IF YOU WERE RICH AND COULD AFFORD ANY WWII PLANE ...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Oct 1, 2006

Ive been watching Flugwerk pretty closely lately. I would love to buy there Fw-190A and eventually the Dora and the 109G when they are ready. On there website they said they eventually want to start reproducing many warbirds from WW2 including P-47, P-51 and Spitfires.

P38 Pilot · Oct 1, 2006

Either a P-38, P-47, or P-51.
If i wanted a bomber, I would either go with a B-17, He-111, or B-25.

davparlr · Oct 1, 2006

Soren said:
It will be interesting to see how well Flugwerk's Dora-9 does when it gets up and flying soon I'd take that bird to every Mustang show in the world with full confidence !

Like I've indicated before, your confidence would sorely misplaced if a P-51H showed up.

MacArther · Oct 2, 2006

A longer list pertains to me, so hear me out...

Dautless SBD-5: They are stinkin' cool, with their sleek lines, heavy war load, and diving speed. I would use this for grocerys, maybe teaching other people to fly (nahhhhh).

P-38: In case I want to visit some one far away, but dont feel like sitting in an airliner.

Bell P-63A Kingcobra: That was a beautiful plane, which could have done pretty well in American service. After all, look what the Russians did with 'em. Between this, the P-40, and the Do 335 they would be my "show off-fly around reeeeeaalllly fast" planes.

Curtiss P-40Q: The last model of the Warhawk, it never went into serial production. Lovely plane, combining all the strengths of a normal Warhawk with high altitude performance, bubble canopy, 400+ miles per hour top speed, and possibly a heavier weapons load (4 20mm guns were tested). I just love these planes.

Dornier 335: Do I really have to explain why someone would want one of these planes?

CA-12 Boomberang: Looks cool, and it could be a lead in trainer for me to get used to the planes before I step up to the other ones.

Junkers 290: Cause I gotta have the staff meeting/private airliner, and it comes with terrorist detterant on board (6 20mm guns, 1 machine gun, and my personal body guards

)

squadron_leader_barton · Oct 3, 2006

the de havaland mosquito was beautifull, but the dehavaland hornet was even better, although it only saw a few days active service before the war ended.

why?? think of the crowds reaction at an airshow as twin rols roice giffon's pound passed them!!!!!

Erich · Oct 3, 2006

yep get the Smithsonian Ta 152H from Walter Loos up and running please and then send it over here to southern Oregon as I have friends that would luv to fly that hot rod job

as to the performance data sheet(s), I am still awaiting more conclusive info from Germany besides the Monogram thick monster book has not been published yet which should give some sort of clarification to the matter .......... I hope.

Am hoping the P-61 that is in restoration will be flyable, but at least they should try and get it running. Find me a Ju 88G-6 ~ so we can pit agasint an RAF Mossie intruder

Soren · Oct 3, 2006

davparlr said:
Like I've indicated before, your confidence would sorely misplaced if a P-51H showed up.

Nope, it wouldn't, and esp. not if my Dora's got GM-1, a D-12 prop and wheel doors, cause then I'd smoke any P-51 in a heartbeat.

Will be interesting to see how well the Allison engine makes Flugwerk's Dora perform, I've heard that if you want to you can boost the Allison up to 4000 HP ! So tuning it for 2100 HP shouldn't pose a problem - the torque curve might be slightly lower than the Jumo 213's though and that' might cause some difference in performance compared to the original machine.

davparlr · Oct 3, 2006

Soren said:
Nope, it wouldn't, and esp. not if my Dora's got GM-1, a D-12 prop and wheel doors, cause then I'd smoke any P-51 in a heartbeat.

