About the answer I figured you'd give, Tomo. And don't worry about the reply. I don't care.
You seem to be on a hair trigger and want to fight all the time, for no reason. Why? I don't. I have nothing impolite to say to you. Generally, I like your posts and consider you one of the solid, knowledgeable members here. Why can't you be at least friendly?
Here's what I see:
Fw 190 D-9: Empty: 7,694 lbs; Normal: 9,413 lbs; Maximum: 10,670 lbs; Max Speed: 426 mph @ 21,655 ft; Range: 519 mi; Service Ceiling: 39,370 ft
P-51D: Empty: 7,635 lbs (lighter); Normal: 9,200 lbs (lighter); Maximum: 12,100 lbs; Max Speed: 437 to 440 mph at 25,000 ft, depending on report. Assume 437; Range: 1,650 with tanks; Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft. The extra max weight was all fuel, and that gave a LONG range when required. You could NOT have replaced the P-51D with the Fw 190 D-9; it couldn't do the job under any circumstances of which I am aware (insufficient range). The converse is not true. The P-51D could have replaced the Fw 190 D-9 and not much would have been lost, while great range would have been gained.
Armament goes to the Fw 190 D-9 all the way, for sheer destructive power, but the P-51D was adequate for the fight. Production numbers are as I said before 11 to 2 for the P-51D, roughly. Not all of them got to Europe, but there were more P-51Ds around than Fw 190D-9s in the air, always. That makes a LOT of difference in a real war. Not in a video game or one-on-one. Particularly, if the people with the larger number of fighters have the fuel to fly them at will, and they did. The converse is just not true. The Germans basically ran out of fuel at the front line airfields in late May 1945. That's why we destroyed so many on the ground in April. They weren't flying. Ergo, no help to the war effort. Had nothing to do with the willingness to fly and fight ... but you DO need fuel to fly.
Pilots: I'd say the Germans were better when the "Experts" were flying (much more experience), but the Allies had better pilots (late war) on average (more experience on average), if only due to more training and nobody bombing us while in pilot training. We also had a training PLAN and program. We flew in LARGE formations as the war drew down, making an attack on the fighter escorts somewhat suicidal for the most part and an attack on the bombers not much less risky.
One on one: Fw 190 D-9 was a wonderful fighter. Good climb, good speed, great armament, robust, and well-designed. The P-51D was also a wonderful fighter, with slightly less-impressive armament but also with the ability to kill anything it encountered, albeit with probably more ammo fired. They were close enough that the pilots SHOULD have made the difference, one-on-one. I consider the Fw 190 D-9 to be the best the Germans fielded in numbers, and it WAS a good one. The best fighter they fielded of the piston variety was undoubtedly the Ta-152, probably the H for high altitude and the C for medium altitudes. There were never enough of either fighter to make a big difference in the outcome, but they were impressive for sheer engineering and performance, particularly the Ta-152. Had it achieved mass production, things might have been a LOT more interesting.
I wish the aircraft family had survived the war to a much greater degree. Real WWII fighters are wonderful to work on and keep flying. It would be a privilege to work on a Focke-Wulf, especially a real one.
Oh yeah, the Ta-152 has no bearing on the thread? Are you serious? The Ta-152 was an Fw 190 D model that was "improved," so it most certainly DOES relate to the thread. It was a wonder plane, but without any major production (about 42 - 43 delivered, with more airframes waiting for engines and props). That alone makes it a non-player. Had it been built in numbers, it might have been a game changer. It wasn't in the end. The Ta 152 combat record was very ordinary, probably due to the war situation more than to any operational reason. There WERE thousands of Allied fighters flying about versus the 42 or so Ta 152s. That makes a huge difference in operations, normally speaking. It was a superb aircraft, in every sense of the word. It just wasn't a factor in the war. In every other sense, it was a great fighter, if ever there was one.
I think in terms of war contribution, not individual performance, because that is what wins wars. You might have the best airplane in a group of 45 Ta-152s, but if you come up against 800 good fighters (maybe P-51Ds) from the enemy side, it might not matter much in the end. And it didn't.
The Bf 109 gave a great contribution to the German war effort. It didn't win the air war, but was probably the best fighter of all times, if all the victories get counted correctly. Some days, your best doesn't quite make it happen. Doesn't mean the equipment OR the personnel were faulty. It only means you lost when it was over. When it happens, get on with life and move forward. Hopefully, world war is a thing of the past. Doesn't mean we should forget it.