Fw 190 vs P-51 Mustang

[Shortround6]

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.

I Believe it was Me that questioned the Sabre engine and not Tomo.
AS for your list of Sabre engines.

Tempest V Production

• First production batch of 100 aircraft built by Hawker aircraft Ltd., Langley, Buckinghamshire. JN729-JN773, JN 792-JN822, JN854-JN877. Most aircraft completed as Series 1 (with long barrel Hispano Mark II cannon) and some as Series 2 (with short barrel Hispano Mark V cannon); some aircraft retrospectively modified to Series 2 standard. One aircraft, JN750, completed as a Tempest Mark II. Deliveries to RAF commenced 12-43, completed 5-44; average rate of production, approximately four aircraft per week.
• Second production batch of 300 aircraft built by Hawker Aircraft Ltd, Langley, Buckinghamshire. EJ504, EJ518-EJ560, EJ577-EJ611, EJ626-EJ672, EJ685-EJ723, EJ739-EJ788, EJ800-EJ846, EJ859-EJ896. Series 2 aircraft, Sabre IIA engines, short-barrel cannon, spring tab ailerons. Deliveries commenced 5-44, completed 9-44; average rate of production approximately 18 aircraft per week.
• Third production batch of 199 aircraft built by Hawker Aircraft Ltd, Langley, Buckinghamshire. NV639-NV682, NV695-NV735, NV749-NV793, NV917-NV948, NV960-NV996. Sabre IIB engines and spring tab ailerons. Deliveries commenced 9-44, completed 2-45; average rate of production approximately 12 aircraft per week.
• Fourth and final production batch of 201 aircraft built by Hawker Aircraft Ltd, Langley, Buckinghamshire. SN102-SN146, SN159-SN190, SN205-SN238, SN253-SN296, SN301-SN355. Sabre IIB engines, universal armament provision and drop tank plumbing. Deliveries commenced 1-45, completed 6-45; average rate of production approximately 9 aircraft per week. SN 368-SN416 cancelled in 1945.

From Mike Williams excellent website.
So we have the Sabre IV and V listed as being run or 'available'? in certain years but another source saying they weren't used in production aircraft during the war years. The Tempest VI did use the Sabre V engine but this combination was first flown May 9th 1944 and wasn't issued for service until after the end of the war.
Your list does not include the Sabre IIA, IIB or IIC which powered the bulk of the Tempest V production.

The idea that the FW 190D-9 carried a weight of armament twice what the allied aircraft were carrying needs a serious rethink also.
A D-9 with two 20mm guns and two 13mm guns with full ammo was carrying about 276kg worth of guns and ammo, depending on mix of ammo belts but not including belt links. This is close the same as the weight for a MK XIV Spitfire with two 20mm and two .50 cal guns and well below the weight of four 20mm hispano cannon and the ammo in Typhoons or Tempests. A P-51D was carrying 438kg of guns and ammo if the the ammo bins were full and the plane had 6 guns. I won't even bother with the weights of guns and ammo for the P-38 and P-47.
Call it nit picking but if your basic assumptions are this far off then where does that leave your conclusions?

 

[TheArtOfFlight]

It may take a little a time, but i can certainly dig through my files/interview statements and archive material to source some more information. And im not trying to be vague or spread disinformation/talk nonsense. My filing has gotten a little untidy over the years and my secretary can no longer put up with my eccentricity lol As i said before i am not trying to change opinions or belittle any of the experienced members/veterans on this site. Im just mixing it up a little with some friendly debate. So for now maybe we can agree to disagree regarding the 190D until i can put my hands on more accurate/reliable data. Im certainly not arrogant enough to dismiss the claims of any ex ww2 airmen who have far better knowledge and experience than myself. And im certainly not so stubborn as to not admit when i am in the wrong. So for now thank you to everyone for the input/references.

I do have a subject i would like to bring up concerning the "myths and realities" thread but i dont seem to be able to post on that at present. Maybe that's not such a bad thing as im sure my claims on that subject are likely to make me even less popular than my posts here. But after all surely that's what sites like this are about. Sharing thoughts and trying to fill in some of the grey areas surrounding ww2 history.

 

[tomo pauk]

Starting a new thread when using the Mozilla Firefox is a pain on the current forum's software. I'll start the thread about the myths and disinformations using the MS Explorer, so people can join in.

