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

[drgondog]

here are a couple of them

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very cool thanks.

 

[lesofprimus]

Not sure whether you think we are tramping on your ancestry or what your problem is, but get over it, it was inferior.

I dont know who the fu*k u think ur talking to pal, but u had better check urself immediately or I will drop the fuc*kin hammer on u....

 

[Njaco]

Abbreviated report on the first captured intact Fw 190A-3 from flight trials conducted by the RAF at Farnborough in July 1942 as reported in the book "Fw 190 at War" by Dr. Alfred Price:

"Tactical Trials
General

The FW 190 is considered an excellent low and medium altitude fighter. It is fast, well armed and very manoevrable. The figting qualitities have been compared with a Spitfire VB, Spitfire IX, Mustang 1A, Lockheed P-38F, Typhoon and the prototype Griffon engined Spitfire........

Fw 190 vs Spitfire VB
The Fw was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron for speed and all around manoevrablity at heights up to 25,000 ft. The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights.........
Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is uperior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.......Under maximum continous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450/min better up to 25,000f. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catchng it.....
The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected.....

Fw 190 vs Spitfire IX
"The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior in speed to the Fw 190....When the Spitfire IX was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw 190 a reasonable chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed anthe Fw 190 was 'bounced' by the Spitfire IX......
The general impression gained by pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favourably with the Fw 190 and that provided the Spitfire has the initiative, it has undoubtably a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down.

Fw 190 vs Musang 1A
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Mustang at all heights.......Against the Fw 190, the worst heights for the Mustang 1A were above 20,000ft and below 3,000ft where the Fw 190 is slightly superior in speed......

Fw 190 vs P-38F
The climb of the P-38F is not as good as that of the Fw 190 up to 15,000ft. Above this height, the climb of the -38F improves rapidly until at 20,000ft it becomes superior.....Comparitive dives betwen the two aircraft proved the Fw 190 to be better.....

Conclusions
The Fw 190 is undoubttedly a formidable low and medium altutude fighter....The comparitive fighting qualities of the Fw 190 have been compared with the Spitfire VB, Spitfire I, Mustang 1A, P-38F, Typhoon and prototype Griffon pitfire. The main conclusion gained from the tactical trials is that our fighter aircraft must fly at a high speed when in an area where the Fw 190 is likely to be met.


Theres much more Mike but I suggest getting the report or buying the book.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That pretty much states what anyone with at least a lil bit of knowledge of aircraft knows. The key words were at certain altitudes. Each aircraft has its optimum arena where it will work best at. I guess Mike missed that part...

 

[Njaco]

Yup That was my point. Was better at times and inferior at other. Of course theres one factor not mentioned - the pilot.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yup That was my point. Was better at times and inferior at other. Of course theres one factor not mentioned - the pilot.

Agreed. When it comes to the top fighters of the war, that really was the greatest factor. In that area the Allies were certainly leading in the later years of the war.

 

[mike526mp]

Yes I do concede when introduced (a very short time), the FW-190 was superior, but after the P-51 and later model Spitfires were introduced, the FW-190 was inferior.

Someone compared the FW-190 to the Spitfire V, a very early model Spitfire. Had the small Merlin 50 engine, with the Single stage supercharger, not the two-stage superchargers, the Merlin used an SU manufactured Carburetor, not fuel injected. and really quite poor performance (top speed at any altitude was 350 mph, 336 at 20,000 feet), compared to the later model Spitfires, as I remember it is the 3rd or 4th model of 24 models of Spitfire. But soon it was another story.

Spitfire Mk. XII
The Mk. XII was the first Spitfire powered by a Griffon engine to go into service. The first production models started appearing in October 1942 and in total two RAF squadrons were equipped with the model. The Griffon engine gave the aircraft superb low and medium level performance. In fact at low altitude it was one of the fastest aircraft in the world; in one speed trial a prototype Mk. XII raced ahead of a Hawker Typhoon and a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 to the amazement of the dignitaries present. However pilots found it difficult to exploit this advantage in combat as German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet.

I wonder why German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet? Was it because they had a better fighter? Of course not.


Here are a few quotes from P-51 Ace, in regard to the FW-190
C.E. "Bud" Anderson

1. Why did you name your P-51 the "Old Crow?"
I tell my Baptist friends that it is named after the smartest bird that flies in the sky, the Crow, but my drinking buddies all know that it was named after that good old Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey of the same name. Now, my wife Ellie, of 54 plus years likes to kid around at times and will say "Most guys name their plane after their wife or sweet heart, what must people thinks is going on here?"
2. Which aircraft, the ME109 or the FW190 was the most formidable in combat?
In aerial combat it did not matter to me which type of enemy fighter I encountered. I felt that the Mustang could out perform both the ME109 and the FW190 and treated them pretty much the same. The FW190 had an air cooled radial engine and could probably take a little more damage than the liquid cooled ME109. I never encountered any of the twin engine fighters such as the ME110 ME 410 but it appeared to me that the guy that got there first shot down the most of them.
8. What kind of aircraft did you shoot down?
Aerial victories: FW190 - 9 destroyed (2 probably destroyed and 1 damaged)
ME109 - 7 destroyed (1 damaged)
HE111 - 1/4 (shared with three other flight members)
Total 16.1/4(air)
Ground victories: ME109 - 1 destroyed

He certainly didn't have any problem with FW-190's.

A good book that goes into detail including statistics (and says just what I have said)
P-51 Mustang Vs Fw 190: Europe 1943-45 By Martin Bowman

You can buy it at amazon for $13.46, free shipping
Amazon.com: P-51 Mustang vs Fw 190: Europe 1943-45 (Duel) (9781846031892): Martin Bowman: Books

Conclusion P-51 was better than FW-190.

Add to that the P-51 could escort bombers deep into Germany (something either the FW-190 or ME-109 couldn't do) great distances and was still superior to either the FW-190 or ME-109. The P-51 was the only aircraft I know of at that time that could escort the bombers that distance, it surely had to be a better fighter than the FW-190 in it's time, but not the only one better.

The writer really gives the FW-190 poor marks at altitude against the P-51, where most combat occurred (protecting bombers). His conclusion supports mine.

Add to it that the FW-190 had such a poor turning radius (and stall characteristics), probably one of the most important attributes to dog fighting. Speed wise the FW-190 no longer had a speed advantage. My father encountered at least one FW-190, he expressed to me how it was clear to him the 51 was a better fighter.

Add the fact the unreliability of the engines used in the FW-190.

Someone commented that "That pretty much states what anyone with at least a lil bit of knowledge of aircraft knows. The key words were at certain altitudes. Each aircraft has its optimum arena where it will work best at. I guess Mike missed that part..."

I am an active commercial pilot, Flight instructor single engine land, multi engine land flight instructor, instrument flight instructor with a glider license. Crop dusted in the past. I think I have "lil bit of knowledge of aircraft". I was asking the same question of some of you?

I stand 100% behind what I said, as do the statistics, pilot reports and facts.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Someone commented that "That pretty much states what anyone with at least a lil bit of knowledge of aircraft knows. The key words were at certain altitudes. Each aircraft has its optimum arena where it will work best at. I guess Mike missed that part..."

I am an active commercial pilot, Flight instructor single engine land, multi engine land flight instructor, instrument flight instructor with a glider license. Crop dusted in the past. I think I have "lil bit of knowledge of aircraft". I was asking the same question of some of you?

I stand 100% behind what I said, as do the statistics, pilot reports and facts.

That was me that stated that, and I stand 100% behind what I said.

1. The Fw 190 was nothing close to being a piece of **** aircraft as you make it out to be.
2. The Fw 190 was a very good aircraft that was not slow or unreliable.
3. There are plenty of reports that will say the opposite of what you have chosen to post.
4. At certain altitudes the Fw 190 was inferior and others it was superior. That goes for all of the top aircaft.

Keep believing what you wish though. It makes no difference to me. I will continue to take accounts from both sides and make a real educated opinion, instead of picking and choosing only certain ones.

Oh and by the way, I am an American. Don't try pulling that weak nationality argument that you tried to pull up there.

 

[Vincenzo]

Just a info first mission spit XII april '43, first mission merlin mustang december '43, first mission spit IX august '42, first mission Fw 190 A september '41

 

[mike526mp]

i never said or implied that as you say ". The Fw 190 was nothing close to being a piece of **** aircraft as you make it out to be."

If it were a beauty contest I would have to choose the 190.

why are you taking this so personal? not meant to be personal.

for years from being around people who flew 51's and 47's and what i heard/read, sure seemed obvious to me what were the better fighters.

Something i would like to point out is germany was preparing for war, the usa or UK weren't (at least like they should have), which explains why we were behind.

I am proud of what the usa and UK produced, shows we can compete with anyone.

 

[Colin1]

Conclusion P-51 was better than FW-190.

Add to that the P-51 could escort bombers deep into Germany (something either the Fw190 or Bf109 couldn't do) great distances and was still superior to either the Fw190 or Bf109. The P-51 was the only aircraft I know of at that time that could escort the bombers that distance, it surely had to be a better fighter than the Fw190 in it's time, but not the only one better.

The writer really gives the Fw190 poor marks at altitude against the P-51, where most combat occurred (protecting bombers). His conclusion supports mine

We'll forget this 'unreliability' issue that you seem to be having with the Focke-wulf

Most of us are aware of the P-51's trump card thank you, it evolved into the Second World War's premier long-range escort fighter, so convince us that that aspect of its performance alone makes it a better fighter than the Fw190 (or Bf109) and not that it simply meant it had a greater range.

If its range made it a better fighter, then why didn't the Bf110's range advantage not make it a decisive weapon fighter vs fighter? Because range gets you to the fight, it won't win it for you.

The problem with awarding marks for altitude performance in this particular instance is that the Allies by this stage of the war were holding just about all of the initiative; the bomber streams came in at high altitude, the P-51s (eventually) escorted them in at that altitude. The Luftwaffe, rising to the defence had little choice but to engage the USAAF at the P-51's best altitude.
Couple this with the fact that on their way up, the Luftwaffe were highly liable to being bounced by the P-51 before it even got to altitude. The P-51 could then zoom climb back to his perch and wait for the next Luftwaffe bird to show up. Hundreds of Luftwaffe fighters were splashed in this manner before they'd even fired a shot.

I think your conclusions are superficial, based on your superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

i never said or implied that as you say ". The Fw 190 was nothing close to being a piece of **** aircraft as you make it out to be."

If it were a beauty contest I would have to choose the 190.

why are you taking this so personal? not meant to be personal.

I am not taking it personal, trust me...

What I did not like is the attitude that you brought into the discussion, as well as making claims that are not true.

for years from being around people who flew 51's and 47's and what i heard/read, sure seemed obvious to me what were the better fighters.

No on is saying the P-51 and P-47 are inferior, however the Fw 190 was not inferior either. All 3 aircraft had their optimum areas. The P-51D just happened to excel where it was needed most for the allies. The P-51 was by far the best escort fighter of the war. The Fw 190 however was competitive right to the end. It was highly maneuverable, certainly was not slow and was not unreliable as you say.

If you were to conduct some research you would see that at certain altitudes the Fw 190 would have the edge, at certain altitudes they would be about equal and at other altitudes the P-51D would have the edge.

In the end pilot skill is what really gave the most advantage.

Read through the full pages, there is some very good actual test comparisons that have been posted between the two aircraft. The Fw 190 was never found to be a slow or a push over in any of them...

I am proud of what the usa and UK produced, shows we can compete with anyone.

That has never been an argument. You are the only one making a big deal about that. I guess most of just care to learn about the aircraft instead of pushing who built them...

 

[mike526mp]

you mean to tell me with the huge formations of b-17's they could not get to the same altitude or higher altitude before they attack? ever see the movie "12 o'clock high"? They could fly with less fuel. lower weight becasue they didn't have to return to england (a huge combat advantage), everything was in their favor, except in my opinion they airplane they flew.

I thouht the question was which was the best over all fighter? why do you discount the range? I think that alone is huge (especially for the b-17 crews). that and given the fact the 51's were at least an equal even with the additional fuel to return makes it clear to me. bet with same time of fuel be even more obvious.

then read some of the spitfire XII pilot reports here, reads to me like the 190's were easy targets at this stage

Spitfire Mk XII Performance Testing

On top of that i put a huge amount of credence on the people who flew them.

the book i gave link in previous post, he explains it much better than I. it has statistics, looks at all angles.

 

[mike526mp]

Why do you discount what our pilots had to say? As for a P-51 only having range, I doubt any FW-190 pilot would say the same thing Bud Anderson would say about the ME110 and 410.

C.E. "Bud" Anderson

2. Which aircraft, the ME109 or the FW190 was the most formidable in combat?
In aerial combat it did not matter to me which type of enemy fighter I encountered. I felt that the Mustang could out perform both the ME109 and the FW190 and treated them pretty much the same. The FW190 had an air cooled radial engine and could probably take a little more damage than the liquid cooled ME109. I never encountered any of the twin engine fighters such as the ME110 ME 410 but it appeared to me that the guy that got there first shot down the most of them.

this has nothing to do with who made it, the question I am answering is which is the best fighter.

 

[Colin1]

1. you mean to tell me with the huge formations of b-17's they could not get to the same altitude or higher altitude before they attack?

2. ever see the movie "12 o'clock high"?

3. I thought the question was which was the best overall fighter? why do you discount the range? I think that alone is huge (especially for the b-17 crews). that and given the fact the 51's were at least an equal even with the additional fuel to return makes it clear to me. bet with same time of fuel be even more obvious.

4. then read some of the spitfire XII pilot reports here, reads to me like the 190's were easy targets at this stage

5. On top of that i put a huge amount of credence on the people who flew them.

6. the book i gave link in previous post, he explains it much better than I. it has statistics, looks at all angles.

1. That's not what I said at all
Is this a research issue with you or just a lack of comprehension? They DID get to altitude and engage the bombers but hundreds (over the course of the campaign) never made it - the Allied fighters thinned them out a bit.

2. Is this your source?

3. Aha, maybe you don't have a comprehension issue after all, the theme of the thread is indeed which was the best overall fighter. Oh dear, there's your comprehension issue again - I'm not discounting range, I'm lauding it as a valuable asset that will get a given fighter to the start line but I'm also saying that it will, in itself, be insufficient to win the merge.

4. 'at this stage' - what do you suppose that means? The Luftwaffe were overwhelmed by Allied numbers and Experten were thinning out whilst the Allies were getting more experienced.

5. Pointless comment in here, my friend...

6. then can I suggest you look at 'all the angles' that this book of yours presents, they will widen your argument

The Fw190 and Bf109 were being punished by the P-51 because the P-51 (the Allies) were holding all the best cards, they attacked German strategic targets of their choosing at a time of their choosing, they cruised in at their best altitude, killing several Luftwaffe fighters before they got to altitude and several more during the ensuing melee.

If the conditions had been different, the Germans taking bombers over London between 15,000 and 20,000ft it probably would have been a different story. Without taking ANY credit from the P-51, it held alot of tactical advantages over its Luftwaffe contemporaries at the point of the merge.

 

[mike526mp]

Let me try to comprehend this, please type slow for me. You say it is pointless the views of Bud Anderson and other pilots who actually participated in the combat, the air combat between the 2 aircraft we are discussing, at the time it happened, in the aircraft of the era? And Colin, you state, "I think your conclusions are superficial, based on your superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle." Then I guess you are saying Bud Anderson and other pilots also had a superficial understanding of air battle, but you somehow know it all? Where do you get your expertise Colin? The book you make fun of has figures, facts statistics. The book is written by someone who has studied it all, and by reading parts of it I imagine is smarter than you and of course me (remember my lack of comprehension so type slow for me Colin, I think you said that 5 times, I think I have caught on now) but then again it is all marginalized by your "understanding of that aspect of the air battle" that no one else seems to have but you. Let's not let facts stand in your way Colin! And then you come to the discussion with "What I did not like is the attitude that you brought into the discussion, as well as making claims that are not true."
Let me make it simple for you Colin, for your "lack of comprehension". Take a P-51, a FW-190 of the same era, 2 equal pilots, equal amount of fuel (duration), any altitude (and tested at all altitudes), both see each other, object is to destroy the other, same altitude, both at high speed, neither at a tactical advantage, I would bet the P-51 wins 90-100 out of 100.
I think it is clear what you never liked is my conclusion. You have no facts other than early reports and figures, nothing of any value after 1943. Just your condescending attitude and your "non superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle."
You sure convinced me Colin! You win Ace!

 

[B-17engineer]

I read through that and it seems on MOST not all, MOST that the 190 was being chased and due to bad or inexperienced pilots climbing after attacking head on (Exposing the belly) or diving when being chased and making for an easy target. Nothing to do with the aircraft.....

 

[mike526mp]

With the hazards associated with attacking the enemy from the tail position firmly in mind, Luftwaffe pilots logically shifted their focus to the lesser defended front of the formation. Upon interception, fighters would loiter outside of gunnery range, either abeam or behind, to estimate the speed and altitude of the bomber stream.

The German would then accelerate his aircraft to a point two miles ahead of the enemy and 1000 yards above before turning back towards his foe. With closing speeds approaching 500 mph, there was but a few scant seconds to line up a shot, squeeze off a short burst and break away to avoid a collision. A successful frontal attack required superior flying ability, skilled marksmanship and an iron will on the part of the Luftwaffe pilot.

Aside from the benefit of confronting fewer guns, the nose approach afforded an opportunity to fire directly in the bomber cockpits. A few well placed cannon rounds could at least disable, if not kill, an American flight crew. Later versions of both the B-17 and B-24 featured powered nose turrets to counter this threat.

The tail attack was not totally abandoned. Small numbers of less maneuverable, more rugged twin-engined aircraft such as the Messerschmitt Bf-110 and Junkers Ju-88 were fitted with a 37, 50 or even 75 mm cannon to permit engagement from outside the range of the heavy bombers tail guns. A single round from these weapons was capable of downing any Allied bomber. The appearance of Allied escort fighters later in the campaign chased these plodding aircraft from the skies.

 

[Colin1]

1. Let me try to comprehend this, please type slow for me.

2. You say it is pointless the views of Bud Anderson and other pilots who actually participated in the combat, the air combat between the 2 aircraft we are discussing, at the time it happened, in the aircraft of the era?

3. And Colin, you state, "I think your conclusions are superficial, based on your superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle." Then I guess you are saying Bud Anderson and other pilots also had a superficial understanding of air battle, but you somehow know it all?

4. Where do you get your expertise Colin? The book you make fun of has figures, facts statistics.

5. The book is written by someone who has studied it all, and by reading parts of it I imagine is smarter than you and of course me (remember my lack of comprehension so type slow for me Colin, I think you said that 5 times, I think I have caught on now) but then again it is all marginalized by your "understanding of that aspect of the air battle" that no one else seems to have but you.

6. Let's not let facts stand in your way Colin! And then you come to the discussion with "What I did not like is the attitude that you brought into the discussion, as well as making claims that are not true."

7. Let me make it simple for you Colin, for your "lack of comprehension". Take a P-51, a FW-190 of the same era, 2 equal pilots, equal amount of fuel (duration), any altitude (and tested at all altitudes), both see each other, object is to destroy the other, same altitude, both at high speed, neither at a tactical advantage, I would bet the P-51 wins 90-100 out of 100.

8. I think it is clear what you never liked is my conclusion. You have no facts other than early reports and figures, nothing of any value after 1943. Just your condescending attitude and your "non superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle."
You sure convinced me Colin! You win Ace!

1. I stand corrected, it's not a comprehension issue - you're an ignorant a$$hole
when you're reduced to typing sarcastic garbage like this, you're all out of argument

2. Where exactly did I say that the views of Bud Anderson were pointless? He may have written this book but that certainly doesn't mean that you've understood it.

3. Where did I say the same pilot's views were superficial?

4. Alot of reputable books contain figures and statistics - try cross-referencing

5. Look around you, it's not just my view

6. I'll think you'll find that someone else said that

7. You would bet?! Man, that's a great set of research tools you've got there: 12 o'clock high and a casino.
While you have our rapt attention, could you validate your 90-100 times out of 100 with hard data? Oh, of course, it's a bet - let me know the odds on that one, I might just have a flutter...

8. No, what is clear (but not to you) is that I DID NOT AGREE with your conclusion but tell me, wrt to this argument, what exactly was it that was going on before 1943?