P-51D "Mustang" vs. Fw-190 "Dora"

[Erich]

reality check gents, the Dora died more under the 2cm weapons of RAF a/c than US fighters..........

simple fact the JG's armed with the Dora were based in northern Germany/Central Reich. JG 301 lost a few to US a/c though did have combat on low strafe/bombing missions against the Soviets in 45 too -- pretty stupid and worthless. In all probability more losses on the Dora were not due to attrition on combat ops but malfunctions and left lying discarded on the empty fields during the chaos of retreat.

there were so many mis-ID's by Allied pilots thinking they shot down a long nose Dora or Ta 152 during late 44/45

 

[thor]

not sure what is unclear about

"all else being ="

as far as using kills as "proof" of anything, one has several other factors to consider other than USAAF pilot fatigue ...

over all numerical superiority was 10-1 + in favor of the USAAF RAF VVS.

it is estimated that 80% or so of kills were not a result of any sort of maneuver fight as the vast majority of pilots that were shot down were never aware of their attackers presence.

overall relative pilot quality due to attrition and it's consequences.

allied pilots awarded kills for aircraft parked on the ground.

kills on aircraft in landing patterns to low on fuel to give a good account of themselves.

etc ...

please lets keep focused on the topic instead of being diverted information that has little real bearing on the discussion.

 

[thor]

holy crap ...

did i win ????

 

[drgondog]

not sure what is unclear about

"all else being ="

as far as using kills as "proof" of anything, one has several other factors to consider other than USAAF pilot fatigue ...

The Fw 190A could out roll both a Jug and a Mustang, the Me109G could outclimb a Jug and a Mustang - both Fw 190A and Me 109G were about the same speed, slightly slower(`5%) below 25000 feet. Both died in droves when there was NO local inferiority in numbers.

The Fw 190D started ops in the West, shifted largely to the East along with much of LuftFlotte Reich to stem Soviet thrust after January 1945.

over all numerical superiority was 10-1 + in favor of the USAAF RAF VVS.

When discussing numerical superiority, one has to focus on local aircraft numerical ratios. Pre January 14, the LW and Fw 190D's frequently were paired with other Fw 190A-8s and -9s, as well as Me 109G-10's and K-4's. Battle of the Bulge through Bodenplatte are key examples where large forces of LW fighters encountered smaller forces of Spits, Jugs and Mustangs - and they died in droves.

it is estimated that 80% or so of kills were not a result of any sort of maneuver fight as the vast majority of pilots that were shot down were never aware of their attackers presence.

That would be pilots skill and indeterminant in this discussion for reasons you cited as well as mine.

overall relative pilot quality due to attrition and it's consequences.

Ditto

allied pilots awarded kills for aircraft parked on the ground.

Not only not part of this discussion with respect to ratios but irrelevant to this discussion

kills on aircraft in landing patterns to low on fuel to give a good account of themselves.

etc ...

please lets keep focused on the topic instead of being diverted information that has little real bearing on the discussion.

Works for me.

Erich is correct with respect to mis identification of 'long nose 190's and even confusing 190D with Me 109s because of the long nose/in line engine appearance.

Having said that, the various LW documentation and published works regarding JG 26 in Battle of Bulge through January and JG 301 in same timeframe will pretty clearly point out the the large individual battle losses of Fw 190D-9s were in battles with equal or lesser units of Mustangs and Spits and Jugs (i.e Squadron level or Gruppe level engagements) in the same airspace.

The huge numerical superiority of the Allies meant that the LW had increasing difficulty in finding a weak spot where they could insert a Gruppe or JG level attack and still achieve local numerical superiority.

If you have been covering these threads and looking at the cross documentation of great air battles on March 6, March 8. March 16, March 29, April 13, April 24, September 11, November 26, January 14, etc - all had common characteristics - namely the LW skillfully placed great concentrations of fighters in areas where only one to three Groups were in position to deflect - and died in droves.

The earlier battles deep over Germany were at times when the LW not only had a strong core of Experten and experienced pilots - and the 8th AF in those early days only had 1-4 Groups of Mustangs covering 30-35 Bomb Groups over a 100 mile bomber stream.

Taken simply, if the 109D was flown by Allies, they would whip Mustangs and Spits and Jugs flown by Luftwaffe.

 

[thor]

well that was my point about why kill ratios do not mean much in this discussion ...

one thing about your conclusion that the 8th AF in doras being superior over the spits and mustangs and juggs flown by the luftwaffe , i need to point out is that the dora was not designed to, and could not meet the requirements of the deep penetration missions of the 8th AF so

my point regarding the aircraft themselves is that the only major difference in performance between the two is the roll rates in which the 190 is far superior to the mustang in the vast majority of their respective performance envelopes so if it is a dogfight contest i would go with the dora. "all else being ="

however the mustang was much better suited to it's mission than the dora would have been, there is no contest there.

 

[drgondog]

well that was my point about why kill ratios do not mean much in this discussion ...

one thing about your conclusion that the 8th AF in doras being superior over the spits and mustangs and juggs flown by the luftwaffe , i need to point out is that the dora was not designed to, and could not meet the requirements of the deep penetration missions of the 8th AF so

When the Dora was available in numbers, the Allies had bases on the Continent and the Dora 9 would have done reasonaly well against Mustangs, escorting B-17s at 25,000 feet, despite that being the threshold where Mustang considered better performing

my point regarding the aircraft themselves is that the only major difference in performance between the two is the roll rates in which the 190 is far superior to the mustang in the vast majority of their respective performance envelopes so if it is a dogfight contest i would go with the dora. "all else being ="

All things not equal at all altitudes above 24-25K, nor is one of these demonstrably better than the other in climb or speed or acceleration. The Mustang out turned the Fw 190D with about the same advantage that the 190D-9 out rolled the Mustang in the middle speed and altitude range.

True the 190 rolled slightly better up to 300-350kts where it experienced the same aileron control stiffness as the Fw 190A versus the Mustang (same wing). In middle and low altitudes is where the Fw 190D-9 achieved marginal advantage in roll and climb over the loaded Mustang.

however the mustang was much better suited to it's mission than the dora would have been, there is no contest there.

The Dora's mission was to better compete with the escorts and the Spits and the Tempests than the Fw 190A at high altitudes, where the BMW 801 didn't have the juice above 20-23K. In this respect it wasn't superior to the 51D for medium fuel supply loads at those escort altitudes. Comparable yes - and pick your fights with a degree of thought to tactical situation.

The better performer against the D-9 was the P-51B-15 with Malcolm Hood or the P-51H which was a contemporary of the D-9, only about three months behind in numerical production cycles, (although it was perhaps 5 months behind in production release.)

The 190D-9 had no advantage in climb, dive or speed or turn over a 51D (and above) when the 150 Octane fuel was used and 75" of boost was available - for normal flight weights half way into the mission. The 150 octane was available in June July before the 190D went into ops.

As to expected weights for combat, The 352nd and 354th for example, were far lighter than the UK based Mustangs following Operation Market Garden, and frequently flew missions without external fuel at all when the targets were say, Misburg, Osnabruck, Kassel, etc. Ditto UK Based Fighter sweeps after the Bulge started through Bodenplatte where the 8th was looking to intercept LW Jabos heading for the battle and not doing the long range stuff.

You have to tie the 51D to a full internal load (dispose of external tanks and have remaining full internal load) and compare against a Fw 190D-9 with only internal fuel load at take off ( and perhaps 1/2 to 1/3 for combat) before you start comparing climb and acceleration and get clearly superior performance for the 190-D.

 

[thor]

The Mustang out turned the Fw 190D with about the same advantage that the 190D-9 out rolled the Mustang in the middle speed and altitude range.

do you have independent data to back this statement?

 

[lesofprimus]

Yes he does..... Most of us do... U obviously dont...

 

[drgondog]

Yes he does..... Most of us do... U obviously dont...

LOL - Thor - "what he (Dan) said'.

If you wish you should cruise this forum for all the data you need.

Regards,

Bill

 

[davparlr]

The 190D-9 had no advantage in climb, dive or speed or turn over a 51D (and above) when the 150 Octane fuel was used and 75" of boost was available - for normal flight weights half way into the mission. The 150 octane was available in June July before the 190D went into ops.

I think that at equivalent loads, the P-51B, D, both with 150 octane fuel, and the Fw-190D-9 were pretty well within the probablility of error, manufacturing tolerance, and maintenance variables, of performance up to 20K. That is, if one were to randomly select one each these aircraft off active flight line in WWII, there was no way to predict which one would outperform the other. Above 20k, the Fw-190D-9 starts to run out of air and has a disadvantage to the P-51s.

 

[thor]

LOL - Thor - "what he (Dan) said'.

If you wish you should cruise this forum for all the data you need.

Regards,

Bill

umm maybe i should have asked to see it ...

could you post it or direct me to the data ...

and please leave out those tired old propaganda laden reports from captured, incorrectly maintained, ground attack versions of the earlier 190s, as that is not what we are discussing here ...

EDIT : he is the one drawing the conclusion from his source, i can not guess which source or how he is making his conclusions from that source. therefore it is up to him to explain his reasoning.

 

[lesofprimus]

Listen, we've been discussing this topic for as long as I can remember, we have a search feature up top, use it.......

 

[thor]

i agree. the only performance category that stands out is the roll rate i have previously noted.

re-the altitude "all else being =" precludes the fight starting with either pilot having a safe gun solution or any other situational advantage on the other. in that case the ensuing "dogfight" will most likely use up a lot of energy as they each maneuver for that gun solution which means that the altitude will very probably decrease making the fight conclusion likely to be determined at a much lower altitude than the thin air where the fight started.

we must remember "all else being =" and assume that both these aircraft will be flown expertly and mistake free at the limits of their performance envelopes.

I think that at equivalent loads, the P-51B, D, both with 150 octane fuel, and the Fw-190D-9 were pretty well within the probablility of error, manufacturing tolerance, and maintenance variables, of performance up to 20K. That is, if one were to randomly select one each these aircraft off active flight line in WWII, there was no way to predict which one would outperform the other. Above 20k, the Fw-190D-9 starts to run out of air and has a disadvantage to the P-51s.

 

[thor]

Listen, we've been discussing this topic for as long as I can remember, we have a search feature up top, use it.......

hey look so have i and i have not only never seen a source that supports his statements.
not only that the wing loading/power loading/lift loading/ wing types are all very similar and the advantages slim as they are alternate between the two aircraft.

i am asking for his source and reasoning, it is his source, don't you think a conclusion would be reached sooner if he posts it rather than me wading through all the data to guess about the source to which he is referring?

he made the statement, he needs to show the source just like i did with my reasoning re the roll rate.

 

[drgondog]

umm maybe i should have asked to see it ...

could you post it or direct me to the data ...

and please leave out those tired old propaganda laden reports from captured, incorrectly maintained, ground attack versions of the earlier 190s, as that is not what we are discussing here ...

EDIT : he is the one drawing the conclusion from his source, i can not guess which source or how he is making his conclusions from that source. therefore it is up to him to explain his reasoning.

Thor - while your request is reasonable, this isn't my day job and I'm simply going to ask you to 'look around'

As to the 'tired old propaganda', they usually are the ONLY comparisons available.. Nobody ever seems to be able to get to the Rechlin tests in which they test their good birds against our 'tired ones' so we can't even debate an opposing point of view..

Additionally the wesites such as Mike Williams and Kurfurst sites have direct manufacturer and flight test results that were not made with 'tired old airplanes'.

Take what you want, look into those sites, look into the Technical section that Paul put together here, Believe what you will and return the rest!

Good day to you sir!

 

[Erich]

thor take some time and go research other Ww 2 crate sites including the old posts/archives on this one . harmanns Dora book is a tech book and would possibly fill you in on those specs you seem to need.

remember research is fun research is fun, and yes exhausting, there are members here including myself that are not getting paid to hand out information on a string, we have worked hard acquired much and spent thousands of dollars, Marks and Euros to acquire what we now have in our databases.

the thread has run it's course and needs to be terminated into the archiv files

 

[thor]

yes i have and i have not seen any data that supports his statement, so i asked to see it. i have seen the "tests" and if you look at the whole document you will see the statements that address they types and conditions of the aircraft being tested and those statements usually exclude them as good sources for discussions like the one we are having here. if he has a better source i would very much like to see it. without the properly done comparisons we need to look at the aerodynamic data and that is so close in the factors that determine turn abilities that i see no reason to conclude that one plane had a significant advantage in flat turn over the other. however the roll rate would not only be an advantage in itself but it would also significantly give the FW an advantage in "effective" turn rate and even more in reverse turn rates both of which are usually far more important in the outcome of a well flown dogfight than sustained turn rate would be. again giving the advantage even more to the FW ...

