P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

P-47 D: Empty: 10,605 lbs; Loaded: 17,411 lbs; Engine: 2,500 HP; Wing Area: 300.3 sq. ft.; Power Loading: 7.0 lbs per HP, Wing Loading: 58.0 lbs per sq ft

P-51D: Empty: 7,639 lbs; Loaded: 11,095 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 233.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 6.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 47.6 lbs per sq ft

Bf 109 G-6: Empty: 5,895 lbs; Loaded: 6,942 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 174.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.7 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 39.9 lbs per sq ft

Spitfire Mk IX: Empty: 4,972 lbs; Loaded: 7,357 lbs; Engine: 1,585 HP; Wing Area: 242.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.6 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 30.4 lbs per sq ft

P-38J: Empty: 14,107 lbs; Loaded: 21,612 lbs; Engines: 2,850 HP; Wing Area: 328.3 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 53.3 lbs per sq ft

Fw 190 A3: Empty: 7,053 lbs; Loaded: 8,580 lbs; Engine: 1,700 HP; Wing Area: 197.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.0 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 43.6 lbs per sq ft

The "loadings" above are calculated at Normal Loaded Weight. Most planes never fought at normal loaded weight, particularly the Allies since they had to burn fuel just to GET to the fight. Also, Allied fighters would routinely drop ordnance and/or drop tank before a dogfight.

From the above, the most maneuverable based on wing loading at Normal Loaded Weight would be the Spitfire Mk IX. Of course, things OTHER than wing loading, particularly the choice and cleanliness of the airfoil, affect maneuverability. A dirty airplane was not as good a turner as a clean one, everything else being equal.

The best climber, based purely on power loading, would be the Bf 109 G-6. Again, things other than power loading, particularly the propeller choice and the altitude curve of the supercharger / turbocharger, affect rate of climb.

The Mustang in particular was a very good zoom climber, using momentum to trade speed for height. At faster speeds it could easily out-zoom the Bf 109, but the Bf 109 was better in a sustained climb. Dogfights NEVER involve a sustained climb. Conversely, the Mustang had a relatively high "stick force per g," being in the 25 – 30 pounds per g range at normal center of gravity. So, it was mostly a 3 – 4 g airplane except for emergencies. If the Mustang happened to be fighting at 8,500 lbs, it was very equal to the Bf 109 in all categories, and the Bf 109 had a MUCH smaller fuel fraction, so it was probably much closer to the normal loaded weight than a Mustang that had just flown 500 miles and had dropped tanks and burned fuel from the fuselage tanks.

A few other points: The Bf 109 had no rudder trim and was very tiring to the pilot when out of trim. The other planes did not have this difficulty. The Bf 109's control became VERY heavy at high speeds, making it very much of a "straight line" fighter at 400+ mph, while it was VERY maneuverable at 250 – 300 mph. Hence, the Bf 109 pilot wanted to get the fight slow while the Mustang pilot wanted speed. Similar things can be said for the Spitfire, though not nearly to the degree of the Bf 109.

So … we a re back at the question of exactly HOW to compare the aircraft?

All were good, and we are unlikely to arrive at a "best" since it is 65+ years since WWII and we are still debating it.

Very good post and I enjoyed reading that, thanks. I too agree that it is too hard to describe what is "best" because all of the top aircraft here that we are talking about Spit, Bf 109, Fw 190, P-51D, and P-47 all had there advantages and disadvantages over each other. They were all great aircraft...

 

[FalkeEins]

".. but the Bf 109 was better in a sustained climb. Dogfights NEVER involve a sustained climb..."

.. as I pointed out in my first post ...109 pilots were specifically instructed to ' climb for the sun' to escape the P-51...never to dive with it..

"..the Bf 109 pilot wanted to get the fight slow while the Mustang pilot wanted speed.."

again this was alluded to in the comments of the JG 300 pilot reproduced above...pulling tighter and tighter turns by modifying the angle of incidence of the tailplane...

 

[Udet]

...thats got to be the worst description I ever read about the P-51 !!

Falke...i believe it would be much better if you could explain the reasons behind this comment.