You nor anybody else has supported that statement with data concerning the P-51H vs. the Ta 154, much less the Fw-190D-9. I heard rumors but nobody anted up. In fact, I suspect that you cannot justify that statement with data about the D-9 in comparison to the P-51B using fuel available when the Dora was flying. Show me the stats relative to speed, climb rate, time to climb, power to weight, wing loading, or anything other measurment that would support your argument. Of course the planes would have to be equally matched in fuel and weapons load. I can be open minded and my opinion can be changed. As of what I have seen, the P-51H clearly superior to the P-51D and Ta 152H (below 30k ft), and would certainly be more than competitive with the best German, Italian, or Japanese had to offer (not including jets or rockets).

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Oct 3, 2006

How do you suspect to support your statements abou the P-51H when it never met against the Ta-152H?

Cant...

Soren · Oct 3, 2006

davparlr said:
You nor anybody else has supported that statement with data concerning the P-51H vs. the Ta 154, much less the Fw-190D-9. I heard rumors but nobody anted up. In fact, I suspect that you cannot justify that statement with data about the D-9 in comparison to the P-51B using fuel available when the Dora was flying. Show me the stats relative to speed, climb rate, time to climb, power to weight, wing loading, or anything other measurment that would support your argument. Of course the planes would have to be equally matched in fuel and weapons load. I can be open minded and my opinion can be changed. As of what I have seen, the P-51H clearly superior to the P-51D and Ta 152H (below 30k ft), and would certainly be more than competitive with the best German, Italian, or Japanese had to offer (not including jets or rockets).

Oh I have supported it MANY times now davparlr, many times !

The D-12 which was equipped with GM-1 did 770 + km/h at altitude, thats very much faster than the P-51H ! And the D-12 prop added atleast another 1.5-2 m/s in climb rate giving the Dora a climb rate of 24.5 m/s (4,822 ft/min) at sea-level.

Look in the "Interesting P-38 comments" thread..

Erich · Oct 3, 2006

Agreed, why bring up an a/c that never saw service agasint the Ta 152H during the war in the ETO ?

man I need a Bier !

Jank · Oct 3, 2006

P-51H balls to the wall and weighing in at 9,000lbs.

5,650fpm climb at 5,000ft.

7.3 minutes to 30,000ft.

487mph top speed at 30,000ft.

rochie · Oct 3, 2006

i'd have an F4u or an fw 190d-9

johnbr · Oct 3, 2006

For me it would be a Vought xf5u-1 or a Horton ho 229.

Soren · Oct 3, 2006

Adler and Erich,

I agree, why discuss a fighter which didn't see service until well after WWII.

davparlr,

Instead of looking at that calculated chart why don't you take a look at what the P-51H 'really' could;
453 mph at 21,000 ft and 4,700 ft/min at sea level, 30,000 ft reached in 9½ min:

Jank · Oct 3, 2006

I thought the P-51H was a hotter performer. So the 487mph figure was not a speed obtained through an actual flight test in combat trim?

In that case, I'd rather have a P-47N with a D fuel load! (The N had a 100 gallon fuel cell in each wing that could be left empty without problems of condensation like fuel tanks had.) In other words, an N would be like a D but weighing 500 more pounds, with 265 more horsepower and a larger wing area with squared wing tips.

davparlr · Oct 3, 2006

Soren said:
Adler and Erich,

davparlr,

Instead of looking at that calculated chart why don't you take a look at what the P-51H 'really' could;
453 mph at 21,000 ft and 4,700 ft/min at sea level, 30,000 ft reached in 9½ min:

This certainly has me puzzled. The charts have been recently updated and looks good but the previous charts showed the same values but the writeup stated that the water injection was not working. Also, this is quite a difference to the engineering data which was calculated but correlated to flight test data. This would indicate a large error somewhere. However, flight test data identifing an airframe is the best data.

