicable aircraft (Me 109G two seater, Fw 190A two seater, and Fw 190D-9) in excellent shape. I suspect he (Blackgang) was motivated by pride in the ships he maintained and may have had a vested interest in staying on the payroll by keeping them in good flying shape.

As to flying the airplane to its limits - hard to say and I would speculate 'no way of knowing' . He was motivated to beat Fortier's and Hovde's and Elder's butts in the rat races - he was extremely competitive. He was a 2200 hour pilot before leaving Training Command and joining the 355th. He only had 3 hours in a Mustang when he flew his first mission and shot his first german a/c down and had only 20 more hours when he downed two 109s and a probable over Bergen on June 20.

He was regarded as the best 'stick man' by many that flew with him - so I would say in 25 hours he would have found most of the 'do's and don'ts' in the Dora but could not say whether a very good pilot could become very skilled in the Dora in that time.

Ditto the 109G and the 190A. They were rather unique with two seat config so who knows what the handling characteristics were.

I have enjoyed this discussion - you are knowledgable about your subjects

Regards,

Bill

 

[drgondog]

To cut it short, I have no problem with the 8th AAF deliveries... the numbers are there (20 000 tons per month IIRC, and that through the conflict from about June 44.)

The only thing I am unsure about are P-47s and esp. the P-38s - the latter were, more or less, withdrawn at around the time the new juice arrived. The other thing that is hazy is wheater 72" or 75" was the limit on Mustangs; that they used the fuel and enjoyed a significant boost in performance (and some maintance difficulties, re: spark plug life) is not.

The RAF otoh is another question though.

Kurfurst - let me do a little digging. First "72" was the recommended max boost for 5 minutes (max) and engines were blown.. there are documented examples of "75" but my father never used that much boost to my knowledge.

The 1650-9 in the P-51H was rated at 80" with the Simmonds boost control and 90" when WI (and all eles) functioned properly. The placard was 80" for WEP

I believe the 47D-25 and above used the 150 octane fuel but I am NOT certain

 

[Milosh]

eh, Contrary to what?
A couple of ironies I like to mention...

- Though the brits produced the stuff mostly, yanks used almost all of it for their fighters
- while MW and his bunch were campaigning for this 150 stuff for years, quite obviously in hope that this was the magic stuff Allied planes had and LW ones didnt, our research reveals the jerries had it a year before the brits, and produced and used the magic stuff in far greater quanties.. not that it would matter IMHO that much, just being a bit here

The Germans had 150 grade C3 fuel in 1943?

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

Why was 150 octane not found in the test results?

See also Report No. 2197 dated Sept. 16 1943.

 

[Vincenzo]

The Germans had 150 grade C3 fuel in 1943?

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

Why was 150 octane not found in the test results?

See also Report No. 2197 dated Sept. 16 1943.

as for i understand the docs give the impression the C-3 (after changes in '43) in rich mixture was around 150 octane or for precison around 120% of U.S. 130 grade

 

[Milosh]

Where do you get that from Vincenzo?

 

[Kurfürst]

Just one quicky question, Milosh - have you been, by any chance, permanently banned twice from this discussion board..?

 

[butcher bird]

Spellcheck, it works wonders....

flyboy,how well are you fluent in german? wandering minds would like to know. give jim a break! i vote to have you replaced as a moderator.

 

[Vincenzo]

Where do you get that from Vincenzo?

so you don't read your link?
page 13 the alone full analisys of C-3, on page 9 there is a anticipation when spring '43 samples in rich mixture go over 125

 

[Njaco]

Butcher, you're getting close to the edge. If you can't post something that contributes to the thread, don't post. If you have a beef with a Mod, I would suggest taking it up in a PM - not open in a thread.

verstehen Sie?

 

[beaupower32]

flyboy,how well are you fluent in german? wandering minds would like to know. give jim a break! i vote to have you replaced as a moderator.

I think that future just got dimmer.

 

[Njaco]

I just read that post again and thats a flat out attack on Joe. He was already warned and hes gone.

 

[beaupower32]

And the lights out!

 

[Njaco]

Its one thing to have a problem and discuss it in a PM or an intelligent post but 4 posts of trash and he was warned.

Now back to the gasoline thread.

 

[davparlr]

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.