 

[FalkeEins]

..I would have thought that was obvious...

most enthusiasts would probably assert - if pushed - that the P-51 was the fighter that 'won the war', wouldn't they ....lets face it, it did what it did 700 miles from home...'jack of all trades, master of none' has a slightly disparaging undertone in English...I doubt many would agree with the comment that it was only a 'fair' performer either .....all in all, a rather obtuse assessment ...

 

[syscom3]

The P51's range for a single engine fighter was the best of the ETO.

Its 6 .50's were more than adaquate to shoot up fighters.

Its top speed was the fastest untill the final models of the -190's and -152 took to the sky in the waning months of the war.

I'd say it was master in a few catagories, good in some, and taken together, it was the finest combination of all up to Feb 1945.

 

[renrich]

The difficulties in trying to evaluate WW2 fighters are many fold. For instance: at what altitude? how far from base? was the German fighter hampered by armament for shooting down bombers? how about survivability? If you are talking about a dogfight 500 miles from your base then you probably have to give the edge to the P51. Unless you are including the TA152, if you are talking about fighting above 25000 feet, then the P47 gets the nod. If you are talking about shooting down 4 engined bombers then the BFs and FWs probably have an edge particularly over the P51B-C. If you are talking about the fighter-bomber role then the FW and P47 have it all over the P51 and BF109. If somehow I was given my choice of any fighter to fly over Europe in in WW2 and I wanted to feel real good about coming back home I would take the P47 as long as it had the range for the job. I would use strictly energy tactics and I would rely on that rugged airframe, good armor and reliable, damage resistant engine to bring me home. And I would only fight at high altitudes.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

A Mustang might buck you off, while a Thunderbolt just scares you.


Meaning, you have less to fear from the P-47 when you're the pilot.

 

[Udet]

..I would have thought that was obvious...

most enthusiasts would probably assert - if pushed - that the P-51 was the fighter that 'won the war', wouldn't they ....lets face it, it did what it did 700 miles from home...'jack of all trades, master of none' has a slightly disparaging undertone in English...I doubt many would agree with the comment that it was only a 'fair' performer either .....all in all, a rather obtuse assessment ...

What might be obvious to you might not be so to others.

Also that you apparently belong in a group of thinkers who assert the P-51 "won the war" does not mean there will be many others -me included- who will be more than happy to counter such assertions; such a thing would mean your doubts are incorrect.

 

[mad_max]

I would say master at some, average at others and jack of all trades pretty much
describes why the P-51 did what it did. I always sigh when someone posts with a preconceived
idea; when in reality they don't have a clue how these aircraft matched up.

Even though there are flying examples of most WWII fighters we'll never know what really
they could and couldn't do in real life. For some strange reason the owners just don't
want to beat the sheat out of them.

We only have feelings on what we THINK they'd be. To folks that like the Spit;
they under estimate the 109/190/macchi. The 109 guys do the same about the pony.

We can't trust pilot accounts as we know not the circumstances. One Allied pilot will
say one thing and another will say just the opposite. Same for the Axis.

For example:

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Luftwaffe Pilot Walter Wolfrum (137 victories)

 

[davparlr]

P-47 D: Empty: 10,605 lbs; Loaded: 17,411 lbs; Engine: 2,500 HP; Wing Area: 300.3 sq. ft.; Power Loading: 7.0 lbs per HP, Wing Loading: 58.0 lbs per sq ft

P-51D: Empty: 7,639 lbs; Loaded: 11,095 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 233.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 6.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 47.6 lbs per sq ft

Bf 109 G-6: Empty: 5,895 lbs; Loaded: 6,942 lbs; Engine: 1,475 HP; Wing Area: 174.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.7 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 39.9 lbs per sq ft

Spitfire Mk IX: Empty: 4,972 lbs; Loaded: 7,357 lbs; Engine: 1,585 HP; Wing Area: 242.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 4.6 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 30.4 lbs per sq ft

P-38J: Empty: 14,107 lbs; Loaded: 21,612 lbs; Engines: 2,850 HP; Wing Area: 328.3 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.5 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 53.3 lbs per sq ft

Fw 190 A3: Empty: 7,053 lbs; Loaded: 8,580 lbs; Engine: 1,700 HP; Wing Area: 197.0 sq ft; Power Loading: 5.0 lbs per HP; Wing Loading: 43.6 lbs per sq ft

The "loadings" above are calculated at Normal Loaded Weight. Most planes never fought at normal loaded weight, particularly the Allies since they had to burn fuel just to GET to the fight. Also, Allied fighters would routinely drop ordnance and/or drop tank before a dogfight.

