Fw 190 vs P-51 Mustang

Discussion in 'Flight Test Data' started by DerGiLLster, Feb 13, 2016.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,273
    Likes Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just that we're on the same page, I'll kindly ask a couple of questions if you dont mind (with source for the answers):

    1 - What was the cubic capacity, weight, and allowed RPM on Jumo piston engines (Jumo 210, 211, 213)?
    2 - How big was the power at high altitude, say 20000 ft, 25000 ft, 30000 ft, or anywhere above 20000 ft you can find the numbers, for any ww2 Jumo engines you have the data.
    3 - What was the number and caliber of guns installed on Dora (D-9?), copared with, say, Fw 190A8?

    Basically, I ask that you submit the hard data that will reinforce your opinion.
     
  2. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,300
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Yep, some of us like to quote books, which often have a very real bearing on real flight.

    Like there is NO such thing as "100% proof fuel". Please read about performance number of fuel.
    CHARACTERISTICSANDPROPERTIESOFAVIATIONGASOLINE

    A very brief over view. German fuel, even if synthetic was around 120-140PN in the later part of the war if not higher IF it was the C grade.

    "proof" is a term used in measuring alcohol and in fact 100% equals 200 proof. as in 86 proof whiskey is 43% alcohol. totally irrelevant to measuring gasoline.

    I would also note is was very doubtful that ANY Tempest that flew combat in WW II had a 2500+hp Sabre engine. While the Sabre engine did hit 2500HP + it was in versions that didn't see service until after the war ended. Just about all wartime Typhoons and Tempests used various models of the Sabre II, as in Sabre II, IIA, IIB. The IIB being rated at 2420hp at 3850rpm and 11lb boost.

    Speed is also very dependent on height. Just because plane A is faster than plane B at 5,000ft doesn't mean that plane A is faster at 20,000ft. ore even 3000ft vs 8000ft.
    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/spit14+25lbs.jpg
     
  3. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,348
    Likes Received:
    861
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I think you'll find that a majority of the membership here are fully aware of this and then some...

    As a new member I encourage you to look through some of the forum posts with regards to this. We have a few members that have analyzed claim/ kills by all combatants to the point where the dead horse is now ground up enough to make hamburgers. Some of these same members had family members who flew during WW2, others were/ are volunteers at museums who actually put their hands on this hardware on a regular basis and have access to ark-loads of reports and data.
     
  4. TheArtOfFlight

    TheArtOfFlight New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Ex RAF/Civil aircraft mechanic
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    #44 TheArtOfFlight, Dec 23, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2016
    Ok, im just going to say this once more as everyone seems to be missing the point. Stats and so called "hard data" mean nothing on paper compared to how the aircraft actually flies and handles/performs in combat. I dont source my research or info from wikipedia. Are there actually any trained pilots among the members of this site? As i stated clearly it is my opinion added to reliable first hand testimony from men who actually flew these planes in combat. My argument is simply that the D series 190s were not good dogfighters no matter how glamorous and how mystical the idea might appeal to most folk. The 190A series was the Fw's only true dogfighter. And with so much maintenance/conversions and add ons done in the field how can anyone possibly stand by stats alone as being a true source of undeniable evidence. The reason the Luftwaffe was defeated so easy late in the war was because almost all their fighters were adapted to become bomber destroyers to try and do something about the hordes of Allied B17s B-24s Lancs and Halifaxs etc pummeling Germany every day and night. Weighed down by such heavy armament the 109's and 190's stood little chance against Mustangs and Tempests set up for dogfighting hunter kill missions. It doesnt matter how many stats people quote these are the basic facts.

    P.S I also have over 20 years hands on experience both in service and in a voluntary basis helping to recover and restore all types of allied and axis ww1 - ww2 aircraft. Perhaps you would like me to post a copy of my C.V./Resume. Piston driven prop aircraft are by no means an exact science. And with the parts sourcing/fabricating, many aircraft were simply modified in the factory or in the field which throws all written/paper data and stats out the window. I am not saying anyone posting here is wrong or giving false information but i do know for a fact you simply cannot rely on data/stats alone to determine an aircrafts ability/performance characteristics as many aces had highly modified/personalized machines set up to suit their own flying skills/attributes.

