I believe that a squadron was 12 operational pilots/aircraft but wasnt the strength 16 men and machines at the start to guarantee (as far as possible) that 12 were available. This is a sensible contigency for operations, quickly swallowed up when battle starts.
Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
actually......we miss erich. he is was a great wealth of information...his relative flew 110s ( iirc)....he had a library that rivaled drgondog...between the two of them we were able to sort out a lot of fantasy vs reality. what looks good on paper isn't what always is....
I'm doing this from memory as I'm not at home this weekend, but I'm reasonably sure of the numbers
Following the introduction of the stabilisation system an 'A' class squadron was supposed to have 16 operational pilots. In 1939 the figure was a total 26 pilots, but the definition of operational before the war might be different. A man fresh from an OTU would be considered an operational pilot in peacetime, but would be continuing his training with his squadron. During the BoB he might find his was to a squadron in 11 Group, but from the second week in September he would almost certainly be posted to a 'B' or 'C' class squadron in another Group.
Cheers
Steve
I'm doing this from memory as I'm not at home this weekend, but I'm reasonably sure of the numbers
Following the introduction of the stabilisation system an 'A' class squadron was supposed to have 16 operational pilots. In 1939 the figure was a total 26 pilots, but the definition of operational before the war might be different. A man fresh from an OTU would be considered an operational pilot in peacetime, but would be continuing his training with his squadron. During the BoB he might find his was to a squadron in 11 Group, but from the second week in September he would almost certainly be posted to a 'B' or 'C' class squadron in another Group.
Cheers
Steve
Years ago seen some document obtained from Kew that had stats on BoB squadrons. The person never posted the whole document, just sections. It had the number of pilots and a/c on hand, operational and wastage.
Will look to see if I saved it.
edit. Found 2 images.
Hurricane squadrons appear to have 22 a/c and Spitfire squadrons have 18 a/c. Also has a/c issued to the squadrons.
The data begins week ending July 7.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Erich's cousin flew and was KIA in an FW190A-8 near Hannover, 11/26/44. Probably 355th FG but possibly 339th.
True the fuel penalty of the p51. But the 190 also had penalties that crippled its prformance
it had to operate on lower grade fuel
it had to carry heavy armor to survive attacks on the heavy bombers
it had to carry heavy cannons for the same reason
it had no acces to raw materials, so no turbosupercharged vertion.
it had to be constructed in undercovered factories by u trained workers or even slaves.so low building quality
it had to use the heavy camouflage paint because of the operational enviroment. Th e p51 did not have to use camouflage
it had to face specialized opponents. LF spits, tempests,yaks, las at low altitude, HF spits, p47s, p51s, at high altitude.the 190 had one confuguration for all different needs because of the production needs
Personally i see only 2 clear ,constructive,advantages of the p 51 d over the d9. The wing profile and the 2 stage supercharger.
GregP
Major
The P-51D was faster by 10 - 11 mph.
The P-51D had a service ceiling more than 2,000 feet higher.
The P-51D had 2,200 miles MORE range.
The Fw 190 D-9 climbed. 3,346 fpm. The P-51D climbed 3,209 fpm The difference isn't worth much. Either can hang in there with the other long enough for a kill. Advantage VERY slightly to Fw 190 D-9 in a prolonged climb.
Fw 190 D-9 wing loading 47.7 lbs/ sq ft. Wing loadiong P-51D: 39 lbs / sq ft. Clear advantage for P-51D by 20+%.
No advantage anywhere in weight to Fw 190 D-9. It weighed more empty and weighted more normally loaded. The P-51D weighed more when loaded to the gills with fuel for long range, but lost a good deal of that weight getting to the fight. At combat join, the P-51D might be slightly heavier; maybe not.
Clear advantage in armament to Fw 190 D-9. It didn't seem to help any in the war.
1,805 Fw 190 D-9s built; 9,806 P-51C/Ds built. Advantage so great as to be a mismatch entirely; very much to the benefit of the P-51D. I'd say eleven P-51Ds fighting against two Fw 1990 D-9s would be a clear victory for the P-51Ds anytime.
