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

[Jank]

Parmagiono said, "Soren and Jank ... if your comments are correct we should have
1 - Fw190A
2 - Spit IX
3 - P51
at least up to 25000 ft"

My comments do not lead to that conclusion. All I said was that I thought Soren's characterization of "severe" engine problems was excessive. I have read that test and there were engine problems. No, they were not "severe." I was not passing judgement on your common sense judgement.

Bottom line - if you are conducting a flight test and experience "severe" engine problems, you immediately land. If you continue on with the test, that is definitive evidence that the problems did not rise to the level of "severe."

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Bottom line - if you are conducting a flight test and experience "severe" engine problems, you immediately land. If you continue on with the test, that is definitive evidence that the problems did not rise to the level of "severe."

That is correct....

 

[Soren]

I apologize for not making myself clear enough Jank, what I meant, as I wrote in my last post, is that the engine troubles proved severe for the outcome of the test - I admit calling the actual engine troubles "severe" (although they were serious for the testing), is rather excessive indeed, I hope you accept my apology.

From the British report:
There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be carried out by the RAH and more definite information will then be available.

Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability.

 

[Parmigiano]

Jank, sorry for having misunderstood your comment, my perception was that you were meaning 'that 190 was not in optimal condition although not to the extent implied by Soren'

Rather than establishing an order, I am more interested about the 'common sense statement', I think it is the interesting part of the discussion, so I try to rephrase it :

Is it possible that an aircraft who is (in the best possible case) 25% or 1400 pounds heavier than another aircraft - who is widely recognized as one of the best performing of the era - and share the same engine can have overall equal or better performances?

We are not talking about tactics, sheer numbers, easiness of construction, we are talking about flight performances.

Based on rational thinking, I would say 'no way' for every machine, aircraft, GP motorbike or F1 racing car.
I can accept that a more refined airframe design can cope with a 5-10% weight handicap, not with a difference of this magnitude.

I would like to have this concept challenged with rational reasons, pilot reports are too often biased, even if in 'bona fide'.

For instance, I rationally accept that the heavier craft can be faster because of a different wing airfoil, but I also rationally assume that (since in physics nothing is free of charge) that airfoil optimized for low drag is paying fee in terms of lift and other parameters, further enhancing the gap vs the lighter machine in performances like climb and turn.

I.e. rational reasons could be:

- the assumption is wrong because the real weight data are different and the real difference is only 200 pounds
- The propeller of the P51 was much more efficient than the Spit, so the P51 was more efficient in trasforming power in thrust.
- Weight is not really an important parameter for flight performances (but in this case why? this would be a revolutionary concept)
- The Packard-Merlin was in reality a substantial improvement vs the RR Merlin

Sorry for bothering, but I am really curious...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

I bet you and I have the same scars on our knuckles!

 

[Hop]

Parmigiano, the Fw190 tested by the British suffered severe engine troubles

It certainly did later on, and indeed the tests had to be abandoned because the 190 was running so poorly.

However, when you look at the climb performance the RAF thought they achieved, it's much better than even FW claimed for the aircraft.

as-well as aileron adjustment-difficulties which significantly influenced the test-flight-results with this particular a/c

Have you any source for the aileron adjustment difficulties? I've seen it claimed for some other RAF captured 190s, but not for the aircraft in this test (which was Faber's that landed by mistake in Pembrey)

A decrease in power seriously affects both turn and climb performance, and obviously it also affects speed quite dramaticly.

And yet the test results show climb performance better than the German tests.

The AFDU, for example, claimed a better climb rate than the Spitfire V, and equal to the Spitfire IX, yet German results were much worse than indepndent British tests of Spitfire Vs and IXs.

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)

On the contrary, British pilots felt extrememly confident facing 190s in Spitfire IXs, especially the more powerfull LF IXs which came into service in Spring 1943.

From the British report:
There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be carried out by the RAH and more definite information will then be available.

Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability.

It's certainly true that the engine of Faber's plane was running roughly, the fact the British took a derated engine (limited to 2450 rpm, 1.35 for 3 minutes) and ran it at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm for 3 mins, and 2450 rpm, 1.35 ata for 30 minutes probably has something to do with that.

 

[Soren]

Thats absurd Hop, the Fw-190A3 actually achieved better results in German tests:

Climb rate at SL running at Steig u. Kampfleistung - 1.32ata@2,400rpm = 16.8 m/s

I don't see where the British ever claimed reaching 403mph at 1.32ata with Fabers A-3 ! In fact the actual speed achieved in the British trials (390mph) was achieved running at 1.42ata ! At that setting the A-3 achieved up to 680km/h (422.5mph) in German trials.

