P-47 versus FW-190

[GregP]

Hi Miflyer,

The Germans didn't use atmospheres (atm), they used technical atmospheres (ata). So, yes, 1 atmosphere = 14.6959 psi, but 1 technical atmosphere (1 ata) = 14.22334 psi.
Most countries used gauge pressure for boost, not absolute pressure. So, 0 psi of British boost = 29.92 in Hg (U.S.A.) = 1.0 atm = 1.03 ata (German) = 0.00 mm HG (Japanese / Soviet).

From your post above, I'm pretty sure you know all that and much more.

For a typical radial engine, let's say the MAP is 42 in Hg, which would be 5.93 psi boost, 1.45 ata, and 306.87 mm Hg. Makes for interesting operations when engine gauges are changed in warbirds! The Planes of Fame Zero, for instance, has U.S. gauges, but they are painted like the original Japanese gauges, and all the people who fly it know where the needles are supposed to be.

 

[DarrenW]

Doesn't say which model the 190 is

This is helpful. Thanks for the document. Should help limit our search for the specific FW 190 flown during these tests.

 

[MIflyer]

German aircraft were designed to use significantly lower octane fuel than USAAF, around 90 octane. Trying to run them on higher octane fuel caused problems and in fact when they flew a Ju-88 to the US from North Africa, when they got to Ascension Island they found that the 90 octane fuel they had been assured was there was not. They had to refuel with higher octane fuel. They had engine problems on the way to Brazil as a result and for a while thought they would have to ditch.

 

[GregP]

I am not very sure why higher-octane fuel would cause issues, unless it was extra tetraethyl lead in the fuel and maybe caused some plug fouling.

In normal operation, using higher-octane or higher performance number fuel will not cause issues unless it is maybe from extra lead. You can get less power than the higher 130-octane fuel will absolutely allow, but it is very tough to get extra power from 100-octane fuel that the 130-octane fuel allows.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Or, perhaps that's like when Chuck Yeager flew the captured MiG-15 and said," I'd take a Sabre any day!" What was he going to say and release to the USAF, "O shit, we're in trouble!" ?

This reminded me of the myth of Adolf Galand replying "a squadron of Spitfires" when Goering asked what was needed.

 

[Greyman]

Galland made that up?

 

[fubar57]

 

[MIflyer]

Galland considered the BF-109 to superior to the Spitfire. But if you had to stick closer to the bombers and not sweep out ahead of the strike force to intercept enemy fighters, a tight turning airplane like the Spitfire was better. His problem was being told to fly close escort on the bombers, which was mainly a matter of morale for the bomber crews. And of course if you were flying close escort you could not gain an altitude advantage on the RAF interceptors.

On the other hand, the BF-109's big problem was not enough range. Galland should have asked for a squadron of P-40's

 

[Admiral Beez]

Galland made that up?

Galland said it, but only to annoy Goering. However I hate a thread jacking and decline to take M MIflyer 's thread further off topic. You can read Galland's quote here.

 

[MIflyer]

As a final word on the subject, during the filming of the BoB movie in the late 60's Galland's stated position on the battle was:

"The Luftwaffe did not lose the Battle of Britain. We just did not like the way things were going and stopped what we were doing."

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

Or, perhaps that's like when Chuck Yeager flew the captured MiG-15 and said," I'd take a Sabre any day!" What was he going to say and release to the USAF, "O shit, we're in trouble!" ?

That doesn't make for reassuring good copy for the troops to read, does it?

I don't think Chuck Yeager had to pull too many punches while test flying, and from what I've read and heard from Sabre pilots, (kill ratios aside) it was a superior machine compared to the MiG, lacking only in ceiling and firepower perhaps.

 

[MIflyer]

Even early model F-86's could break the sound barrier in a dive. Try as they might, they USAF never got a Mig-15 to hack the mach.

And the Mig-15 had a stall problem. Decades after the Korea War the manual for the Mig-15UTI said not to stall it under some flight conditions because no one knew what would happen, but it would be bad.

 

[DarrenW]

I don't think Chuck Yeager had to pull too many punches while test flying, and from what I've read and heard from Sabre pilots, (kill ratios aside) it was a superior machine compared to the MiG, lacking only in ceiling and firepower perhaps.

Not that looks should mean anything concerning performance but I've seen the two side by side in Dayton many times and damn that Sabre looks ten times sweeter than that old MiG!

 

[GregP]

I think back to Phoenix, AZ in the 1990 when a good friend of mine bought a MiG-15 UTI from the People's Air Museum in Peking (or Beijing as the wind blows).