    Maybe this assessment by a ww2 fighter pilot might help....

    The Long Nose FW 190D was powered by an inline Junkers Jumo V-12 engine cooled by a circular radiator in the nose, giving the Dora an unusual nose profile. (The aft fuselage was also extended to balance the aircraft.) This engine gave the FW 190D greatly improved high altitude performance and increased top speed compared to the earlier, radial-engined FW 190 fighters, at some cost in maneuverability and handling ease. FW 190's were known for their very high roll rate, the highest of any of the WW II fighters. Handled well, this could make them difficult to nail, even when an enemy could get on their tail. Due to its very high top speed, the FW 190D pilot could usually disengage if the tactical situation deteriorated.

    FW 190D's had restricted forward/downward visibility and high wing loading. This required a fast landing speed and a high stall speed, a bad combination for a tail dragger when landing. They also had plenty of torque steer on takeoff or at low flying speed. Still, most Luftwaffe pilots considered the FW 190D easier to handle on the ground than the Bf 109K, principally because of its wider-track landing gear track. On the other hand, the Bf 109K was easier to get on the ground (land). The other super fighters included in this article (except for the Bf 109K) also had wide-track landing gears and they were all easier to land and takeoff than the Dora.

    The contemporary radial-engined FW 190's usually carried a very heavy standard armament of 4-20mm cannon. The Dora's firepower was reduced to 2-20mm wing mounted cannon and 2-.50 caliber cowl mounted machine guns, still quite equal to the task of shooting down enemy fighter planes. Late in the war, the Luftwaffe often used Dora's to defend their Me 262 fighter bases against marauding American and British fighters. I find this a curious choice, since the Dora was an energy fighter and much better equipped to bounce enemy planes from high altitude than serve in a rapid response, point defense role. Caught low and slow, such as soon after takeoff, the FW 190D was very vulnerable. Horizontal maneuvering was not its forte'.
     
  5. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,981
    Likes Received:
    780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Yes there are plenty of us here who are actual pilots...

    Aircrew and mechanics as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,273
    Likes Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and then:

    So what was it - over the top armament, or reduced armament?
     
  7. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,422
    Likes Received:
    622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    A couple of points come to mind.

    The Battle of Britain would have been lost without fielding Both the Spitfire And Hurricane. In the discussion of the air battles Neither was most important, but for long term airframe capability the Spitfire was far superior.

    To the question of 'Dogfighter' in the discussion of FW 190D-9 and the relative merits versus Allied fighters? The airframe/engine/firepower combination was formidable to both Allied bombers and fighters. In the context of performance factors a.) it was faster than the FW 190A, b.) as fast as the P-51D and Tempest in mid range altitudes, c.) excellent roll and acceleration, d.) could not out turn or out climb the Spit IX/XIV, about the same as P-51B/D, e.) could dive well, f.) outstanding armament.

    As in 95% of the cases, the pilot and initial tactical situation would decide. As to comparisons versus best Soviet fighters? At low altitude it was at a disadvantage if it chose to engage in a dogfight at low to medium altitudes and most Allied fighters, but like the western fighters it could disengage with speed and dive altitude permitting - or fight with speed advantage and engage. VVS tests may have yielded a negative evaluation based on VVS tactical doctrine - but VVS fighter could not remotely match the FW 190D at Allied bomber altitudes.

    Simply - it was a Very formidable WWII fighter. Throw out perceptions based on combat attrition in 1945 as the same can be said of Me 262, Bf 109K, etc - the average pilot skills and tactical situation had degrade past point of no return.
     
  8. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,300
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    I like the
    "I find this a curious choice, since the Dora was an energy fighter and much better equipped to bounce enemy planes from high altitude than serve in a rapid response, point defense role. Caught low and slow, such as soon after takeoff, the FW 190D was very vulnerable. Horizontal maneuvering was not its forte'."