From the above, the most maneuverable based on wing loading at Normal Loaded Weight would be the Spitfire Mk IX. Of course, things OTHER than wing loading, particularly the choice and cleanliness of the airfoil, affect maneuverability. A dirty airplane was not as good a turner as a clean one, everything else being equal.

The best climber, based purely on power loading, would be the Bf 109 G-6. Again, things other than power loading, particularly the propeller choice and the altitude curve of the supercharger / turbocharger, affect rate of climb.

The Mustang in particular was a very good zoom climber, using momentum to trade speed for height. At faster speeds it could easily out-zoom the Bf 109, but the Bf 109 was better in a sustained climb. Dogfights NEVER involve a sustained climb. Conversely, the Mustang had a relatively high "stick force per g," being in the 25 – 30 pounds per g range at normal center of gravity. So, it was mostly a 3 – 4 g airplane except for emergencies. If the Mustang happened to be fighting at 8,500 lbs, it was very equal to the Bf 109 in all categories, and the Bf 109 had a MUCH smaller fuel fraction, so it was probably much closer to the normal loaded weight than a Mustang that had just flown 500 miles and had dropped tanks and burned fuel from the fuselage tanks.

A few other points: The Bf 109 had no rudder trim and was very tiring to the pilot when out of trim. The other planes did not have this difficulty. The Bf 109's control became VERY heavy at high speeds, making it very much of a "straight line" fighter at 400+ mph, while it was VERY maneuverable at 250 – 300 mph. Hence, the Bf 109 pilot wanted to get the fight slow while the Mustang pilot wanted speed. Similar things can be said for the Spitfire, though not nearly to the degree of the Bf 109.

So … we a re back at the question of exactly HOW to compare the aircraft?

All were good, and we are unlikely to arrive at a "best" since it is 65+ years since WWII and we are still debating it.

I have issues with the way aircraft are compared in this way, which was noted by GregP. Typically, US aircraft are penalized for having a large load lifting ability. I think that there are two valid methods for comparing aircraft in load values associated with maneuvering. First is at similar combat capabilities, i.e., empty weight plus similar armament loads and similar fuel for equal combat times. The other is probable combat weight, e.g., P-51 with no drop tanks and empty aft tank, Bf-109 with three quarters to half gas. The method using loaded weight meets neither criteria. Here is the comparison of loads.

P-47D - 6746 lbs
P-51D - 3456 lbs
Bf-109G - 1047 lbs
Spit IX - 2385 lbs
P-38J - 7505 lbs
Fw-190A-3 - 1527 lbs

As can be noted, US aircraft have a much greater load carrying capacity than other combatants. This load carrying capability paid off nicely over the skies of Germany and in the Pacific.

My favorite method is to use empty weight in comparisons, since fuel load and armament are generally equivalent and the ratios would tend to be constant as combat weights increased, except for the P-38 where fuel consumption would require more loaded weight.

Let's not punish the aircraft for being able to carry more load.

 

[FalkeEins]

..Also that you apparently belong in a group of thinkers who assert the P-51 "won the war" does not mean there will be many others -me included- who will be more than happy to counter such assertions; such a thing would mean your doubts are incorrect.

...actually I suppose I might go for the Spitfire as the fighter that won the war..but you know what, it wasn't the D-9 or Ta 152 .....they were on the losing side of course....but all that is another discussion...

MM, not sure what you mean by ' we don't know what they'd do in real life....' ?? Thats precisely why I would place a certain value on a pilot's account, especially one that had been in a life or death struggle against the aircraft in question ...!!

 

[mad_max]

Udet posted

The P-51 D had a maximum speed of 703km/hr at altitude on WEP which could be utilized for a couple of minutes only.