He was having dinner with some older former Chinese pilots and a discussion came up about Korea. He mentioned that the U.S. pilots noted the MiGs would sometimes go into a flat spin during hard maneuvering, and they all laughed and started speaking in Chinese. The translation was, "You Americans! You had g-suits and we didn't. Sometimes a pilot would pull hard and go into what is now know as GLOC. There is nothing wrong with the MiG if you stay awake and fly it!"

Two people can see the same event cand come to diametrically-opposed conclusions about the event.

To me, the ability to go past Mach 1 is nothing in the Sabre since that was NOT combat speed ... it was a steep dive. likely made specifically to go fast for some reason unrelated to combat. In combat, the F-86 and the MiG 15 were VERY well matched. I'd rather fly a MiG if I was going after bombers (due to the cannons) or flying from a rough field (due to the landing gear being trailing link type) but, otherwise, the F-86 was likely more comfortable and probably had better stall manners.

As it happens, the Planes of Fame flies both an F-86F and a MiG-15 bis. They are extremely well-matched in terms of performance, but the Sabre cockpit is better for U.S.-trained pilots since it matches our design philosophy.

An example would be the Sukhoi Su-27 series. In U.S. fighters the artificial horizon stays with the horizon and the little airplane in the instrument stays level with the wings of the aircraft. So, when you come out of cloud, the actual horizon is level with the artificial horizon and the little airplane is level with the wings.

In the Sukhoi, the little airplane stays level with the actual horizon and the artificial horizon goes to whatever angle is required to match the difference between the wings and the actual horizon. So, when you come out of a cloud, the real horizon is NEVER level with artificial horizon, unless you are wings-level, but the angle between them is correct.

If you fly the instruments in actual IMC, they act the same. If you mentally match the instrument with the outside, the Soviet (or Russian) system seems out-of-whack, but it isn't. It is just a different way of presenting the information. Neither is "better" if you are in IMC and cannot see outside references. But U.S.-trained pilots expect the instruments to match their visual cues when they CAN see outside. It's a matter of training only, but we (U.S. pilots) definitely prefer the way we have learned ... rather naturally.

I don't think the F-86 is necessarily "better," but it is better-matched to our way of doing things. The F-86 would have a very difficult time operating from a farmer's field, and might not even be able to do so at all. The MiG-15 is at home on rough fields. Maintenance on the MiG-15 is easier than maintenance on the F-86, by LONG SHOT. The Soviet birds I have had any experience with (MiG-15, MiG-17, Yak 50, Yk-52, Su-27, Su-29, TS-11, L-29, L-39) are all very GOOD airplanes. They have quirks and are all older airplanes, but a newer one, such as an L-159, is very high quality and operates as well as a newer U.S. airplane, assuming decent maintenance. Lack of same will tarnish ANY airplane's effectiveness.

 

[DarrenW]

It's funny how the original topic has transformed itself into three distinct conversations lol.

 

[SaparotRob]

It is kind of strange for Jutland.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

In U.S. fighters the artificial horizon stays with the horizon and the little airplane in the instrument stays level with the wings of the aircraft.

Some Soviet pilots commented on this, saying the US style attitude gyro reflected the Americans world philosophy. Essentially the world revolves around them!

Edit: I think that quote was from an old Popular Mechanics magazine from the late 80's or EARLY 90's, when the first examples of Su-27's and MiG-29's were evaluated by the west.

 

[fubar57]

It's funny how the original topic has transformed itself into three distinct conversations lol.

I don't think there is one thread on site that stay on topic for long. Sometimes it brings out a nugget that makes for another great thread

 

[pinsog]

I have found that the "stupid" questions (there are no stupid questions) and straying topics often provide some of the best information. The tough part is trying to find it at a later time!

"Let's see here, max g rate turn of a sidewinder missile is in the Fokker triplane vs Sopwith Camel thread.......hmmm.....right where it should be"

 

[GregP]

Righto ... P-47 Versus Fw 190.

The first post did a LOT to address the topic. Without some corroborating narrative using pilots of similar background, we are left with impressions from Allied and German pilots, both of whom feel as though the aircraft THEY were flying was the best. I have heard several U.S. WWII pilots say the P-51D was the best fighter in the world. I only got to ask ONE of them how many fighters he flew in combat. His response was, "Only the P-51D."

In my mind, that means he has no factual basis for comparison because he had no idea how good or bad the enemy pilots he fought against were. The only way to know anything for sure about the question of which aircraft was better would be to fly both, maybe against a friend who is well-matched and include an aircraft swap.

I have not seen other evaluations of P-47 versus Fw 190 myself, so I can't say. The first post says a LOT, but is not definitive due to the disparity in pilot experience.

Just my 2 cents worth.