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

[Erich]

the August 44 date is for cadre only they did not accept the Fw 190A-8 and A-8/R2 till September of 44 - III./JG 30i. there are numerous errors/dated gaps in Reschke's book and I am working diligently to correct and those for another work in progress.

 

[Knegel]

I hope you read other things more carefully, nowhere i wrote, neighter Reschke, they flew the Fw190A in August, that was the date when the JG302 did join the JG301 and stopped to fly 109´s, and afterward they started to train on FW190. Of course it took some time until they could go into combat on 190´s.

Before you already wrote that i wrote the former JG51 staffel was a part of JG301, but i did not.

And before you wrote "just to point this out to you, JG 302 never had a high protection unit of any kind they flew on their own ".

And later you wrote: "Knegel the high Alt. staffel from JG 51 was incorporated as a 4 staffel into one of JG 302's gruppen". While, according to Reschke, the JG51 Staffel got used as high alt cover.

That dont make sence to me. Was Reschke wrong in this??

 

[Erich]

we obviously have a communication problem here, first Reschke has errors all through his work which I am trying to correct. Second yes the Jg 51 component unit was the high altitude staffel and made up the 4th staffel-special in JG 302

as to Jg 302 becoming the so-called III./JG 301 the JG 302 pilots became idol in other words they did nothing except fopr a paper transfer into JG 301. JG 301 did not receive any Fw 190A's till September and then they and the other two gruppen were able to fly individually as well as a 3 gruppen Geschwader practicing Sturm like tactics.

Klar ? Knegel my cousin was a pilot in 5./JG 301 in November of 44.

 

[billswagger]

Bill - the 51 had excellent acceleration and compared well with the P-38 and F-4U on the US side despite their much higher horsepower (and gross weight). Reduced drag and perhaps combined exhaust thrust and Meridith effect may have contibuted significanty to its acceleration performance to other fighters with better Hp/weight ratios.

Additionally drag comparisons must be looked at very closely as this is one of the key reasons the 51 was so fast, particularly at altitude..

Drag is lower across the board for every aircraft at higher altitudes. What made the 51 fast was its high altitude engine performance.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf

Level flight acceleration from 190IAS at 25,000ft using the Zeke 52 as a baseline aircraft:

Lead after one minute:

P-51D 300 yard
P-38J 250 yard
P-47D 400 yard

Lead after two minutes:

P-51D 1000 yard
P-38J 500 yards
P-47D 800 yards

It retains a similar performance gap at 10,000ft, where most of the P-51s speed is seen after a minute of flight.

I think if pilots wanted to get going fast they would utilize a shallow dive, so this is not typical of a combat situation but it does illustrate the point about acceleration.

Its one of those designs that utilizes a low drag profile more so than a high powered engine, not that 1695 is a shabby number of horses.

Bill

 

[Knegel]

we obviously have a communication problem here, first Reschke has errors all through his work which I am trying to correct. Second yes the Jg 51 component unit was the high altitude staffel and made up the 4th staffel-special in JG 302

as to Jg 302 becoming the so-called III./JG 301 the JG 302 pilots became idol in other words they did nothing except fopr a paper transfer into JG 301. JG 301 did not receive any Fw 190A's till September and then they and the other two gruppen were able to fly individually as well as a 3 gruppen Geschwader practicing Sturm like tactics.

Klar ? Knegel my cousin was a pilot in 5./JG 301 in November of 44.

Hi,

for now i still dont have any idea why you did comment on what i wrote, nothing of what i wrote regarding the JG302 and thats actually what Reschke wrote, was wrong for now. All conform exact with what you also say at the end, but you write like its wrong and you tergiversate.

According to Reschke his unit started to fight again only in Novemeber, this also fit to what you say, but actually dont matter here, it also dont matter that the book is full of errors, as long as i quote parts that are obvious correct, or where the timeline is not that important.
It also dont help that your cousin was a pilot in 5./JG 301, while we talk about the JG302.

Back to topic:
The only thing i wanted to and did say is that the high alt unit of the JG302 dont got slaughtered, flying the so outdated 109G-6. This smal unit lost its pilots in a tough fight throughout two month against a overwhelming number of enemys. It would have been interesting to see, if the 190D9 would have done it better.

Greetings,

Knegel

 

[vanir]

my great uncle only flew 109's, from 42-45 and due to some family issues we never talked about the war much when I was young, except on the occasional drunken christmas get together, so I can't weigh in much except to say he did specifically mention some 109's were just as good as the Mustang over Germany in 45 for comparative performance, nothing more than anecdotal transcription, but he took quite a bit of exception to some of the books I had brought home from school that were published in the early 80's saying as a common theme the Mustang was the best fighter of the war, etc, and the Messerschmitt was no longer competitive by 1945

I should think if according to him some 109 examples were as good as a Mustang, and he did cite the Dora was superior to the 109, it should follow the Dora was perfectly competitive with the Mustang by and large.

I do trust much of what they said though, since for example the first time I ever heard of the specially modified Messerschmitt versions given to Galland was from my grandmother, it didn't appear in print anywhere I came across until many years later. She said he was very popular with the ladies and had the fastest Messerschmitt in the entire Luftwaffe, I think she kind of liked him

 

[drgondog]

Drag is lower across the board for every aircraft at higher altitudes. What made the 51 fast was its high altitude engine performance.

Ah, No. What made the 51 fast is the combination of VERY low drag compared to Spitfire, Fw 190A, Me 109, P-47, F4-U, F6F, P-38 and an Adequate amount of horsepower combined with positive (theoretically) thrust via Meridith effect. The P-51H for example which was the same drag as the B/C/D but had a 1650-9 with up to 2200 hp at 90" was both very fast and very good acceleration because it had very low drag AND a very powerful engine

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf

Note the date of the USN report and the reported Boost/rpm for each fighter tested

Level flight acceleration from 190IAS at 25,000ft using the Zeke 52 as a baseline aircraft:

Lead after one minute:

P-51D 300 yard at 62" versus 75" WEP
P-38J 250 yard P-38 fairly close to potential
P-47D 400 yard at 64" versus 70" WEP

Lead after two minutes:

P-51D 1000 yard Ditto
P-38J 500 yards
P-47D 800 yards

It retains a similar performance gap at 10,000ft, where most of the P-51s speed is seen after a minute of flight.

I think if pilots wanted to get going fast they would utilize a shallow dive, so this is not typical of a combat situation but it does illustrate the point about acceleration.

Its one of those designs that utilizes a low drag profile more so than a high powered engine, not that 1695 is a shabby number of horses.

Bill - it uses the engine with the max hp for the envelope available to it (the P-51). The Hp available grew from 1600@67" (-3) to 1720@67" (-7) to 1800+@75" (-7) to 2270@90" (-9)

The (-7) in the P-51B was slightly lighter than the P-51H with the (-9) so the growth in Hp from the P-51H over the P-51B at max boost was ~ 2270/1800 = 1.26

The (-7) had approx 1490hp@62" and 1800hp@75" for a ratio of 1.20 - so the USN compared the acceleration with an engine performing leas than 85% of potential?

Bill

Bill - I am confused why you would extract a performance comparison from a USN report which has the P-51D-5 operating at 62" (WEP) and 3000 rpm when the spec 51D-5 w/1650-7 Merlin was 75" hg for WEP?

The 51s w/1650-7 were operating initially (apr 44) at 67" WEP and at 75" WEP (June 44).

The 47D-25 w/R2800-63 was operating at 70" WEP in June 1944 vs the 64" in the Navy Test for 1945!!

What you have are 'de-tuned' results for Hp available to the Mustang, P-38 and P-47 across the board and trying to make acceleration judgments?

 

[Knegel]

Hi,

75HG was only allowed when 150 octan fuel was available, otherwise 67HG was WEP. There are some documents that say the 8th airforce used that fuel from June44 onward, while there are docus that claim that US units on the continent(9th airforce ??) dont use this fuel.

Like so often P51 is just not = P51. We also still dont know how many C3 fuel the 109´s could use. Clear is that WEP is what it is, its not Combat or Military rating and will decrease the range a lot.

We also dont know the exact power output of the Jumo213A, this also seamed to change. We also dont know how many Jumo powered 190´s was adjusted for low level(Boden Lader) or how many did use C3 fuel(common fuel in the FW units).

Which plane was better just did depend to the altitude, what it should do, the used fuel, possible boost setting and time of usage of this boost. The 190D was the better ground attacker, the P51 the better high alt and escort fighter(>6500m), the 190D had a little better guns and they was more centered as well. Over Europe it wasnt a big different between the fighter performences, some times one side, some times the other side had a smal advantage. Against Japan it was much different, where already the P38G was like the 262 over europe and where the P40 was like a 109 vs Ratas. At the end not the planes or pilots won, rather the overwhelming masses of the Allieds in the west and east, where the red army most probably would have won the war alone.
Its increcible to see that the Ki43 and also the A6m was the backbone of the IJNA and IJAA till the end of war. Thats like using the SpitIa or 109E4 but without protection in 1944. Even the Ki66 was not much more than a 109F2 with better guns.

Greetings,

Knegel

 

[drgondog]

Hi,

75HG was only allowed when 150 octan fuel was available, otherwise 67HG was WEP. There are some documents that say the 8th airforce used that fuel from June44 onward, while there are docus that claim that US units on the continent(9th airforce ??) dont use this fuel.

There are documents as well as living first hand accounts. The 355th FG got its first delivery of 150 octane (as well as all of 8th FC) in mid to late June, 1944.

'Others' didn't use the fuel because a.) production was not high enough to supply all units - so it was prioritized

Like so often P51 is just not = P51. We also still dont know how many C3 fuel the 109´s could use. Clear is that WEP is what it is, its not Combat or Military rating and will decrease the range a lot.

True - but the P-51B/C and D and H all used 150 octane fuel in the 1650-7 and -9 Merlin engines and the use of WEP enhanced performance for the 5-10 minutes allowed. This fuel and enhanced performance was available from June 44 through April 45

We also dont know the exact power output of the Jumo213A, this also seamed to change. We also dont know how many Jumo powered 190´s was adjusted for low level(Boden Lader) or how many did use C3 fuel(common fuel in the FW units).

Which plane was better just did depend to the altitude, what it should do, the used fuel, possible boost setting and time of usage of this boost. The 190D was the better ground attacker, the P51 the better high alt and escort fighter(>6500m), the 190D had a little better guns and they was more centered as well. Over Europe it wasnt a big different between the fighter performences, some times one side, some times the other side had a smal advantage. Against Japan it was much different, where already the P38G was like the 262 over europe and where the P40 was like a 109 vs Ratas. At the end not the planes or pilots won, rather the overwhelming masses of the Allieds in the west and east, where the red army most probably would have won the war alone.

You think if USSR fought the war alone it would have prevailed? that Germany would not a.) use Sarin and b.) develop nuclear weapon in time to be decisive with no attacks on German industry, no battles in west to divert resources, no supplies from US and GB?

Its increcible to see that the Ki43 and also the A6m was the backbone of the IJNA and IJAA till the end of war. Thats like using the SpitIa or 109E4 but without protection in 1944. Even the Ki66 was not much more than a 109F2 with better guns.

Greetings,

Knegel

Knegel - the US did not have 'overwhelming' air superiority in numbers of strategic fighters until perhaps Dec 1944 and certainly after Bodenplatte.

The US did have a much better supply of new pilots to introduce to the MTO and ETO in 1943, the LW failed to strike at US fighters and thus permitted the 8th AF FC to grow in confidence and experience - to develop the tactics and the leadership which was able to lead new pilots entering battle more effectively.

Remember the P-47 didn't have the range to go to east germany until summer 1944. The P-38 only achieved four active groups and the last one came in when the first 38 group was converting to Mustangs.

The Mustang groups number 1 in Dec 43, 3 in Feb 1944, 5 in March, 6 in April and 7 in may.

It wasn't until April the the 8th AF could protect 500 bombers of one Bomb Division (out of three) with two long range escort Groups and to cover that would spread six squadrons with many mechanical problems early to net ~ 75 to 80 fighters to protect against twice that number or more LW fighters directed by the controllers.

The LW was always able to concentrate 200 to 300 of LuftFlotte Reich in a small region to attcke with local superiority. It was the battles from February through May that broke the back of the LW over Germany - with Mustangs primarily. There were several 8th AF FG's that scored more aircraft destroyed in the air than all the 8th AF lightning groups combined.

 

[Milosh]

The 51s w/1650-7 were operating initially (apr 44) at 67" WEP and at 75" WEP (June 44).

Was this 72" just a temporary boost level while transitioning to the P-51?

What is the corresponding boost for 75" in the British system?

 

[Knegel]

Knegel - the US did not have 'overwhelming' air superiority in numbers of strategic fighters until perhaps Dec 1944 and certainly after Bodenplatte.

The US did have a much better supply of new pilots to introduce to the MTO and ETO in 1943, the LW failed to strike at US fighters and thus permitted the 8th AF FC to grow in confidence and experience - to develop the tactics and the leadership which was able to lead new pilots entering battle more effectively.

Remember the P-47 didn't have the range to go to east germany until summer 1944. The P-38 only achieved four active groups and the last one came in when the first 38 group was converting to Mustangs.

The Mustang groups number 1 in Dec 43, 3 in Feb 1944, 5 in March, 6 in April and 7 in may.

It wasn't until April the the 8th AF could protect 500 bombers of one Bomb Division (out of three) with two long range escort Groups and to cover that would spread six squadrons with many mechanical problems early to net ~ 75 to 80 fighters to protect against twice that number or more LW fighters directed by the controllers.

