Fw-190 vs Spit/P-51/P-47

[Hunter368]

Hunter368

I read Female Russian Pilots during WW@ kicked *** with the little training they received!

Yes......whats your point???? For every one that did well I would guess hundreds were killed.

Thats like saying that its a good retirement plan to buy lottery tickets and when I actually win one, you say I am a genuis. If someone depends on lottery tickets for their retirement....whether they win or not they are still a dumbass. You get my point?

 

[plan_D]

My history on the 2nd Tactical Air Force has been a great help in learning about tactical strikes, but also about the usage of many aircraft types involved. The Mustang story in the 2nd TAF is completely different from that in the US Eighth Air Force and it still held it's own. Helped me create an unbias opinion on the plane, took a while though.

 

[lesofprimus]

"Katya" Yekaterina Vasilyevna Budanova (KIA 18jul43) 20 - 11 (6 + 5 OTG?)
Olga Nikolayevna Yamshikova 17 - 3 (3 + 14 OTG?)
"Lili" Lidya Vladimirovna Litvyak (KIA 1aug43) 12 (+ 3 sh) (7 + 5 OTG?)
Klavdiya Yakovlevna Fomicevova (Fomicheva) 11 (all OTG?)

A different List...

Litvjaková, Lidia Vladimirovna 15 [12+3]
Budanová, Jekatěrina V. 11 [6+5]
Fomičevová, Klavdija Jakovlevna 11 [0+11]
Pankratová, Klaudie 4
Beljajeva, Rajsa Vasiljevna 3 [1+3]
Burdina, Galina Pavlovna 3 [2+1]
Dolina, Marija Ivanovna 3 [0+3]
Jamščiková, Olga Nikolajevna 3
Lebeděva, Antonina Vasiljevna 3
Surnačevskaja, Raisa Fedorovna 3 [2+1]

Lidia Vladimirovna Litvjaková is sometimes credited with eleven individual victories and three shared.
Jekatěrina V. Budanová is sometimes credited with four individual victories and six shared.
Rajsa Vasiljevna Beljajeva is sometimes credited with four confirmed victories.
Olga Nikolajevna Jamščiková is sometimes credited with seventeen victories.
Tamara Ustinovna Pamjatnych and Raisa Fedorovna Surnačevskaja shot down four enemy aircrafts in one combat.

 

[wmaxt]

PlanD, I agree with your assessment of the Mustang at least to a point.

The P-51s performance was average at best before the Merlin/long range capabilities to the poiint that production had stopped for several months. The -51s project coordinator for the AAF also had a father in congress who was friends with the White House who helped put a priority on the P-51 for a second production plant (I will have to search for the names but I'll try to get them).

An interesting point I have run across several times: The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status.

Yes the P-38 could have done it and at least as well as the P-51 - in fact it did for a bit. The truth is that with more factory space and easier construction, the Mustang was available in larger numbers faster. The decision to move the P-38s to other theaters, the idea being to consolidate the aircraft types was right one for the time, place and conditions. Committing both aircraft piecemeal in all places they were needed would have reduced the effectiveness of the AAF.

Its nickname was the Spam Can, and its loss rate was quite a bit higher than the P-47 or the P-38, at least in the 8th AF (the one I have the best info on), that was the price for expediency.

IMHO: To say the Mustang was the best AAF fighter is not correct, to say it was the premier fighter of WWII is Ludicrous but so is saying it was less than a great fighter plane and amoung the best. It did what it was there to do and did it effectively. Any differences in performance, with other fighters, are a matter of degree not magnitude.

wmaxt

 

[Jank]

wmaxt said, "The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status."

Wore out how? It's engine was quite reliable and didn't required the overhaul schedule of the Merlin powered Mustang. It didn't have the plug fouling problems of the Mustang nor the plethora of engine problems of the pre-J model P-38's.

 

[wmaxt]

wmaxt said, "The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status."

Wore out how? It's engine was quite reliable and didn't required the overhaul schedule of the Merlin powered Mustang. It didn't have the plug fouling problems of the Mustang nor the plethora of engine problems of the pre-J model P-38's.

Actually the 2800 though a great engine and very reliable required overhaul in intervals that weren't much different than the in-line engines. Turbo's and there related components are also relatively high maintenance items. The actual causes of the reports is unknown to me though I have seen them from several different sources - I am looking for more info on this and will relate it when I have found it. I don't consider it verified yet that is why I noted "It has been reported".

Average manhours to overhaul the big three's engines
2800 - 288 hours
1710 - 198 hours
1650 - 320 hours

This has nothing to do with run hours between overhauls but might be considered in to war weary status.

