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

[Robert Porter]

That was my bad as the kids say, I 'forgot' to mention the beer... won't happen (often) again!

 

[Peter Gunn]

If a B-17 only took 75lbs of paint to cover the performance gain for single engine fighter doing without paint would be minuscule.
Some large transport planes went without paint but put the difference in weight toward higher payload or fuel, but again the surface area of large transports is much larger than the surface area of a fighter.

*SNIP*

Just by way of information I had read this earlier this year, found it interesting, not a FW or Mustang but testing on an early P-80A with unpainted, filled, and painted surfaces, but at slightly different weights, it's the third table from the top.

Full report here: P-80 Performance Tests

It seems the P-80 gained speed progressively from unpainted to filled to painted, although I don't see any more than a 10 MPH gain at the most.

 

[CORSNING]

You know Pete, Erik Hartmann made the statement, " We didn't worry about
20 mph. difference." or he said something very close to that many years ago.
Just the same, I think if I was just out of range of an enemy fighter and had
had my fill for the day, knowing I had a 10 mph. advantage in speed would
be somewhat comforting.

 

[BiffF15]

Corsning,

I have touched on that point before. If you know for sure you are out of gun range and know you are faster then it's an easy go decision. If you are not sure of either or both it's much tougher and you are betting with your life.

If a opponet is faster but inside your gun range you can keep him from getting away by forcing him to maneuver to avoid shots allowing you to close the gap.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[eagledad]

Good answer, Tomo.

Glad to hear it, because I probably muddle the facts more often than you do, but that happens in discussions. It wasn't intended as a specific criticism, more of an observation on ONE tiny subject. And I could have been wrong then, too. As I stated above, your posts are usually quite good and to the point.

As a general rule, I think ALL the production fighters were pretty good. If they weren't, they wouldn't have made production. There is certainly room for a dissenting opinion, and it might be correct.

One-on-one, I'd call the Fw 190 D-9 versus the P-51 a dead even heat. Both good, solid aircraft. Nobody (or few) ever accused the Germans of making inferior equipment! My own thoughts would be that the Fw 190 D-9 would out-roll the P-51D (based on wartime observations of Fw rolling ability), but the P-51D would out-turn the Fw 190 D-9 (based on 20% lower wing loading and decent airfoils for both).

Cheers.

P.S. It is off-subject, but from your signature it appears you live in Poland. What is the Polish Air Force experience with the F-16? Do they like it or not? Maybe a dedicated answer in the modern forum?

Greg

There was a test of the 190D-9 done in the US after WW2 (see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf).
The test pilots opinion was that the FW's rate of roll compared well with the P-51D and P-47 but could not match to the P-38J and P-80. Unfortunately, no speed or altitude was given, and no definition of what "compared well" means.

The above for info only.

Eagledad

 

[CORSNING]

If a opponet is faster but inside your gun range you can keep him from getting away by forcing him to maneuver to avoid shots allowing you to close the gap.

Cheers,
Biff[/QUOTE]

Excellent point Biff. Thank you for that insight. I am guessing that I will repeat that maneuver
to others.
I can't believe that maneuver never even crossed my mind.
Boy, nothing gets past old eagle brain me, Jeff

 

[CORSNING]

For those that would like more information on the Fw 190 & Fw 190D-9;
FOCKE-WULF Fw 190D PERFORMANCE - Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds
FOCKE-WULF Fw 190/Ta 152 PERFORMANCE TIMELINE - Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds
performance-timeline/
Have a great day guys, Jeff

 

[pbehn]

The P51 was pure serendipity. Its design brief was set by its manufacturer simply to be better than the P 40. Being a USA manufacturer it had a long range on internal fuel simply because the USA is a huge country. It was specified with an Allison engine which meant it was not too difficult to put in a Rolls Royce Merlin. From its original design with low drag wings and cooling system it was found that it could take more guns and ammunition in the wings, more internal fuel, oil and oxygen and then two massive external tanks on the wings.
In my view the "edge" that the P51 had on others was its aerodynamics and its "contingency" in engineering, its condition on take off with external and internal load of fuel was borderline on safety but put it in another league in terms of range. Then as this is being discovered and put together the USA finds its bombers cannot defend themselves as expected. Cometh the hour cometh the P 51. Looking at a P51D and its performance figures it is hard to believe that by and large it happened by accident, the air frame and engine being designed on different continents in different decades.

BTW who gets credit for the canopy?

As aircraft the Fw 190 of any type will suffer in comparison, with 1000 four engined bombers available, the USA decided the terms of the conflict, that is what happens in a war, not a demerit for the Fw 190 D.

 

[CORSNING]

BTW who gets credit for the canopy?

I actually have no idea, but my money is on the innovative British.

 

[pbehn]

BTW who gets credit for the canopy?

I actually have no idea, but my money is on the innovative British.

It is the canopy that makes the P51. The P51A would never have been named "Cadillac of the skies". The back of the LW was broken by the B/C version but it is the P51D that gets the credit and wins the hearts because of that canopy.

 

[GregP]

Hi Eagledad,

I'll be sure to read that one since I have often heard about the fantastic rolling capability of the Fw 190 radial aircraft. particularly when they first came out and were such a surprise to the RAF. I figured the switch to the inline might affect pitch rate, but I didn't think it should affect roll rate by much. Perhaps that is incorrect. Everything I HAVE read indicates the Fw 190 D-9 was a good one, in every sense of the word.

Thanks! It will make a good read, I'm sure. And I can't disagree with it since I wasn't there.

Edit: Well. that certainly doesn't bear out what I said above, does it? I wonder if the example they flew was representative. It obviously had some issues, and may not have been entirely in good working order. I would THINK the D-9 to be better than that report indicated, but have no proof of same as I don't read German. Since the report was of flying a captured D-9 with some obvious difficulties, I'd not want to claim the conclusions as typical of the type without other corroboration.

What's even funnier is that report contradicts every other flight report of the radial units. They were supposed to stall with little to no warning and this D-9 gives plenty of warning. Something is fishy here ...

Steve Hinton flew Paul Allen's Fw 190 restoration and said the feel of the aircraft was first rate. That is, it was immediately apparent he was in a first-rate fighter that flew considerably differently from a Flugwerk replica (which he has also flown). He didn't explore the flight envelope very much as the test card was all about making sure it was airworthy, not about performance. That particular aircraft is BMW 801-powered.

 

[drgondog]

The P51 was pure serendipity. Its design brief was set by its manufacturer simply to be better than the P 40. Being a USA manufacturer it had a long range on internal fuel simply because the USA is a huge country. It was specified with an Allison engine which meant it was not too difficult to put in a Rolls Royce Merlin. From its original design with low drag wings and cooling system it was found that it could take more guns and ammunition in the wings, more internal fuel, oil and oxygen and then two massive external tanks on the wings.
In my view the "edge" that the P51 had on others was its aerodynamics and its "contingency" in engineering, its condition on take off with external and internal load of fuel was borderline on safety but put it in another league in terms of range. Then as this is being discovered and put together the USA finds its bombers cannot defend themselves as expected. Cometh the hour cometh the P 51. Looking at a P51D and its performance figures it is hard to believe that by and large it happened by accident, the air frame and engine being designed on different continents in different decades.

BTW who gets credit for the canopy?

As aircraft the Fw 190 of any type will suffer in comparison, with 1000 four engined bombers available, the USA decided the terms of the conflict, that is what happens in a war, not a demerit for the Fw 190 D.

The Bubble Canopy has two mothers.
The Brits articulated a need for better visibility and NAA responded with a 'sliding Hood' design installed and tested on a Mustang 1A in November, 1942. The sliding hood was satisfactory but the Malcolm Hood on the Spitfire was deemed a better solution and the RAF went to R. Malcolm for a Mustang custom solution. The first note I have found relative to date of installation is on the IARC for 43-6405 (FZ105) "R.Malcolm 30 Nov 1943, 19MU Oct, 1944" denoting the movements. Approximately 10 were modified in the UK for Mustang III before they were 'reverse Lend Lease' back to AAF for 354th FG on or around 12/31/43.

The Brits requested that Malcolm Hoods be installed at NAA in 1943 but I don't have the actual letter or the date, but NAA tested one installed at NAA in October, 1943 and deemed it too noisy and cold. That said, I have found that NAA was testing a bubble canopy at Inglewood wind tunnel. The drawing is labeled "Packard Pursuit" dated 7-7-42.

The P-51D Master Dimensions Book dated Feb 10, 1943 contains the Lofting Lines for both the P-51D Canopy as well as the six gun wing. The P-51D Lofting was complete on April 10, 1943 and subsequent Effectivities points to the P-51 42-106539 and 540 as the #1 and #2 P-51D-1. 42-106539 was delivered on 25 October, 1943. I believe, but not certain, that P-51B-1 43-12102 famously shown as first Bubble canopy mod was flown in July, 1943 - not November 17 as often stated. I believe 539 was the Mustang that actually flew in November as the first P-51D.

What is CERTAIN is the much touted visit to Inglewood in July, 1943 - by either Kelsey/Bradley (I can't remember) with the XP-47K bubble canopy version was Not the 'stimulus' for NAA development.

 

[Peter Gunn]

While I prefer the look of the P-51B/C, it's no stretch to see (no pun intended) why the D model would be desirable, granted my knowledge is only from research but the better visibility of the bubble would be the way to go.

So, I assume the D with a bubble would offer better visibility than a B/C with a Malcolm Hood on it? I seem to remember reading some accounts that pilots preferred the Malcolm Hood because they were able to sort of lean out of the cockpit and look under the tail. Sounds anecdotal so I'll ask, is that possible and wouldn't the D's bubble not only allow that but also just offer better all around vision?

