Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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 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.
Yes he does..... Most of us do... U obviously dont...
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.
LOL - Thor - "what he (Dan) said'.
If you wish you should cruise this forum for all the data you need.
Regards,
Bill
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.
Listen, we've been discussing this topic for as long as I can remember, we have a search feature up top, use it.......
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!
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
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.
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.