Regarding the Mustang
- Thread starter IL2
- Start date
drgondog
Major
Dave - while deliveries of the Mk XIV really started in 1st three months of 1944, none really made it into aerial duels with LW until the Tactical groups moved to the continent... I believe there were some during Operation Market Garden in September but the XIV was used extensively against V-1s in the summer/fall of 1944.
The 51H production deliveries are more in line with Ta 152H's, lagging slightly behind.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I recall reading that the Luftwaffe kill-loss ratio over France was 3-1 at the beginning of 1943 while 3-1 at the end of 1943.
This seems logical given the difference in pilot recruit training of 1942 and 1943.
Kris
This seems logical given the difference in pilot recruit training of 1942 and 1943.
Kris
Yeah I was going to bring up a point I've heard bandied about by some historians, that during 41-42 most of the Battle of Britain vets were reassigned to overseas squadrons, leaving relatively inexperienced recruits in the new MkV's to fight the experten of JG2 and 26 on the Channel Front. This was probably a factor.
There are a couple of other points too, this one is a pet theory of mine after some technical research and cross referencing with pilot reports (on both sides). I'm open to correction but see what you think.
In 1942 the FW had a lot of teething troubles, the A-2 overheated the second cylinder bank which often shut down during flight, the A-3 still had tremendous overheating problems and those still fitted with 801C-2 motors (most were, few received the D motor) had severe altitude performance issues (there was a mismatch between supercharger sizing and critical altitude in the B4 configuration meaning it didn't do so fantastic anywhere above 3000 metres even though it was a monster under this height). Both types had severe vibration problems under high output conditions (it appears throttle restrictions were made which were not reflective of output potential on the bench for the BMW motor, which using C2/3 fuel should always have been 1800hp from the start, until the engine mounting was redesigned in the A-5 output was restricted to ~1600hp even using C3, this was actually mostly an engine speed restriction due to vibration).
Even with these teething problems the early series Antons were still very powerful a/c at low altitude and for short periods could really whoop some ass. But tactics had a lot to do with this. According to a report of typical Channel Front interception of British MkV Spits in 1942 by I./JG26 two flights of Fw190A took off to shepherd the RAF Spits into each other.
One flight of Fw190A pursued them directly from behind in the high speed condition at around 3000 metres altitude. The Spits could not get away and were chased to the coast, where the Focke's finally caught up with them. But the Spits were still good for combat whilst the Fw's were all overheating and required a cooldown period for their motors. The British never found out about this however.
The second group of Fw had flown directly toward the coast instead of chasing the Spits and had time to settle into a cruise condition at 5000 metres by the time the Spits and their pursuers arrived.
Then the first group (the pursuers) broke off contact, climbed and cooled their engines.
The second group (the actual interception) dove with already cooled engines and attacked in a tag team.
According to the report the FW-drivers had only a few minutes of very good performance before they overheated, but then the first group would change over again, and the second group would now climb and cool. It was a tag team.
The British report for the same combat was merely the sky being filled with Focke Wulfs and the fact they frequently changed positions, and that their a/c performance was clearly superior.
But you see in a one-on-one the Spit V would start performing better in sustained combat, if the FW could not breakaway and cool his engine. At least for these early series FW.
So my tender is the situation on the Channel Front was partly comparative performance, partly pilot experience and partly the tactics being used. There were still circumstances which could've been exploited, and the air superiority of the Luftwaffe here was I think as much situational as inherent.
(note) I should add for prosperity when I mention "pilot reports" I am talking about excerpts being referenced in other publications, not trying to sound like I have a bunch of primary source pilot reports sitting in front of me
There are a couple of other points too, this one is a pet theory of mine after some technical research and cross referencing with pilot reports (on both sides). I'm open to correction but see what you think.