The LW was always able to concentrate 200 to 300 of LuftFlotte Reich in a small region to attcke with local superiority. It was the battles from February through May that broke the back of the LW over Germany - with Mustangs primarily. There were several 8th AF FG's that scored more aircraft destroyed in the air than all the 8th AF lightning groups combined.

If the fighters was there, they had in most cases the higher number than the few german topcover units, in many cases nothing more than one Schwarm.

Otherwise they just had to disturb the initial concentrated attack to the bombers, against single attacks the Bombers could hold its own rather successfull.

Most german fighters from late 1943 onward actually cant be seen as fighters, they was armned and protected and as such did perform rather as destroyers(109 with gunpods, rocket tubes, extra amor, 190´s with many extra guns or extreme heavy guns).

Like you say, they forgot about the fighters, the few fighters and here i still talk bout the top cover units(clean 109´s in that case), which was in theory able to make combat on even terms, was badly outnumbered.

Greetings,

Knegel

 

[drgondog]

Was this 72" just a temporary boost level while transitioning to the P-51?

What is the corresponding boost for 75" in the British system?

Milosh - the 72" WAS the recommended, 75" was the Not to Exceed threshold and mechanical stops were placed on the throttle.

IIRC th equivalent was 25 pounds in Brit System?

 

[drgondog]

If the fighters was there, they had in most cases the higher number than the few german topcover units, in many cases nothing more than one Schwarm.

Otherwise they just had to disturb the initial concentrated attack to the bombers, against single attacks the Bombers could hold its own rather successfull.

Most german fighters from late 1943 onward actually cant be seen as fighters, they was armned and protected and as such did perform rather as destroyers(109 with gunpods, rocket tubes, extra amor, 190´s with many extra guns or extreme heavy guns).

Like you say, they forgot about the fighters, the few fighters and here i still talk bout the top cover units(clean 109´s in that case), which was in theory able to make combat on even terms, was badly outnumbered.

Greetings,

Knegel

Knegel - what you say is largely true but in each case, specific to a period in the air war over Europe.

The war eveolved with standard armament in early to mid 1943 with no particular changes to the standard clean single engine fighter, and the destroyer role was performed by the Me 110 and occasional Ju 88. From Fall of 1943 through December the LW started introducing gondolas and heavier armor the the G5 and same for Fw 190A6 and A7's - but not all were so equipped - for example JG2 and JG26. It was at this time that the P-38 became operational and the first Mustangs arrived - and the Me 110, 210 and Ju 88 were becoming vulnerable beyond the range of the P-47.

I don't know the exact dates but the trend to equip entire Staffel's with the gondola's started as the twin engine fighter became too vulnerable, even near the target. At the same time the notion of high cover 109s to 'protect' against the escorts was introduced as a tactic and Staffels were equipped with AS for the 109G% and 6.

Nobody argues that U4 equiiped 109s or Strum 190s were 'less' able to combat the Mustang - in fact the real point is this.

The Mustang was 'equivalent' to the latest 109 and 190, with some performance trade offs - but it was 'equivalent' over Berlin or Prague with nearly all its internal fuel and there was no place in Germany that the LW could retreat to safety.

The second point, is the the Allied fighter groups enjoyed a very high standard of average skills, in an exceptional long range fighter, had a great deal of confidence in it and were very aggressive about attacking - even with poor odds.

The skill and aggression of 8th (and 9th and 15th) AF versus the LW was very same when the LW fought the VVS.

You can trace the build upof 8th and 15th AF long range escort deployment to the massive losses the LW suffered deep into Germany and mark Dec 1943 as the '~beginning' and May 1944 as the 'end of the battle for control over the air' as defined when all bomber losses dropped below 5% for the attacking force.

 

[Knegel]

Yep, i agree on all that,

good post!

Greetings,

Knegel

 

[renrich]

To say that the 109 versus the Rata was analogous to the P40 versus Japanese fighters in the PTO or that the P38G was analogous in the PTO to the 262 in the ETO seems to indicate a very basic ignorance of the situation in the Pacific and a somewhat typical eurocentric attitude. The P40 was superior in most respects to the A5M, Claude, like the 109 was to the Rata, but once the A6M got on the scene, the P40 was clearly outclassed in all respects except dive and durability. The characteristic which the typical eurocentric enthusiast ignores about the P51 is that the P51 could dominate or at least hold it's own many hundreds of miles from base, which no single engine LW fighter could do. Late model P38s and P47s could do the same and if it had been called on the F4U and F6F could have done the same. The 109 and 190 were fine short range designs but could never do the job the P51 did. In many ways the A6M in the Pacific was the Japanese version of the Merlin engined P51.

