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

[GregP]

With a forum name of fackusa, I'm not surprised.

Funny, I have several people I think of as friends in the Bahamas. I hope his attitude isn't a widepsread one. You never know, do you?

 

[Matt308]

Not from the Bahamas.

 

[GregP]

Great scuba diving, though ...

 

[bobbysocks]

I shove pineapples up my butt

marcel, is this one of those funky "Steenkolen Engels" or mistakes Dutch people make in English???

 

[CORSNING]

Focke-Wulf 190D-9 vs. North American P-51D
Purpose: To correct some inaccuracies.
Soren actually did a great job in his opening post. Excellent material actually.
I have been researching these two fighters along with every other WW2 fighter
for many years now. The following information is applicable to a P-51D using
its original standard of 67"Hg boosting for its V-1650-7 Packard engine during
June/July 1944. This is somewhat lopsided in that the figures for the Fw-109D
are for a standardized Dora using MW 50 starting on 18 December 1944. By this
time the Mustangs in Europe were using 100/130 or 100/150 (44-1 fuel) and
were pushing boost levels of 72, 75 and even 81"Hg.
Fw-190D-9 using MW 50 and with an ETC 502 rack (fuel/bomb) fitted vs.
P-51D-15 tested at Wright field, report dated 15 June 1945 with external fuel
racks installed. Without these racks the P-51 is a solid 6 mph. faster at all
altitudes. Just for fun I have entered the Russian testing figures of the P-51D
It can be plainly seen that they used somewhat different boosting at different
altitudes than the USAAF.
The basic numbers are:
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm
Fw -190D-9 --- P-51D Mustang (USSR with time to height in minutes)
S.L........376 / 4428---375 / 3600 (378)
1,000..388 / 4388---388 / 3600 (385-1.5)
2,000..400 / 4124---403 / 3385 (405-2.1)
3,000..406 / 4103---416 / 2985 (419-3.25)
4,000..416 / 3985---413 / 2534 (434-4.45)
5,000..427 / 3493---410 / 3200 (428-5.7)
6,000..427 / 2991---420 / 3100 (426-6.95)
7,000..421 / 2499---432 / 2645 (426-8.55)
8,000..413 / 1987---441 / 2200 (442)
9,000..403 / 1485---431 / 1765 (436)
10,000..391 / 984---417 / 1285 (430)

Engines: Jumo 213A: B4 fuel / 1.8 ata / 2,100 PS (2,071 hp.) With MW 50.
Packard V-1650-7: 100 octane / 67 "Hg / 1,720-1,780 hp.

Combat Weights: 9,590 lbs. / 9,760 lbs.
Combat Ceilings (1,000 fpm. climb rate): 32,700 ft. / 35,000 ft.
Wing Areas (sq. ft.): 196.98 / 235 (new wing)
Wing Loading (lbs./sq. ft.) 48.69 / 41.4
Power Loading (lbs./hp.) 4.631 / 5.483

I know, I took a long time to answer (4 years). I needed the time to
research the two.

 

[CORSNING]

Performance is fairly close up until about 6,500 m. with the Fw having a much better
climb at lower altitudes. The Fw D-9 had an exceptional acceleration when using
MW 50 at lower levels. The battles over Europe were fought at high altitudes. Up
there the Merlin was the better engine and gave the Mustang the edge. The D-9
with its 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm armament was very lethal at any altitude. Which
aircraft was better? It still all depends on what you needed it to do before you
can find that answer.

 

[BiffF15]

Corsning I completely concur, it depends on what you need it to do. The thing I think people don't consider is that yes, at similar combat weights the Fw-190 has an advantage (as well as the Me-109). That is to be expected, However, the Mustang flew 3 hours to get to the fight, and is very close in performance, will fight for 30 minutes, then fly 3 hours home. The weight penalty the Mustang has to carry the amount of fuel, oil, O2, etc, to stay airborne for up to 7 hours is huge, yet it hung with best prop fighters the Axis could come up with.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Robert Porter]

Dick Bong an American PTO Ace was quoted several times as saying it was less the aircraft and more the pilot that counted. He gained fewer kills per mission than others but had the sense of knowing when to break engagement and come back to fight another day. He often out survived others that shot down more on a given mission but did not survive the war. He made mention of the fact that Japan literally ran out of trained pilots long before they ran out of airplanes. And that when that happened Allied loss ratios seriously improved in the PTO. German pilots were not rotated out of combat like their American counterparts and as a consequence developed serious skill and familiarity with their aircraft and its advantages and disadvantages. Honestly not sure about RAF pilots and their rotation methods but I would imagine during the BoB it was all hands on deck and no real rotation.

 

[Milosh]

Stona can give a more detailed description but 11 Group squadrons were rotated out to less hectic areas and squadrons from there were rotated into 11Group.

 

[CORSNING]

I have added the Engines and power levels in Post #485. Yep, that was and oversight
on my part.

I also forgot to mention the information for the Fw-190D-9 came from Dietmar Hermann's
"Long Nose" and the main information for the P-51D-15 is from wwiiaircraftperformance.

