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

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

paul.kachurak

Airman
23
0
Nov 16, 2004
Huntingtown, MD
Take a look at the plots of speed and climb that I posted back on page 2 of this thread. See how far apart the P-51D speed-wise is from the Fw190D-9 at 7km even with the P-51D using 67" MP. Climb rates are close. If the P-51D uses 72" then it is much better than the D-9 at even 6000m.

Also on there is a plot of the A8. And that shows that the D-9 had better performance. The D-9s full throttle altitude with or without MW50 was about 6800m. The P-51D FTH is about 7500m with 67" MP.

Yes the D-9 had better higher altitude performance than the A-8 but it was not as good as the P-51D. I think those plots which were taken from relevant FW (D-9 and A-8 ) and USAF (P-51D) document speak for themselves and are not incorrect. In fact I think the D-9 maybe a little on the optimistic side but I don't have any hard data to prove that.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
22
Feb 6, 2005
There is no error in history about the Jumo 213A-1 Paul..

Jumo 213A-1 "Sonder Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor" 2240 HP at sea level.
 

Lunatic

Banned
179
0
Jun 20, 2005
Soren said:
And about #3, no the cruising speed for P-51D was much lower at 275mph, and that is also what vets say it did.

Jeeze Soren, I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise. P-51's often cruised at lower speeds to extend their filght time, but cruises up to 395 mph were used while hunting/patroling ahead of the bomber groups. There was almost no actual range penalty for doing so (~50 miles less at 395 than at 275 TAS).

Soren said:
And the Kommandogerat was an advange... right up to the point it got the divide by zero error and stopped working.

Example perhaps ?

Again, in the past I've posted the NACA documents regaurding this. When the Kommandargat reaches a critical altitude, the ambient pressure drops to an unmeasureable level. Since it is used as an effective divisor in the hydrolic analog computer, this results in a divide by zero error condition. In the A series, this caused the plane to go into a safe mode - running rich and at low power. I believe but am not positive that in the Dora there was a bypass to allow manual operation when altitudes exceeded the system capabilities, at around 24,000 feet.

Soren said:
And the weight figures are based upon full fuel, where in actual combat the P-51 would have a lower proportion of its full fuel load than the D9.

Would it really ? I think not, as the P-51D first dropped its main source of fuel, its drop tanks, when engaged by enemy fighters, having to fight with full internal fuel load. On the other hand many 190's and 109's flew on low fuel, partly because of the trip to engage their target and because of fuel shortages.

You seem to want to play games with the facts. When it suits you you want to talk about a likely historic encounter situation of your choosing. Yet in the same argument you will use theoretical "fair" encounter conditions where it suits the outcome you support. For instance you wish to totally ingore the fact that the P-51's had the advantage at high altitude and would most likely initiate an egagement from an altitude advantage.

Yes, certailnly if the enemy fighters were encounted while the P-51's still had their drop tanks they'd have a fair bit of fuel. Something on the order of 70% or so since it was common practice not to fill the rear tank to capacity and then to burn it off before switching to the drop tanks on the climb out for stability reasons.

On the other hand, usually P-51's flew in a relay system. The bombers would take off, the Britis would escort them part of the way to the target, the P-47's would pick it up from there, and then 3 or 4 sets of P-51's would rendevous with the formation handing off the tight escort duty. By this point the P-51's being relieved were finished with their external fuel, and still had around 750 miles of range to play with, and only a less than 300 mile trip to a safe landing field. At this point they started doing high sweeps, and if no enemy planes were encountered they'd go down and look for targets to strafe before heading home. Up to being relieved from tight escort after dropping tanks they'd have about 70% internal fuel. After that point they'd have less and less until they got down to about 30% and had to turn for home.

The likely encounter would have the P-51 at about 50% fuel, and the Dora9 would probably have more than 50% (since it went directly into the combat rather than patrolling for it). So for sake of argument lets assume both had 50%. Since the P-51 carried more fuel as a % of its total takeoff weight, it would loose more weight to get down to that 50% level.

Soren said:
Vision from the D9 was good (compared to many other WWII fighters), but it was not nearly as good as that from the P-51 both because of the canopy design and the pilot position (try reclining and then looking back over your shoulder while strapped in).

Agreed, however forward vision was better in the Fw-190.

Why? The Dora pilot sits lower in the cockpit, and the distance between the dash and the brim of the front canopy section is smaller. The Dora pilot also sits further back of the wing, limiting his forward and down view, but improving his down and behind view slightly. The nose of the Dora is broader and also the panel in front of the cockpit is higher. Finally, the P-51 flies with a more nose down rake to it allowing the pilot to see even better to the front.

Look at your own posted images!

In just about every respect the P-51D and beyond had the best pilot vision of any plane in WWII.

Soren said:
Also, actual top speed of the P-51D was 448 mph. For the P-51B it was 451 mph. 437 mph is under Military Power, not Combat Power (WEP). (Source - Kit Carson amoung others)

Kit Carson ?! Now THAT's a guy which is full of it, and I think most people will agree with that ! I personally believe nothing he says, what so ever, and Im surprised if anyone does.

Well, his quoted speed figures are strait from the Maryland US Naval Air Station flgiht tests conducted in January 1944 and are verifiable. The P-51B pulled 451 mph TAS at 29000 feet, not the 440 mph top speed typically quoted - the USA made a practice of quoting MP rather than WEP performance throughout this period. The P-51D was about 3 mph slower than the P-51B.

=S=

Lunatic
 

Erich

the old Sage
12,856
630
May 20, 2004
Platonic Sphere
Paul it appears your stats at full throttle for the Mustang and D-9 are too low.

combats between P-51's and even 109G-6/AS took place in spring of 44 at or above 33,000 feet. Yes I know pretty frickin high on the scale but it happened. the current alt. figure I give is reported in after action Luftw reprots from pilots in I./JG 3 in April and the month of May 44 when the G-6/AS was dutied for Höhenjäger. The MW 50 even with it's 10 minute duration saved a few Luftw boyz butts with 2-3 Stangs on their heels
 

paul.kachurak

Airman
23
0
Nov 16, 2004
Huntingtown, MD
I'd love to see some documentation of 2240 hp. As I have said I have one Jumo doc that shows 2100 PS with MW 50 that is clearly marked as a Jumo213A. I have another doc that doesn't even say what it is but looks like a Jumo 213 based engine that goes up to 2240 at sea level. But again I have been told and I believe that this is a 1900-bases Jumo that never left the test bench.

Unfortunately I cannot post these per direction of the source I got them. I can e-mail them though.

Please provide the documents to back that up, if you can.
 

Erich

the old Sage
12,856
630
May 20, 2004
Platonic Sphere
1st of two volumes by Eric larger and the gang

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D camouflage markings – Part I
The Focke-Wulf Fw 190D was one of the most elegant and powerful birds of prey in the European skies at the end of WW II. Similar in conception to “Messerschmitt Bf 109K, camouflage marking”, this new work provides a thorough insight in the aircraft’s camouflage and marking schemes.
Part I explains the common rules used for camouflaging and marking of the type, and describes in great detail the various colour patterns applied to the different Focke-Wulf built Fw 190D-9 and D-11 production batches.
The book is fully documented with extracts from original documents, black white, and colour photographs, as well as colour schemes and colour profiles. It is completed with a comprehensive loss list of the entire Focke-Wulf production.
Highly recommended for all students of WW II aerial warfare, Fw 190 fans, and modellers.
Hardback, 208 pages, approx. 240 photographs, numerous colour schemes, and camouflage profiles of 32 aircraft. English text.

.........this maybe more a techincial book that EE.'s effort ...........1st volume has nothing on II./JG 301 sadly as I have been in touch corresponding with Eric larger
 

Attachments

  • ob_fw190d_big_176.jpg
    ob_fw190d_big_176.jpg
    24.7 KB · Views: 644

paul.kachurak

Airman
23
0
Nov 16, 2004
Huntingtown, MD
Per testing the MW50 system on the Jumo213A at about 6800m put out the same power as the start-und-notleistung setting. This is confirmed in the Jumo213A power curves that I have.

I have no doubt that combat took place up at 33000 feet, but the speeds I have posted and the climb rates are from FW documents. Those aren't my stats or data. The only part I did was calculate the turn performance.
 

Erich

the old Sage
12,856
630
May 20, 2004
Platonic Sphere
Paul are these from some of the A. Hafner data books via Deutschland ?? in other words what FW doc-hand books are your ratings atested ? Handbook ~ Numerations as it maybe beneficial to our forum members to look into these for their own personal data base... ? if they are handy of course ......

will have to do some more spec checking but the Jumo related Ju 88G-6 was a hot plug mostly unknownst even to it's own crews
 

paul.kachurak

Airman
23
0
Nov 16, 2004
Huntingtown, MD
I don't know where all this came from exactly. I got a lot in e-mails and from other forums. I don't think any of it came from Hafner books but I can't say that for sure

I have:

Widerstandsdaten von Fleugzeugen dated Dec. 1944 which means "drag data for airplanes" which gives detailed drag data for the A-8, A-9, D-9, D-12, Ta152C-1, 152E-1, and 152H-1. It also has CLMAX.

Three sheets from FW dated 3 March 45 that gives speeds at different altitudes and different power settings. You may remember Bryan Bury's D-9 web site that is now defunct. These sheets are where he got his speed data from. I see in the lower left had corner under the column "aufgestellt von" a name, "Haache".

One sheet marked Jumo213A Motorleistunen nach Jumo Bl 2610 dated 9 Oct 44. Handwritten in the upper left hand corner is AIR 90174 or 40174 it's hard to read. Perhaps it came from some captured RAF document? It gives power in PS, exhaust thrust, and fuel consumption for different power settings.

I have one document that have no markings on it at all, no date, nothing that says what engine it is from. The person who gave it to me said it was a Jumo. Since then others have told me it is a 1900-basis Jumo. It does show that with MW50 reaching 2240 PS. But it is kind of odd with a dashed line. You'd have to see it to understand what I mean by odd.
 

wmaxt

Staff Sergeant
1,200
10
Dec 5, 2004
Boise, Idaho
KraziKanuK said:
I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise.
Is that with or without dts?

Cruise speeds are always dependant on range issues The P-51 cruised at about 260mph for max endurance/reasonable speed and according to a P-51 pilot who flew out of England durring the war thats what they flew at. However a pilot that flew with the checkertails out of Italy said that they frequently flew at 350/360mph cruise but NEVER faster than that unless they were in attack mode "It used to much fuel" Quote and italics are his.

My TO-1 states Max endurance at 140mph CAS
Max range Wing racks only 35,000ft 66gph 367mph but at 10,000ft its 261mph and 42gph. Our checkertail friend stated they used 55/60 gph to define/limit/optimize their cruise speeds.

My TO-1 Mustang handbook states Full Throttle (military) for a P-51D is 424mph. All stats and tests I've seen rate the P-51 D at 420s in military or 1,590hp and 437mph at 1,650hp in WEP. The P-51B/C was about 3 mph faster. The 1 test I've seen with a P-51 in the 450mph range was 'cooked' The aircraft was well over 1,000 lbs lighter than normal test weight and probably prepared in other ways because this was a max possable test not a comparison test.

wmaxt
 

KraziKanuK

Banned
792
4
Jan 26, 2005
The ~50gph is about what the Spit (M66) got at fast cruise. (rpm were 2650)

What was the speed loss with dts?
 

wmaxt

Staff Sergeant
1,200
10
Dec 5, 2004
Boise, Idaho
KraziKanuK said:
The ~50gph is about what the Spit (M66) got at fast cruise. (rpm were 2650)

What was the speed loss with dts?

The numbers in the first post are in a clean configuration. With a load Drop tanks, rockets, bombs at full load and max range is at 15,000ft and 245mph 63 gal/hr (Highest shown).
Middle loading is two 500lb bombs or to 75gal tanks w/tanks max range is 1,380mi at 65gal/hr 327mph at 35,000 FT and 2450rpm.

I'm not sure what your asking dts?

wmaxt
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
22
Feb 6, 2005
paul.kachurak said:
I'd love to see some documentation of 2240 hp. As I have said I have one Jumo doc that shows 2100 PS with MW 50 that is clearly marked as a Jumo213A. I have another doc that doesn't even say what it is but looks like a Jumo 213 based engine that goes up to 2240 at sea level. But again I have been told and I believe that this is a 1900-bases Jumo that never left the test bench.

Unfortunately I cannot post these per direction of the source I got them. I can e-mail them though.

Please provide the documents to back that up, if you can.

So you don't believe the Jumo 213A could reach 2240 HP at sea level by the help of a "Compressor"(Which in itself should make you believe it), eventhough you've got the evidence right under your nose ?

Jeeze Soren, I've posted the P-51 handbook data which clearly shows a 395 mph and an over 400 mph cruise. P-51's often cruised at lower speeds to extend their filght time, but cruises up to 395 mph were used while hunting/patroling ahead of the bomber groups. There was almost no actual range penalty for doing so (~50 miles less at 395 than at 275 TAS).

Yes ofcause Lunatic your right, all the P-51 vets I've been talking to were apparently just talking crap, right ? :rolleyes:

Jesus christ man !

Also tell me, how would the P-51 which atleast has 450 less horsepower and is atleast 650 - 700 lbs heavier than the Dora-9, be cruising at such a significantly higher speed ? Sure the P-51 has a low drag wing, but the Fw-190 has a higher aspect ratio wing which also lowers drag, so what then could be the reason ? The body ? No, the Fw-190's body drag coefficient was just as good, or atleast very close to the P-51's. So then what could it be ? I sure as hell can't see what it could be.

Again, in the past I've posted the NACA documents regaurding this. When the Kommandargat reaches a critical altitude, the ambient pressure drops to an unmeasureable level. Since it is used as an effective divisor in the hydrolic analog computer, this results in a divide by zero error condition. In the A series, this caused the plane to go into a safe mode - running rich and at low power.

Oh yeah, the tests with the A-4 which had a malfunctioning engine! Yeah sure thats a real good basis for which to determine the functionality of the kommandogerat ! :rolleyes:

I wonder why everyone else loved the Kommandogerat, and thought it was brilliant. Funny the LW boys didn't complain about it either, don't you think ? Surely it most have been a real peace of junk then, right ? ;)

You seem to want to play games with the facts. When it suits you you want to talk about a likely historic encounter situation of your choosing. Yet in the same argument you will use theoretical "fair" encounter conditions where it suits the outcome you support.

Oh thats rich coming from you ! :rolleyes:

For instance you wish to totally ingore the fact that the P-51's had the advantage at high altitude and would most likely initiate an egagement from an altitude advantage.

Not at all, but what if the Dora has the alt advantage, then what ?

We're comparing two a/c here Lunatic, fairly(In real life there's no such thing, I know!, but for the sake of comparison there is), so there shouldn't be given an alt advantage to any of them.

Sure the P-51 might be better up high at 30,000ft, but below that the Fw-190D-9 is better in every aspect. Both a/c have there ups and downs.

Finally, the P-51 flies with a more nose down rake to it allowing the pilot to see even better to the front.

For Christ sake Lunatic, so does the Fw-190 ! And even more so than the P-51 !
 

paul.kachurak

Airman
23
0
Nov 16, 2004
Huntingtown, MD
Soren,

I am not going to get into an argument. I have the documentation for a Jumo 213A w/ MW50 giving 2100 PS. If you want I will e-mail that to you or anyone who wants to see. I do not have documentation at all for a 2240 HP Jumo 213A with any boost. If you have documentation that shows without a doubt that a Jumo213A was capable of providing 2240 HP not PS horsepower then please show me. I want to believe. But after three years of looking, and asking, and analyzing it I need to see the documentation.
 

Erich

the old Sage
12,856
630
May 20, 2004
Platonic Sphere
intersting just checking through data on the engines of the Ju 88G-6. not bad for an old hunk of bolts. 2 Jumo 213E's with 1,880 h.p. up to 2,250 h.p. rating when needed...............

E ~
 

JonJGoldberg

Airman 1st Class
210
0
Oct 14, 2005
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
...Great reading guys.
paul.kachurak welcome.

As some of you may know, I've posted a fighter comparison table containing much of this data, although it is data presented rather differently, it is contained within the best fighter thread, paul please download it here, http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=962&start=520, look for the .pdf

I run a lighting automation technology integration division by trade, so this is a hobby for me; I’ve loved WW2 aircraft since seeing an F4U Corsair as a tot. I bought Microsoft CFS-1 in ’99, then CFS-2 in 2000. After about a year of tinkering, the discovery of a marvelous spread sheet designed by Jerry Beckwith, I decided to acquire as much data as possible to generate as close as the CFS-2 platform would allow, ‘air’ files for as many aircraft as possible. You will find post upon post of how and where information was acquired if you decide to go backwards from where I pointed you above, you may also find a great deal of additional data on a ‘dead’ thread F4U-4 Vs P-47N acknowledgements in the spread sheet, so I will end the description here with regard to ‘validation’ issues that may arise from this point forward.

One of the great things, I’ve come to learn, about this site is that these forums can really open your mind, as ‘peer’ pressure can at times be a great motivational force generating the momentum needed to gather data you might otherwise let go by, accept viewpoints never before entertained.

With regard to viewpoints: According to my tables the variance in my ‘weighted’ performance charts shows the aircraft (the 51 190 Ds) to be real darn close overall. I believe, as you seem to, that the two are two close to call, if combat were to start with neither aircraft at an advantage, the contest would be decided by ‘human’ factors, the pilot’s skill, knowledge, his (or her) application of them, his (or her) composure.

I would like however to mention, your charts are beautifully done, that you are applying your data incorrectly. For example, the turn charts although at 1st pass they looked good, and the planes seem able by math to do what your tables suggest, but at 340 MPH, you’ll rip the wings off these birds, even if empty, as you have exceeded the airframe’s stress ratings. I also need some clarification please… CL is a dimensionless quantity – the lift coefficient – which relates mostly to the angle at which the wings meet the airflow or flight path, but also to the shape of the wings particularly in cross section – the aerofoil. What exactly is CLmax? I calculated CL for the P-51 as 1.476 the 190D9 as 1.766 for my tables… But I’m not looking to split hairs here, I just want to know what CLmax is.

With this in mind please have a look below… (Graph images derived from spread sheets created by Jerry Beckwith; Other tables from P-51 flight manuals)
 

Attachments

  • p_51d30_engine_settings_136.jpg
    p_51d30_engine_settings_136.jpg
    75.5 KB · Views: 504
  • p_51d30_guage_max_806.jpg
    p_51d30_guage_max_806.jpg
    152.9 KB · Views: 495
  • p_51d30_ias_max_813.jpg
    p_51d30_ias_max_813.jpg
    120.5 KB · Views: 494
  • p_51d30_v_chart_201.jpg
    p_51d30_v_chart_201.jpg
    98.2 KB · Views: 615
  • p_51d30_capability_vs_limit_123.jpg
    p_51d30_capability_vs_limit_123.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 519
  • p_51d30_turn_performance_201.jpg
    p_51d30_turn_performance_201.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 515
  • fw_190d9_capability_vs_limit_119.jpg
    fw_190d9_capability_vs_limit_119.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 491
  • fw_190d9_turn_performance_841.jpg
    fw_190d9_turn_performance_841.jpg
    37.8 KB · Views: 508

Users who are viewing this thread