I see P-51Ds flying every weekend, sometimes as many as 4 or 5. There are no Fw 190 Ds flying anywhere in the world 72 years after the war. There IS one Fw 190 D-9 replica with an Allison that MAY fly someday. That would be nice to see. I DO see one Fw 190F replica flying maybe 2 - 3 times a year. Always good to see it fly. It flies on a U.S. engine and prop and systems.
Doesn't even seem like a close fight to me ... P-51D in a knockout win. I see maybe 6 - 7 clear advantages to the P-51D against 1 or 2 for the Fw 190 D-9.
Still, in real life, the differences were relatively minor since the pilots would undoubtedly supply the difference for the win either way. On paper, I'd take a P-51D any day of the year ... though I confess I'd still love to see an Fw 190 D-9 (or more) flying in a sky near me.
The P-51D had a service ceiling more than 2,000 feet higher.
The P-51D had 2,200 miles MORE range.
The Fw 190 D-9 climbed. 3,346 fpm. The P-51D climbed 3,209 fpm The difference isn't worth much. Either can hang in there with the other long enough for a kill. Advantage VERY slightly to Fw 190 D-9 in a prolonged climb.
Fw 190 D-9 wing loading 47.7 lbs/ sq ft. Wing loadiong P-51D: 39 lbs / sq ft. Clear advantage for P-51D by 20+%.
No advantage anywhere in weight to Fw 190 D-9. It weighed more empty and weighted more normally loaded. The P-51D weighed more when loaded to the gills with fuel for long range, but lost a good deal of that weight getting to the fight. At combat join, the P-51D might be slightly heavier; maybe not.
Clear advantage in armament to Fw 190 D-9. It didn't seem to help any in the war.
1,805 Fw 190 D-9s built; 9,806 P-51C/Ds built. Advantage so great as to be a mismatch entirely; very much to the benefit of the P-51D. I'd say eleven P-51Ds fighting against two Fw 1990 D-9s would be a clear victory for the P-51Ds anytime.
I see P-51Ds flying every weekend, sometimes as many as 4 or 5. There are no Fw 190 Ds flying anywhere in the world 72 years after the war. There IS one Fw 190 D-9 replica with an Allison that MAY fly someday. That would be nice to see. I DO see one Fw 190F replica flying maybe 2 - 3 times a year. Always good to see it fly. It flies on a U.S. engine and prop and systems.
Doesn't even seem like a close fight to me ... P-51D in a knockout win. I see maybe 6 - 7 clear advantages to the P-51D against 1 or 2 for the Fw 190 D-9.
Still, in real life, the differences were relatively minor since the pilots would undoubtedly supply the difference for the win either way. On paper, I'd take a P-51D any day of the year ... though I confess I'd still love to see an Fw 190 D-9 (or more) flying in a sky near me.
The Fw 190D-9 have had capability to operate on the C3 fuel (by midd/late 1944 about as good as Allied 100/150 grade), along with MW-50 system - thus no clear advantage for P-51 there. Granted, P-51s will have more fuel to use, but that is not a feature of the P-51, but of the war situation.
P-51D was also carrying armor + protection for it's bigger tanks, so IMO that point is moot. Weapon set-up of the Fw 190D-9 was no heavier than of the P-51D.
P-51 was without turbo either. Build quality of the Fw 190s was always good, or at least it was before Spring of 1945.
P-51 also clashed vs. anything Axis, and was tested against Allied fighters, usually coming ahead with few exceptions.
I agree with latest paragraph. We might also toss in the late coming of the D-9 as a (non-constructive) shortcoming, that really was within the capability of German aeronautical industry already in winter of 1943/44.
GregP
Major
The quoted performance specs do not support your contention, Tomo, C3 or not. The numbers are the numbers. You are simply muddling the facts here.