Okay, lets go with what you have. The best data I could find on the Fw-190D-9 was airspeed of 440mph, ceiling 39K (?) initial climb rate of 3300 ft/min, and going to 6000 meters in 7.1 minutes. So, unless you have flight test data to counter this, it seems that the P-51H is still faster (453 mph), has a higher ceiling (41K), has a higher initial climb rate 4600 ft/min and better time to 18000 ft. (between 3 and 4.5 minutes). Also, power to weight and wingloading at equivalent fuel and ammo would benefit the P-51H. And, if you look at the flight test data for the P-51B climb below (also it is in the same speed range but wouldn't have the power to weight and wing loading advantage the P-51H has), it would even beat the rather lazy Dora. This flight test data, so you'll have to show me the same level of data that would indicate superior performance. If you can't, I don't know where you would get your confidence. You'd be facing faster, faster climbing, higher climbing, with better power and wing loading aircraft. You must be a heck of a flyer to be so confident. So, give me your data and convert me.

Also, if the P-51H data holds up (it looks good), I would reassess my comments in comparision to the Ta-152H.

Click to expand...

Soren · Oct 4, 2006

davparlr,

The chart you posted is a calculated one made in September 1944, and as evident they were VERY over-positive about suspected performance !

The charts I posted are based on real test-flights with a clean aircraft conducted in october 1946.

And forget about wing-loading davparlr, cause the P-51 used a laminar flow wing design (Root = NACA 66-( 1.8 )15.5 Tip = NACA 66-( 1.8 )12 ) which in turn didn't produce nearly as much lift pr. area as a conventional wing design esp. in tight turns - A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing.

Note: The effects a laminar flow wing has on turn performance in particular can be seen in the AFDU comparison between the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.

Now about FW-190 Dora performance, I'm going to make this as clear as possible this time (For the millionth time ! )

Based on test-flights;

24.3.1945; Climb rate at fully loaded weight with ETC-504: (D-9 prop)
1: Sonder Notleistung @ 3,250 RPM = 21 m/s
2: Start u. Notleisting @ 3,250 RPM = 17.4 m/s
3: Steig u. Kampfleistung @ 3,000 RPM = 14.9 m/s
4: Höchst Dauerleistung @ 2,700 RPM = 11.3 m/s
Time to climb 10 km (32,800 ft) = 13.4 min.

11.3.1945; Max speeds at fully loaded weight with ETC-504: (D-9 prop)
1: Start u. Notleistung (B4) = 679 km/h at 6.6 km / 567 km/h at SL.
2: Sonder Notleistung (C3) = 702 km/h at 5.7 km / 615 km/h at SL.
3: Sonder Notleistung mit A lader als Bodenmotor (B4?) = 698 km/h at 3.5 km / 640 km/h at SL.
4: Sonder Notleistung mit ladedruck erhöhung m. MW-50 (B4) = 692 km/h at 5.4 km / 605 km/h at SL.
5: Steig u. Kampfleistung (B4) = 667 km/h at 6.6 km / 550 km/h at SL.

5.7.1944; Climb rate at fully loaded weight without ETC-504: (D-9 prop)
Notleistung m. MW-50, 2100 PS (Sonder Notleistung @ 3,250 RPM) = 22.5 m/s.
Mit erhöhtem ladedruck, 1900 PS (Increased boost at Start u. Notleistung @ 3,250 RPM) = 18.7 m/s.
Start u. Notleistung, 1750 PS = 17.5 m/s.

1.10.1944; Dora-9 -12 (F engine) max speed and climb rate at full throttle height, without ETC-504: (D-9 prop wheel doors)
Dora-9 Max speed = 702 km/h at 5.7 km / 612 km/h at SL.
Dora-9 Climb rate = 18.5 m/s at 4.8 km.
Dora-9 Time to climb 10 km (32,800 ft) = 12.5 min.
Dora-12 Max speed = 738 km/h at 11.6 km / 608 km/h at SL.
Dora-12 Climb rate = 8.2 m/s at 11.2 km.
Dora-12 Time to climb 10 km (32,800 ft) = 10.9 min.