    Show me any WW II fighter that was NOT very vulnerable soon after take-off and flying low and slow. A MK V Spitfire (hardly an energy fighter) could take 2 minutes to accelerate from slow cruise to top speed. A major reason that the British and American fighters usually "cruised" at at over 300mph when in areas German fighters could show up.

    The D-9 was less vulnerable than a 262 under such conditions however.

    Many of us are well aware that production aircraft could vary from each other. It depended on each countries acceptance standards and those could vary depending on the situation each country was in. Russian acceptance standards were pretty low in 1941/42 and got better towards the end of the war. German Standards could drop near the end of the war for instance.
    The Americans generally allowed a 3% variation of both performance and weight. Depends on contract. In some cases the US planes could be accepted but the company had to pay a penalty for an overweight aircraft and the penalty depended on how much over weight it was. Too great a variation in weight/performance and the plane was rejected and had to be reworked/retested.
    In combat areas performance could further degrade due to dents, paint chipping/flaking and possible "bending" of the aircraft, like hard landings let alone repairs of combat damage.
    Very few aircraft (like none) improved once they left the factory, at least in WW II, except perhaps by ground crew sanding/polishing the finish. Unlike WW I when some mechanics with auto racing experience could work over the crude engines of the time and improve them the WW II aircraft engines were highly developed and well tested and attempts by local mechanics to "improve" them were much more likely to do the opposite. Local mechanics and company service reps could and did alter external controls to solve some problems.
    Some aces could and did get to pick the best aircraft out of a batch.
     
  9. CharlesBronson

    CharlesBronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,830
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Metalurgic Technician
    Location:
    Cordoba - Argentina
    Interesting debate, I am a big fan of the FW190, but at that stage of the war when D variant was introduced, I think there was a item who always tip the scale in favour of the Mustang, that was pilot training.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,348
    Likes Received:
    861
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    #50 FLYBOYJ, Dec 23, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2016
    1100 Hours - Commercial pilot, CFII mainly GA aircraft, I've flown L29s, L39s (from the front seat), T-33s, and F-4s, all time logged and I still consider myself one of the baby pilots when compared to some on this site.

    I also have almost 40 years in aircraft manufacturing and maintenance. My resume is too long and boring, so I'll just post this;


    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG1I56ujQCs


    You're entitled to your opinions but be advised there are many here who've been around. Again I suggest you browse some of the older threads to find many of us been around the block a few times at least.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. TheArtOfFlight

    TheArtOfFlight New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Ex RAF/Civil aircraft mechanic
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    I think you know very well it all depends on what Mk of Dora it is. Even the most basic armament is still almost twice the weight of anything used by the allies. And if you want to try and reduce the discussion to knit picking so i will give you some stats as your assessment/opinion of the Tempests Napier Sabre engine is a little off to say the least.....

    Design was initiated in 1935 based on an earlier study for a compression ignition diesel. British Air Ministry Initial Acceptance test were completed on 17 January 1938 rated at 1350 hp. This figure rose to 2050 hp by March. By June 1940 it had passed its Air Ministry 100-h type test on its first attempt at 2200 hp and 3700 rpm, making it the world ´s first 2000 hp production engine.

    Tempest Mk. I Napier Sabre la 2090hp/3700rpm/ Four-barrel SU carburator. Two-sided blower impeller. (1941)
    Tempest Mk. lI Napier Sabre llb 2240hp/4000/4250rpm Hobson RAE single-point injection. Single-sided blower impeller. (1943)
    Tempest Mk V Napier Sabre lV 2420hp/3750/4250rpm Hobson RAE single-point injection. Single-sided blower impeller. (1943)
    Tempest Mk. VI Napier Sabre V 2600hp/3850/2500rpm Hobson RAE single-point injection. Single-sided blower impeller. (1944)

    Im not trying to insult your knowledge or intelligence, im simply not convinced the Dora was the great aircraft everyone claims it to be.
    Check out French (Free French Air Force) pilot Pierre Clostermann's combat record. He bagged plenty of D-9s flying the Tempest V.

    Have a good day sir.
     
  12. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,981
    Likes Received:
    780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    I woukd not take any claim made by Pierre Clostermann as gold, just saying...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. TheArtOfFlight

    TheArtOfFlight New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Ex RAF/Civil aircraft mechanic
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    Excellent. So there is plenty of experienced aviators/mechanics here. I have been on the ground in a full combat situation and spent many hours talking to pilots old and new. I now work in civil aviation so i too have good knowledge of aviation. And i have great respect for anyone who has a passion for flying. Im not trying to get anyone's back up. I just simply dont always conform to popular belief. And if i feel something should be questioned i will. We are all entitled to our own opinions and im not trying to convert anyone's beliefs. Im just making a genuine observation after extensive experience of the Fw190 - D. Both in restoration and observation of flight trials.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. TheArtOfFlight

    TheArtOfFlight New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Ex RAF/Civil aircraft mechanic
    Location:
    Warwickshire
     
  15. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,300
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    I tend to dislike some pilot evaluation reports that are vague. Maybe I am just a numbers guy but an evaluation that, for example, says "the landing speed was high" actually doesn't tell us anything as it lacks context.
    A P-47 had a much higher landing speed than a P-40 and a P-40 had a much higher landing speed than a Spitfire. The Whirlwind was criticized for having a high landing speed. Turns out it landed a a slower speed than the P-47 or P-38.
    Granted landing speed numbers do NOT tell us if the plane had a bad stall near landing or just mushed, doesn't tell us if one wing dropped before the other and other potential problems.
    Kind of the same thing for some Russian aircraft. The Mig 3 was claimed to be not a problem or presenting little problem for I-16 pilots to transfer to. However in other articles/writings the I-16 was noted as being tricky to fly for the average VVS pilot. Which the leaves the Mig 3 where?
     
  16. CharlesBronson

    CharlesBronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,830
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Metalurgic Technician
    Location:
    Cordoba - Argentina
    Excellent :mrgreen:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,981
    Likes Received:
    780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    I am a GA pilot, working on instruments and multi-engine. I also have 1650 hours of military crew member time, including 365 hours of imminent danger flight time, and 650 hours of combat flight time accrued while serving a one year tour in Iraq.

    On top of that I am also a licensed aircraft mechanic with 10 years of experience on military and civilian aircraft.

    On top of that you will find on this forum:

    Joe: Pilot both prop and jet, and Mechanic

    Jim: Pilot with experience flying P-51's

    Gary: Mechanic with experience onthe B-17 and B-24

    Bill: Pilot with experience flying the P-51 (his father was a P-51 pilot in WW2 as well, and privately ownes a P-51 after the war).

    Biff: F-15 pilot with combat flight time in the F-15

    Greg: GA Pilot

    I am sure I am missing some here, my apologies to everyone I forgot.

    As for Clostermann what I question is your statement that he shot down "many". I believe it was only a few (and some are questionable), andhaving said that, Clostermann himself was down by a Fw 190D.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,273
    Likes Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only Dora that approached to what we could say was a series production was the D-9, armed with two cannons and two HMGs. Same as Spitfire XIV.
    Tempest, Typhoon, Spitfire 21 - 4 cannons. P-51D - 6 HMGs. P-47D - 8 HMGs. Fw 190A-7/A-8/A-9: 4 cannons (sometimes the outboard two were of 30mm) plus 2 HMGs.

    You have probably mixed my posts with what some member posted.
     
  19. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,981
    Likes Received:
    780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Post war evaluations by the British between the Tempest and the D-9 showed that the aircraft were very evenly matched.

    I think people tend to forget that these late war aircraft all had advantages and disadvantages over each other, but the envelope was very close.

    The pilot who could best exploit his advantage over the other aircraft was the one going to win. That is if they were simply not surprised as in the case most of the time.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,047
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would be very interested to see some of these accounts in which German pilots say they would avoid a dogfight in a 'Dora'. I have been unable to find any first hand, contemporary accounts that say any such thing. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
    Cheers
    Steve
     
Loading...

Share This Page