Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang (1 Viewer)

2700 RPM and 46" manifold are the "maximum continious" settings according to the P-51 Pilots Operations Handbook. That means that as long as the coolant and oil temperatures stayed within parameters (100-121 degrees for coolant and 70-105 degrees for oil) the engine could be held at that setting indefinately.

Jabberwocky said:

2700 RPM and 46" manifold are the "maximum continious" settings according to the P-51 Pilots Operations Handbook. That means that as long as the coolant and oil temperatures stayed within parameters (100-121 degrees for coolant and 70-105 degrees for oil) the engine could be held at that setting indefinately.

Click to expand...

Yep, but you wouldn't want to stay there if you're trying to save gas!

wmaxt said:

Lunatic said:

That's BS. I have the test report and the P-51B tested, AAF serial # 37050, was at 9423 lbs takeoff weight - fully loaded clean condition. The only change from production on the plane was a reworking of the radio antenna which was a standard field change usually applied before the planes were delivered to combat units. Maximum speed, 351 mph TAS, was determined at 3000 rpm and 67" of manifold pressure at ~29000 feet.

And if anything the USN report is biased against the P-51B and in favor of the F4U-1 and -1a used in the test.

Click to expand...

No BS (which I resent) the data is right out of the Pilots Handbook for the P-51D 1947 edition.

Then I haven't seen the report you are refering to. The report I'm refering to had the P-51 at a weight listed below 8,000lbs and was not being compared to anything. I have looked but not found any tests or specs on the P-51 that indicate otherwise - that does not mean they don't exist - I haven't found or seen them. The other thing is that specs on the P-51 are very consistent even from Mustang advocates, if the P-51 was normaly faster (and 10/12mph is significant) than reported surely we would be hearing about it?

Flyboy, is also correct, Max Continous, is not cruise and according to the pilots I contacted they flew cruise at 55/60gal/hr and he made a point of stating, in italics, that anything faster than that (~360mphTAS at ~25,000ft) used to much fuel for anything but actual combat. Three-sixty is substantial and better than almost every one else. I also posted the max range numbers which lists 367mph @ 35,000ft and 261mph @ 10,000ft both numbers TAS.

I repeat, I've only shown or commented on data I have, with no additions, modifications or adjustments.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

My appologies, I didn't mean to offend you wmax, "BS" is considered very mild in my current environment.

Here's the report... (these are gifs so they should be small enough not to take too long to upload).

=S=

Lunatic

Erich said:

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 ~

Click to expand...

Yeah, and if im not entirely mistaken the Dora-13 (Which saw service btw), used just that engine.

Suddenly 2,240 HP from the Jumo 213A doesn't seem so unreal anymore, huh Paul ? You'd be surprised how much, switching from 87 to 100 octane fuel and adding a Compressor, actually increases the horsepower of an engine. (Not to mention having methanol sprayed into the engine at the same time as-well !)

Anyway Paul, I'll get back to you about the Jumo 213A later, as Im in abit of a hurry right now.

Lunatic said:

My appologies, I didn't mean to offend you wmax, "BS" is considered very mild in my current environment.

Here's the report... (these are gifs so they should be small enough not to take too long to upload).

=S=

Lunatic

Click to expand...

Thanks for the test. Though I try hard to be both correct and neutral, I do make mistakes once in a while, I also understand a little fanatisim too (Obviously I'm suseptable sometimes to).

I see the 450mph but I also note the wing was prepped "sanded smooth" If it was sanded then it would also have been buffed giving it a polished finish easily increasing speed of the aircraft.

I would like you to reference this site:
http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html
which sums up what I've come to understand as the real life results of the P-51s unique features and performance. Included is a test of the P-51B @ 448mph but again its noted that the aircraft is not quite field standard.

IMHO, the P-51B/C/D/K was a very good aircraft by 1944/45 standards but not really a stand out except for range. Tactics and numbers made it a great plane. It traded Climb, and maneuvering for range and speed not to say the compromise wasn't good but it was compromised somewhat to do that. Like all planes it had some weaker points, but better training, support, and tactics compensated for those points quite a lot.

wmaxt

Erich,

Check your PMs here. I missed getting your e-mail address.