3.1.1945; FW-190 Ta 152 max speeds at fully loaded weight without ETC-504: (1900 PS Basis with wheel doors)
Dora-9 (A), 2.02 ata = 695 km/h at 5.4 km / 621 km/h at SL.
Dora-12 (F), 1.84 ata = 725 km/h at 9.7 km / 607 km/h at SL.
Dora-12 (EB), 1.84 ata = 770 + km/h at 9.6 km / 613 km/h at SL.

Note: 2.02 ata was probably never used operationally by the Dora.

davparlr · Oct 5, 2006

Soren said:
davparlr,

The chart you posted is a calculated one made in September 1944, and as evident they were VERY over-positive about suspected performance !

You mean the chart that Jank posted. The only chart I posted was a P-51B flight test chart. Which, by the way, is only one of many available, all with a tail numbers. The deviations of the chart you're talking about and the flight test data are disturbing and don't conform to typical engineering charts to performance.

The charts I posted are based on real test-flights with a clean aircraft conducted in october 1946.

The charts you posted are Fw corporate charts that don't seem to specifically indicate that they contain flight test data, no tail number identified, no pilot identified, no discrete points noted. Do you have documentation that indicates these are really flight test results or or they engineering data. I must admit that the charts were fuzzy and I have to use a translator program.

And forget about wing-loading davparlr, cause the P-51 used a laminar flow wing design (Root = NACA 66-( 1.8 )15.5 Tip = NACA 66-( 1.8 )12 ) which in turn didn't produce nearly as much lift pr. area as a conventional wing design esp. in tight turns - A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing.

Note: The effects a laminar flow wing has on turn performance in particular can be seen in the AFDU comparison between the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.

I was just pushing one of your old buttons on wingloading. I concede that the Fw-190 family were great roll rate and turning aircraft and the P-51 family had its manuevering points but I don't think you would want to fight a Fw-190 in a horizontal dogfight.

Now about FW-190 Dora performance, I'm going to make this as clear as possible this time (For the millionth time ! )

Based on test-flights;

Flight test??

Okay, I used your data for the Fw-190D-9, your supplied chart for the P-51H, and my charts for the P-51B (1944) to generate the following chart:

Fw-190D-9 P-51H P-51B (1944)
Test Weight 9413 lbs (4270kg) 9544 (4329) 9680 (4472)
Empty Weight 7694 (3490) 6585 (2987) 6985 (3168)
Delta Weight 1719 (780) 2959 (1342) 2695 (1222)
Speed Max SL 380mph (612km/h) 400 (644) 371 (597)
Speed Max 436mph (702km/h) 453 (729) 442 (711)
Climb rate SL 4440 ft/min 4680 4350
Climb rate 16kft 3660 ft/min 3680 (18.7) 3580 (18.2)
climb to 10km 12.5 minutes 10 12.8
climb to 6km 5.4 4 6.4
Ceiling* 39k 41k 42k

Ceiling is not from flight test, but rather researched data.

I hope the chart works out. I have difficulties with charts. Please accept my appologies if it does not

Note that he tested weight over empty weight for the P-51H was over 2000 lbs more than the Fw-190D and the P-51B was carrying more than 1200 more. Imagine how the Fw-190Ds performance data would be impacted if it carried the same load weight.

This data shows what I said orginally.

The P-51H is faster at sea level and altitude, better climbing (and also has better power to weight ratio) and better ceiling. All of this while carrying 2000lb of bombs or fuel? I'll concede the turn. In fact it looks to me that the P-51B (1944 version) is quite comparable to the Fw-190D-9, especially at equivalent weight (although it doesn't have the firepower-perhaps balancing the weight difference with with a couple more 50 cals would work).

Using the data you supplied, I just don't see your justification to the superority of the Fw-190D-9 over the P-51H nor even more than slightly superior to the P-51B (1944 version).

So you still haven't convinced me with data. More attacks on the data?

davparlr · Oct 5, 2006

Sorry about the doggone chart

IF YOU WERE RICH AND COULD AFFORD ANY WWII PLANE ...

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Recruit

the old Sage

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

the old Sage

Senior Airman

Moderator

2nd Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Attachments

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads