Fw 190 vs P-51 Mustang (1 Viewer)

[tomo pauk]

If you were a novice pilot thrown into a Dora in late 44 early 45 would complain about flying a bad aircraft?
And i think your quote about lumping the 200 series is a little like splitting hairs. The engine is the engine, it doesnt matter what gets bolted on afterwards to squeeze a few more horsepower out of it. And the Jumo on the Dora was set up originally for high altitude performance together with the paddle prop (also effective at high altitude to cut through the air) + an over the top array of firepower and your telling me the Dora wasn't a bomber destroyer.......
Next you will tell me the Do 335 was a dogfighter too.

But i respect your opinion and thank you for the input.

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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 +.

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P.S. Sorry i forgot to add. Many pilot claims of kills/aircraft shotdown should never be taken as gospel/truth. ww2 pilots were prone to some wild claims or just plain wrong assumptions. Claims from one side do not always match the losses from the other. I highly recommend anyone to research both sides claims for kills and losses as they dont always tally.

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.

 

[TheArtOfFlight]

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'.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes there are plenty of us here who are actual pilots...

Aircrew and mechanics as well.

 

[tomo pauk]

....
And the Jumo on the Dora was set up originally for high altitude performance together with the paddle prop (also effective at high altitude to cut through the air) + an over the top array of firepower and your telling me the Dora wasn't a bomber destroyer
.....

and then:

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

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

 

[drgondog]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[CharlesBronson]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are there actually any trained pilots among the members of this site?

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.

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.

 

[TheArtOfFlight]

and then:



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

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I woukd not take any claim made by Pierre Clostermann as gold, just saying...

 

[TheArtOfFlight]

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.

 

[TheArtOfFlight]

I woukd not take any claim made by Pierre Clostermann as gold, just saying

As i said in my previous reply. I view all claims of ww2 pilots with a degree of caution. History is a fickle business and it never hurts to question thing. They are guides not gospel. But sometimes all we have to go on

 

[Shortround6]

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?

 

[CharlesBronson]

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.

Excellent

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

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.

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.....

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

 

[stona]

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.

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