 

[Nikademus]

every situation is unique though there can be simularities. 109 vs Ishak was kind of a reverse P40/A6M. 109 was 60mph faster which was substantial but the Ishak (I-16) was one of the tightest/fastest turning monoplanes built. Russian pilots also quickly found that head on attacks gave them more than a good chance of winning/surviving as a few hits to the 109's radiator would at the very least force the plane to beat a hasty retreat if not force land.

190/51/109....the planes are so close in reletive performance it all comes down to he with the most toys wins. An interesting point brought up here though...was the comment on the decision to avoid tangling with the escorts allowing the American pilots to ramp up in training. True....but on the other hand, i think the Yanks would have relished such a move by the Luftwaffe. In the end it would probably have been even more self defeating as the US would gladly trade fighter for fighter with the Germans vs. the more costly (both in human and material terms) fighter for bomber.

 

[davparlr]

Good enough means that the 109G with a good pilot could handle the P51B/D, specialy in altitudes around 6-8000m. I agree, the lost of initiative was the main problem. They had to attack the bombers and while attacking the bombers they often lost their wingis, as result they fought alone in a tactical bad position.

While there are some models of the Bf-109G that may be competitive with the P-51D at these altitudes, the basic prevalent Bf-109G is some 20 to 40 mph slower with similar climb capability, which is a considerable advantage for the P-51D, and this is pre May '44 P-51D (67"Hg). The B has an even better speed advantage. Post May, '44, P-51's (72" to 75" Hg) have even greater speed advantage (30 to 40 mph) and improved climb. Except around 15k ft., where the P-51D performance drops off before a compressor shift, the P-51D, after May, '44, was faster and had a better climb than the Bf-109G from sea level to ceiling. This is also true for pre May, '44, P-51B. Good pilots always make a difference, but the P-51 pilot had more tools to work with.

Hi,

75HG was only allowed when 150 octan fuel was available, otherwise 67HG was WEP. There are some documents that say the 8th airforce used that fuel from June44 onward, while there are docus that claim that US units on the continent(9th airforce ??) dont use this fuel.

While there are still ongoing discussions on fuel usage, there is certainly some combat reports that 70+" Hg was used in '44 with the P-51.

Clear is that WEP is what it is, its not Combat or Military rating and will decrease the range a lot.

Not unlike afterburners today, but that doesn't mean they aren't used when needed.

Which plane was better just did depend to the altitude, what it should do, the used fuel, possible boost setting and time of usage of this boost. The 190D was the better ground attacker, the P51 the better high alt and escort fighter(>6500m), the 190D had a little better guns and they was more centered as well. Over Europe it wasnt a big different between the fighter performences, some times one side, some times the other side had a smal advantage.

I agree with all you have said here. The only thing I would add which is significant is that the P-51B/D was available late '44, early '45, whereas the 190D-9, and other Mustang fighters like the Bf-109K and Ta-152, were not available until late '44 early '45, much too late to keep or regain control of the skies over Germany, which the P-51 had so effectively snatched away.

Against Japan it was much different, where already the P38G was like the 262 over europe and where the P40 was like a 109 vs Ratas. At the end not the planes or pilots won, rather the overwhelming masses of the Allieds in the west and east, where the red army most probably would have won the war alone.
Its increcible to see that the Ki43 and also the A6m was the backbone of the IJNA and IJAA till the end of war. Thats like using the SpitIa or 109E4 but without protection in 1944. Even the Ki66 was not much more than a 109F2 with better guns.

I tend to agree with you. The Japanese were significantly hindered by lack of technical and manufacturing support to keep up with changing technology and the inability to replace well trained pilots. They were able to produce some capable fighters towards the end of the war, but, like Germany, it was too late and they had few well trained pilots to fly them.

 

[tomo pauk]

Agree with Davpair - standard LW fighters of crucial 1st half of 1944 were in notable disadvantage vs. P-51B/C/D. 650/660 km/h vs. 700 km/h was (and still is) disadvantage. When we include that P-51 was already in it's best altitude, with better pilot, and range to prosecute anywhere within area of interest, the writing was on the wall. The other plane from topic (D-9) managed just to equal (if even that) the speed, climb rate maneuvrability, but other issues remained. And only half a year later; a full year vs. P-51B.

To put it shortly, P-51D could have done anything D-9 could, while vice-versa was not possible.

 

[Milosh]

Thank you drgondog.

 

[Nikademus]

To put it shortly, P-51D could have done anything D-9 could, while vice-versa was not possible.

What could the Mustang do that the Dora couldn't? Is a 40km/hr top speed edge really all that signifigant except in situations where one plane is fleeing or declining battle?