Might be true, but the numbers quoted don't say that. I'd be inclined to believe slightly higher numbers for the Fw 190 D-9, but that might open up slightly higher numbers for the P-51D, too. You accept the quoted numbers or you don't. I tend to accept them. If so, the numbers are true and fact. If not. then the field is wide open, with the P-51D having the better Cdo and WAY higher numbers of combatant aircraft.. I'm starting to doubt it ...
Armor doesn't change the listed weights. Turbo or supercharger is not important in the slightest. The service ceiling (performance) IS. And the P-51D was better altogether, by a margin. Not great. but a margin anyway.
The big difference between turbo and super is rpm of the impeller. The P-51D was far more robust and better altitude-capable. Fact.
I really like the Fw 190 D-9, but it was NOT as good as a P-51D.
Probably close enough to be called about even, with a slight advantage to the P-51D. Pilots made the difference and rarity of the Fw compared with the P-51D made the Fw 190 D-9 a second-seat fighter. It wasn't the valor of the pilots or the performance of the Fw 190 D-9 airframe, it was the complete lack of relative production numbers that made the P-51D the better aircraft IN THE WAR.
Individually, the contest was fraught with doubt. Eleven to two production numbers make it a foregone conclusion.
Try fighting eleven to two. You lose, every time!
Unless you are Royce Gracie ... or modern equivalent. The Fw 190 D-9 wasn't.
It WAS good. But not 11 to 2 good. Neither was the Ta 152, which was basically a very slightly improved Fw 190 D ... and they only delivered about 42 of them; never more than 20 in service at any one time. That from Adolph Galland. He should have known, if anyone did, being in command.
Might be true, but the numbers quoted don't say that. I'd be inclined to believe slightly higher numbers for the Fw 190 D-9, but that might open up slightly higher numbers for the P-51D, too. You accept the quoted numbers or you don't. I tend to accept them. If so, the numbers are true and fact. If not. then the field is wide open, with the P-51D having the better Cdo and WAY higher numbers of combatant aircraft.. I'm starting to doubt it ...
Armor doesn't change the listed weights. Turbo or supercharger is not important in the slightest. The service ceiling (performance) IS. And the P-51D was better altogether, by a margin. Not great. but a margin anyway.
The big difference between turbo and super is rpm of the impeller. The P-51D was far more robust and better altitude-capable. Fact.
I really like the Fw 190 D-9, but it was NOT as good as a P-51D.
Probably close enough to be called about even, with a slight advantage to the P-51D. Pilots made the difference and rarity of the Fw compared with the P-51D made the Fw 190 D-9 a second-seat fighter. It wasn't the valor of the pilots or the performance of the Fw 190 D-9 airframe, it was the complete lack of relative production numbers that made the P-51D the better aircraft IN THE WAR.
Individually, the contest was fraught with doubt. Eleven to two production numbers make it a foregone conclusion.
Try fighting eleven to two. You lose, every time!
Unless you are Royce Gracie ... or modern equivalent. The Fw 190 D-9 wasn't.
It WAS good. But not 11 to 2 good. Neither was the Ta 152, which was basically a very slightly improved Fw 190 D ... and they only delivered about 42 of them; never more than 20 in service at any one time. That from Adolph Galland. He should have known, if anyone did, being in command.
Last edited:
Greg, it is too bad you don't seem to grasp what I was talking about. (that sentence is the most polite I'm currently able to post here, other ones that came 1st to my mind would've earned me infraction at least)
Nobody said that P-51D was with worse or equal Cd0 vs. Fw 190D-9, nor the numbers produced.
The 1st sentence means actually something?
Turbo or 2-stage supercharger is important, since it provides the aircraft having it the edge in performance (speed, RoC) above 20000 ft vs. another aircraft whith 1-stage S/C. Exactly where the bomber streams were travelling vs. Germany.
Pray tell, what would be the difference in rpm of impellers of the turbo and gear-driven S/C? No-one said P-51D was lacking altitude capability vs. Axis best.
Since you said so.
The number of the Ta-152 delivered has no bearing on this thread, but don't let that stop you.