The early P-38 engine issues and a few Js to to a very great extent were due to
1. Fuel, the fuel in Europe was of fairly poor quality to begin with and affected Mustangs too but turbo'd engines are more susceptible to poor fuel.
2. Intercoolers, early intercoolers were designed for 1,100hp max, worse the long path from the turbo through the wing and back at cold temps separated the TEL from the fuel causing denotation or the lead would cause the valves not to seat thereby melting the valve or causing the piston to hit it.
3. Operating techniques, low turbo pressure let the intake air cool exacerbating the fuel issues plus letting the engine oil and coolant cool to much for proper lubrication.

The same and worse conditions were encountered in the Aleutions with none of these issues. Cockpit heat was also better for the same reasons, a warm engine and exhaust heated the cockpit much more effectively to. Cockpit heat on the P-38 came from a metal jacket around the exhaust pipe between the engine and turbo. The exhaust pipe heated the air as it was drawn through the space between the jacket and the pipe then to the cockpit. At low manifold pressures and very cold outside air it never warmed sufficiently, higher manifold pressures caused the exhaust pipe to be much hotter making the system that much more efficient.

You probably know that already but others may not.

PlanD

We both missed the P-51's best feature, esp for a low time pilot, ease of getting reasonable flying competency for combat. The P-38 was a better performer - for an experienced pilot but significantly harder for a 20hr fighter pilot to get very good results out of.

Thats probably its very best feature.

wmaxt

 

[Jank]

Can you share where you saw that "it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status"?

I am interested because I have read an account from a crew chief (I wish I had it to share) that indicated that the R-2800 could go longer between maintenance intervals than the Merlin powered Mustang - I think, in part due to the spark plug problems suffered by the Mustangs but I'm not sure.

I have also read in The Report on Joint Fighter Conference 1944 that the mechanical maintenance on the P-38 was more complicated and troublesome.

 

[Jank]

Only semi-related but interesting nonetheless.

These are the results of a maintenance study of the use of 150 grade fuel on the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in 1944.

150 Grade Fuel

4. Maintenance difficulties can be summarized as follows:

a. P-38 (V-1710 Engine).

Spark plug leading was increased. The extent of this leading was such that plug change was required after approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than leading.

b. P-47 (R-2800 Engine).

Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.

c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines).

The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think a lot of the fouling problems were due to improper leaning. Many greener pilots had no idea what "peak of lean" meant and would most certainly forget to lean after going W/E during the heat of battle.

Something else to consider - a V-12, 24 spark plugs fairly accessible; an R-2800, 36 spark plugs a lot less accessible. Although the round engines were more robust, they could be a lot more difficult to work on (I say that from experience).

 

[lesofprimus]

Ive read countless accounts of spark plug fouling in the P-51, on climb out, on cruise and combat conditions.... Sometimes pilots were grounded for days at visiting airfields till more spark plugs could be delivered...

Ive never seen much mention of this problem with the P-47 jocks or their mechanics...

The biggest problem Ive seen concerning maintenance issues for the P-38 was their propellers... Guys in the Propeller Shops got less sleep than just about anyone else.... It wasnt an exact science either, as alot of these mechanics would sit and wait for the birds to come home, praying that no one had prop issues....

 

[Soren]

Although the round engines were more robust, they could be a lot more difficult to work on (I say that from experience).

And I 2nd that ! Having worked on Radial engines before I know it can be a real pain in the *** just having to change the sparkplugs.

 

[Jank]

From a poster on THE GREAT PLANES forum:

THE GREAT PLANES Community - P-38 Lightning as Long-Range Escort

Data on flight hours and labor hours on these engines. I have no idea where it came from so take it with a grain of salt.

1945 1st quarter

V-1650
flying hours: 302
labor hours: 251

V-1710
flying hours: 362
labor hours: 134

R-2800
flying hours: 580
labor hours: 147


1945 2nd quarter

V-1650
flying hours: 200
labor hours: 259

V-1710
flying hours: 387
labor hours: 153

R-2800
flying hours: 500
labor hours: 241

 

[Jank]

P-38J tests with 44-1 fuel:

P-38J Performance Test

VII CONCLUSIONS

c. The maintenance difficulties experienced throughout the tests were considerable. These consisted mainly of induction, exhaust system, and spark plug failure. However, these difficulties could not be attributed directly to any action of the 44-1 fuel.

VIII RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Because of the mechanical and maintenance characteristics of the engine and the P-38J installation this rating should be limited to a very short time. Periods between overhaul should be shortened for the engines using this power.

 

[Jank]

P-47D tests with 44-1 fuel:

P 47D Performance Test

The issues with the P-38J do not appear present and there is no mention of shorter intervals between overhauls.

 

[Parmigiano]

Back to the original topic, I just want to add my 2 cents of common sense:

Spit IX vs P51: they shared the same engine (actually we could take the Spit XVI that was basically a IX with a Packard-Merlin), but the Spit was about 1400 pounds (empty) or 5000 pounds (full load) lighter.

