Just How Superior

[drgondog]

Joe - dead on. They didn't wear them for style or comfort.

 

[Civettone]

Having the pilot completely on his back or stomach would've largely eliminated black outs, but this wasn't really possible to technically achieve in 1940's.

And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?

Kris

 

[SoD Stitch]

And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?

Kris

I don't think they blacked out; I think the reason for the auto pilot was because of the tremendous G-forces at launch. Also, the pilots that were projected to be flying the Natter were extremely inexperienced, so radio ground-control guided the Natter to the incoming bomber formation(s), at which point the pilot actually took over and salvoed his rockets at the nearest bomber.

 

[Soren]

And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?

Kris

Where have you heard this ?

What were they supposed to black out from ? Accelleration ? Not really possible.

Many of the late war German designs had the pilot lay on his stomach, why?, because this will greatly reduce the risk of black outs, the blood not being directly pulled towards your legs.



FLYBOYJ,

I know that pilots liked the Mk.III G-suit, it was allot more comfortable to wear than the MK.II, but as Dr. Wilbur Rounding Franks says himself the G-suit only helped pilots withstand G-forces of up to six G's, something a experienced pilot can withstand without a G-suit. So yeah the early G-suit did give novice pilots an advantage, but for experienced pilots it wasn't really necessary, esp. not by 1944-45 where seven G's was very rarely exceeded - Me-262 pilots I bet would've loved to have it though as it would've proven VERY useful in the speed regimes they were flying. So ofcourse in Korea the G-suit was very important as seven G's was regularly exceeded.

As to the EZ42 - what was the basis for 'superiority'. Source?

Like I said the source is an Allied test report.

Both slaved to gyro, both tuned to boresight,

The EZ42 uses two gyro's Bill.

50 cal more efficient ballistically and therfore more margin for error when 'ring' not set correctly.

Nonesense Bill, the MG-151/20 featured similar ballistics, gaining the edge as range increases.

20x82R
Bullet weight: 117 g (1,805 gr)
Bullet SD: .416
MV: 720 m/s

12.7x99
Bullet weight: 43 g (663 gr)
Bullet SD: .379
MV: 890 m/s

And what kind of logic lets you to the conclusion that because the .50 cal has better ballistics there is therefore more margin for error ??? The primitive computer is calibrated to the exact ballistics of the particular weapon used, so what'ever error might occur will be similar for any weapon used.

 

[davparlr]

Yes, that is completely true. Like Adler said, it wasn't the best fighter plane of WW2 simply because there is no such thing as the best. Beside the range there were other things which made it the success it was. American pilots were the best trained in the world. Couple that with optimized tactics for aggressive boom and zoom fighting. And it's true that certain planes are better at certain altitudes but that wasn't the case for the Mustang as it was faster than German planes at any altitude. And speed was its main weapon. Being able to outpace any adversary means you always have the initiative. Put all that together with excellent tactics and a flying range which allows you to roam all over Germany for hours and you've got yourself a devestating weapon.

Kris

This is a repeat of a post I have submitted before. I think the impact of the P-51B/D is similar to the Russian T-34 tank. Like the T-34, when the P-51B appeared, the Germans were taken aback. Here was plane that could fly from England to Germany and was generally faster from SL up and significantly faster from 10K up and was similar in climb to the German front line fighters (the Bf-109 had a somewhat better climb up to 20K). Certainly, when the late model Bs and D appeared, the P-51s pretty well outperformed the front line German fighters in speed with similar climb rates (and dive rates) from SL up. This superiority lasted from fall of '43 till the fall of '44 (when German responses to the P-51, Fw-190D-9, Bf-109K, and Ta-152H, began to be deployed). So, during the most severe test of the German war machine and certainly when the balance of war was beginning to press against the Germans, they lost command of the air on the Western front and over their homeland due to the P-51. This was not solely due to numbers either. And, like the T-34 tank, by the time the Germans had developed an answer, the numbers of these very capable, but now only above average, weapons systems were overwhelming.

Most military historians consider the T-34 as the most significant tank of the war due to its impact. Sure, later WWII tanks were better tanks (like the panther) but none had the impact as the T-34 did. As such, most historians consider the P-51 as the most significant fighter due to its impact on the war.

Later models of aircraft were superior to the P-51D including the P-51H. But none had the impact that he P-51B/D. If I had to choose one plane to fight WWII with, it would probably be the F4U-4.

The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes..