The Ta-152 was a major improvement over the 190Ds, and, lo and behold, featured a 2-stage S/C.
Dedalos,
All aircraft designs have trade offs, or penalties. The Me-109 was small, carried a small amount of fuel, and had a big motor. Sounds like a race car meant to run 25 laps. The Fw-190D was bigger, carried a bit more fuel, and could go 30 laps. The P-51BCD had about the same motor, was a bit cleaner drag wise, and could compete well with the FW and ME, AND go over 100 laps. I'm not disparaging the German aircraft, as a matter of fact the Fw-190D is my favorite Axis aircraft. However, performance snap shots are just that, a snap shot. It's nice to compare them, and they are a starting point of a conversation about different aircraft, but are by no means the be all end all.
The performance comparisons should lead the conversation to how were they used and why. The capability that made the Mustang so useful was it's ability to hang with the best prop fighters Germany could make AND fly 5 hours more. This single point is completely ignored or pushed aside so often. Put yourself in the Commanding Generals shoes (either side) and tell me if this wasn't a tremendous advantage or not. Or the conversation could go as to why was Focke Wolf making planes whose factories were getting bombed, or why were the German pilots not trained like their adversaries. Who has the advantage, a new fighter pilot with 300-400 hours between pilot training and additional time in P-39's / P-40's, then clobber college in the Mustang in England before flying his first combat sortie, or the kid who has 50-100 hours total when he arrives at the merge? Why did that occur?
A bit long winded of an answer, however my point is the charts are but one part of the equation that is a weapon system.
Cheers,
Biff
The normal jumo 213A could not use the C3 fuel. Some late D9s, on the eastern front, may have used some c3, and that produced the best performance for the D9. As far as i know even the late war C3 was inferior to the 100/150 fuel that the americans had.
The 190 was carrying 150 kgr of armor.The p51?
P51 did not have turbo but did have 2 stage supercharger.The 190C turbo was not produced mainlybecause the lack of raw materials
The surfaces quality of the p51 was far better.German factories simply coul not spend time polishing and sanding the wings. Actually did not even have the rubber to seal the gap between the engine and the wing. And they were obligated to apply camouflage paint adding weight and drag.
The p51 clashed vs anything axis had with major advantages: Massive superiority in numbers, massive fuel advantage( 150 vs german 95 vs japanese 87), better pilots, ULTRA supporting its operations.
In my opinion The P51D, given equal fuel , had advantage over the D9 and K4 only above 6000m. The D13 propably would be at least equal at all altitudes(except the range of course)
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
OK, listen up. I spent a lot of money on Dietmar Harmann's books
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, Fw 190 "Long Nose" & Ta 152...................
I read studied and dissected these and everything else I could get
my hands on the last several years. With that said I shall begin to
unwind.............................
" The standard production model of the Fw 190D-9 had a Jumo 213A
engine operating at 1.8 ata boost with B4 fuel and designed to use MW 50.
However, the MW 50 system introduction was delayed until December 1944.
So the first thirty D-9s to arrive at III/JG 54 in October were a disappointment.
They were capable of only 1,750PS. After a consultation with Jumo's head of
development, Dr, Lichte, in September 1944 an equipment kit was installed
which raised boost pressure which increased the 213A's output to 1,900 PS.
This installation was done on-site by Junkers' Technical Field Service (TAM)."
"Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his " The
JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" December 17,1944: " The new
airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-
coupled radial-engine predecessor. Its 2240 hp with MW 50 gave it an
excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived more
rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with
tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was
a bit faster."
"The 2,240 PS maximum output that is often quoted for the Jumo 213A with
MW 50 is a bit of a mystery, My collection (Dietmar Hermann?) of reports from
Junkers that date to the end of the war, never mention a 2240 PS setting.
According to Junkers the Focke-Wulf document the 2100 PS SEP was the
maximum output for all production D-9s that entered service during WW2."
" In Hermann's "Longnose" on page 118 he states," By the end of the war
many fighter units were equipped with the Fw 190D-9, including all the Gruppen
of JG 2 and JG 26. At the end of the war they were flying the Fw 190D-9 or
Fw 190D-12, which were equal, if not superior to the latest versions of the
Spitfire."
" On pages 119-121 in "Longnose" Lt. Ossenkop summarized the differences
between the Fw 190D-9 and Fw 190A-8. Page 121 part 7, " Take-off and climb
were rather better than in the A-8. It was possible to make tighter turns before the
onset of flow separation. In a div, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8 with its drag-
producing radial engine. He felt that the D-9 was equal to most enemy aircraft
above 4,000 meters up to its maximum boost altitude (est. 6-7,000 m.)"
'Vs. the Mustang: The two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers,
which was an advantage for us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather
faster in a dive."
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, Fw 190 "Long Nose" & Ta 152...................
I read studied and dissected these and everything else I could get
my hands on the last several years. With that said I shall begin to
unwind.............................
" The standard production model of the Fw 190D-9 had a Jumo 213A
engine operating at 1.8 ata boost with B4 fuel and designed to use MW 50.
However, the MW 50 system introduction was delayed until December 1944.
So the first thirty D-9s to arrive at III/JG 54 in October were a disappointment.
They were capable of only 1,750PS. After a consultation with Jumo's head of
development, Dr, Lichte, in September 1944 an equipment kit was installed
which raised boost pressure which increased the 213A's output to 1,900 PS.
This installation was done on-site by Junkers' Technical Field Service (TAM)."
"Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his " The
JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" December 17,1944: " The new
airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-
coupled radial-engine predecessor. Its 2240 hp with MW 50 gave it an
excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived more
rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with
tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was
a bit faster."
"The 2,240 PS maximum output that is often quoted for the Jumo 213A with
MW 50 is a bit of a mystery, My collection (Dietmar Hermann?) of reports from
Junkers that date to the end of the war, never mention a 2240 PS setting.
According to Junkers the Focke-Wulf document the 2100 PS SEP was the
maximum output for all production D-9s that entered service during WW2."
" In Hermann's "Longnose" on page 118 he states," By the end of the war
many fighter units were equipped with the Fw 190D-9, including all the Gruppen
of JG 2 and JG 26. At the end of the war they were flying the Fw 190D-9 or
Fw 190D-12, which were equal, if not superior to the latest versions of the
Spitfire."
" On pages 119-121 in "Longnose" Lt. Ossenkop summarized the differences
between the Fw 190D-9 and Fw 190A-8. Page 121 part 7, " Take-off and climb
were rather better than in the A-8. It was possible to make tighter turns before the
onset of flow separation. In a div, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8 with its drag-
producing radial engine. He felt that the D-9 was equal to most enemy aircraft
above 4,000 meters up to its maximum boost altitude (est. 6-7,000 m.)"
'Vs. the Mustang: The two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers,
which was an advantage for us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather
faster in a dive."
Last edited:
Hi
I agree with everything. No matter why The P51D was operationaly far more succesful in 1943-45 period than the 190 or the 109
I made the comparison just on technical level
just one point i disagree. The 51D did not have the same motor with the d9. It had a smaller motor. It was competitive because a)its aerodynamics.It needed less power to achieve superior speeds b) THE FUEL. its smaller engine was able to produce 2000 hp because of the 150 octane fuel. The 25% bigger Jumo213A produced 1776 ps on 95 octane fuel and with ADI 2100 ps. Postwar, french produced 213As, produced 2300 ps on 130 octane fuel.
The p51 was a brilliant design.But it did have in its favor many important factors to be so succesful
drgondog
Major
To Biff's excellent points regarding airplane vs weapons system (which to me was a dirty word when looking at Century Series USAF fighters), the Merlin Mustang, P-47N and P-38J-25/L were examples of combat aviation that were excellent 'systems'.