 

[GregP]

Hi Corsning,

Reference post 485.

I thought MW50 was almost exclusively reserved for boost at FTH and above.Perhaps I am thinking backwards, and nitrous was used for extra power down low, but since it has limited time, I'd think it should have been used in emergencies only. Of course, they WERE over German territory and Germany WAS losing, so maybe the definition of an "emergency" was different for the Germans than for the Allies.

Not arguing. just thinking in print here. No agenda.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe MW 50 was the water alcohol mixture would do little (although something) above FTH.

The GM 1 (Nitrous oxide) was used at high altitude because it supplied additional oxygen over and above the oxygen in the air.

That is the way I remember it anyway.

 

[GregP]

Nitrous also has to be used at max rpm. Use at intermediate power usually leads to rapid engine destruction without VERY careful mixture control. I can verify that from personal experience in the GM LS-1 world of higher-horsepower Camaros. I watched several very nice Corvettes use up a brand new LS-1 while deploying nitrous too soon. It melts pistons pretty quickly! I'd run a wet system if I were you and didn't want to spend a ton of money when the second solenoid fails on a dry system.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe (but could well be wrong) that what is happening at the less than full throttle application of nitrous is that the overall "mixture" goes lean, way lean. Way more available oxygen than fuel.

 

[stona]

Stona can give a more detailed description but 11 Group squadrons were rotated out to less hectic areas and squadrons from there were rotated into 11Group.

When things got really tough the rotation of entire squadrons stopped. Fresh squadrons with inexperienced pilots simply took heavier losses than the squadrons they replaced. For example, No. 616 Squadron lost 5 pilots and 12 aircraft in a week (25th August - 2nd September).No. 603 lost 12 pilots and 16 aircraft and No.252 9 pilots and 13 aircraft in a similar period. It was as a result of this that the 'stabilisation system' was introduced. As of early September 1940 squadrons in other Groups were stripped of their experienced pilots who were transferred into squadrons in 11 Group to replace their losses. This led to the creation of 'B' and 'C' class squadrons in the other Groups.
A 'C' class squadron was not operational in any real sense, some being able only to field a Flight of fully trained pilots. It was a distinction entirely lost on some at the Air Ministry, and in the RAF, who simply looked at total pilot numbers and assumed that Fighter Command was doing okay.
Arguments about just how parlous the state of Fighter Command was in the first weeks of September will rage on, but the adoption of the stabilisation system, creaming off the best men from some units to create a fighting elite in others is always a sign of desperation. Napoleon did it, Ludendorff did it in 1918, even the BEF did it in 1940, creating 'B' Class Divisions. The stabilisation system introduced to Fighter Command was unpopular with the squadrons (both those that had to give up their best men, and those to whom they were transferred who knew they would have to 'stay in the line') and unpopular with Dowding, who considered it demoralizing and divisive, he simply had no choice.
Cheers
Steve

 

[grampi]

Corsning I completely concur, it depends on what you need it to do. The thing I think people don't consider is that yes, at similar combat weights the Fw-190 has an advantage (as well as the Me-109). That is to be expected, However, the Mustang flew 3 hours to get to the fight, and is very close in performance, will fight for 30 minutes, then fly 3 hours home. The weight penalty the Mustang has to carry the amount of fuel, oil, O2, etc, to stay airborne for up to 7 hours is huge, yet it hung with best prop fighters the Axis could come up with.

Cheers,
Biff

Can you imagine the advantage the Mustang would've had if it didn't have to be able to fly so far to reach the combat area, and then fly back?

 

[CORSNING]

Can you imagine the advantage the Mustang would've had if it didn't have to be able to fly so far to reach the combat area, and then fly back?

I am so glad you made that statement grampi. I have done a little researching the last couple of days.
answers coming...

The thing I think people don't consider is that yes, at similar combat weights the Fw-190 has an advantage (as well as the Me-109). That is to be expected, "

Biff, once again that all depends. In the comparison I made in Post # 485 the Mustang in
question was tested at 9,760 lb. That was take-off weight. By the time the P-51D actually
would come in contact with the 190 it may be down to 9,200 lb. or even lighter. If you
notice the Mustang was actually holding its own around 6,000 m. and began showing its
edge above that altitude at the higher loaded levels.
And as I noted that was at engine boosting levels of 67"Hg (~+17.8 lbs.). By the time the
Dora-9 showed up the fuel (44-1) octane for the 8th Air Force had increased, and so did
boosting levels of the Packard and Merlin engines.
I have limited time tonight. The wife is dragging me to Wal Mart for grocery shopping.
Woopee Ding-Dong.
I have started a post on some interesting figure which I hope to post tonight or tomorrow.
Jeff

 

[CORSNING]

Mustang III No.F.X.858, Operation Crossbow: February - May 1944
Engine: Merlin 100 (modified Merlin 66 to +25 lbs. [80.8"Hg] boost)
Horse Power: 1,940-1,970+ at sea level, 2,020 hp./4,100 ft.

