Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The LW had approximately 500 s/e day fighters in LuftFlotte Reich based out of range of P-47s but positioned to put up as many as 400 in a concentrated attack. Net - an attack by LW on April 24, 1944 by 250+ day fighters from Ulm to Erding, around Munich and back to Oberpfaffenhofen could only be defensed by the 355th and 357th FG. The LW destroyed (or chased to Switzerland) 27 B-17s of 1st TF plus six P-51s - but lost 34 109Gs, 10 Me 110s and 1 FW 190A to the 355th and 357th. 250 LW vs 88 P-51s is an example of how Germany could achieve local superiority - and did so, often.
Drgondog, I was speaking in completely general terms. For the LW there were two (admittedly ridiculous) extremes.Pbehn - I have posted the battle - a condensed version of the 10 page narrative including the werkno and serial numbers and pilots and unit on Spifireperformance.com. My book added better clarity and corrected errors.
This a widely scattered small unit battle between fighters over a very large area.
That is where I disagree with the discussion, 250 german fighters were tasked with preventing a bomber raid escorted by 88 US fighters at the time in question.Well not all our numbers agree but at least the idea that 250 Luftwaffe fighters took on 88 American fighters at any time we can agree on.
Cheers
Steve
(1)Why did the Fw 190 sink compared to a battle to the P-51 Mustang? (2)What was that made the P-51 Mustang superior to the FW 190? (3)Was there any attempts or any versions that would have made the FW 190 more combat ready to the P-51 Mustang?
However.....my views on the Fw 190 D series are completely different. The Dora was a terrible dogfighter and most accounts of German pilots i have read/heard have said they would try to avoid dogfighting altogether and simply try to outrun their opponent.
Thank you for your input friend. And tbh i would have been more surprised not to have people disagree. Firstly i would just like to say a lot of people seem happy to simply quote statistics/aircraft performance rather than take into consideration all the variables of a paper flight compared to a real flight. Im sure you are aware that by the time the D series started its combat Germany was using very low grade fuel/oil. And in some cases even synthetic substitutes. Compared to the high octane 100% proof fuel the Allies were using. As for the Tempest, it was much faster than the Dora and any Tempest pilot would agree with that. I have even seen accounts of Typhoon pilots chasing down Doras. And as im sure you aware the Tiffy had the same massive Napier Sabre H-24-cylinder, liquid-cooled, sleeve valve, piston aero engine that after having its gremlins ironed out was capable of 2500hp +.Well many would disagree.
From Hans Dortenmann's diary (III./JG 54):
"It takes quite some time before we are sufficiently familiar with our new birds. But really, even now the machine proves its superiority with every flight. Enormous climbing ability, far better acceleration in a dive, significantly higher cruising speed and definitely improved turning capability compared to a Fw 190 or 109."
Friedrich 'Fritz' Ungar (9.JG 54)
"Because of the long fuselage I thought it would not be able to turn. But this first impression was soon dispelled. I was able to fly 'White 3' three times on this day. I found it much better than the Me 109 and the big wooden propeller gave it terrific acceleration."
Karl-Heinz Ossenkop (2./JG 26 and Technical Officer for I./JG 26)
"After some familiarisation flights, the majority of pilots with JG 26 were completely satisfied with this new aircraft...During take-off this powerful new machine had no tendency to pull left or right. Overall it was a joy to fly. "
Ossenkop also drew up a comparison between the D-9 and the Allied fighters it might meet. This is just one man's opinion, but more valuable than ours.
Tempest: In horizontal flight both were about equal. The D-9 was better in climbing and turning, but the Tempest was faster in a dive.
Mustang: In normal combat maneuvers they were both about equal especially when compared to the A-8; however the D-9 had a little advantage. In a dive the Mustang was slightly faster.
Spitfire: The D-9 was better in horizontal flight, dive and climb but in turns the Spitfire was considerably better.
Thunderbolt: In horizontal flight, climbing and turning, the D-9 was better. In a dive we were badly outclassed. (Never try to out-dive a Thunderbolt, they can dive like a bullet.)
Now, I don't know which pilots' accounts you are referring to, but many I have read are extremely positive about the D-9. Ossenkop's list is a good illustration of the relative strengths and weaknesses he perceived between the various types. A good pilot will attempt to fight to his aircraft's strengths whilst exploiting his enemy's weaknesses. No Luftwaffe fighter pilot, whatever he was flying, would try to initiate a turning fight against a Spitfire or try to out-dive a P-47. As the Technical Officer of I./JG 26 Ossenkop would surely have disseminated his opinion to other pilots in the Gruppe.
Cheers
Steve