Also, interesting that NAA found the Malcolm Hood "too noisy and cold", so does that mean modifications were in order? Or did North American just say pfft, that's cute but here's the bubble top D instead? Which looking at the timeline drgondog posted seems that NAA already had a bubble top answer before the Malcolm Hood (or the XP-47K for that matter) showed up at Inglewood.

 

[stona]

You know Pete, Erik Hartmann made the statement, " We didn't worry about
20 mph. difference." or he said something very close to that many years ago.
.

At least one Hurricane pilot made an effectively contradictory statement when he said words to the effect that the thing that worried him most about the Bf 109 was knowing that the Hurricane wasn't fast enough to run away from it. The speed difference meant that the German pilot could disengage more or less at will, an advantage denied the pilot of the slower aircraft.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Somethings are relative, 20 mph to a 320 mph fighter is a bigger difference than 20mph to a 420 mph fighter. And in some cases it is the acceleration rather than the actual speed that allows the separation. I doubt that any piston engine fighter pilot decided to depart a fight while flying at top speed. He may well have been at full throttle but you are not at top speed even if banked let alone turning. If a 340mph fighter decides to "run" while doing 280-290mph with a 320 mph fighter behind him (also doing 280-290mph) but not in firing position the 340mph fighter may have better acceleration and be able to hit 320mph before the slower fighter does and then keep accelerating. What this looks like to the pilots involved may be a bit different than the actual physics. or even the actual top speeds of the planes.

 

[CORSNING]

Keep in mind when talking about acceleration that you must know the
engine power, power loading, and dynamics of the aircraft involved.
At the time of its inception the Ki.43 had a maximum speed of less
than 310 mph., but there wasn't an aircraft in the sky that could
match its acceleration from 150 to almost 250 mph.and possibly even higher.
And that was with a 2-blade prop by the way. And NO I don't have the
exact figures...do you?

I don't have all the answers at this time, but I am having fun working on it.
God bless, Jeff

 

[drgondog]

While I prefer the look of the P-51B/C, it's no stretch to see (no pun intended) why the D model would be desirable, granted my knowledge is only from research but the better visibility of the bubble would be the way to go.

So, I assume the D with a bubble would offer better visibility than a B/C with a Malcolm Hood on it? I seem to remember reading some accounts that pilots preferred the Malcolm Hood because they were able to sort of lean out of the cockpit and look under the tail. Sounds anecdotal so I'll ask, is that possible and wouldn't the D's bubble not only allow that but also just offer better all around vision?

Also, interesting that NAA found the Malcolm Hood "too noisy and cold", so does that mean modifications were in order? Or did North American just say pfft, that's cute but here's the bubble top D instead? Which looking at the timeline drgondog posted seems that NAA already had a bubble top answer before the Malcolm Hood (or the XP-47K for that matter) showed up at Inglewood.

The NAA engineers were placating the RAF because a.) they knew that the production break to modify existing P-51B/C design would place production of Malcolm Hood version into the last block in late Spring, b.) the labor cost was prohibitive in contrast to the production Bubble canopy, and c.) would be delivered in fewer numbers over the May-June timeframe than the production D-5.

The original -2 Canopy was closer to flat side than the more blown -6 Canopy. So the original P-51D-5-NA with the -2 canopy had slightly less back and down than Malcolm Hood and the later -6 'semi-blown' bubble canopy.

 

[pbehn]

It has always been a mystery to me that from when the Spitfire was first seen in public other designers didnt seek to copy its canopy. the Typhoon didnt get a bubble canopy until Nov 1943.

 

[GregP]

When the Spitfire was first seen in public, it didn't have a bulged canopy.

But, hey, pbehn, I knew what you meant! And I agree with that sentiment.

The prototype is shown above, complete with original canopy, 2-blade prop, and tail skid. No stealth at all!

Glass panels were well after the war ....

 

[ChrisMcD]

I understand that a US liaison officer was the one who pushed for the bubble canopy on US fighters after seeing it on the Typhoon.

"A problem encountered with the Merlin-powered P-51B/C Version
was the poor view from the cockpit, particularly towards the rear. The
'Malcolm Hood' fitted to the P-51B/C was an early attempt to correct
this deficiency. However, a more lasting solution was sought. In January
1943, Col. Mark Bradley had been sent to England and saw how the new
'bubble' or 'teardrop' canopy had given Spitfire and Typhoon pilots an
unobstructed 360-degree vision. He returned to Wright Field in June and
began exploring the possibility of incorporating bubble canopies on
USAAF fighters.

Republic Aviation installed a bubble canopy on the P-47D
Thunderbolt in record time and Bradley flew it to Inglewood to
demonstrate its features. Following discussions with the British, and after
examination of the clear—blown 'teardrop' canopies of Spitfires and
Typhoons, NAA secured an agreement with the Army to test a similar
canopy on a Mustang in order to improve the pilot's View from the
cockpit.

P-51B-1-NA (43-12101) was selected to be modified as the test
vehicle for the new bubble canopy."

Ref:
Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air
By Steve Pace