...
Maybe that's not such a bad thing as im sure my claims on that subject are likely to make me even less popular than my posts here.
...

Thing is that, whether on this forum or the other forums, when one makes a statement that challenges something, it is a good thing to back up the statement with good data, from as reliable source as possible. Preferably a facsimile of the original document, that is often regardea as a 'primary source'. Good books are regarded as 'secondary source'; there is plenty of bad books around.
What I say on this forum - that is 'tertiary source', or 'opinion', even 'gossip', unless I can back it up with good data.

 

[stona]

im sure my claims on that subject are likely to make me even less popular than my posts here.

Not unpopular, but some of your contentions about the 'Dora', like the opinions of those who flew it, are debatable, and some, like the engine(s) and weight of armament are incorrect. You can hardly expect people not to point such things out
Cheers
Steve

 

[TheArtOfFlight]

Starting a new thread when using the Mozilla Firefox is a pain on the current forum's software. I'll start the thread about the myths and disinformations using the MS Explorer, so people can join in.



Thing is that, whether on this forum or the other forums, when one makes a statement that challenges something, it is a good thing to back up the statement with good data, from as reliable source as possible. Preferably a facsimile of the original document, that is often regardea as a 'primary source'. Good books are regarded as 'secondary source'; there is plenty of bad books around.
What I say on this forum - that is 'tertiary source', or 'opinion', even 'gossip', unless I can back it up with good data.

Now that i do agree with. The only problem with published books (even from respected authors) is i find they can be at best a little unreliable when it comes to hard facts/truth. And a lot of events/battles i have recently learnt about have been deleted from history altogether. Or shall we say, glossed over for some reason. Many ww2 documentaries are similar in the fact that they can be hugely misleading and sometimes plain wrong. And war is such a difficult thing to document accurately simply because of the nature of events being so confusing and contradictory. Not to mention the amount of time that has gone by. So i really dont try to claim anything to be fact unless i have first hand experience or undeniable proof. If not i will always concede it to be my opinion only. But i will refer back to the documents i have obtained.

A new thread open to all would be much appreciated thank you.

 

[tomo pauk]

Opened it is already
The ww2 documentaries are the source of many myths. One of the mostly myth free were the British documentaries on tanks (named 'Tanks!' IIRC). Quirk with documentaries is that it is hard to pause the broadcast and check out something that sounds fishy - books are far better in this regard.

 

[Shortround6]

While books can certainly contain misinformation, I certainly have books with conflicting information in my bookshelves, anecdotes need careful consideration too. It is often hard to get them in proper context. Context can depend on the anecdote tellers experience, which can differ from the next anecdote teller. It is impossible to capture verbal inflections in the written word to signal if a short quote was a joke or was really serious.
A few examples of non-aviation. As a teenager I asked my dad, who had served as marine in WW II, if the Colt 45 automatic was difficult to shoot, a popular contention in many articles about it. He replied he never had any trouble with it and dropped the conversation. While I knew he was good rifle shot I found out later that he had been on a pistol team in his home town when he was 16 years old and had probably fired hundreds of rounds (if not thousands) from various pistols before he ever went in the service ( town gun club was 200yds from his house). His statement was true, but was it also true for many servicemen who had never fired any gun before joining the military?
I went to the National matches for a few years about 25-30 years ago and a range command struck me as strange. At the end of the time limit to a stage the control tower would issue the command "Competitors, ground your rifles". An instruction to put all rifles on the ground and step away from them to insure safety. However the area was plagued with thunderstorms and I made the connection in my mind between the command and grounding the rifle in an electrical sense. As a joke I got a stake, a short length of copper wire and steel spring clamp and assembled a "grounding strap" which I used after every stage (8 a day) for several days. After a particularly good day when I fired one of the better scores on the range I had other competitors coming up and asking what it did!! If I had thought faster and been a better bullshitter I probably could have sold a few by claiming it improved accuracy by dissipating negative ions, or eliminating static electricity charges in the barrel or........none of which would have been true.
There are a lot of one sentence quotes about aircraft or tactics that may or may not have been part of a longer statement or discussion. Without knowing that, or knowing the context of the statement it is hard to give it the proper weight. And context can include the location where the statement was made. In a class or lecture in a prepared way or offhand statement in a small group in/near a hanger. In a written report or offhand comment among friends?
Anecdotes can often be true to the anecdote tellers experience/knowledge yet contain incorrect information due the anecdote teller having been given bad information in training or a briefing.
Many books also try to draw a conclusion from insufficient data. Speed of aircraft is a real problem as many aircraft varied so much in speed at different heights due to different supercharger set ups. Quoting max speed without giving the height can paint a rather misleading picture for example.