Trying to civilize war fighting is a mostly useless enterprise. Brutality occurs and to criticize one side or the other is usually a hypocritical effort by those who were not in the situation. As far as shooting airmen in parachutes, my thoughts are this, that airman in the parachute represents a deadly enemy asset who may climb into a plane tomorrow and shoot down a bomber or fighter and kill countrymen of mine, or me. I doubt anyone would blame a soldier for shooting a sniper in the back trying to flee a position because his gun jammed, he could get another gun. A pilot could do the same only be more deadly. He is not surrendering, only moving to another position. I am sure that most of the occurrences of shooting airmen in parachutes were over enemy territory where they could return to combat. In my opinion, it should be command policy if over enemy territory. If this sounds barbaric I am sorry, but war is barbaric.

This does not cover obvious atrocities that are even beyond the uncivilized nature of war like starving civilians to death or gassing them to eradicate a race, test chemicals or germs on civilians to determine effects, or to march POWs to collapse and then bayonet them because they fell. These had no contribution to the conclusion of the war. I won't tell you I don't have a problem with some of the fire bombings or the A-bomb, but I do believe they contributed to the shortening of the war, some more than others.

It bothers me that people sit back in an easy chair and pass judgment on events occurring sixty years ago in situations in the heat of battle where emotions and adrenalin generated from life-threatening battle may generate brutality. We've seen this with policemen in car chases. In the Pacific, there were no prisoners taken by the Japanese, or the Marines. That was the accepted nature of war there.

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

Based on test reports and German performance reports, the P-51B, at fighter weight, flies nose to nose with the Fw-190D-9 in airspeed and climb up to 4500m, but by 6000m, the P-51B was clearly superior in these areas, especially airspeed. The P-51D was slight less capable than the B, but not by a whole lot and slightly better than the Fw-190D-9 at 6000m and significantly so at 7600m.

(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)

You need to justify your comment about the armor, the P-51H was lightened by using the Spitfire load factors for design and the Spitfire was not noted for being a weak design. I have no data that indicates reduction of armor was not part of this lightening. As far as the D13 is concerned, being a bit facetious, was there more than one?

I'll comment on Korea later.

D9 has better power loading=better acceleretion+ wing loading (not much of a difference)+ ,wide blade propellers =better roc

Actually, the ROC of the Fw-190D-9 was only better than the P-51B at 3000m and then only about 200 f/m better (4134 f/m to 3900 f/m). Below that they were equal, above that the P-51 was increasing in advantage.
The P-51D had a larger disadvantage, only catching up to the Fw at 6000m.

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

I don't understand the rationale behind this comment. It is well documented, in engineering test by USAAF and RAF, that increased boost allowed by improved fuel significantly improved performance. As result of these tests, the P-51 was cleared by AAF Materiel Command to go to 75" Hg although there was some operational limitations to 72". So you are saying the testers really didn't know what they were doing? Sure, there were concerns, but apparently worth the effort.

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 .

It is interesting to note that the Merlin 1650-9, a contemporary of the above engines was capable of 2240 hp and was still two thirds the size of the DB603 and 77% the size of the Jumo 213 and was 300 lbs lighter than either.

Some other contemporary allied fighter engines were the awesome Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57 which produces 2800 hp at 10,000 m (33k ft) in the P-47M/N, the P&W 3460 (powering the XP-72 and the F2G) producing 3000 to 3450 hp, and various British engines. All these engines, including the Germans, were obsolete.

Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.

The 487 mph I believe is a North American calculation. I believe a more realistic number is between 470 to 480 mph.

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

I agree with you completely. I have never understood why the Germans did not develop a dominating high altitude point defense fighter, a much easier job that a dominating escort fighter, in 1943 when they should have anticipated increasing American escorting aircraft. Even the P-47s and P-38s could have been expected to increase in performance and certainly in quantity, they already had very good high altitude performance. The Germans really needed a good high altitude fighter by early '44. I do not think the Dora would have been the answer. It still could not out perform the allied escorts at bomber altitude and above. Maybe an early Bf-109K.

2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?

In my opinion there are probably two main reasons, first was the proliferation of P-51Ds and parts, and second, the P-51H was designed specifically to be a high performing air-to-air fighter based on the proven lighter Spitfire load factors. By 1950, the AF had abandoned prop planes for air-to-air and thus needed better air-to-ground capability which the heavier built P-51D would be a better selection.

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 .

All the data I use from this site is data from flight test or military/contractor documents and I suspect drgondog does the same. So, if you have proof that these have been altered to benefit a side, present it. Otherwise, this comment adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[davparlr]

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.