In 1942 the FW had a lot of teething troubles, the A-2 overheated the second cylinder bank which often shut down during flight, the A-3 still had tremendous overheating problems and those still fitted with 801C-2 motors (most were, few received the D motor) had severe altitude performance issues (there was a mismatch between supercharger sizing and critical altitude in the B4 configuration meaning it didn't do so fantastic anywhere above 3000 metres even though it was a monster under this height). Both types had severe vibration problems under high output conditions (it appears throttle restrictions were made which were not reflective of output potential on the bench for the BMW motor, which using C2/3 fuel should always have been 1800hp from the start, until the engine mounting was redesigned in the A-5 output was restricted to ~1600hp even using C3, this was actually mostly an engine speed restriction due to vibration).
Even with these teething problems the early series Antons were still very powerful a/c at low altitude and for short periods could really whoop some ass. But tactics had a lot to do with this. According to a report of typical Channel Front interception of British MkV Spits in 1942 by I./JG26 two flights of Fw190A took off to shepherd the RAF Spits into each other.
One flight of Fw190A pursued them directly from behind in the high speed condition at around 3000 metres altitude. The Spits could not get away and were chased to the coast, where the Focke's finally caught up with them. But the Spits were still good for combat whilst the Fw's were all overheating and required a cooldown period for their motors. The British never found out about this however.
The second group of Fw had flown directly toward the coast instead of chasing the Spits and had time to settle into a cruise condition at 5000 metres by the time the Spits and their pursuers arrived.
Then the first group (the pursuers) broke off contact, climbed and cooled their engines.
The second group (the actual interception) dove with already cooled engines and attacked in a tag team.
According to the report the FW-drivers had only a few minutes of very good performance before they overheated, but then the first group would change over again, and the second group would now climb and cool. It was a tag team.
The British report for the same combat was merely the sky being filled with Focke Wulfs and the fact they frequently changed positions, and that their a/c performance was clearly superior.
But you see in a one-on-one the Spit V would start performing better in sustained combat, if the FW could not breakaway and cool his engine. At least for these early series FW.
So my tender is the situation on the Channel Front was partly comparative performance, partly pilot experience and partly the tactics being used. There were still circumstances which could've been exploited, and the air superiority of the Luftwaffe here was I think as much situational as inherent.
(note) I should add for prosperity when I mention "pilot reports" I am talking about excerpts being referenced in other publications, not trying to sound like I have a bunch of primary source pilot reports sitting in front of me
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The AFDU report makes no mention of this.
Though not mentioned by name, I can't see how the Fw190 involved in the trial could be any other than the Fw190A-3 Wkr Nr 313 which landed by chance at Pembrey on 23Jun42, this would place it in the range of aircraft experiencing 'overheating' problems.
No mention is made of this issue whilst trying to bounce the Spitfire in the trial at high cruising speed and bear in mind, this is the Spitfire Mk IX it's trying to catch, not the Spitfire Mk V.
I was under the impression that most of the overheating issues with the early Fw190 series aircraft were during ground running.
The AFDU test had to be abandoned because of the rough running of the 190. Mind you, the British were overboosting it. The cockpit data card gave the limits as
1.35 ata, 2,450 rpm - 3 minutes limit
1.28 ata, 2350 rpm - 30 minutes limit
Which makes it one of the derated aircraft.
The AFDU ran it at:
1.42 ata, 2,700 rom - 3 minutes limit
1.35 ata, 2,450 rpm - 30 minutes limit
Hello Drgondog
Quote:"My perspective is the the Fw190 set the RAF back on its heels and RAF did not achieve true parity with the 190 until the introduction of the Mk IX.
Additionally, the RAF became more aggrssive in their fighter sweeps over France and Holland - therby regainging some of the lost initiative."
Agree, 1941-42 combats had had impact to British eagerness but in 1943 they were gaining back their confidence to their planes and had probably learned lot from their painfully experiences.
And again I like to stress the effect of US bombers, they had carrying capacity and in .5 mgs firepower and firing distance which made them more difficult targets than European bombers and so they were excellent tools to force LW fighters to fight regardless of tactical situation.
Hello Vanir
Yes, also on Channel front as always, situation depended on pilot skills, planes , tactics and tactical situation.
Hello Soren
IIRC correctly, in his memoirs Rall writes very positively on Bf 109F-4. I don't know what the all other tens of thousands Bf 109 pilots thought but FAF test reports say nothing on aileron snatching, only that pilot noticed "notching" on the stick when the slats deployed. But I wonder was Rall really very worried on slats, it would be a bit strange by judging from his very positive opinion on 109F.
Juha
Quote:"My perspective is the the Fw190 set the RAF back on its heels and RAF did not achieve true parity with the 190 until the introduction of the Mk IX.
Additionally, the RAF became more aggrssive in their fighter sweeps over France and Holland - therby regainging some of the lost initiative."
Agree, 1941-42 combats had had impact to British eagerness but in 1943 they were gaining back their confidence to their planes and had probably learned lot from their painfully experiences.
And again I like to stress the effect of US bombers, they had carrying capacity and in .5 mgs firepower and firing distance which made them more difficult targets than European bombers and so they were excellent tools to force LW fighters to fight regardless of tactical situation.
Hello Vanir
Yes, also on Channel front as always, situation depended on pilot skills, planes , tactics and tactical situation.
Hello Soren
IIRC correctly, in his memoirs Rall writes very positively on Bf 109F-4. I don't know what the all other tens of thousands Bf 109 pilots thought but FAF test reports say nothing on aileron snatching, only that pilot noticed "notching" on the stick when the slats deployed. But I wonder was Rall really very worried on slats, it would be a bit strange by judging from his very positive opinion on 109F.
Juha
Last edited:
No both overheating and vibration at high running speeds (above 2500rpm) plagued the Fw190 until the front fuselage was lengthened and the engine mounts relocated in the A-5.
Overheating was most severe for the C-1 engine which would frequently shut down the second bank of cylinders due to this problem in the initial Fw190 deliveries (A-0 and A-1). The motor was quickly improved with redesigned cooling fins on the cylinder banks, along with cooling holes on the cowling of the A-2 variant, but overheating was still a major problem at maximum power settings for any length of time, even at the cruising condition the 801 ran very hot in those early airframes. Two short term fixes proposed for this were MW30/50 injection and C3 fuel. At this stage engines run on the bench performed very differently than those mounted in the tight Fw190 airframe. On the A-4 variant pilot controlled cooling flaps were installed, although as usual some features of later models were trialled on the previous variant so I've seen references of A-3 fitted with both engine types (C-2 and D-2) and with or without controlled cooling flaps. There isn't a whole lot of difference between those early variants, the A-1 was retrofitted with cooling slots and C-2 motors, the A-2 had the MG151 and new Revi, the A-3 had both C-2 and D-2 motors and the A-4 had a radio set change and standardised cooling flaps for cold starts.
The A-5 series finally attempted to deal with the vibration issues with the lengthening of the front fuselage, but this also had a byproduct of allowing more room at the rear of the engine and as it turned out was the single best fix for the cooling problems of the 801 on the rear bank. It still ran hot in but solved premature overheating issues.
Thus in the A-5 by solving the vibration issues the full bench rating of 1780hp for the 801 could finally be used in regular service, and by solving the overheating issues further output development (erhönte notleistung) was facilitated.
Prior to this boost was limited by the potential for engine damage due to hot running of the engine and engine speed was limited by vibration. In fact the 1780hp rating for the 801D-2 engine is given off the bench, in service fitted to early series airframes there is no reason the D-2 could achieve higher outputs than the 1600hp rating for the C-2, both at 2500rpm except that the C3 fuel version would achieve maximum output at slightly lower critical altitudes (for low and high gear) and thus have improved low altitude performance. The full potential of the 801 however could not have been realised in the Fw190A until the A-5 series however, it would not even return its bench rated performance until then.
In fact if you think a little outside the box you might really consider the A-6 to be the finally finished and refined A-1 design and in a perfect world or during peacetime probably would've been the first series to enter major production. But it's a little like the Soviet Yak story of being thrust into service when the type was still technically speaking under development and its problems were still being discovered. I'd consider everything up to the A-5 to be development prototypes unfortunately placed into production and service, and the A-6 to be the first refined version fit for long term service without trouble.
Michael Holm gives a pretty good overview on one of his excellent webpages, with references, more detail about Fw-190A overheating issues are gleaned from various publication.
Juha said:
I don't see why he couldn't still have had a positive opinion on the F4, the performance of the a/c was great. But then again maybe his comment about the snatching was exclusively regarding the Emil, that could also be. One thing is for sure though, the 109F and onwards when pulled into max performance turns didn't experience any snatching or disturbance to the flight path what'so'ever, the only noticable thing being a slight notching feeling on the stick. The Emil was another deal altogether.
You didn't ask to the Tszaw question what was the difference between F and E slats, except on size.
The operating mechanism was different and a lot less susceptible to dirt. One relied on a swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats (Emil) while the other relied on a roller-track mechanism (F,G K). Another big difference between the Emil and later series was the elimination of the inboard to outboard connecting linkage.
So there you have it.
"I contacted Claus Colling, one of the men behind Flug Werk (the company producing new-build Fw190s and also responsible for much 109 restoration work), and specifically asked him about the swing-arm versus roller-track slat travel design. His answer appears below:
The Me (Bf ) 109 "E" through "F" used the swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats. From the "G" onwards the Me 109's used the roller-track mechanism to guide the slats in and out. It all follows a patent bought by Messerschmitt from DeHavilland just prior to the war. The slats are driven out by means of low air-pressure if the AOA gets higher ( slow flight ) and retract by means of air-pressure when accelerating..."
Google Image Result for http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/control/slats/slat4.jpg
That is a mistake from the author I believe Milosh, but more important is that the inboard to outboard connecting linkage was eliminated with the F series onwards. Furthermore the slats were changed as-well, both in shape, chord length. All together this solved the problem with the slats jamming by making them less susceptible to dirt and improving the smoothness of their operation. As a result the F series and onwards never experienced any jamming of its slats, something the Emil experienced all too often, killing more than a few unlucky LW pilots in the process.
Incidentally from the same site you linked:
""Recent discussion on the Forum has indicated that a different, less complex arrangement utilizing a roller track was introduced at some point in production; however, as seen at right on the "Schmierplan" (lubrication point chart) for the Friedrich, the swing arm assemblies are still shown.
Incidentally from the same site you linked:
""Recent discussion on the Forum has indicated that a different, less complex arrangement utilizing a roller track was introduced at some point in production; however, as seen at right on the "Schmierplan" (lubrication point chart) for the Friedrich, the swing arm assemblies are still shown.
Last edited:
In 1943 the Luftwaffe and RAF were basically trading blows as said.
I don't view the P51 as the best fighter of WW2, but the one with the most impact. It did its damage when the war was there to be won and while it wasn't dominant over its rival, it was competitive in all areas and could fight the Luftwaffe on relatively even terms over Germany.
COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE, RANGE, EASE of PROUDCTION...these three factors basically tell the story. It had the range and ability to compete against the Luftwaffe and could be produced in superior numbers!
I don't view the P51 as the best fighter of WW2, but the one with the most impact. It did its damage when the war was there to be won and while it wasn't dominant over its rival, it was competitive in all areas and could fight the Luftwaffe on relatively even terms over Germany.
COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE, RANGE, EASE of PROUDCTION...these three factors basically tell the story. It had the range and ability to compete against the Luftwaffe and could be produced in superior numbers!
bada
Airman 1st Class
actually, the 64S was the first to receive the spit9 M61, but not really in great numbers, this "64S overrulled the butcherbird" is just like a kind of legend, passed as true through ages.
