drgondog
Major
Good - I think every person contributing to this "what if" pretty much said "its all about pilot skill and tactical situation. Welcome to reasoned debate
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
Good - I think every person contributing to this "what if" pretty much said "its all about pilot skill and tactical situation. Welcome to reasoned debate
Erich
the old Sage
thank God now lets talk about first person accts, of Dora/Mustang combat instead of silly graphs which mean nothing in the long run
yeah it's my humble opinion
yeah it's my humble opinion
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
drgondog
Major
whatever floats your boat is fine.
FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials
Excellent performance testing results with full range of weight, boost and rpm settings, with and without ETC racks, etc. Translation of German tests, and links posted to German language 'originals' at bottom.
If you don't like these or believe they are 'same old thing with worn out birds' - post your own.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
Possibly a worn out bird and definitely rigging problems. Pay attention to e. Handling and Control at Various Speeds and h. Manueverability and Aerobatics. This report was written after 6 hours of at best casual testing but interestingly it dovetails to my fathers own (anecdotal) experience with the Fw190D-9 he flew at Gablingen with several other P-51 aces of the 355th FG post war. IIRC he 25 hours in the D-9 between July and October
Next
anecdotal impressions of III/JG54 during December. I repeat - Anecdotal - not proof points!
"Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9's operational debut in his The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945 (pages 388 – 399):
17 December: The Second Gruppe pilots returned to the front and their new base at Nördhorn-Clausheide in seventy-four Fw 190D-9s, their numbers bolstered by twenty brand-new pilots. The pilot's opinions of the "long-nosed Dora", or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new model was intended to correct the Fw 190's most glaring weakness, its poor high altitude performance. What came out of Kurt Tank's shop was a compromise. Tank did not like the liquid-cooled Jumo 213A engine, but it was the best choice available. The long in-line engine had to be balanced by a lengthened rear fuselage to maintain the proper center of gravity, making the Fw 190D four feet longer than the Fw 190A. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. It was a bit faster, however, with a maximum speed of 680 km/h (422 mph) at 6600 meters (21,650 feet).Its 2240 horespower with methanol-water injection (MW 50) gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A, and so proved well suited to the dive-and-zoom ambush tactics favored by the Schlageter pilots. Many of the early models were not equipped with tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. At low altitude, the top speed and acceleration of these examples were inferior to those of Allied fighters. Hans Hartigs recalled that only one of the first batch of Dora-9s received by the First Gruppe had methanol-water injection, and the rest had a top speed of only 590 km/h (360 mph).
18 December: The First Gruppe reported a strength of 52 190As and 28 Fw 190 D-9's… The Second Gruppe flew its first mission in its Dora-9s, but failed to contact the enemy.
23 December: The Second Gruppe flew its first Fw 190D-9 mission.
24 December: The first combat mission for the new Fw 190 D-9s of the First Gruppe was an attempted interception of the heavy bombers.
25 December: The First Gruppe reported in the morning that only nine of its Focke-Wulfs were serviceable. The Stab and the 2nd and 3rd Staffeln were taken off operations to train in the Fw 190 D-9.
III/JG 54 returned to the combat zone, still led by Hptm. Robert Weiss, a member of JG 26 back in the glory day on the Kanalfront. […] The unit had been built up to its full strength of sixty-eight FW 190D-9s.
26 December: The biggest news the returning pilots had for their comrades was the Mustang's superiority in speed and acceleration to their Dora 9s. "
P-51 Mustang Performance
Note 51D performance comparisons with 150 octane fuel (available in quantity after June 1944) - just a little off the P-51B-15 - both greater than 440mph at 22K+ and all versions greater than 420mp from 7K up.
Anecdotal discussion say 190D-9 roll rate less than Fw 190A, Test comparisons say slower than 51D (when each compared equivalently with respect to racks, internal fuel and ammo max load =even when 2.02 ata given but noted that 2.02 ata may neverhave been achieved in combat, one with MW50 the other with 150 octane and 75" boost)
These are SOME of the easy things you could have found with a casual search of this forum..
Now - So your thesis is the 190D-9 had superior roll performance?
Prove it.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
Caldwell's book is very suspicious, his opinion on th D-9 goes completely against that of the pilots who actually flew the a/c, including the results of a direct comparison done at Rechlin.
The conclusion at Rechlin was that the Dora-9 was found to turn climb much better than the Anton, and straight line speed was higher as-well. Roll rate was the same. And this is supported by veteran accounts as-well as basic physics.
Caldwell is the ONLY person to claim that the Dora turned worse than the Anton, real life pilots vets plus aerodynamic evidence all make it abundantly clear that the Dora turned better than the Anton.
Also let us please not use Mike Williams site as reference for performance on German a/c, he is a very selective person. I've got plenty of documents which prove a top SL speed of 615 km/h and high alt speed of 702 km/h with use of MW50. His translations of the some of the documents are also dubious.
The conclusion at Rechlin was that the Dora-9 was found to turn climb much better than the Anton, and straight line speed was higher as-well. Roll rate was the same. And this is supported by veteran accounts as-well as basic physics.
Caldwell is the ONLY person to claim that the Dora turned worse than the Anton, real life pilots vets plus aerodynamic evidence all make it abundantly clear that the Dora turned better than the Anton.
Also let us please not use Mike Williams site as reference for performance on German a/c, he is a very selective person. I've got plenty of documents which prove a top SL speed of 615 km/h and high alt speed of 702 km/h with use of MW50. His translations of the some of the documents are also dubious.
Last edited:
That having been said, based on the evidence available my opinion is that the FW190 Dora-9 was superior to the P-51D from SL and up to around 15,000 ft and equal up to 20,000 ft. Higher than 20,000 ft and the P-51D takes the lead, and important to note is the fact that the bombers usually flew at a height well over 20,000 ft.
The Dora-9 additionally had the advantage of a 10 min safe boost window, where'as the Mustang could onl run on WEP for a max of 5 min.
The Dora-9 additionally had the advantage of a 10 min safe boost window, where'as the Mustang could onl run on WEP for a max of 5 min.
Last edited:
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
Is it me or is there just a touch of deja vu here? I'm sure I've read all this stuff before....
drgondog
Major
Soren - first, last and alwaays there are no written conclusions ever presented as "Rechlin conclusion". Nobody, including you has ever presented any such document on this forum at least.
Second, the 190D-9 was heavier, longer than the Anton - but same wing.. Why would we conclude that it had a better roll or turn rate. Physics has left the building.
Caldwell presents his 'mixed reviews' via personal interviews, according to JG26 War Diary Volume Two. The Interviewees included (pg 555 Chapter 7 Defense of the German Border) Crump, Glunz, Hartig, Krupinski, Gerkhe, Ossencamp, Polster, Stumpf, Schmidt plus others... so he wasn't conveying his (Caldwell's) personal opinion, and all by fighter pilots with the Most Fw 190D experience?.
Next, it would be hard to find a shred of evidence that Caldwell is an apologist for 8th AF at expense of LW.
As to Mike Williams - the LW Fw 190D test reports for climb and speed are ALL LW Rechlin reports with no opinion based observations, but their are zero comparative tests anywhere.
So back to our eternal battleground.
Sources to demonstrate any and all claims of an Fw 190D-9 being tested faster than the tested speeds of the 51B and D w/150 octane fuel, roll rates and/or turn same or better than Fw 190A7-9?
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
Ad Nauseum by the look of it.
Virtually all of this thread is subjective circular argument, based on documents which can be interpreted in any way the poster sees fit to suit his premise.
If Priller returns from the grave, joins this forum and gives his opinion on the Fw 190 D I'd be prepared to listen. Until then this thread should be consigned to oblivion.
Last edited:
i already posted the roll rate comparison chart you show me where the pony did anything 30-100% better than the dora that mattered in a dogfight at dogfight speeds.
oh and to dispute the chart, you prove the dora rolled significantly worse or the anton, or that the pony d rolled significantly better than the pony b.
otherwise like i have said i am going with the fighter with the edge "all else being ="
oh and to dispute the chart, you prove the dora rolled significantly worse or the anton, or that the pony d rolled significantly better than the pony b.
otherwise like i have said i am going with the fighter with the edge "all else being ="
Last edited:
Bill,
Physics hasn't left the building at all, come on now. You know as well as I that turn performance is a function of power available to power required. Thrust is just as important to turn performance as is lift, and the Dora featured A LOT more thrust than the Anton. (I can show you the FW AG prop efficiency charts again if you wish?) And the weight was again the same, 4270 kg for the D-9 and 4300 kg for the A-8. So as you can see physics fully supports the fact that the Dora-9 was a better turn fighter than the Anton.
