Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
i did read the chart actually but i did miss reviewing things when you you changing the speeds i stated 200-300kts to 350 kts the relationship does change. however i am as you may have guessed that a dogfight would sustain altitude and 350kts or be quick in conclusion with two expert pilots in their aircraft.
I didn't 'change speeds' on you. I simply rejected your assumption that a high percentage of such fights would start at that speed and go down to even lower speeds. Most Mustang pilots had a reasonable sense of 'good' vs 'bad' performance envelopes. If you are a pilot you know this. If you are an IL-2 game expert you may have to work harder to gain the insight.
It appears you jumped into this discussion with a preconceived notion, armed with few facts, ignored Dan and Erich that this topic has been cussed and discussed with a full range of just about ALL available data - and then proudly announced that you didn't want to see the same tired old performance comparisons - then belched, farted and sat down - expecting the guys here to gently kiss your ring and say "Gee- you are a genius"!
The air is still perfumed but strangely silent - and it does NOT mean you are wrong - you just don't possess conclusive facts to support your initial belch.
as the fight gets slower and lower the advantage switches to the 190 ...
Well duh - we KNOW that is a fact on the Anton. This may be the number one reason that experienced Mustang pilots lectured green Mustang pilots to NOT go 'low and slow'?
(yes an assumption but no more of one where you express an advantage for the mustang at the initial merge as your statements assume and your historic fights were)
Slooooooooowly, the Mustang simply had a greater speed envelope than the 190D-9 at escort altitudes. It was cleaner. Therefore it could and by inference, did enter combat with at least same and more frequently greater speed if given 'all else being+' as you like to state. Given lower drag and higher speed, you should quickly deduce that the 51D (and fore sure the 51B-3) a.) has greater energy in the merge and b.) retains energy longer in same manuevers.
If you want to talk Aero from here forward state your background or just fire away and whip up the free body diagrams and Drag Polars - and we'll chat. If you are a fighter pilot with ACM experience my hat is off to you - we can talk Energy on engineering terms - but we still need to trot out the facts, please. If you floated in on game sims you need to float out on the same raft and listen rather than let your fingers near the keyboards.
i am taking this as a plane vs. plane as the original poster intended. you have throughout this discussion refused to discuss this on those terms.
If you think so, you have a modest to severe reading comprehension problem or you are being obtuse. I suspect you are a nice fellow so I'll assume the latter.
plane vs. plane you have done little to convince me.
Works for me. Picture my sadness.
however i must agree that the actual historic circumstances are very much in the p51s favor, but that is not the topic is it ?
what did occur operationally is that the Soviets had nothing they could put up with the Dora it outdid everything it battled against in the Soviet arsenal in 45. must do another mention of the very short term and suicidal dive bomber ops by II./JG 301 on the Ost front with their Doras , the crate were shot down too many times by Soviet AA proving the futility in using a higher alt a/c for something it was never intended for.......
Sounds like the Dora and the 51D had the same experience with Sov/NK flak. Thoroughbreds pulling beer wagons so to speak.
2 Fw A-9's and 1 Dora from 6./JG 301, red 5 were lost on the 9th. Jg 300 and 301 were quite active this date, many of the op records of JG 301 have been lost to ? causes, some things were just not recorded. The Dora 9 was lost over Grieben Bill and in fact the pilot survived and actually made a forced landing in his smashed up crate, the pilot wounded. I have a pic of his mount.
instead of the same B.S. graphs and staing things that never happened or what-if's........a huge one why not take the time and go research the operations of both sides and flying against one another. you might all be quite surprised what is already in print and will be soon enough.
I'll dig it out again and try and post here for convenience and for the guys to ooogle over. you can then copy and past off to Bill so he can get a kick out of it. Whomever shot him down, the LW pilot made it through the war with 2 victories, do not see any though while flying the Dora.
yes graphics/schematics must be tempered with op reports, pics and first person accts the latter of course not always available. we get to carried away with using the net as prime focus in our discussion too many do not heed the use of written references except to point out faults....sad
Bill doing better still not settled with Dads accts but we are managing. Hey I just need to get off my fellow buttocks and drive the little car to your abode, will give fair warning to keep the hairy kids off of me as I approach your doorstep. would rather not be licked to death before I can even grace you homestead.
Which one was the best in airial combat?, one on one, don't care for the number ratiopersonaly I'll vote for the Focke-Wulf
FW-190 was slow and unreliable, look at WWII Aircraft Performance
FW-190 was slow and unreliable, look at WWII Aircraft Performance
Mike - you have to be a little careful when selecting one source for a blanket reference concering the 190D. It had gestation problems, but most were due to the early application of MW50.
By same token the 1946 USAAF Test of the P-51H was less than 100% because the 1650-9 engine delivered had some problems with Water Injection - but that wasn't true for 'all' P-51H series.
The post war Allied tests of LW weren't too particularly interested in testing to show 'superior' performance. The Me 262 may have been the exception to that rule, however.
My father flew the 190D-9 post war for about 25 hours at Gablingen but had to rely on a former LW crew chief's judgement and scrounged parts that the a/c was properly rigged and engine performing to spec.
His judgment was that the 190D was an 'excellent' fighter and comparable to the Mustang...each of four different aces flew the 190D against each other's Mustangs in simulated rat races but not in any planned and formal test methodology.
As no comparative tests were performed in any rigorous fashion it is impossible to judge fairly what the 190D would have been able to do with a comparable force of experienced pilots and tactical numbers.
This is one reason why I don't get too excited about this particular debate.
why does everyone have such a high regard for german technology? you guys constantly compare the german prototypes to the allied airplaners in service, the spit, 51 and 47 (especially at high altitude) did much more than hold their own. I have read over and over about the TA-152H, check out WWII Aircraft Performance for actual side by side flight test comparing the airplanes in service, and read what wickapedia says:
mike526mp said:Operational history
By fall 1944, the war was going badly for Germany, and the RLM pushed Focke-Wulf to quickly get the Ta 152 into production. As a result, several Ta 152 prototypes crashed early into the test program. It was found that critical systems were lacking sufficient quality control. Issues arose with superchargers, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system was unreliable at best due in part to unreliable oil temperature monitoring, and in several instances the landing gear failed to properly retract. A total of up to 20 pre-production Ta 152 H-0s were delivered from November 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 to service test the airplane. It was reported that test pilots were able to conduct a mere 31 hours of flight tests before full production started. By the end of January 1945, only 50 hours or so had been completed. The Ta 152 was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152C remained operational when Germany surrendered.[citation needed]
go here to read whole article: Focke-Wulf Ta 152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My father flew the 190D-9 post war for about 25 hours at Gablingen but had to rely on a former LW crew chief's judgement and scrounged parts that the a/c was properly rigged and engine performing to spec.
His judgment was that the 190D was an 'excellent' fighter and comparable to the Mustang...each of four different aces flew the 190D against each other's Mustangs in simulated rat races but not in any planned and formal test methodology.
As no comparative tests were performed in any rigorous fashion it is impossible to judge fairly what the 190D would have been able to do with a comparable force of experienced pilots and tactical numbers.
And did your father used the MW-50? I'm asking that question because all soviet FW-190D used at LII, NII and regular Baltic Fleet VVS squadron after the war didn'have that device from the mainstream (no serial fitted).
I just don't know. There were no comments in the logbook and the memories of the conversations are 55+ years and all the pilots involved (Fortier, Elder, Hovde and my father) are gone. I suspect the former LW crew chief was proud of his 190D and would further suspect he would want it to perform well - but I don't have any facts one way or the other
Moroever J Lasserre from Turboméca used to work on water injection systems with Shidlowsky from 1945-46, said that it (the chemical supergarer) provides some big disparity in results, unlike the classical mecanical one with 100/150 grade fuel with stable results. So it was certainly giving increase at power, but varying a lot from an engine to another.He even called it "Lorenzien" phenomenom, from E Lorenz the meteorologist that worked on the "Chaos Theory" for fluids.
May a Dora win a fight on a Mustang in a flight show, might be...Show winners are not always winners on a streetfighting or in real life situation.
That to say in operational condition had no advantage over the Mustang.
At escort flight, it was always higher than the 190D, and was alble to convert hight to speed. Even without that at 4300 kg the wingload of the Mustang was only 198 kg/m² against 230, so it's turn radius was better considering also better power to weight ratios at height 2.75 vs 3.1 kg/ hp at 5000 m.
Moroever in Boom-Zoom fights Mustang was able to keep it's energy margin better than the others WWII planes, due to a better glide ratio.
On a concrete situation, the Mustang was in fine always better.