And about the ailerons, its certainly no claim, all Antons suffered this problem until the arrival of the A-6, with even the LW mech's having a hard time constantly correcting the problem in the field up until then - So I think its safe to assume that there's no chance in **** RAF mech's were ever going to get it right on Faber's machine which had already seen its fair share of flight time.

And finally regarding your claim as to the confidence of Spitfire IX pilots when facing FW190's over the channel, well you're wrong again, just take a look at the records from that period 42-43.

 

[Glider]

Re the confidence that British pilots had in the Spit IX when facing Fw190, I have never read or heard about any lack of confidence in the RAF. Quite the reverse. After what was a very difficult period in the Spit V which was at a clear disadvantage, they couldn't wait to take on the 190 in a plane as capable as the 190. I cannot remember anyone saying it was better than the 190 but definately as good as the 190.

Have you got any examples as its an interesting view?

I have read the same from American pilots who flew the Spit IX. The Best I read was an American Pilot who had flown Spit V's and been transferred to the USAF and was flying one of the first P47's. He went back to his old squadron who were on Spit IX and couldn't help compare the two. His view was both woulld be good enough to take on the Fw190 but what he really wanted, was a plane that combined the best of the two. The speed, roll and dive of the P47 with the climb, ightness of the controls and agility of the Spit. That would be game over.

 

[Hop]

Thats absurd Hop, the Fw-190A3 actually achieved better results in German tests:

The RAE tested the 190 and got figures of about 16 m/s up to 1,200m. That's very similar to the results FW got.

However, the RAE claimed the climb rate actually went up to about 17 m/s up to 5,000m. Compare that to the FW results at 5,000m. The RAE results are about 4.5 m/s better.

The RAE tested after the AFDU did. The AFDU claimed the climb rate was similar to the Spitfire IX up to 22,000 ft. You can see the Spitfire results at Mike Williams site, Spitfire F Mk IX Test BF274

The "normal rating" test is the relevant one, as the AFDU were testing at what they thought was climb rating.

The Spitfire F IX did have a similar climb rate to the 190A3 at sea level, just over 16.2 m/s, but in FW tests the 190 only maintained that to about 1km, as your graph shows. The Spitfire F IX maintained just over 16 m/s up to over 4,000m. Between 1 and 4km altitude, the Spitfire IX would have up to a 3.5 m/s advantage over the A3 from the FW tests.

The AFDU said the climb rates were similar to 22,000 ft (about 6500m). But at 6,500m, the 190 had a climb rate of about 9.5 m/s, according to the chart you've posted. The Spitfire F IX was still doing 13 m/s at that altitude.

In short, whilst there are a few points at which the Fw 190 has a similar climb rate at 1.35 ata to the Spitfire IX at climb power, for most of the altitude range the Spitfire IX climbs considerably better, yet the AFDU didn't find that at all.

I don't see where the British ever claimed reaching 403mph at 1.32ata with Fabers A-3 !

No. It's noticeable that the British tests showed a better climb rate than the 190 actually had, and a worse speed. The speed is partially accounted for by the fact that the level speed runs were only carried out for 2 mins, so maximum speed wasn't obtained. The RAE also found a very low critical altitude, of only about 19,000 ft iirc, so the maximum speeds above 20,000 are a moot point.

And finally regarding your claim as to the confidence of Spitfire IX pilots when facing FW190's over the channel, well you're wrong again, just take a look at the records from that period 42-43.

OK. Looking at Tony Wood's claims and casualty lists for the RAF, January 1943 saw Spitfire IXs (the much less capable F IX model) claiming 23 German aircraft over the channel front for the loss of 11 to all causes.

September resulted in 59 claims by Spitfire IXs for 16 losses.

Granted the claims aren't going to be completely accurate, not even in 1943 (although they were much better than the 1941/42 period), but it's clear the RAF thought the Spitfire IX squadrons were having the better of the fighting.

 

[Soren]

It should be quite obvious to you that the engine didn't perform nearly as well as it should have Hop, and this is backed up by the report itself as well as German pilot testimonies - The engine's reliability was never ever questioned by the LW pilots who flew the bird, and it was described as a very nicely running engine which is backed up by a great reliability record. Obviously something went wrong in the translation of the climb rate tests performed by the RAE, cause those figures are just completely unreal, esp. when compared to the speeds achieved - which btw is the only area where they had an accurate reading to go by.