Ahh where you get this? The cooling system is good for 80" of boost. Also 67"
is the WEP rating until mid June 1944 in the ETO. After that period it's 72" for
USAF and 75" in the Brits squads. Also higher boost was used in the Pacific.
WEP has been used for up to 45 mins in real life. The 5 min. max doesn't mean
she'd puke at that point. That time period was for a good engine check when you
made it back to base.

davparlr's post is well thought out and should be taken seriously.

Soren posted:

Be very careful using the WWIIaircraftperformance site as reference for German fighter performance as it has a habbit of presenting the very lowest of figures obtainable in this area - the author being known for his bias toward Allied a/c.

Nontheless it is a good source for info on allied a/c, but please draw your conclusion(s) from the originial data available and not from what someone says !

You are correct. It has great references for the pony and spit. Best to draw
your own conclusions no doubt. Same on the other guy's axis pages.

Best.

 

[mad_max]

FalkeEins,

It's not so hard to understand. At no time were the Pony and 109 ever pitted
against each other with both in pristine condition. (mechanical or perfect
exterior finish). In battle the conditions for both are never equal. One usually
has one or more advantage. Surprise, higher energy state, not running at
factory specs. amongst other variables. Remember the saying "Huns in the
Sun".

This idea of what was better turning, faster, dives better, etc. just can't be
determined. No way...no how.

Best,

 

[davparlr]

The P51's range for a single engine fighter was the best of the ETO.

Its 6 .50's were more than adaquate to shoot up fighters.

Its top speed was the fastest untill the final models of the -190's and -152 took to the sky in the waning months of the war.

I'd say it was master in a few catagories, good in some, and taken together, it was the finest combination of all up to Feb 1945.

I agree with this entry. The P-51 was a first line fighter and provided its pilot with tools to defeat the enemy if used properly, namely great speed at all altitudes, very good high altitude performance, superb diving ability, adequate low level performance, and adequate armament. Other first line fighters, both enemy and friend, also provided tools to defeat its enemy, if used properly. The greatness of the P-51 was, that it could do this after flying four hours and hundreds of miles.

The only comment to the above is that the Fw-190D-9, which appeared in late '44 was clearly superior to the P-51D (not so much the P-51B) up to 25,000 ft.

 

[mkloby]

Great explanation but torque isn't that useful for "recip" aero engines - it's VERY important with regards to turboprops.

I was just about to say that. Engine output is commonly measured in ft-lbs of torque. We use SHP = .00019 x prop rpm x torque

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was just about to say that. Engine output is commonly measured in ft-lbs of torque. We use SHP = .00019 x prop rpm x torque

We're psychic friends dude...

 

[mkloby]

We're psychic friends dude...

Haha ... a little creepy... but funny

 

[Udet]

Mad Max, you have to believe me, the data did not come to me through the Grimm´s Fairy Tales.

I have consulted several books, articles and also people who know about this; 45 minutes using WEP? Do you mind if i ask you the same question you asked me?

I am of course open to receive new information, but 45 minutes running on WEP....

 

[Udet]

...actually I suppose I might go for the Spitfire as the fighter that won the war..but you know what, it wasn't the D-9 or Ta 152 .....they were on the losing side of course....but all that is another discussion...

To have such a blooming attitude that was rather a poor argument. Spitfire, lovely choice. Congratulations.

 

[mad_max]

Guess you don't have FIGHTING MUSTANG by William N. Hess. Pages 27-29.


That's just one book that I had handy. Grant it after that I would want a VERY
good engine check. Probably would want it replaced in fact. Just as I would want
the same done whatever airframe (allied or axis).

BTW 703 km/h is for 61" boost which is Military power not WEP. WEP was 67"
until they started using 100/150 fuel, then it went up as posted above. Understand
though The FT height at 67" will be lower than for 61" and it will even lower for 72".

Want a good reference for the P-51 then grab this one.
AbeBooks: Search Results - gruenhagen


To get the performance after the 100/150 or 115/145 fuel then you need to get the docs. Mike's site has them.

My choice would be Fw-190 if I flew Axis or the P-51 for Allied.

Best,