Fw 190 vs P-51 Mustang (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Fw 190A-3 vs. Mustang I, May 1942: Match I

I have piles of research everywhere on my work desk. I have just finished
research on the P-61 performance and timeline, but that is totally off topic
here. What is on topic here is the following:
In this dual of Fw-190 vs P-51 the Fw 190 goes uncontested from its first
entry into service. August 1941 the first Fw 190A-0s are delivered. They
are not entered into combat because they suffer from engine overheating.
Later that same month the Fw 190A-1 becomes operational with II/JG.26.
So from August 1941 until the first Mustang I enters service on 10 May
1942 with No.26 Squadron of the Army Cooperation Command the Fw
190 is uncontested by the Mustang. By the time the Mustang Is become
operational in May 1942 the Fw 190 has graduated to the A-3 version
starting in March with II/JG.26. So the performance comparison of No.26
vs. JG.26 looks like the following.

Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm / minutes to altitude
Mustang I (Fw 190A-3)
S.L......355 / 1860 / --------(335 / 3150 / ----)
1,000...371 / 1875 /-1.7 (354 / 3150 /-1.2)
2,000...386 / 1915 /-3.5 (357 / 2755 /-2.3)
3,000...390 / 1955 /-5.1 (357 / 2460 /-3.5)
4,000...385 / 1895 /-6.85 (373 / 2460 /-4.8)
5,000...379 / 1460 /-8.8 (389 / 2460 /-6.1)
6,000...361 / 1110 /11.4 (405 / 2160 /-7.6)
7,000...NG. / -790 /14.7 (406 / 1700 /-9.3)
8,000...NG. / -460 /21.0 (NG. / 1220 /11.55)
9,000...NG. / -150 /NG. (NG. / --775 /15.0)

Maximums: 392.5 mph./2,408.5 m. / 1,980 fpm./3,445 m. (410 mph./6,400 m.
3,150 fpm./1,200 m.)
Test Weights: 8,515 lb. (8,489 lb.)
Combat Ceiling: 6,303 m./20,680 ft. (8,492 m. 27,860 ft.)
Wing Areas: 233 sq. ft. (196.98 sq. ft.)
Wing Loadings: 36.55 lb../sq. ft. (43.10 lb./sq. ft.)

Maximum engine power:
Mustang I: A special notation need to made here. The 'official power' of
the V-1710-F3R (V-1710-39) was 1,220 hp. at 10,800 ft. with ~ 47.2"Hg
boosting. However, pilots in the Middle East were boosting their engines
to 66"Hg as the standard setting. Australian pilots admitted to boosting
their engines to 70"Hg and Pilots in Africa were boosting their aircraft
to 72"Hg for 20 minutes at a time without harming the engines.
70" Hg at 2,000 ft.= 1,780 hp. That was the maximum altitude that
this kind of overboosting could be used.
Power Loading, best: 6.681 lb./hp. or more likely 4.784 lb./hp.
(Fw-190A-3: 1,730 PS @ 1.42 ata. boosting/1,070 m.{1,706 hp.}).
Power Loading, best: 4.976 lb./hp.

Armament: 4 x 0.5in. + 4 x 0.3in. (4 x 20 mm. + 2 x 7.9 mm.)

The Mustang needed to stay low and fast. That is were its best performance
was. It could match the roll rate of the Fw 190A-3 at 368 mph. and was superior
at higher speeds. Control surfaces of the Mustang did not stiffen at high speeds
like the Fw's.
There is no question that the Fw-190A-3 was a better all rounder IMO. But the
Mustang had its place and did its job well.
Did I mention the fact that in a sustained turn there times were almost identical,
the Mustang's turn was at a slower speed but tighter circle.
 
Guys, the above post is a perfect example of, " If you are going to project
an aircraft vs. aircraft scenario" INCLUDE THE TIME PERIOD.