In any case you're better off asking Crumpp about this, as I'm simply not in the mood for a long discussion regarding your assumptions on this subject.

And about the Spit IX pilots confidence when facing the FW190, remember by 42-43 the A-4, A-5 A-6 were serving with the LW, and these gave the RAF fighters a serious beating over the channel. So its of no use comparing the Spit IX with the A-3, as newer and more powerful 190's had been introduced by the time of the Spit IX's introduction.

During the period of February to July 1942, the JG 2 26 shot down atleast 335 enemy a/c to the loss of just 85 FW-190 BF-109's. And on August 19th 1942, the day of the British operation "Jubilee", JG 2 26 despite being heavily outnumbered claimed 96 aerial victories while losing just 21 fighters themselves - the RAF admitted the loss of 103 a/c that day, 88 of which were Spitfires.

Info taken from "JG26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald Caldwell, ISBN: 0804110506.

 

[Glider]

As I understand it for operation Jubilee the British had 46 squadrons of spitfires, but only 4 of those had the Spit IX. The others were Mk V which we all admit was at a significant disadvantage over the Fw190.

Throw in the fact that the Germans were over their own land i.e. the reverse of the BOB and it would be suprising if the British didn't lose a lot more aircraft.

I am with Hop on this and firmly believe that the MkIX was every bit as good as the Fw190 and the pilots believed that as well.

 

[redcoat]

And on August 19th 1942, the day of the British operation "Jubilee", JG 2 26 despite being heavily outnumbered claimed 96 aerial victories while losing just 21 fighters themselves - the RAF admitted the loss of 103 a/c that day, 88 of which were Spitfires.

Info taken from "JG26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald Caldwell, ISBN: 0804110506.

The British lost 119 aircraft that day, against 45 Luftwaffe losses.
The number of Spitfires lost was 64.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am with Hop on this and firmly believe that the MkIX was every bit as good as the Fw190 and the pilots believed that as well.

I agree on that completely with the 190D-9 having a slight edge.

 

[davparlr]

The significance of the P-51 was the range and capability combined. There were planes that could out manuever it and planes that could fly further, but there were very few (probably none) that could combine both features to the extent that the P-51 could. The fact that the P-51D could fly 400+ miles and then fight more or less nose-to-nose with any fighters it met, and give its pilot a fighting chance, was and is its claim to fame. The Fw-190D was a better dogfighter and the Ta-152 was clearly superior.

It must be noted here that when the P-51B arrived in May of 1943 it was similar in performance to the contemporary Spitfire IX in ceiling and rate of climb but was almost 40 mph faster and it was clearly superior to the Fw190-A6 and Bf109G-6 in speed, time to climb, and ceiling. In fact, flight test results indicate it was more on par with the Fw-190D, with similar top speed (442(P-51B) to 440), ceiling (42k to 39k), but with apparently (there were some contradictory data) did not have the Fw's time to climb (one source said the Fw could reach 32k in 7.1 minutes whereas the P-51B would only make 25k in that time, another source indicates the Fw could reach 19,680 ft in 7.1 minutes and the P-51B could do that in around 5 minutes).

 

[Glider]

I admit that I thought that the P51B didn't climb quite as well as the figures your quote but they were close and could have been down to a number of reasons temperature, fuel ect. The one area where the FW did have an advantage was in its guns, where it had far more firepower than the P51B and the reliability of those guns. The P51 tended to have jamming problems due to the guns being mounted at an angle and the ammo runs having a bend in them.
The other advantage was the P51 being 'fragile' compared to the Fw190. It took less damage.

That said the P51 did have the range to impose itself on the Germans and escort the bombers to and from the target, a priceless advantage in the air war generally.

 

[davparlr]

I agree with you comments. P-51B climb data was obtained from charts associated with this site P-51 Mustang Performance

Aircraft serial number is identified.

 

[Soren]

It must be noted here that when the P-51B arrived in May of 1943 it was similar in performance to the contemporary Spitfire IX in ceiling and rate of climb but was almost 40 mph faster and it was clearly superior to the Fw190-A6 and Bf109G-6 in speed, time to climb, and ceiling. In fact, flight test results indicate it was more on par with the Fw-190D, with similar top speed (442(P-51B) to 440), ceiling (42k to 39k), but with apparently (there were some contradictory data) did not have the Fw's time to climb (one source said the Fw could reach 32k in 7.1 minutes whereas the P-51B would only make 25k in that time, another source indicates the Fw could reach 19,680 ft in 7.1 minutes and the P-51B could do that in around 5 minutes).