The attribute, given that all three were fast and maneuverable, that made them excellent weapon systems was the interchangeability of external load capability combined with large internal fuel fraction. All three could go deep with a combination of Bombs and Fuel tanks, could go long on internal fuel alone without the drag of the external loads, could go extremely long and arrive 'clean' for combat and still return.
Photo recon? Yes. Armed Recon at low level? Yes, Fighter Bomber at combat radius =300 miles? Yes. Air superiority with maneuverability and speed at all altitudes - more or less equal to their finest piston engine opponents? Yes. Low level interdiction of surface transport, airfields, etc. at bomber distances? Yes.
I once had a long letter exchange with Eric Brown during which we debated his placement of F6F and FW 190 as 'great fighters ranking' slightly above the Mustang. My key and salient point was the tactical flexibility combined with outstanding performance envelope that actually none of his top choices possessed - that limited their utility as a tool of airpower.
The strategic footprint of the three fighters I named above were unmatched in the COMBINATION of combat range and capability throughout.
He conceded the point but closed with point fighter argument and tried to hold the FW 190 position vs Mustang by stating that the Mustang had a lower Mcr due to the radiator scoop of the P-51. I was very surprised that he held that belief as he was also an Aeronautical engineer. For some reason he either ignored the RAE Mark IV dive tests or simply had that info as a blind spot. I admired and respected him - and tip my hat to a great aviation figure of importance that ranks with anyone.
The attribute, given that all three were fast and maneuverable, that made them excellent weapon systems was the interchangeability of external load capability combined with large internal fuel fraction. All three could go deep with a combination of Bombs and Fuel tanks, could go long on internal fuel alone without the drag of the external loads, could go extremely long and arrive 'clean' for combat and still return.
Photo recon? Yes. Armed Recon at low level? Yes, Fighter Bomber at combat radius =300 miles? Yes. Air superiority with maneuverability and speed at all altitudes - more or less equal to their finest piston engine opponents? Yes. Low level interdiction of surface transport, airfields, etc. at bomber distances? Yes.
I once had a long letter exchange with Eric Brown during which we debated his placement of F6F and FW 190 as 'great fighters ranking' slightly above the Mustang. My key and salient point was the tactical flexibility combined with outstanding performance envelope that actually none of his top choices possessed - that limited their utility as a tool of airpower.
The strategic footprint of the three fighters I named above were unmatched in the COMBINATION of combat range and capability throughout.
He conceded the point but closed with point fighter argument and tried to hold the FW 190 position vs Mustang by stating that the Mustang had a lower Mcr due to the radiator scoop of the P-51. I was very surprised that he held that belief as he was also an Aeronautical engineer. For some reason he either ignored the RAE Mark IV dive tests or simply had that info as a blind spot. I admired and respected him - and tip my hat to a great aviation figure of importance that ranks with anyone.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I would ask that we keep a distinction between the 190A and the 190D as there are a few more differences than just the engine.
like
78kg out of 145.7kg of armor on an A-8 are for the oil cooler? Did the D-9 also use a lot of armor around the oil cooler or radiator?
The P-51 also devoted a fair amount of weight to a different form of protection. The self sealing fuel tanks. Weight for the wing tanks in a B or C was about 320lbs minus the fuel lines and valves. you need bigger heavier tanks to hold the greater amount of fuel the P-51 carried. The rear fuselage tank increased empty weight by about 265lbs, tank, self sealing balder/lining, supports/brackets and fuel lines.
I have no figures peak figures for the French Jumo 213 at altitude but it's take off rating was 2300hp at 3250rpm using 11lbs boost (52in) and water injection on 100/130 fuel. it was rated at 2100hp/3250rpm/11lbs boost dry. Perhaps power went up a bit as the aircraft climbed to full throttle height?