Altitude...Speed / Climb / Time to height.
Meters....mph / fpm / minutes to altitude.
S.L.........393 / 4500 /
1,000...409 / 4150 /-.85
2,000...419 / 3965 /-1.6
3,000...420 / 3970 /-2.35
4,000...435 / 3960 /-3.2
5,000...450 / 3510 /-4.05
6,000...454 / 3025 /-5.1
7,000...452 / 2560 /-6.3
8,000...449 / 2065 /-7.8
9,000...444 / 1600 /-9.4
10,000...436 / 1135 /11.95
11,000...425 /---650 /15.5
12,000...NG. /--NG. /23.25

Combat Ceiling: 33.660 ft.
Armament:4 x 0.5 in.
Combat Weights: 8,800 lb. for speed runs and 9,260 lb. for climb trials.

Wing Loadings 8,800 lb. / 9,260 lb. (lbs./sq.ft.): 37.77 / 39.74.
Power Loading at 1,940 hp. same as above (lbs./ hp.): 4.536 / 4.773.

In another brief test aircraft No. F.B.377 with a V-1650-7 using +25 lbs. boosting:
Speed trial results: 405 mph./S.L., 413 mph. @ 1,000 m., 5,000 ft. 412.5 mph./
2,000 m. and 412 mph at 8,000 ft.

I am just going to have to say the Mustang could more than hold its own.

Just an opinion and void where prohibited by law... and them some.

 

[BiffF15]

Mustang III No.F.X.858, Operation Crossbow: February - May 1944
Engine: Merlin 100 (modified Merlin 66 to +25 lbs. [80.8"Hg] boost)
Horse Power: 1,940-1,970+ at sea level, 2,020 hp./4,100 ft.

Altitude...Speed / Climb / Time to height.
Meters....mph / fpm / minutes to altitude.
S.L.........393 / 4500 /
1,000...409 / 4150 /-.85
2,000...419 / 3965 /-1.6
3,000...420 / 3970 /-2.35
4,000...435 / 3960 /-3.2
5,000...450 / 3510 /-4.05
6,000...454 / 3025 /-5.1
7,000...452 / 2560 /-6.3
8,000...449 / 2065 /-7.8
9,000...444 / 1600 /-9.4
10,000...436 / 1135 /11.95
11,000...425 /---650 /15.5
12,000...NG. /--NG. /23.25

Combat Ceiling: 33.660 ft.
Armament:4 x 0.5 in.
Combat Weights: 8,800 lb. for speed runs and 9,260 lb. for climb trials.

Wing Loadings 8,800 lb. / 9,260 lb. (lbs./sq.ft.): 37.77 / 39.74.
Power Loading at 1,940 hp. same as above (lbs./ hp.): 4.536 / 4.773.

In another brief test aircraft No. F.B.377 with a V-1650-7 using +25 lbs. boosting:
Speed trial results: 405 mph./S.L., 413 mph. @ 1,000 m., 5,000 ft. 412.5 mph./
2,000 m. and 412 mph at 8,000 ft.

I am just going to have to say the Mustang could more than hold its own.

Just an opinion and void where prohibited by law... and them some.

Jeff,

It's my opine that the Mustang could hold it's own and more. However, I'm trying to not appear to be so hard over (fanboy) on one airplane that I don't listen to reason or counter points. If the Mustang, at it's earliest opportunity (heavier weight), encounters a Fw-190D or late model Me-109 at the end of their sortie (lowest weight) I think the outcome might favor the German equipment.

I also realize there was some of what I will call leapfrogging going on in performance. The Mustang was due an update (H model) but alas the war ended in Europe first. Also, we tend to compare the charts in great detail as that is a common denominator approach, however it leaves more questions to me than it does answers. For example, 30 mph difference in top speed at a given altitude. What does it really do for you? If you think you are outside the max range of your opponents weapons, it means leaving and not turning back. If you aren't sure you have to turn back then what does your greater top speed do for you? Weapons are next, the .50 cal versus Cannon versus whatever. From the gun footage I've seen, regardless of who was doing the shooting, they all seemed pretty effective from the defenders point of view. Climb rate is another, and on it goes.

My point is it's hard to nail down beyond the charts, but more than enough guys have beat a "better" performing adversary so variables still exist.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[CORSNING]

Hi Biff,
You are absolutely right. All kind of things can come into play in the air, and I am
quite sure I don't need to tell you that. As far as the speed thing goes, I have not
read enough or talked to enough people in the know. From what I have read so
far the Fw-190D started to "tighten up" around 380 mph...?, the Mustang didn't.
In a dive I am not quite sure what the Fw did but at 550 mph. true air speed the
Mustang began to porpoise. This allowed it to pull out of a high speed dive much
easier than other contemporary high speed fighters.
Jeff

PS: Just for the record, I do not have a personal favorite fighter aircraft of WW2.
I love researching them all to get to the real truth. They are all fun to study. Then
in the end, the truth is the truth until more great information is uncovered.