As for Caldwell, sorry but I just don't trust his claim that what he wrote on this matter is from any interview, esp. when direct quotes from pilots who actually flew the plane are in total contradiction with what he writes in his book. Caldwell is an oddball in my opinion and I don't take his work very seriously.
As for Mike Williams he relies on tests done with aircraft which had recieved an underperforming batch of engines and he also mistranslates the charts, I have the charts in their entirety and he leaves out valuable input.
As for my sources on the Dora's performance, I've posted it on here before many times with plenty of documents and the like. In Dietmars book are quotes from LW squadrons opinion on the Dora vs the Anton, and the entire squadron feels that the Dora is a big improvement over the Anton in terms of turn performance, climb rate and all out speed.
Physics hasn't left the building at all, come on now. You know as well as I that turn performance is a function of power available to power required. Thrust is just as important to turn performance as is lift, and the Dora featured A LOT more thrust than the Anton. (I can show you the FW AG prop efficiency charts again if you wish?) And the weight was again the same, 4270 kg for the D-9 and 4300 kg for the A-8. So as you can see physics fully supports the fact that the Dora-9 was a better turn fighter than the Anton.
As for Caldwell, sorry but I just don't trust his claim that what he wrote on this matter is from any interview, esp. when direct quotes from pilots who actually flew the plane are in total contradiction with what he writes in his book. Caldwell is an oddball in my opinion and I don't take his work very seriously.
As for Mike Williams he relies on tests done with aircraft which had recieved an underperforming batch of engines and he also mistranslates the charts, I have the charts in their entirety and he leaves out valuable input.
As for my sources on the Dora's performance, I've posted it on here before many times with plenty of documents and the like. In Dietmars book are quotes from LW squadrons opinion on the Dora vs the Anton, and the entire squadron feels that the Dora is a big improvement over the Anton in terms of turn performance, climb rate and all out speed.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
That IS the problem with the anecdotal references... and most of them are obviously survivors.
drgondog
Major
You can 'go anywhere you wish' but you can't prove "all else being =' .. you need to start there?
drgondog
Major
Soren, Dietmar Hermann is a fairly well respected researcher of the 190D as you noted above. You seem to respect his opinion. The performance charts on the Fw 190D's are his (Dietmar's) translations and the German versions are posted in the link below the sequence of flight tests.
In other words they are tests perfromed by Germans on brand new Fw 190D's, translated by the same author you cite as an expert..
What other performance data do you have in hand - other than speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude to refute opinions of both quoted JG 26 pilots and the USAAF flight test personnel regarding Fw 190D vs 190A roll rates?
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
I concur Bill, I've seen your posts on other forums and have been impressed by their depth and impartiality. The problem remains that any opinion stated in this thread is completely subjective, no one commenting here (to my knowledge) has flown a P 51, let alone a Fw 190 D. I'm not saying we don't have a few pilots among us, but even so any comment for or against would still be conjecture.
It would be the equivalent of me saying Ferrari make better cars than Maserati because, I know, I drive a Fiat.
I certainly agree with your comments vis-a-vis Dietmar Hermann, a respected researcher indeed.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Actually I have 56+ hours solo in a 51D but have no reference to flying one in combat or even a rat race. My opinions (anecdotal) about the Mustang would be handling characteristics.
My father's recollection of his 190D and 109 time post war were anecdotal and his rat races were with 51 aces from the 355th post war. One has no frame of reference to engine, rigging, fuel, etc for the 190D and he is no longer available for consultation.
It is interesting to contemplate that perhaps ONLY Rechlin was in a position to compare against the 51D and B against LW types - but the condition of their captured birds would be equally suspect and they had no access to 150 octane fuel - and no one has produced any test data of any kind for 'stated opionions' of such flights at Rechlin. ALL tests in hand are post WWII Allied tests.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
. I have followed thse arguments for years on this site and not being an engineer I am not qualified to say much about either aircraft. If anyone is qualified to talk about the Mustang on this forum, it is Bill. For the life of me, when talking about about best aircraft, I don't understand why more emphasis is not placed on the Mustang's range superiority over the FW.