Thor - while your request is reasonable, this isn't my day job and I'm simply going to ask you to 'look around'

As to the 'tired old propaganda', they usually are the ONLY comparisons available.. Nobody ever seems to be able to get to the Rechlin tests in which they test their good birds against our 'tired ones' so we can't even debate an opposing point of view..

Additionally the wesites such as Mike Williams and Kurfurst sites have direct manufacturer and flight test results that were not made with 'tired old airplanes'.

Take what you want, look into those sites, look into the Technical section that Paul put together here, Believe what you will and return the rest!

Good day to you sir!

thor take some time and go research other Ww 2 crate sites including the old posts/archives on this one . harmanns Dora book is a tech book and would possibly fill you in on those specs you seem to need.

remember research is fun research is fun, and yes exhausting, there are members here including myself that are not getting paid to hand out information on a string, we have worked hard acquired much and spent thousands of dollars, Marks and Euros to acquire what we now have in our databases.

the thread has run it's course and needs to be terminated into the archiv files

 

[drgondog]

i agree. the only performance category that stands out is the roll rate i have previously noted.

re-the altitude "all else being =" precludes the fight starting with either pilot having a safe gun solution or any other situational advantage on the other. in that case the ensuing "dogfight" will most likely use up a lot of energy as they each maneuver for that gun solution which means that the altitude will very probably decrease making the fight conclusion likely to be determined at a much lower altitude than the thin air where the fight started.

If one attempts to bail out of the merge by pushing stick forward and making tiny things on the ground very large - that one may reach lower altitudes but likely to get his ass shot off. Many, many Fw 190 and Me 109 aircraft were shot down after attempting to dive out of a merge. I have no doubt some 51s went down this way aslo as initial acceleration and dive speeds were close, with 51 having perhaps a slight edge!
(from the 'tired old propaganda' of the Allied tests as yet unrefuted by 'LW propaganda'


we must remember "all else being =" and assume that both these aircraft will be flown expertly and mistake free at the limits of their performance envelopes.

Duly noted sir, I will try - but I am old and my memory falters! Please remind me that pilot skill is a factor?

Start with ALL ELSE not equal when comparing Cd0 for the two ships, then flail as you will to develop free body diagrams to work toward Energy available, and Energy Manuever diagrams (shades of Boyd) for both if you wish to go there. I will join you with reluctance as time permits.

As noted in the above dialogue between Kurfurst and me on Lednicer's VS Aero report comparing models of P-51B/D and Spit IX and Fw 190D the 51 Cdo (both versions is appreciably below the 190D and well below the Spit. I may have sent it to Paul to insert in the P-51 section. If not I will dig it up and send to him.

 

[thor]

hard maneuvers result in loss of altitude, even today where the thrust to weight ratios are somewhat better than in 1944 ...

everyone seems to agree these planes are closely matched i see no reason to assume a swift conclusion in any well flown dogfight.

Start with ALL ELSE not equal when comparing Cd0 for the two ships, then flail as you will to develop free body diagrams to work toward Energy available, and Energy Manuever diagrams (shades of Boyd) for both if you wish to go there. I will join you with reluctance as time permits.

As noted in the above dialogue between Kurfurst and me on Lednicer's VS Aero report comparing models of P-51B/D and Spit IX and Fw 190D the 51 Cdo (both versions is appreciably below the 190D and well below the Spit. I may have sent it to Paul to insert in the P-51 section. If not I will dig it up and send to him.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think that at equivalent loads, the P-51B, D, both with 150 octane fuel, and the Fw-190D-9 were pretty well within the probablility of error, manufacturing tolerance, and maintenance variables, of performance up to 20K. That is, if one were to randomly select one each these aircraft off active flight line in WWII, there was no way to predict which one would outperform the other. Above 20k, the Fw-190D-9 starts to run out of air and has a disadvantage to the P-51s.

+1