Rating engines was often a balancing act between desired output and desired time between overhauls. Some engines were given higher ratings with few, if any changes, in exchange for shorter times between overhauls like the Russian 105 series. The Post war French Jumo 213s were used in a flying boat and they may have been going for longer overhaul times than a WW I fighter, I don't know. However the NORMAL rating for the engine (max continuous?) was 1720hp at 3,000rpm at 5,900ft in low gear and 1500hp at 3,000rpm at 16,400ft. I would note that a commercial Merlin 724 engine was rated at 1500hp at 2850rpm at 7750ft in low gear and 1420hp at 285rpm at 18,750ft in high gear on 100/130 fuel. figures are from the 1953 edition of "aircraft engines of the world".
I would guess that the French were not suffering from any material shortages at this time in the way of alloys or bearings.
Higher performance fuel does little or nothing for altitude performance without a suitable supercharger system. Germans were well aware of the benefits of using two stage superchargers (non-turbo) since both Daimler Benz and Auto Union had used them on Grand Prix cars in 1939. granted they used roots compressors rather than centrifugal compressors but the ability to reach the same boost with less temperature rise ( and thus the ability to make more power on the same fuel) was there.
Merlin engine chart
Please move power peaks to the left by 2500-3500ft to take out the effect of the 400mph ram. 18lbs or a bit more is the limit for 100/130 fuel in the Merlin. The 100/150 fuel did nothing for combat at altitudes over 20,000ft.
like
78kg out of 145.7kg of armor on an A-8 are for the oil cooler? Did the D-9 also use a lot of armor around the oil cooler or radiator?
The P-51 also devoted a fair amount of weight to a different form of protection. The self sealing fuel tanks. Weight for the wing tanks in a B or C was about 320lbs minus the fuel lines and valves. you need bigger heavier tanks to hold the greater amount of fuel the P-51 carried. The rear fuselage tank increased empty weight by about 265lbs, tank, self sealing balder/lining, supports/brackets and fuel lines.
I have no figures peak figures for the French Jumo 213 at altitude but it's take off rating was 2300hp at 3250rpm using 11lbs boost (52in) and water injection on 100/130 fuel. it was rated at 2100hp/3250rpm/11lbs boost dry. Perhaps power went up a bit as the aircraft climbed to full throttle height?
Rating engines was often a balancing act between desired output and desired time between overhauls. Some engines were given higher ratings with few, if any changes, in exchange for shorter times between overhauls like the Russian 105 series. The Post war French Jumo 213s were used in a flying boat and they may have been going for longer overhaul times than a WW I fighter, I don't know. However the NORMAL rating for the engine (max continuous?) was 1720hp at 3,000rpm at 5,900ft in low gear and 1500hp at 3,000rpm at 16,400ft. I would note that a commercial Merlin 724 engine was rated at 1500hp at 2850rpm at 7750ft in low gear and 1420hp at 285rpm at 18,750ft in high gear on 100/130 fuel. figures are from the 1953 edition of "aircraft engines of the world".
I would guess that the French were not suffering from any material shortages at this time in the way of alloys or bearings.
Higher performance fuel does little or nothing for altitude performance without a suitable supercharger system. Germans were well aware of the benefits of using two stage superchargers (non-turbo) since both Daimler Benz and Auto Union had used them on Grand Prix cars in 1939. granted they used roots compressors rather than centrifugal compressors but the ability to reach the same boost with less temperature rise ( and thus the ability to make more power on the same fuel) was there.
Merlin engine chart
Please move power peaks to the left by 2500-3500ft to take out the effect of the 400mph ram. 18lbs or a bit more is the limit for 100/130 fuel in the Merlin. The 100/150 fuel did nothing for combat at altitudes over 20,000ft.
Aircraft supply was rarely a problem during this period. A cursory and no very rigorous look through a few pages of ORBs shows that generally aircraft lost on one day were replaced the next morning.
Cheers
Steve
Yes P47,P38 was good weapons systems.The P51 was excellent. Especially the first 2 were big and expensive , used a lot of fuel so theywere good at many roles. How good?