Davparlr, at just Steig u. Kampfleistung the Fw-190A-3 would climb at 3,346 ft/min and reach 19,685 ft in 7.1min, now try with Start u. Notleistung and you can add allot of ft/min and subtract allot of time to climb. - Also a top speed at SL of 567 km/h in 41 aint bad at all, heck it aint bad even in 44.

Now the A-5 which was more powerful and therefore a good deal faster (on average 13-15 km/h faster than the A-3 A-4), could climb at over 4,100 ft/min and reach a speed of 580 km/h at SL. The A-6 was pretty much the same as the A-5 in terms of performance, however it could and usually did carry more equipment.

And about the Dora-9 and its time to climb performance:

Time to climb with ETC-504 rack:
2km (6,561 ft) = 1.8 min
4km (13,123 ft) = 3.2 min
6km (19,685 ft) = 5.5 min
8km (26,246 ft) = 8.1 min
10km (32,808 ft)= 13.4 min - 12.5 min without ETC-504

Climb rate at full throttle height 4.8km (15,748 ft) with ETC-504 = 17.4 m/s (3,425 ft/min)
Climb rate at full throttle height 4.8km (15,748 ft) without ETC-504 = 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min)

I don't see where the P-51 ever approaches these performance figures...

Even at 9,335 lbs and running at 75" MP it takes the P-51B-15 on average an extra minute to reach the same alt as the Dora-9.

 

[Glider]

I agree with you comments. P-51B climb data was obtained from charts associated with this site P-51 Mustang Performance

Aircraft serial number is identified.

Good site and I appreciate the link. Theres a lot in there, thanks again

 

[Parmigiano]

I believe that P51D is by far the best 'escort fighter' due to the mix of performances, reliability and endurance.

Still I can't explain myself how it could be roughly on par with Spit IX-XVI in performances, being 1400 pounds heavier with the same engine (= same power, torque, power distribution vs height etc.)

As I said, I can understand the airfoil give her a better top speed, although at cost of lift; so looking at the performance data declared for the P51D, I asked the question: something is not reconciling!
I can't understand how (all other conditions like fuel type and load, temp, wheater etc. being equal) it could be 'on par' in climb, roll, turn, acceleration (except in the dive) with that huge handicap, would be great to find a technical answer.

I think the P51B was a bit lighter, at least 300 pounds less in the wings (2 mg + ammo) should allow a better performance vs the D

 

[davparlr]

And about the Dora-9 and its time to climb performance:

Time to climb with ETC-504 rack:
2km (6,561 ft) = 1.8 min
4km (13,123 ft) = 3.2 min
6km (19,685 ft) = 5.5 min
8km (26,246 ft) = 8.1 min
10km (32,808 ft)= 13.4 min - 12.5 min without ETC-504

Climb rate at full throttle height 4.8km (15,748 ft) with ETC-504 = 17.4 m/s (3,425 ft/min)
Climb rate at full throttle height 4.8km (15,748 ft) without ETC-504 = 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min)

I don't see where the P-51 ever approaches these performance figures...

Even at 9,335 lbs and running at 75" MP it takes the P-51B-15 on average an extra minute to reach the same alt as the Dora-9.

I did not get the same P-51B performance numbers you did. From a flight test chart for Tail Number 43-24777, tested 3-31-44, at 75" Hg, 9680 lbs and wing racks (see my referenced site in previous message) I interpreted the following time to climb data.
6,561 ft 1.8 min
13,123 3.2
19,685 5.2
26,246 8.0
32,808 12.5

Also, from the same chart, climb rate at 15,748 ft. was 3700 ft/min. All of these numbers are subject to interpretation errors but should be pretty close(unless I really screwed up, but double checked).

I read somewhere that the Fw-190D could generate significant more power than the P-51B which would indicate either the numbers of the P-51B (which seems solid) or the Fw-190D are suspect. Your numbers may have come from a P-51B with a -3 engine. Also, the flight test numbers on the P-51B were not the same as some other numbers on a P-51C with the same engine (-7) so, there is some question.

Still I can't explain myself how it could be roughly on par with Spit IX-XVI in performances, being 1400 pounds heavier with the same engine (= same power, torque, power distribution vs height etc.)

I think the Spit IX would be lighter on it feet than the P-51B and is probably a better dogfighter as is the Fw-190D. And I am sure both were better armed.