Trying to civilize war fighting is a mostly useless enterprise. Brutality occurs and to criticize one side or the other is usually a hypocritical effort by those who were not in the situation. As far as shooting airmen in parachutes, my thoughts are this, that airman in the parachute represents a deadly enemy asset who may climb into a plane tomorrow and shoot down a bomber or fighter and kill countrymen of mine, or me. I doubt anyone would blame a soldier for shooting a sniper in the back trying to flee a position because his gun jammed, he could get another gun. A pilot could do the same only be more deadly. He is not surrendering, only moving to another position. I am sure that most of the occurrences of shooting airmen in parachutes were over enemy territory where they could return to combat. In my opinion, it should be command policy if over enemy territory. If this sounds barbaric I am sorry, but war is barbaric.

This does not cover obvious atrocities that are even beyond the uncivilized nature of war like starving civilians to death or gassing them to eradicate a race, test chemicals or germs on civilians to determine effects, or to march POWs to collapse and then bayonet them because they fell. These had no contribution to the conclusion of the war. I won't tell you I don't have a problem with some of the fire bombings or the A-bomb, but I do believe they contributed to the shortening of the war, some more than others.

It bothers me that people sit back in an easy chair and pass judgment on events occurring sixty years ago in situations in the heat of battle where emotions and adrenalin generated from life-threatening battle may generate brutality. We've seen this with policemen in car chases. In the Pacific, there were no prisoners taken by the Japanese, or the Marines. That was the accepted nature of war there.

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

Based on test reports and German performance reports, the P-51B, at fighter weight, flies nose to nose with the Fw-190D-9 in airspeed and climb up to 4500m, but by 6000m, the P-51B was clearly superior in these areas, especially airspeed. The P-51D was slight less capable than the B, but not by a whole lot and slightly better than the Fw-190D-9 at 6000m and significantly so at 7600m.

(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)

You need to justify your comment about the armor, the P-51H was lightened by using the Spitfire load factors for design and the Spitfire was not noted for being a weak design. I have no data that indicates reduction of armor was not part of this lightening. As far as the D13 is concerned, being a bit facetious, was there more than one?

I'll comment on Korea later.

D9 has better power loading=better acceleretion+ wing loading (not much of a difference)+ ,wide blade propellers =better roc

Actually, the ROC of the Fw-190D-9 was only better than the P-51B at 3000m and then only about 200 f/m better (4134 f/m to 3900 f/m). Below that they were equal, above that the P-51 was increasing in advantage.
The P-51D had a larger disadvantage, only catching up to the Fw at 6000m.

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

I don't understand the rationale behind this comment. It is well documented, in engineering test by USAAF and RAF, that increased boost allowed by improved fuel significantly improved performance. As result of these tests, the P-51 was cleared by AAF Materiel Command to go to 75" Hg although there were some operational limitations to 72". So you are saying the testers really didn't know what they were doing? Sure, there were concerns, but apparently worth the effort.

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 .

It is interesting to note that the Merlin 1650-9, a contemporary of the above engines was capable of 2240 hp and was still two thirds the size of the DB603 and 77% the size of the Jumo 213 and was 300 lbs lighter than either.

Some other contemporary allied fighter engines were the awesome Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57 which produces 2800 hp at 10,000 m (33k ft) in the P-47M/N, the P&W 3460 (powering the XP-72 and the F2G) producing 3000 to 3450 hp, and various British engines. All these engines, including the Germans, were obsolete.

Finally i must say that i am very sceptical about the 487mph of P51H . But maybe i am wrong.

The 487 mph I believe is a North American calculation. I believe a more realistic number is between 470 to 480 mph.

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

I agree with you completely. I have never understood why the Germans did not develop a dominating high altitude point defense fighter, a much easier job that a dominating escort fighter, in 1943 when they should have anticipated increasing American escorting aircraft. Even the P-47s and P-38s could have been expected to increase in performance and certainly in quantity, they already had very good high altitude performance. The Germans really needed a good high altitude fighter by early '44. I do not think the Dora would have been the answer. It still could not out perform the allied escorts at bomber altitude and above. Maybe an early Bf-109K.

2) Why P51H was not chosen for Korean war service?

In my opinion there are probably two main reasons, first was the proliferation of P-51Ds and parts, and second, the P-51H was designed specifically to be a high performing air-to-air fighter based on the proven lighter Spitfire load factors. By 1950, the AF had abandoned prop planes for air-to-air and thus needed better air-to-ground capability which the heavier built P-51D would be a better selection.

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 .

All the data I use from this site is data from flight test or military/contractor documents and I suspect drgondog does the same. So, if you have proof that these have been altered to benefit a side, present it. Otherwise, this comment adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[drgondog]

Dave - here is the 51H handbook - not NAA performance calcs..

 

[Vincenzo]

Dave - here is the 51H handbook - not NAA performance calcs..

your sorce give reason to Dave, the handbook speed it's around 475 mph...