The P51A in Raf use gave good service at armed reconnaissance but when intercepted by contemporary FWs was nothing special. I repeat it was the 2 stage supercharger that made the 51 special( and the lack of it in the 190)
I directly question the ability of the p38l to execute low level roles when facing D9s with ADI ,decent building quality and decent pilots. Against D13s or Ta152H would be in trouble at all altitude
I also question the ability of the P47 N to perform low and medium level roles against the latest members of the Dora family, especially if we provide both types with the same fuel
I don t credit the P51 as a great fighter bomber. Both in ww2 and in korea ,proved so vulnerable to flak that it s unsuitable for the role.
You are a person of great scientific knowledge, but Brown flew them all! I believe his opinion has some weight!
I believe the 190 was a decent weapon system too.it was small, cheap, very easy to be serviced, low pilot workload .
Could be an air superiority fighter, a bomber interceptor, a CAS aircraft,a torpedo bomber, a long range Fighter bomber(190G), an anti tank aircraft, a recce aircraft. It was proven that additionally to the standard internal fuel capacity could have wing tanks and rear fuselage tank. When it finally recieved a 2 stage supercharger was almost equal to the latest alleid fighters
I say almost, because it still retained the obsolete wing profile
I would ask that we keep a distinction between the 190A and the 190D as there are a few more differences than just the engine.
like
78kg out of 145.7kg of armor on an A-8 are for the oil cooler? Did the D-9 also use a lot of armor around the oil cooler or radiator?
The D series and the Ta 152h had the basic A8 fuselage and radiator armor of 150 kgr
The P-51 also devoted a fair amount of weight to a different form of protection. The self sealing fuel tanks. Weight for the wing tanks in a B or C was about 320lbs minus the fuel lines and valves. you need bigger heavier tanks to hold the greater amount of fuel the P-51 carried. The rear fuselage tank increased empty weight by about 265lbs, tank, self sealing balder/lining, supports/brackets and fuel lines.
I have no figures peak figures for the French Jumo 213 at altitude but it's take off rating was 2300hp at 3250rpm using 11lbs boost (52in) and water injection on 100/130 fuel. it was rated at 2100hp/3250rpm/11lbs boost dry. Perhaps power went up a bit as the aircraft climbed to full throttle height?
Obviously a d9 with 2100hp dry and 2300hp with adi would be quite more capable than historicaly.On 150 fuel would be propably over 2400hp
Rating engines was often a balancing act between desired output and desired time between overhauls. Some engines were given higher ratings with few, if any changes, in exchange for shorter times between overhauls like the Russian 105 series. The Post war French Jumo 213s were used in a flying boat and they may have been going for longer overhaul times than a WW I fighter, I don't know. However the NORMAL rating for the engine (max continuous?) was 1720hp at 3,000rpm at 5,900ft in low gear and 1500hp at 3,000rpm at 16,400ft. I would note that a commercial Merlin 724 engine was rated at 1500hp at 2850rpm at 7750ft in low gear and 1420hp at 285rpm at 18,750ft in high gear on 100/130 fuel. figures are from the 1953 edition of "aircraft engines of the world".
I would guess that the French were not suffering from any material shortages at this time in the way of alloys or bearings.
Yes they did not suffer from materials shortages. But they also did not re designed the engine. They made use of captured tools and reproduced the german design
Higher performance fuel does little or nothing for altitude performance without a suitable supercharger system.
Fully agree. The decision of the germans ,early in the war, not to introduce 2 stage superchargers gave the alleid fighters decisive advantage at the most critical time.
Germans were well aware of the benefits of using two stage superchargers (non-turbo) since both Daimler Benz and Auto Union had used them on Grand Prix cars in 1939. granted they used roots compressors rather than centrifugal compressors but the ability to reach the same boost with less temperature rise ( and thus the ability to make more power on the same fuel) was there.
Merlin engine chart
Please move power peaks to the left by 2500-3500ft to take out the effect of the 400mph ram. 18lbs or a bit more is the limit for 100/130 fuel in the Merlin. The 100/150 fuel did nothing for combat at altitudes over 20,000ft
Obviously i agree.The 150 fuel (and the MW50) above critical alltitude made no difference.The 2 stage supercharger is the main reason for the P51 s glory(