When the Fw-190D-9 appeared in late 44', the P-51B was generally faster at all altitudes than the D-9 and significantly so above 15K ft. Climb rates were similar. The Fw-190D-9 was superior to the P-51D up to 25K ft., but the P-51 had better performance above 25K ft. with significantly greater speed. The Fw-190D-9 was not equal to or better than the P-51B above 20K, or the P-51D above 25K.

In terms of piston engined fighters the Ta-152H-1 takes the prize hands down, but again low fuel numbers also made sure this baby didn't seriously affect the war.

Well, maybe in your hands. It had severe low altitude deficiencies compared to some other late war aircraft, especially in speed and probably in climb.

Next comes the FW-190 Dora-9 which IMO was the best series produced fighter of WW2, featuring much better maneuverability than the P-51, P-47 P-38, its main rivals over Germany, as-well as being faster at most altitudes. But yet again it was out-numbered in the air and fuel was low.

The D-9 was excellent at low altitude but roughly equivalent in performance to the P-51B (<20K). Above that the P-51B is much faster with a better climb rate. Above 25k, the P-51D is clearly faster with equivalent climb. And of course it would be hard pressed against a contemporary F4U-4 at any altitude.

Even so the only aircraft which could've turned the tide in favor of the Germans was the Me-262, had it been available in numbers by the beginning of 1944 as-well as granted the fighter-role by the Führer by this time then it could've turned the tide. Could it have won the war for the Germans ? No I don't believe so, esp. not with Hitler in command, but it would've prolonged the war to a point where an invasion of Germany would've proven way too costly and other more drastic measures had to be taken - so lets consider ourselves lucky that didn't happen.

I agree with this, but enough Me-262 would have to have been available to stop the Normandy invasion. After the Allies were solidly in France, by July '44, nothing could help the Germans, except maybe the atom bomb.

The P-51 used a laminar flow airfoil though, and while the sharper and more symmetric profile of this type of airfoil helped decrease drag allot it also lowered the lift compared to the ordinary type airfoil.

The airfoil of future fighters, except the Ta-152H.

So yeah the early G-suit did give novice pilots an advantage, but for experienced pilots it wasn't really necessary, esp. not by 1944-45 where seven G's was very rarely exceeded - Me-262 pilots I bet would've loved to have it though as it would've proven VERY useful in the speed regimes they were flying. So ofcourse in Korea the G-suit was very important as seven G's was regularly exceeded.

Yes, experienced pilot could handle this. But how many sorties did the typical German fly in the critical times and what level of energy would a pilot have on the last couple of flights after pulling six gs with no g suit? I suspect this had a big impact to endurance, even for an experienced pilot.

I think most WWII aircraft were stressed to similar levels as Korean aircraft and I find it hard to believe a WWII pilot would not use the most of his aircraft like a Korean pilot. In fact, I don't think an F-4 is stressed to a higher level than the Bf-109. Speed means you can ramp up gs faster but not necessarily get higher gs.

 

[Civettone]

Davparlr, I'm with you all the way with that post!

It's all the more surprising when you notice that the P-51B was a year older than the Dora. If needed the Americans could have come up with new fighter variants to counter anything the Germans would throw at them.

Kris

 

[davparlr]

Davparlr, I'm with you all the way with that post!

It's all the more surprising when you notice that the P-51B was a year older than the Dora. If needed the Americans could have come up with new fighter variants to counter anything the Germans would throw at them.

Kris

I agree with this. The US had the P-47M and N delivered and the P-51H could easily been accelerated. They were just not needed as the superb new German aircraft could not be effective in the environment in which they were deployed.

 

[delcyros]

The Mustang was a phenomen in the air. But it didn´t appear when the tide was beginning to turn against the Luftwaffe (first larger use in december 43, in numbers appeared in march 44). The USAAF had the excellent P-47C and the P-38 operational before and to those belongs this fame.
The Mustang deserves to be mentioned as a force multiplier in a critical time. Not only did the P-47 and -38 together with NUMRERS of bombers turned the tide against the Luftwaffe but the appearence of the -51 acted exactly like the N-squared law, securing aerial superiority over Germany for the allies.

BTW, ballistically, the 0.50cal is much flatter than the 20mm MG 151. The .50 drops to Mach 1.5 at 900m while the MG 151/20 drops to Mach 1.5 at 250m and goes subsonic starting at 550m.