OK dokey, with that being said, the best I can figure is: Match 2, August
1942, Mustang Ia vs. Fw 190A-4. Since the -4 performance was about
equal to the A-3s, I will be using the figures as above....if I must continue
on...?:D
 
I would note that the power figure/s for the overboosted Allison might be a bit suspect. No doubt they were getting much more power than running at 47.2 in but I am not at all sure they were correcting for temperature.
Even at sea level going from 59 degrees F (15 degrees C) to 120 degrees F lowers the air density (lbs per cubic ft/Kg per cubic meter) about 10% at the air intake. The Pressure gauge measures pressure, not weight of the air but it is the weight of the air that makes the power.
I am not sure what happens when you run the hot but "thin" air through the supercharger with it's temperature rise. air exiting the supercharger with a 120F intake temperature is going to be at least 60 degrees hotter than with an intake temp of 59-60 degrees F.

We just had the case in Phoenix about aircraft operating in hot and high conditions ( or not operating). Using way higher than normal pressure readings from out of the ordinary weather conditions and trying to relate it back to normal conditions just might have presented a problem.
 
Shortround,
Son, I am going to have to agree with you. But the documents
from WW2 are all we have to go on.:)
 
True, WW II documents are all we have to go on so.
38TOCL.gif


Increase take-off distance 9% for every 10 Degrees C above 0 degrees C or 10% for every 20 degrees F above 32 degrees F.

two things are going on. Less power from the engine for the same throttle settings (manifold pressure) and less lift from the wing at the same speed because the air is less dense. For landing temperatures above 95F (35C) approach speed needs to increase 10% (higher stall speed) due to less dense air.
Some other manuals show similar changes due to temperature.

Just about all countries, even before WW II, had agreed to use a "standard" temperature and pressure when figuring engine HP.

Also see; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf

with cautions about high carburetor temperatures. and/or conditions needed to pull 70in of more of boost.
 
Interesting thread.

The Germans loved the Fw 1909D and the Allies did not, at all. There is a reason for that.

It comes from the aircraft being a very formidable opponent, as was the small-run Ta 152, which was basically a re-winged and standardized (Short (C) and long(H)) Fw 190D model with a few mods. There weren't many, about 43 all told, but they were a few VERY good aircraft. They made about 1,850 total D models, and that was enough to be a thorn in the Allied side. Good thing they didn't start making them sooner!

NOBODY who was there and flew them or fought them thought they were bad aircraft, Allied or Axis. At first, the German pilots were skeptical. Later, they weren't and wanted more.

Wonder what he has been reading? About flight test, no Fw 190D has flown with the original engine since shortly after WWII. What flight tests of an Fw 190D have you seen? Maybe I misinterpreted that. If so, apologies. The former Doug Champlin Fw 190D-13 can start, but only at idle. The high-speed carb jets are missing! I heard it idle once in Arizona. Cool sound.

I KNOW they are working on one to be powered by an Allison and it will NOT be representative of a real Fw 190D. The nose case is VERY interesting and had to be modified before it even had an oil supply! I hope it flies soon, but am skeptical of same. But, you never know. I wish them luck.

Cheers.
 
One thing I find particularly annoying is people talking about speed without altitude, it's like talking about effect of radiation without dosage. An airplane's performance at different altitudes is drastically different. Please stop comparing planes' speeds by comparing their labeled max speed from any source, even if they're 100% reliable (which an abysmal number of sources really are), because any speed without correlation to altitude is completely meaningless unless you're a racing plane or maritime patrol. When you fight at a particular altitude, the only speed that matters is your speed at that altitude. Your labeled top speed means nothing if you're not fighting at that altitude where the speed is attained.
 
Fw 190A-3 vs. Mustang I, May 1942: Match I

I have piles of research everywhere on my work desk. I have just finished
research on the P-61 performance and timeline, but that is totally off topic
here. What is on topic here is the following:
In this dual of Fw-190 vs P-51 the Fw 190 goes uncontested from its first
entry into service. August 1941 the first Fw 190A-0s are delivered. They
are not entered into combat because they suffer from engine overheating.
Later that same month the Fw 190A-1 becomes operational with II/JG.26.
So from August 1941 until the first Mustang I enters service on 10 May
1942 with No.26 Squadron of the Army Cooperation Command the Fw
190 is uncontested by the Mustang. By the time the Mustang Is become
operational in May 1942 the Fw 190 has graduated to the A-3 version
starting in March with II/JG.26. So the performance comparison of No.26
vs. JG.26 looks like the following.

Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm / minutes to altitude
Mustang I (Fw 190A-3)
S.L......355 / 1860 / --------(335 / 3150 / ----)
1,000...371 / 1875 /-1.7 (354 / 3150 /-1.2)
2,000...386 / 1915 /-3.5 (357 / 2755 /-2.3)
3,000...390 / 1955 /-5.1 (357 / 2460 /-3.5)
4,000...385 / 1895 /-6.85 (373 / 2460 /-4.8)
5,000...379 / 1460 /-8.8 (389 / 2460 /-6.1)
6,000...361 / 1110 /11.4 (405 / 2160 /-7.6)
7,000...NG. / -790 /14.7 (406 / 1700 /-9.3)
8,000...NG. / -460 /21.0 (NG. / 1220 /11.55)
9,000...NG. / -150 /NG. (NG. / --775 /15.0)

Maximums: 392.5 mph./2,408.5 m. / 1,980 fpm./3,445 m. (410 mph./6,400 m.
3,150 fpm./1,200 m.)
Test Weights: 8,515 lb. (8,489 lb.)
Combat Ceiling: 6,303 m./20,680 ft. (8,492 m. 27,860 ft.)
Wing Areas: 233 sq. ft. (196.98 sq. ft.)
Wing Loadings: 36.55 lb../sq. ft. (43.10 lb./sq. ft.)

Maximum engine power:
Mustang I: A special notation need to made here. The 'official power' of
the V-1710-F3R (V-1710-39) was 1,220 hp. at 10,800 ft. with ~ 47.2"Hg
boosting. However, pilots in the Middle East were boosting their engines
to 66"Hg as the standard setting. Australian pilots admitted to boosting
their engines to 70"Hg and Pilots in Africa were boosting their aircraft
to 72"Hg for 20 minutes at a time without harming the engines.
70" Hg at 2,000 ft.= 1,780 hp. That was the maximum altitude that
this kind of overboosting could be used.
Power Loading, best: 6.681 lb./hp. or more likely 4.784 lb./hp.
(Fw-190A-3: 1,730 PS @ 1.42 ata. boosting/1,070 m.{1,706 hp.}).
Power Loading, best: 4.976 lb./hp.

Armament: 4 x 0.5in. + 4 x 0.3in. (4 x 20 mm. + 2 x 7.9 mm.)

The Mustang needed to stay low and fast. That is were its best performance
was. It could match the roll rate of the Fw 190A-3 at 368 mph. and was superior
at higher speeds. Control surfaces of the Mustang did not stiffen at high speeds
like the Fw's.
There is no question that the Fw-190A-3 was a better all rounder IMO. But the
Mustang had its place and did its job well.
Did I mention the fact that in a sustained turn there times were almost identical,
the Mustang's turn was at a slower speed but tighter circle.

When you increase the boost on the Mustang it went a lot faster and climbed a lot better.
WW2aircraftperformance site made a similar comment about Boosting up the P-40.
Tons of conversation about boosting up to 72 inches and both flew much better.
Yet cannot find any performance figures what the added boost did for performance for either aircraft.
In the MTO it certainly made the P-40 a lot more competitive against Italian and German fighters.
Many of the publications stated it was used as an air superiority fighter.

The only comparison would be the P 51 A figures which used the -81 Allison.
This engine allowed competitive performance up to 20k feet and against the Fw-190 within the same altitude range.
This boosted performance experiment improvement must have led to installing the Merlin.

The British sure liked the Mustang I.
Wonder if they upgraded the -39 with the -81 when time to replace.
They maintained three squadrons of them until the end of the war despite getting the B/C/D models.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back