R,
Paul

Hey guys... 1st thing, my last post, silly me, I copied numbers for CL, not images, from the wrong fields of the data sets, 'my bad'; corrections below... Way below.
paul.kachurak in the beginning of this I thought as you... I built a safety margin that seemed to be reasonable, actually concluded as you, that 6 Gs should about do it, also concluding that even if the aircraft is rated to 7.5 – 8 Gs this had to be sufficient; then I stumbled upon my 1st flight manual and out the window went my comparison table version 1. I was reminded that the aircraft had a negative G rating of -4 G. When we (I) applied our safety margin we right off the bat exceeded by -2 Gs the airframe's capability.
Things grew from here, as I acquired more data I stared reading that the aircraft's loading effected what the aircraft can do, for example the 51's manual advises the following (my synopsis): With the fuselage tank at 40 gallons or more CG moves so far back that it is next to impossible to trim the aircraft for hands off level flight, also, more importantly, as soon as you enter a tight turn (no actual definition of 'tight' given) or attempt a pull out, stick forces reverse. The same thing happens in a dive, the manual goes on. These factors do not lie within your (our) 'reasonable' conclusion that applying an under G rating to the 'turn rate figures' provides a sufficient margin of error to provide an accurate envelope of our targeted aircraft. There are also bank angles, power-plant anomalies, induced drag (not from the airfoil) and 'prop thrust' factors that are involved, that the G force safety margin can not even begin to address...
I also use an excel spread sheet, designed by Jerry Beckwith. It was designed to build '1% flight models' for Microsoft Flight Simulators, the version I use is accurate to CFS-2 / FS-2000 flight envelope programming. The spread sheet has an NACA airfoil database 'engine' built into its macros, I rely a great deal on this engine, as it can 'extrapolate' for me, as I've got to admit, after some four years I still don't fully understand all of the math, but I'm still 'learning', cool stuff... As the output of the sheet is an 'air file' I use my MS Access pivot table to 're-bias' and my own Excel sheet to convert to 'normal' units of measure, so I understand both the desire to send, the need to explain your data sheet, I only wish I had the time to do something with it. I would like you to send it to me, if you'd like, as I know someday I'll remember, look it up. This is how I am, not at all to be misunderstood as neglect, think of it as passion, only anally focused to one thing at a time; for example with most of my free time now I'm back to paying attention to things of interest at www.ww2aircraft.net, not flying my sim, or modifying one of it's aircraft models, or damage profiles, another 'hobbie' requiring mega-time, or re-painting them, mega mega time.
So that you (all) may understand me a bit better, we have data differences, but that is not my point at all, what I'm trying to display is not my version of the numbers, but some of the figures used to determine 'turn rates' as insight to my thoughts on building them, as it would be quite silly to explain either Jerry's or my spread sheets, I'm ashamed to admit I understand this stuff, to most, much less express it... again. I'll find the posting if your intrested.

FW190D-9

CL = 1.5794 @ 20.10 degrees (my reference weight = Empty Weight}
Empty Weight (No Fuel Or Ammo): 8605 Lbs
Combat Weight (Full Fuel Ammo, Clean): 9822 Lbs
Max Weight: 10670 Lbs
Wing Span: 34 ft 5.5 In
Root Airfoil: NACA 23015
Tip Airfoil: NACA 23009
Root/Tip Area Ratio: 66%
Wing Twist (Washout): -1 Degree
Aspect Ratio: 5.98
Wing Dihedral: 5 Degrees
Wing Area: 197 Sq Ft
Wing Stall Speed: 145.47 Ft Per Sec (Aircraft Stall = 99.18 MPH)
Tail Surface: 31.6 Sq Ft
Tail Span: 151.97 inches
Tail Distance (CG): 20.832 Ft



P-51D30

CL = 1.4794 @ 19.95 degrees (my reference weight = Empty Weight}
Empty Weight (No Fuel Or Ammo): 7959 Lbs
Combat Weight (Full Fuel Ammo, Clean): 9600 Lbs
Max Weight: 11400 Lbs
Root Airfoil: NACA 63-415
Tip Airfoil: NACA 65-215
Root/Tip Area Ratio: 66%
Aspect Ratio: 5.77
Wing Dihedral: 5 Degrees
Wing Area: 235.8 Sq Ft
Wing Stall Speed: 132.01 Ft Per Sec (Aircraft Stall = 90.01 MPH)
Wing Twist (Washout): -1.25 Degrees
Tail Surface: 41 Sq Ft
Tail Span: 158 inches
Tail Distance (CG): 15.9 Ft CG


…bored yet? K. On to other things…

This cruising speed thing will be resolved with the images provided below. My comment on some of your postings, with regard to sustained cruse speeds in the 400 MPH range is LOL. Realize that here the table shows a 'clean' aircraft with wing racks a bit of numerical theory; as for example, you can not operate a P-51 above 300 MPH @ 30,000 Ft, as for the wing tanks, attached to the '51 until the last minute, due to the mass of internal gas, the need to burn it off 1st, who of you believe they were designed to say attached at those speeds? The gentleman, who posted the table he posted as evidence, did not post the whole story. I won't post that table again, just the following; See Images below…

Glad to have had this exchange with you!

Prohibited Manuevers

No abrupt pull ups with more than 25 gallons in fuselage tank.

No aerobatic flying with fuel in the fuselage tank.


Sounds like seriously debilitating restrictions in combat. Maybe the Mustang wasn't all that hot after all.