It seems very unlikely that the P51 could have delivered the same performances of the IX, even if we assume that the aerodynamic design of the P51 was MUCH better than the Spit (that is, at least, a very bold assumption)
In general, we can say that the wing design allowed the Mustang a higher cruise and top speed, but at further expense of lift and other positive parameters.

From the RAF report (source: Spitfire, Alfred Price) the comparison between a Spit IX and a Fw190 (I think was the same A3 or A4 previously compared with the Spit V) revealed a substantial tie between the 2 aircrafts, the main differences being the tight turn (advantage for the Spit), the roll rate (for the Fw190) and the zoom dive (Fw190).

This test was made up to 25000 ft, above that height we know that the drop in power of the BMW801 was impacting the 190A performances

Since during production there were thousands of micro-changes, on-going improvements etc., it is impossible to rationally say or deny that 'a certain version of XX was a bit better than a certain subtype of YY' but in terms of
'macro differences' (and a weight difference of 25% in the best case is a macro difference) the above considerations should be a fair assessment of the relative performances of the 3 aircrafts.

Another 'general common sense' consideration: if the Fw 'A' pilots were experiencing a serious lack of performances in dogfight, they had an easy way to improve handling and performances, that is to remove the outer Mg151 saving about 3-400 pounds and retaining enough firepower to shoot down any enemy fighter.
I am not aware that there was an official 'U' or 'R' specific configuration of this kind, and considering the appassionate love of the Germans for classification I think it is safe to assume that this change was not felt as necessary by the Luftwaffe.

 

[Soren]

Parmigiano, the Fw190 tested by the British suffered severe engine troubles as-well as aileron adjustment-difficulties which significantly influenced the test-flight-results with this particular a/c - A decrease in power seriously affects both turn and climb performance, and obviously it also affects speed quite dramaticly. The improper adjustment of the ailerones affected turn rate dramaticly, causing premature departures in tight turns.

Also Spitfire IX pilots, despite the availability of increased performance, certainly didn't speak to positively about their own chances when faced by FW190's over the channel.(Despite what some test report might tell you) And according to FW190 pilots, they frequently accepted turn-fights with the Spitfire and came out on top - ofcourse the Spitfire did have a tighter turn radius, but for the first 1/3 of a 360 degree turn the FW190 actually turned abit faster, and combined with its superior energy retention this made the FW190 a truly nasty opponent for the Spitfire in a dogfight.

 

[Jank]

Soren, while your point is well taken, I do not believe it is accurate to characterize the engine problems as "severe."

 

[Parmigiano]

Soren and Jank,

to summarize the story:
if my 'common sense' is correct we should have
1 - Spit IX and Fw190
3 - P51

if your comments are correct we should have
1 - Fw190A
2 - Spit IX
3 - P51
at least up to 25000 ft

... quite a strong statement !

 

[wmaxt]

Can you share where you saw that "it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status"?

I am interested because I have read an account from a crew chief (I wish I had it to share) that indicated that the R-2800 could go longer between maintenance intervals than the Merlin powered Mustang - I think, in part due to the spark plug problems suffered by the Mustangs but I'm not sure.

I have also read in The Report on Joint Fighter Conference 1944 that the mechanical maintenance on the P-38 was more complicated and troublesome.

I don't know where it originated, where did I read it? I can't tell you that, either, I didn't note the source at the time because I didn't put any credence to it until I had seen it several times, sorry. Since I don't know the source I consider it a possibility only at this time. If anyone else has info on this we'd like to hear about it.

The P-38 was very closely packed and could be very tough to work on. Someone here posted a cutaway drawing, on this forum, of the P-38 and its quite an eye opener.

As for the Joint Fighter Conference report, I don't know the mix or the conditions. Was there an experienced P-38 crew and pilot there, that could make a huge difference in the perception of the aircraft. How about proper facilities, spares etc.? I've seen Navy comparisons where the AAF aircraft were flown and compared with Navy aircraft using METO power settings against 70" in the Corsair. To add insult to injury the Corsair had its stores pylons removed and faired over while the P-38s are fixed (even the show plane Yippee has its pylons, they weren't removable). Maintenance wise I've heard both sides of the same coin. Typically the newer mechanics found the P-38 very daunting and difficult it was so densely packed and a lot of the systems were fairly new in the war years. For instance it was the first with hydraulic ailerons. Once the systems and proper techniques were worked out it wasn't much different than anything else. Art Heiden flew his P-38 320 combat hours on the same engines and didn't miss any mission time due to maintenance. Given proper maintenance and treatment the P-38 was as good as they got in WWII. On the other hand jam the throttles forward before the mixture was richened and your going to have a dead stick landing so you better start pumping the landing gear down !

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

Soren, while your point is well taken, I do not believe it is accurate to characterize the engine problems as "severe."

They were quite severe for the outcome of the test-flights, as available power was well under the normal output.