P-51D "Mustang" vs. Fw-190 "Dora"
- Thread starter pathchampion
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Erich
the old Sage
anyone of you have the tech volumes on the Dora series by the JaPo firm and Eric Lager author ? you may want to used this as reference gents ......
drgondog
Major
Soren - do you have access to a better comparison of performance between FW190 (and 109G) and 51B than this RAF Report and the USAAF Report in 1946 - on Mike Williams' site? I don't
Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
The Post War tests at Wright Patterson was less favorable in comments regarding maneuverability vs P-51, indicating its only noticable outstanding characteristic (implied "better than') was roll and generally less responsive in all other handling than the Fw190A series (BTW - this is in alignment with my fathers subjective evaluation in Sept 1945 at Gablingen). It also states that it is much less comparable to P-51 in turn.
It also noted that while the roll rate was excellent it was less than the P-80 and P-38J.
Having said that, the report does NOT have Turn Radius, Climb or Acceleration Data to back up 'perceptions.
So, what would your head to head performance test basis be for the Fw190D-9 versus any Mustang (any version)?
Regards,
Bill
Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
The Post War tests at Wright Patterson was less favorable in comments regarding maneuverability vs P-51, indicating its only noticable outstanding characteristic (implied "better than') was roll and generally less responsive in all other handling than the Fw190A series (BTW - this is in alignment with my fathers subjective evaluation in Sept 1945 at Gablingen). It also states that it is much less comparable to P-51 in turn.
It also noted that while the roll rate was excellent it was less than the P-80 and P-38J.
Having said that, the report does NOT have Turn Radius, Climb or Acceleration Data to back up 'perceptions.
So, what would your head to head performance test basis be for the Fw190D-9 versus any Mustang (any version)?
Regards,
Bill
Erich
the old Sage
to make it much applicable and understandable I suggest you guys interested in the Dora seek advice here and read through this muli linked thread:
Focke-Wulf Fw 190D Camouflage Markings - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
Focke-Wulf Fw 190D Camouflage Markings - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
I have the LW conclusions and tactical advice.
The Bf-109 didn't perform well in the RAF tests because the British test pilots didn't go further than the initial deployment of the slats, they almost sh*t themselves as soon as the slats started deploying, emmidiately ceasing the entire maneuver - a problem rookies to this a/c frequently had - Günther Rall for example got scared for life nearly crashing to his death early in the war in an 109 Emil because the one of the slats jammed, causing the a/c to spin. Rall never pushed the 109 that far again, and throughout his career he relied entirely on B&Z tactics.
Bill, the tests done at Wright Patterson were conducted with a late production Dora (with mixed parts from other 190's)and at very low power settings - the fuel wasn't even right - the pilot inexperienced. You can't in any way compare them to the RAF tests.
So take the Wright Patterson tests with a big grain of salt, cause its got no comparative value at all. The comparison was not even a serious one, the war was over.
Yes again that isn't the case however - unless you'd dare to claim that the P-38J and P-80 had a roll rate of 180 degree's pr. sec ?
The "test", if you can even call it that, was like I said not a serious one and of no importance at all. It was more a matter of showcasing the performance of the new generation fighters, and what better than to compare them to an old a/c with an already great reputation - nomatter it didn't run very well or at full power, that'll only make our new fighter look better.
German pilot accounts and the RAF LW tests and conclusions.
--------------
Jackson,
The P-51B running on 150 grade fuel did 375 mph at SL, not 388 mph as only a single example did on 44-1 fuel (Which should be about the same).
I got my figure from a several tests involving more than just one P-51 and pilot:
"Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command Eglin Field, Florida 7 July 1944.
P-51B-15: 43-24755, 43-24757, 43-24775
(Packard Merlin V-1650-7)
Service Test of Nominal 104/150 Grade Fuel
Summary:
Performance gains. - Attempts were made throughout the test to determine the average gain in performance due to the increased power rating allowed by the special fuel. Speed runs and climbs were made by approximately twenty-five pilots of all grades of experience. Speed curves shown in Inclosure 3 are average curves drawn from all data obtained from all three airplanes of each type. Data are not reduced to standard conditions, but are plotted against pressure altitude from actual free air temperatures. All flights were made with full military load.
P-51-B-15 Airplane.
Increase of power from the standard war emergency rating of sixty-seven inches Hg. to the test rating of seventy-five inches Hg. resulted in an average true air speed increase of fifteen m.p.h. from sea level to the seventy-five inches Hg. low blower critical altitude (about 8000 feet). Speed increase was also approximately fifteen m.p.h. from fourteen thousand feet to the high blower seventy-five inches for critical of about twenty-one thousand feet. No measurable difference was found between airplanes. The aneroid controlling supercharger shifting point was reset at the begining of the test to shift from low to high blower at sixty-two inches Hg. in a war emergency climb. This change resulted in a blower shift altitude of approximately seventy-five hundred feet, so that it was necessary to select low blower manually for cruise at medium altitudes where the desired power was available in low blower.
Climbs were made to thirty thousand feet at the standard, and at the test war emergency ratings. Climbs at seventy-five inches Hg. required about one minute less than was required when climbing at sixty seven inches Hg. All engine temperatures were normal during climb at the increased power."
Me and Davparlr actually had this discussion before and came to the same conclusion as me - so back me up here if you will Davparlr.
drgondog
Major
Soren - two written tests describing the Fw190D-9 are better than personal experiences are they not?
If you choose personal experiences, the Encounter reports of Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots are rich in details of shooting down "Long Nose" Fw's - but the variables are too great to make a judgement about the airplane.
Ditto my father's own subjective judgement that the two seat trainer Fw190 that he flew 'handled better' the the D-9 he flew - but he only had 20 hours total and who knows what condition the D-9 was in... but still subjective
Where are the comparison tests performed by the LW with captured Mustangs versus any of the Fw190 series? Do you have a link to the RAF test of the D-9?
Is the RAF Tests you referenced (of Spit XIV, Spit XI, 51B, Fw190, Me109G and Tempest) the one concluded December, 1943? I have that one. If not, which one/date?
Regards,
Bill
If you choose personal experiences, the Encounter reports of Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots are rich in details of shooting down "Long Nose" Fw's - but the variables are too great to make a judgement about the airplane.
Ditto my father's own subjective judgement that the two seat trainer Fw190 that he flew 'handled better' the the D-9 he flew - but he only had 20 hours total and who knows what condition the D-9 was in... but still subjective
Where are the comparison tests performed by the LW with captured Mustangs versus any of the Fw190 series? Do you have a link to the RAF test of the D-9?
Is the RAF Tests you referenced (of Spit XIV, Spit XI, 51B, Fw190, Me109G and Tempest) the one concluded December, 1943? I have that one. If not, which one/date?
Regards,
Bill
Erich
the old Sage
not sure if we can use the Fw 190G-2 vs a fighter as accurate and evenly matched opponents. G-2 with leading edge wing armor, canopy and full on belly, engine armor used for ground attack missions
ok so be it
ok so be it
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
B&Z tactics??
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Boom and Zoom...
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Aaah... Cheers Minister!
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Interesting reading the British comparisons of a/c. The author implies that the Spitfire was a better roller than the Thunderbolt. In Bob Johnson's book "Thunderbolt" he states that in mock dogfights the Spitfire could not roll well at all and rolling the Thunderbolt first one way and then the other was his way of getting a Spitfire off his tail. He then would dive and then zoom climb until he had a good lead, hammerhead stall and there was the Spitfire running out of air speed and luck at the same time.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Is it a good read, can you still find it?
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Max. speed at Sea Level 75" Hg., 3000 RPM Without Wing Racks 388
P-51 Mustang Performance 388
Army Air Forces Material Command
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
15 May 1944
P-51B-15-NA 43-24777
(Packard Merlin V-1650-7)
Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes
Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 104/150)
1. Flight tests were started on P-38J, P-47D, and P-51B airplanes at Wright Field on approximately 20 March 1944 in order to measure the performance and note any effect on flight characteristics when flown with 44-1 fuel. Tests on the P-51B have been completed but tests on the P-38J and P-47D have not been completed to date.
2. All tests were flown with the airplanes loaded to their maximum combat gross weight. The P-38J airplane tested was P-38J-15, AAF No. 43-28392, equipped with Allison V-1710-89 and 91 engines with Curtiss electric three blade propellers. Gross weight at take-off was 17,360 lbs. with the c.g. at 26.72%. The P-47D tested was AAF No. 42-26167 and was equipped with Pratt Whitney R-2800-63 engine and an A-23 turbo regulator. Gross weight at take-off was 13,320 lbs. with the c.g. at 29.5%, gear up. The P-51B tested was the P-51B-15, AAF No. 43-24777 and was equipped with a Packard V-1650-7 engine with a 11 ft. 2 in., four blade constant speed propeller. Gross weight at take-off was approximately 9680 lbs. The weight included 265 gal. of fuel, full oil, and no ammunition (85 gal. in auxiliary tank instead of ballast for ammunition).
3. There was no noticeable change in handling characteristics of any of the airplanes tested when operating at the higher powers which were obtainable with the 44-1 fuel. Only a slight increase in vibration was noted at the higher powers. On one long range test made with the P-51B, there was no apparent trouble due to the 44-1 fuel.
4. All performance data obtained on the P-51B is included in the attached curves. It will be noted that all tests were run with the wing racks installed. Speeds would be approximately 12 mph faster with the wing racks removed as shown by the dash line curve on the Speed vs Altitude Curve. Approximately 16 MPH increases in speed below critical altitude and approximately 600 ft. per minute increase in rate of climb below critical altitude was obtained by using the 75" Hg. Manifold pressure allowed by 44-1 fuel. No tests were made on this airplane with standard fuel.
Level speed performance
With Wing Racks Without Wing Racks
67" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM
Max. speed at Sea Level 364 mph 380 mph 388mph
Max. speed in MS gear 408 mph at 10400 ft. 411 mph at 7400 ft. 422 mph at 7400 ft.
Max. speed in FS gear 426 mph at 23900 ft. 431 mph at 20600 ft. 444 mph at 20600 ft.
Rate of Climb
With Wing Racks, 9,680 Lbs
67" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM
Max. speed in MS gear 3,920 ft/min at 5,600 ft. 4,380 ft/min at 2,300 ft.
Max. speed in FS gear 3,170 ft/min at 19,200 ft. 3,700 ft/min at 15,700 ft.
P-51 Mustang Performance
.All tests were flown with the airplanes loaded to their maximum combat gross weight.
Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to Eighth Air Force fighter airfields commenced in June 1944. 8 9 10 This coincidentally occured about the same time as the introduction of the P-51D into service. Even though the USAAF had cleared the P-51 for 75" Hg., the Eighth Air Force chose 72" Hg as the P-51's War Emergency Rating. 11 12 Apparently there is more to the story, however, as Encounter Reports demonstrate that 75" Hg was used operationally. 13 14
By January 1945, fourteen of the Eighth Air Force's fifteen Fighter Groups were operating Mustangs, the sole holdout being the 56th FG in P-47's. Maintenance difficulties with spark plug fouling led to the decision to convert all fighter groups to 100/150 grade fuel reformulated with increased levels of ethylene dibromide (1.5T). Deliveries of PEP, as the new 100/150 blend was called, began to be issued to all fighter groups in February 1945. The use of PEP, however, cooroded the valve seats of the V-1650 at an unacceptable level. Consequently, the standard 100/150 (1T) grade fuel was reverted to by the end of March 1945. 15 16 The Eighth Air Force also had hoped to supply the 352nd and 361st Fighter Groups based on the continent with 100/150 grade fuel. This was deemed impractical from a logistical viewpoint, although admittedly such difficulties did not prevent the RAF's 2nd TAF from being supplied with 100/150 grade fuel. 17
Stock production model, 150 gas full combat load the same gas as was used in the ETO
There is not much else to say but, at sea level it appears the Mustang was faster than the FW190D-9
388 vs 381
over
P-51 Mustang Performance 388
Army Air Forces Material Command
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
15 May 1944
P-51B-15-NA 43-24777
(Packard Merlin V-1650-7)
Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes
Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 104/150)
1. Flight tests were started on P-38J, P-47D, and P-51B airplanes at Wright Field on approximately 20 March 1944 in order to measure the performance and note any effect on flight characteristics when flown with 44-1 fuel. Tests on the P-51B have been completed but tests on the P-38J and P-47D have not been completed to date.
2. All tests were flown with the airplanes loaded to their maximum combat gross weight. The P-38J airplane tested was P-38J-15, AAF No. 43-28392, equipped with Allison V-1710-89 and 91 engines with Curtiss electric three blade propellers. Gross weight at take-off was 17,360 lbs. with the c.g. at 26.72%. The P-47D tested was AAF No. 42-26167 and was equipped with Pratt Whitney R-2800-63 engine and an A-23 turbo regulator. Gross weight at take-off was 13,320 lbs. with the c.g. at 29.5%, gear up. The P-51B tested was the P-51B-15, AAF No. 43-24777 and was equipped with a Packard V-1650-7 engine with a 11 ft. 2 in., four blade constant speed propeller. Gross weight at take-off was approximately 9680 lbs. The weight included 265 gal. of fuel, full oil, and no ammunition (85 gal. in auxiliary tank instead of ballast for ammunition).
3. There was no noticeable change in handling characteristics of any of the airplanes tested when operating at the higher powers which were obtainable with the 44-1 fuel. Only a slight increase in vibration was noted at the higher powers. On one long range test made with the P-51B, there was no apparent trouble due to the 44-1 fuel.
4. All performance data obtained on the P-51B is included in the attached curves. It will be noted that all tests were run with the wing racks installed. Speeds would be approximately 12 mph faster with the wing racks removed as shown by the dash line curve on the Speed vs Altitude Curve. Approximately 16 MPH increases in speed below critical altitude and approximately 600 ft. per minute increase in rate of climb below critical altitude was obtained by using the 75" Hg. Manifold pressure allowed by 44-1 fuel. No tests were made on this airplane with standard fuel.
Level speed performance
With Wing Racks Without Wing Racks
67" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM
Max. speed at Sea Level 364 mph 380 mph 388mph
Max. speed in MS gear 408 mph at 10400 ft. 411 mph at 7400 ft. 422 mph at 7400 ft.
Max. speed in FS gear 426 mph at 23900 ft. 431 mph at 20600 ft. 444 mph at 20600 ft.
Rate of Climb
With Wing Racks, 9,680 Lbs
67" Hg., 3000 RPM 75" Hg., 3000 RPM
Max. speed in MS gear 3,920 ft/min at 5,600 ft. 4,380 ft/min at 2,300 ft.
Max. speed in FS gear 3,170 ft/min at 19,200 ft. 3,700 ft/min at 15,700 ft.
P-51 Mustang Performance
.All tests were flown with the airplanes loaded to their maximum combat gross weight.
Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to Eighth Air Force fighter airfields commenced in June 1944. 8 9 10 This coincidentally occured about the same time as the introduction of the P-51D into service. Even though the USAAF had cleared the P-51 for 75" Hg., the Eighth Air Force chose 72" Hg as the P-51's War Emergency Rating. 11 12 Apparently there is more to the story, however, as Encounter Reports demonstrate that 75" Hg was used operationally. 13 14
By January 1945, fourteen of the Eighth Air Force's fifteen Fighter Groups were operating Mustangs, the sole holdout being the 56th FG in P-47's. Maintenance difficulties with spark plug fouling led to the decision to convert all fighter groups to 100/150 grade fuel reformulated with increased levels of ethylene dibromide (1.5T). Deliveries of PEP, as the new 100/150 blend was called, began to be issued to all fighter groups in February 1945. The use of PEP, however, cooroded the valve seats of the V-1650 at an unacceptable level. Consequently, the standard 100/150 (1T) grade fuel was reverted to by the end of March 1945. 15 16 The Eighth Air Force also had hoped to supply the 352nd and 361st Fighter Groups based on the continent with 100/150 grade fuel. This was deemed impractical from a logistical viewpoint, although admittedly such difficulties did not prevent the RAF's 2nd TAF from being supplied with 100/150 grade fuel. 17
Stock production model, 150 gas full combat load the same gas as was used in the ETO
There is not much else to say but, at sea level it appears the Mustang was faster than the FW190D-9
388 vs 381
over
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Johnson's Book is a good read. I imagine it is still available although mine is a pocket book version and more than 20 years old.
Soren, so you might have missed my post about the stock Ford Mustang 5.0 L LX notchback (2788 lbs) being launched 100 times down a drag strip..
The number tables were widely scattered, the best being with the air temperature being around 75 F -78 F and 29.4 barometric pressure.
the morning cool and the hottest part of the day slowed the car by more than a second
0-60 (0-100 kph)
best 5.8
worst 7.5
one car, 100 trials, the clutch did not seem to be affected..
commonly discussed as being a 6.1 second car
I imagine Ohio (WP AFB) being more similar to the ETO than Florida (Eglin) environmentally speaking..
The test you mention, I assume that was with the wing bomb / rocket racks installed
that would account for a 8-12 mph difference, as shown in my post above. 380 v 388
I wonder if the Trop ME 109 shows differnt numbers than the more common variants..
The number tables were widely scattered, the best being with the air temperature being around 75 F -78 F and 29.4 barometric pressure.
the morning cool and the hottest part of the day slowed the car by more than a second
0-60 (0-100 kph)
best 5.8
worst 7.5
one car, 100 trials, the clutch did not seem to be affected..
commonly discussed as being a 6.1 second car
I imagine Ohio (WP AFB) being more similar to the ETO than Florida (Eglin) environmentally speaking..
The test you mention, I assume that was with the wing bomb / rocket racks installed
that would account for a 8-12 mph difference, as shown in my post above. 380 v 388
I wonder if the Trop ME 109 shows differnt numbers than the more common variants..