 

[wuzak]

So we have the Sabre IV and V listed as being run or 'available'? in certain years but another source saying they weren't used in production aircraft during the war years.

Lumsden has the Sabre IV being used in the Typhoon I, Tempest I and Tempest V.

I believe the Sabre IV was a prototype engine which never went into production. Unfortunately Lumsden does not give production numbers for each of the Sabre variants as he does with other types. He does state: "There were three important versions of the Sabre, the Mks II, V and VII".

 

[Shortround6]

Lumsden also lists each and every different airframe that may have flown with a particular mark/model of engine. no matter how briefly or in what role, like engine test bed or prototype. Like the Sabre II (not IIA or later) was flown in:
Fairey Battle I
Folland Fo.108 43/37
Hawker F.18/37 Typhoon prototyape, Mk1, Mk 1A, Mk 1B
Hawker Typhoon II (Tempest I)
Hawker Tempest I

Without another source to say how many production aircraft flew with a specific mark/model of engine I would tend not use Lumsden as proof that production aircraft used a particular mark/model in service.

 

[Zipper730]

The RAF thought it stank so badly they stopped going over to France to avoid the smell for a while, after studying its various odours they eventually managed to develop perfumes to match it.

Genius...

Simple question - simple answer, No.

It's sometimes nice when things work out that way...

That said, the advantage stopped at the German border when all RAF fighters capable of escort ran out of range.

I'm not sure if that's true as the RAF had Mustangs as we did, the Spitfire VII, VIII, and IX had improved climb-

• The P-51's were used by the RAF as well as us
• The Spitfire VII, VIII, and IX all had improved climb-performance and critical altitude due to the later Merlin variants (which would have improved range), slipper tanks of various size (and they did study the effects of the airplane maneuvering even with the slipper tank partially drained), and the VIII and IX had internal tanks in the wings
  
• The Hawker Typhoon could carry drop-tanks, though I don't think their high altitude performance was very high, they could do a sweep ahead of the bombers.

The Mosquito would have been useful provided they'd developed an FB variant with Merlin 60's... though it's maximum g-load was less than the Fw-190's, they could turn-tighter than the Fw-190 if I recall above 28000 feet (if not 22000).

Simple math of Fighter Group conversions and subsequent combat operations from December 1, 1943 through June 5. 1944 (window for 'destruction of LW' per Combined Bomber Offensive and POINTBLANK) saw the P-51B/C target escort capability grow from one to six 8th AF and two 9th AF FG - each depending on mechanical issues putting 30 to 50 'effectives per group - to escort 30 to 35 8th AF Bomb groups.

Just to be clear, that's 6 fighter groups in the 8th Air Force, and 2 fighter groups in the 9th? How many aircraft were in a typical fighter squadron and group, and bomber squadron and group?

My book added better clarity and corrected errors.

What book, if I might ask?

Summary - the LW wasn't particularly skillful at organizing large formations to attack the bombers but got better in the fall of 1944.

Why did they need large formations? Wouldn't a whole bunch of finger-fours, have been easier to assemble?

Even though the Goering orders were to attack only the bombers, the German fighter leaders in the first five months of 1944 were more aggressive in engaging the P-51s when they spotted them than in later periods

I guess they weren't going to let orders get in the way of good hunting...

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.)

I personally like comparisons...

 

[drgondog]

Actually, you are correct about RAF flying some escort legs for 8th AF - notably in April 1944 after many of the early P-51B-1s were returned after transfer from RAF to AAF in December 1943.

They were not equipped with 85 gallon tanks so were restricted to shorter escort legs but on April 24 they went past Mulhausen to provide long range withdrawal support.

In the Spring, the RAF started receiving P-51C's with 85 gallon tanks pre-installed but IIRC the RAF removed most of the tanks.

 

[EKB]

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 +.

No. 486 Squadron had more known crashes of Tempests due to engine problems (15) than they had on record for crashes of Typhoons attributed to the same cause (7).

No. 56 Squadron lost (9) Typhoons and (11) Tempests to engine trouble.

No. 3 Squadron lost (6) Typhoons and (13) Tempests to engine trouble.

No. 266 Squadron lost (26) Typhoons to engine trouble.

No. 247 Squadron lost (25) Typhoons to engine trouble, although there might have been two other cases.

No. 609 Squadron lost (17) Typhoons to engine trouble; two of the pilots being Roland Beamont and "Windmill Charlie" Demoulin.

The nominal fighting strength of an RAF squadron was (12) planes not including spares!

Many aero engines had initial problems with reliability. Some were drastically improved with time, but the Napier Sabre was not one of them. It was a bad engine, or to put it more kindly, an experimental engine that was rushed into service because of the war emergency.

 

[Zipper730]

Why would the Typhoon lose less?

 

[stona]

You need to give a period for those losses to engine trouble or they are irrelevant.

If No. 247 Squadron lost 25 aircraft to engine trouble in three months it would be a serious problem. If the failures occurred between January 1943 and August 1945 (when it operated the Typhoon for 31 months) it would be considered reliable in terms of WW2 aero engines. It would be less than one failure per month.
Raw figures can be very misleading without context.

Cheers

Steve

 

[EKB]

You need to give a period for those losses to engine trouble or they are irrelevant.

If No. 247 Squadron lost 25 aircraft to engine trouble in three months it would be a serious problem.

If the failures occurred between January 1943 and August 1945 (when it operated the Typhoon for 31 months) it would be considered reliable in terms of WW2 aero engines.

Do you have some proof for that opinion, or are you just floating the idea?

Maybe you could start by telling us which front line USAAF P-47 squadron lost 25 planes to engine problems.

The RAF formed more than fifteen Mustang I squadrons. That entire force did not lose 25 airplanes due to failed Allison engines, going from Norman Franks RAF Fighter Command Losses of WWII, which includes Army Cooperation and 2nd TAF units. I found just a few relevant cases there. You could count them on one hand.

 

[stona]

So those losses were over nearly 3 years?
Losses to such causes need to be related to the frequency and type of operations (hours flown, service available etc.).
I don't think we are debating that this was far from the most reliable engine, just the meaningless of unqualified and contextualised statistics.

You can make statistics like this support any argument. For example, only four P-38s from the 55th Fighter Group were identified as lost due to engine trouble.
Lt. William Florentine (P-38H 42-66732) 13th November 1943, POW.
Capt. Joseph Marsiglia (P-38H 42-67048) 7th January 1944, POW.
Lt. Robert Lloyd (P-38J 42-68182) 4th March 1944, KIA.
Lt. Victor LaBella (P-38J 42-67919) 22nd March 1944, POW.
This in nine months of operation. Extrapolate that loss rate to 31 months and it would equate to about 14 aircraft lost to engine problems...BUT the P-38 had two engines. How can the reliability of USAAF P-38s in 1943/44 be compared with that of RAF Typhoons in a similar period? It can't be.

 

[stona]

According to the USAAF's own statistics for the ETO, between August 1942 and May 1945, 5.8% of sorties by all types of fighter were abandoned due to engine problems. If we can find a similar statistic for any Typhoon/Tempest squadron we could make a comparison.
Cheers
Steve

Edit: I doubt that the Sabre engine would come out very well in such a comparison (against an average of all US engines fitted to fighters), but then I've never suggested it was a reliable engine compared to most others

 

[CORSNING]

A chronology of: Focke-Wulf 190 vs North American Mustang. Yep, that
could be done easy enough. Its the research time involve that will make
it difficult...damn!

 

[pbehn]

When flying 6 hr missions it gives a lot of time to develop engine trouble and have to turn home.

 

[mad_max]

As was posted earlier in the thread; lots of variables involved. When talking about speed; everytime you see quote "top speeds" at maximum power levels. Those powers were only used in extremely dire situations esp. when you need to get out of danger (most used time) or to catch an enemy combatant.

The German's had really good radar control of their fighters over the continent when the time deep penetrations by the bombers occurred. Yes the "odds" overall in numbers of aircraft each side put into battle was very lopsided by that time; you must remember the radar operators would guide the fighters to the box of buffs with little or no coverage. Those bomber boxes during "Big Week" were miles long (from 60 to 100 miles) stated in various places depending on what month/year.