 

[renrich]

Ghostdancer, Herr Adler's post early on was right on. To me, the thing to remember is that all AC are compromises. An AC designed as an interceptor should be able to climb fast. An AC that is designed as an escort fighter needs to have long range. A WW2 air superiority fighter needs to have good maneuverability. The Mustang with the Merlin engine was a pretty good climber, pretty good maneuverer, had pretty good high altitude performance and had superior range. There were a lot of WW2 fighters that had SOME qualities that surpassed the Mustang but few(if any) had the mix of good qualities and long range performance the Mustang had in 1944. Ask a Spitfire, FW, 109, Jug or even P38 to do what the Mustang did in 1944 and they could not do it. All but the P38 had not the range. If an AC can't get to where the fight is, it is of no use.

 

[renrich]

Dav, very good posts. The sectional density which Soren quotes on the various projectiles is not the major factor when it comes to trajectory. That factor is the ballistic coefficent. I doubt the 20 mm projectile of anyone had the BC of the .50 BMG.

 

[drgondog]

Where have you heard this ?

What were they supposed to black out from ? Accelleration ? Not really possible.

Many of the late war German designs had the pilot lay on his stomach, why?, because this will greatly reduce the risk of black outs, the blood not being directly pulled towards your legs.



FLYBOYJ,

I know that pilots liked the Mk.III G-suit, it was allot more comfortable to wear than the MK.II, but as Dr. Wilbur Rounding Franks says himself the G-suit only helped pilots withstand G-forces of up to six G's, something a experienced pilot can withstand without a G-suit. So yeah the early G-suit did give novice pilots an advantage, but for experienced pilots it wasn't really necessary, esp. not by 1944-45 where seven G's was very rarely exceeded - Me-262 pilots I bet would've loved to have it though as it would've proven VERY useful in the speed regimes they were flying. So ofcourse in Korea the G-suit was very important as seven G's was regularly exceeded.

Why are you talking about the Franks suit anyway - the Berger was the dominant USAAF G suit and it was absolutely superior to 'no G suit' - independent of how much experience the pilot has. As noted, nobody wore them for style - but everybody wore them by choice.


Like I said the source is an Allied test report.

Which report. Where? What were the evaluation criteria?

Nonesense Bill, the MG-151/20 featured similar ballistics, gaining the edge as range increases.

my remarks were focused on the EZ 42 in the Me262 - which was dominantly 30 mm... having said that, the SD of the 20mm you show is misleading as it does not take into consideration the drag characteristics of the 20 versus the 50. What is the BC of the 20MM?

And what kind of logic lets you to the conclusion that because the .50 cal has better ballistics there is therefore more margin for error ??? The primitive computer is calibrated to the exact ballistics of the particular weapon used, so what'ever error might occur will be similar for any weapon used.

The 'exact' ranging solution wasn't available until the Sperry A1-C Radar Ranging gunsight on the F-84 and F-86 - which also eliminated the need to for the ranging adjustment on the throttles of the 51/47 and 38. The ballistics were important for shots taken at longer ranges (beyond the pilot's bore sight range) when the computer wasn't coupled to the range correctly for low deflection shots. I haven't looked up the BC for the 20 versus the 50 but it has to to be lower.

As far as I know, the K-14 had zero adjustment for different ballistics for 20mm versus 50 cal as an example, and the solution was strictly lead calculation based on keeping the pipper on the cockpit with correct or near correct span adjustment. The optimal use was for 'level' but high deflections versus attempting to solve for high G turning and climbing combat.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As such, most historians consider the P-51 as the most significant fighter due to its impact on the war.

I can completely agree with that. The P-51D was able to do what no other fighter could and in that sense its impact was that of a war winner.

 

[renrich]

As anyone knows who has done much shooting with a rifle, the flatter shooting a load is, the easier or less critical, range estimation becomes. That has always been one of the strong points of the .50 BMG round. With a muzzle velocity of around 2800 fps and a very high ballistic coefficent(my handloading manuals are packed so can't look it up) it is a very flat shooting load. When first beginning to handlaod, it was hard to believe that a 700 grain .50 BMG bullet at 2800 fps had a flatter trajectory than a 150 grain caliber .30 bullet with the same muzzle velocity. But it is incomparably flatter shooting. Just from memory, the BC of the .50 is twice that of the .30 assuming they are both spitzer bullets.

 

[drgondog]

As anyone knows who has done much shooting with a rifle, the flatter shooting a load is, the easier or less critical, range estimation becomes. That has always been one of the strong points of the .50 BMG round. With a muzzle velocity of around 2800 fps and a very high ballistic coefficent(my handloading manuals are packed so can't look it up) it is a very flat shooting load. When first beginning to handlaod, it was hard to believe that a 700 grain .50 BMG bullet at 2800 fps had a flatter trajectory than a 150 grain caliber .30 bullet with the same muzzle velocity. But it is incomparably flatter shooting. Just from memory, the BC of the .50 is twice that of the .30 assuming they are both spitzer bullets.

Agreed on the general ballistic properties - I would have to look up the BC of the 700 gr to see the BC.. it would be hard to believe it is 2 x the BC of the 150 gr spitzer at .387... but the 50 cal was mostly boat tail as I recall and would have had better BC than the spitzer in that caliber - the 50 cal BMG round was scaled up 30-06

The best BC that I found in all the rifle calibers was .519 (figures!) for the 7mm 175 gr spitzer but a boat tail would have been better. The best 30 cal round I found was the 180 gr boat tail at .507 but a 200

At any rate the 20mm round is a dog by comprison on trajectory.

 

[drgondog]

When the Fw-190D-9 appeared in late 44', the P-51B was generally faster at all altitudes than the D-9 and significantly so above 15K ft. Climb rates were similar. The Fw-190D-9 was superior to the P-51D up to 25K ft., but the P-51 had better performance above 25K ft. with significantly greater speed. The Fw-190D-9 was not equal to or better than the P-51B above 20K, or the P-51D above 25K.

Dave I believe the Fw 190D was superior in turn and roll below 20,000 feet from both the few performance tests and the anecdotal comments that I've herd from people who flew both.. climb and acceleration essentially the same, 51D dived faster initially and the 51D was faster... your points are still essentilly correct or mine re slightly incorrect - but the matchup is close. The 51H was better in everything except roll from the performance extrapolations - and the Fw190D-13 was better at high altitude (>30,000 ft)than the 51H if the German test figures are correct and the 3 stage turbo was working.

The real point is that the 51D was competitive depending on pilot and tactical situation with all the German piston engine a/c - even the Ta 152 in a similr way that an Me 109G was 'competitive' with a 51B/C/D.




The D-9 was excellent at low altitude but roughly equivalent in performance to the P-51B (<20K). Above that the P-51B is much faster with a better climb rate. Above 25k, the P-51D is clearly faster with equivalent climb. And of course it would be hard pressed against a contemporary F4U-4 at any altitude.

I'm always tempted to wonder about the future of the airwar in 1943 in ETO if the USAAF had adopted the F4U.

Yes, experienced pilot could handle this.

But an experienced pilot with a G-suit (Berger or Franks) could simply handle more for a longer period of time. That will work for you in dive recovery and a turning fight just about every time

I think most WWII aircraft were stressed to similar levels as Korean aircraft and I find it hard to believe a WWII pilot would not use the most of his aircraft like a Korean pilot. In fact, I don't think an F-4 is stressed to a higher level than the Bf-109. Speed means you can ramp up gs faster but not necessarily get higher gs.

I may be wrong - too many years - but I believe the F4 and F-14 and F-8 were stressed in 8G limit load and the F-16 and F-15 and F-18 are at 9G limit ~ 12-13 G ultimate.. in other words beyond the pilot's ability to use the strength in a fight

Like you I have maintained that the P-51 was the most IMPORTANT fighter, not the BEST when you break down its attributes as a dog fighter. It simply competed to dominated at the altitude of interest 600 miles from home.

Regards,

Bill

PS "we ain't disagreein'

 

[Kurfürst]

As to the EZ42 - what was the basis for 'superiority'. Source?

Must the venerable Fritz Hahn.

Both slaved to gyro, both tuned to boresight, 50 cal more efficient ballistically and therfore more margin for error when 'ring' not set correctly.

It would be just nice to see some ballistic tables, similiar to that available for German rounds. I don`t quite get the reason for such tense debate on a marginal thing tough, efficients and such... practical shooting range limit was about 300 yards/meters, and usually even less against small sized aircraft. You did not need excessive ballistic performance for such short range shooting. This whole .50/20mm debate is a bit bizarre, like arguing in favour of the long range qualities of a 30-06 bolt action sniper rifle vs. a semi-automatic shotgun... ...in a close-quarters battle, that is.

Originally Posted by Drgondog
The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes..

The 109G-x/AS versions were perfectly comparable to the P-51, and they appeared the same time as the P-51..

BTW, do you have some sort of 'on hand figures' for P-51s with operational 8/15th AAF groups? I am trying to establish the 'rate of appearance' of the Mustang. I have seen some figures fromthe USAAF Stat. digest, but those appear to me including other stuff as well (storage, reserves etc.). I understand the Mustang appeared in December 1943 but initially it did not equip too many fighter groups.

 

[drgondog]

It would be just nice to see some ballistic tables, similiar to that available for German rounds. I don`t quite get the reason for such tense debate on a marginal thing tough, efficients and such... practical shooting range limit was about 300 yards/meters, and usually even less against small sized aircraft. You did not need excessive ballistic performance for such short range shooting. This whole .50/20mm debate is a bit bizarre, like arguing in favour of the long range qualities of a 30-06 bolt action sniper rifle vs. a semi-automatic shotgun... ...in a close-quarters battle, that is.

Agreed - but a lot of shots were taken beyond bore sight range and aircraft downed.. who really knows how much the ballistic efficiency played a role.

The analogy might be better if we are talking about holding a .375 above the head of an elk at 400 yards with a crosswind versus on the top of the shoulder at the neck with 340 Wby for the same shot - I have made both shots and like both rifles - just have to compensate a little more with the 250yd zero for both rifles.

The 109G-x/AS versions were perfectly comparable to the P-51, and they appeared the same time as the P-51..

Also agreed but the 51 flew 500-600 miles to battle on equal terms

BTW, do you have some sort of 'on hand figures' for P-51s with operational 8/15th AAF groups? I am trying to establish the 'rate of appearance' of the Mustang. I have seen some figures fromthe USAAF Stat. digest, but those appear to me including other stuff as well (storage, reserves etc.). I understand the Mustang appeared in December 1943 but initially it did not equip too many fighter groups.

The 15th AF did not get their Mustangs until May 1944. For example the 325th FG converted to P-51s in May.

The order was 9th AF first with 354th in December 1943, then the 363rd on Feb 23 1944...

The 8th received the 357th FG from the 9th and it started Ops in Feb 11, 1944.. then the 4th around the 26th, then the 355th on March 8 with one squadron, then the 352nd in early April, then 339th on April 30..

The 8th AF was very 'thin' on Mustands over the target until late August as both the 354th and 363rd returned to 9th AF operational control in May. By D-Day the 339th, 359th and 361st were all operational to pick up the 'vacuum.'

The 15th continued to fly a mixture of the P-38 and P-51 to end of war, whereas the last of the P-38 groups in ETO converted in late September (479th), while the 20th, 55th and 364th converted in late July

 

[renrich]

drgondog, I could not find my handloading manual that had the ballistic coefficent of the .50 BMG bullet but online I found a Hornaday 750 grain bullet in .50 BMG that has a BC of 1.050, SD of .412. I had in my memory a BC of around .700 for the .50 BMG so I believe the Hornaday bullet validates that. I do believe the military bullets used in WW2 would have the .50 BMG with twice as good a BC as the 150 grain cal. .30 bullet. I also believe that the effective range of the .50 BMG is substantially greater than the 300 yards mentioned earlier by someone else.

 

[renrich]

Correction, the statement was "practical range" I seem to recall that one reason(among several) that the tactics of the F4F4 was to turn into and go head to head with a Zeke was that the 6-50s were much more likely to get hits on the Zeke before the Zeke could get hits with his 20 mms which had a rainbow trajectory. I used to hunt with a Ruger #1 in .270 Win with which I had handloaded the 150 grain Nosler partition (because of superior BC compared to the 130 grain) to a MV of 3000 fps(chronographed) Zeroed at 300 yds, the bullet drop at 500 yds was only about 18 inches and range estimation was pretty easy. Killed a many a mule deer at extended range with it. Had two witnesses once who saw a 500 yd one shot kill with it. They were impressed.

 

[renrich]

Also seem to remember a story of a Marine pilot in Korea who was on loan to the AF and in a Sabre. The Marine pilot was a WW2 veteran and was flying the wing of an experienced AF pilot in pursuit of a Mig at an altitude in excess of 35000 ft. The AF pilot opened fire at what the Marine thought was an impossibly long range(700 yards sticks in my mind) and shot down the Mig. When on the ground, the Marine questioned the AF guy about the long range. The AF pilot replied to him that at that altitude the bullet trajectory was much flatter than at the altitudes WW2 was fought at and the speed of the Sabre added a lot to the MV of the guns.