...As I was trying to tell you guys, these planes seem to have very narrow sweet spots, they were designed to operate best at specific weight ranges, too little being as bad as too much.

The fuel thing was not a draw back as much as it appears, as this tank as I'm reading was only filled for long range missions and burned 1st.

Finally, unfortunately for me, as I was a very STRONG supporter of the '51, it seems it was really best suited for the role it served, escort fighter.

Lunatic,
What is it with the Navy, and their comparison testing? I would just love to see the compelling reason for this test. How in the world can we base anything on it? Bad intelligence for certain.
A bunch of Navy pilots gathered round, took a comparison Army test aircraft, to get closer to... reality modified the radio installation, sanded the wings ...which in turn required the fitting of a smaller prop to the navy plane to balance out the performance gain... Nope nothing suspect there!

Magister said:

Prohibited Manuevers

No abrupt pull ups with more than 25 gallons in fuselage tank.

No aerobatic flying with fuel in the fuselage tank.


Sounds like seriously debilitating restrictions in combat. Maybe the Mustang wasn't all that hot after all.

Click to expand...

No not at all - it was SOP to use the fuselage tank first, usually in cruise on the way to the target. I've seen this spoken about on several documentaries...

FLYBOYJ said:

Magister said:

Prohibited Manuevers

No abrupt pull ups with more than 25 gallons in fuselage tank.

No aerobatic flying with fuel in the fuselage tank.


Sounds like seriously debilitating restrictions in combat. Maybe the Mustang wasn't all that hot after all.

Click to expand...

No not at all - it was SOP to use the fuselage tank first, usually in cruise on the way to the target. I've seen this spoken about on several documentaries...

Click to expand...

Not all the fuselage tank was used, About a 1/3 was left as a safety margin just incase the dts had to be dropped earlier than was expected.

The fuselage tank could not have been that overly restrictive on combat as the 487th FS was sitting on the runway preparing to take off with full tanks, but no dts, as the Germans began to attack Asch on Jan 1 45. Now the pilots said they had to watch their manuevering at low altitudes til ~50gal had been used but they still were in combat with full tanks.

Does anyone have any kind of info als on the 190D. That would be interesting to see.

Jon,

I think at one time the USN was considering making a carrier-capable version of the P-51. I seem to remember seeing a picture of a Mustang on a CV deck.

All,

You guys should realize that the requirements for the USN are different than the USAAC/F. Carrier suitability drives the design. In the Pacific the combat was lower and more broad in terms of territory covered. Not up at 25000 feet like in the ETO with the VIII Fighter Command protecting B-17s and B-24s. They were down protecting the dive bombers and torpedo bombers and intercepting the enemy dive bombers and torpedo bombers and doing attacks on shipping and airfields and rudimentary close air support. It was a different type of air combat. Just like the combats in Western Europe were different than those between the LW and VVS.

So any comparison done by one service of another service's aiplane is going to be tainted by:
1. their knowledge and opinions on what fits their bill
2. the plane is already built to some specification was not their requirements

Interesting comparisons but like all comparisons they need to be taken with a grain of salt and viewed through the eyes of the comparators.

paul.kachurak said:

I made the speed and climb charts based on real data

The turn stuff are my calculations based on drag, power, etc. data

IMO below about 7000m the P-51D and Fw190D-9 are fairly evenly matched with initial combat conditions and pilot skill being the primary deciding factors.

Click to expand...

what was your sources?

The source of the P-51D data can be found here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ look under the Mustang testing pages

The source of the FW190D-9 data are:

three FW sheets datad 11 March 1945 that gives speeds for different power settings
a Jumo 213A power versus altitude curves dated 9 November 1944 report number Jumo Bl. 2610 v. 9.10.44
a FW climb chart dated 24 March 1945

Unfortunately I cannot post these since the person I got them from specifically said that I cannot. Out of respect for him and the help he has given to me I won't. I can however e-mail them with the same requirement/promise that the receiver will not post them on a forum.

The sustained turn performance I calculated using the a standard atmosphere table, the above power curves, and drag data found on "Widerstandsdaten von Fluegzeug" which means Drag Data for Airplanes dated December 1944.

R,
Paul

ok, tx man 8)

DerAdlerIstGelandet...

German
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9testgerman.html

English
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html

A very informative sight paul.kachurak refers to, but I thank wmaxt who sent me a lead for this site some time back. To date, this sight http://www.airpages.ru/eng/index.html seem to have the best FW-190D stuff on the web I've seen. PS if the link above does not work just use www.airpages.ru navigate from there.

The gentleman, Lutz Naudet, mentioned at the bottom of that page, is the person from whom I got a lot of D-9 data. We've traded e-mails discussing the D-9 and Jumo.

Here is an interesting thread on the Jumo by Naudet: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=832&hl=jumo

paul.kachurak... Can't get in, as I don't 'belong'; the page asks for a 'sign-in' password