64S:
on 10thJuly : 3 airframes assigned
on 20thJuly : 7 airframes assigned
on 31st July : 9 airframes assigned
i really do not hink that such a small number (not even a full operational squadron) coudl have a great influance on the FW190 supremacy in the channel and certainly not in such a short time.
If you compare to 2 other Squadrons:
401S:
31st July: 17 airframes assigned
402S:
31st july : 9 airframes assigned
611S:
31st July : 18 airframes assigned
so, on the 31st July, we have 53 airframes , if we apply the 7 on10 RFC(ready for combat)-rule, we have 37Operationnal ariframes in 4 different squadrons, 3 of them hevaing received the planes max 10 days before.
We have to wait till the 2nd period of november(10-30), the largest number of spit9 M61 beeing present at that period, declining from there.(introduction of M63 Mk9 /M66L F9 from febr 43)
Just as a info-note
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
useful info
but no-one (including myself) is denying that the impact of the Spitfire MkIX would not have been immediate. I believe the few airframes that were filtered down to operational squadrons were held back until the squadron in question had enough of them to deploy them in sufficient numbers to maximise their impact.
My comparison was merely aircraft vs aircraft on a performance level, regardless of how quickly the Spitfire MkIX made its way to the front.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Hi Colin:
I realize this is tangential to the thread's principle theme, however, I thought you might appreciate the following: 64 Squadron's ORB noted that as of 11 July 1942 the Squadron had 13 Spitfires IXs. First operational mission with a full complement of Spitfire IXs was 28 July 1942. 30 July 1942 the Squadron destroyed 5 FW 190's whist flying Spitfire IXs:
I can confirm your impression that the rule for UK based Spitfire IX units was that they went operational once capable of putting 12 Spitfire IXs in the air for a mission.
I realize this is tangential to the thread's principle theme, however, I thought you might appreciate the following: 64 Squadron's ORB noted that as of 11 July 1942 the Squadron had 13 Spitfires IXs. First operational mission with a full complement of Spitfire IXs was 28 July 1942. 30 July 1942 the Squadron destroyed 5 FW 190's whist flying Spitfire IXs:
I can confirm your impression that the rule for UK based Spitfire IX units was that they went operational once capable of putting 12 Spitfire IXs in the air for a mission.
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Gratefully received Mike
thank you for your time and effort
We do tend to wander off-theme from time to time but it's always an interesting thrash, we'll get back to the Mustang eventually
thank you for your time and effort
We do tend to wander off-theme from time to time but it's always an interesting thrash, we'll get back to the Mustang eventually
NZTyphoon
Airman 1st Class
The Spitfire Mk XIV entered service in early 1944 - by April three squadrons were using them: 610, 91 and 322(Dutch) Sqns; these units were used against the V-1s starting in June '44 and were the most successful anti-diver Spitfire units (along with 41 Sqn still using Mk XIIs).
By September 1944 there were four more squadrons equipping with the Mk XIV; 41, 130, 350(Belgium) and 402(Canadian) Sqns while 322 Sqn "reverted" to Mk IXs. Two other units 2 and 430(Canadian) Sqns started using FR Mk XVIs in November '44. The FR units, BTW, were often involved in air-to-air combat and at least one 262 was shot down by 430 Sqn.
By the end of the war 957 Spitfire XIVs had been built - how many P-51Hs had been built, let alone entered operational service, let alone shot down V-1s or German fighters?
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
By VE Day ~ 500 P-51H's were built, all deployed stateside, none entered combat although first delivered in squadron level strength in March 1945.. no need to deply. The USAAF had already picked the 51H for future long range strategic escort, the P-82 for all weather interception and Very Long Range escort - and were all about conserving them for post WWII.
The Mk XIV as you say was deployed by summer 1944 against V-1's - long before the first P-51H rolled off production in Feb 1945
The Mk XIV as you say was deployed by summer 1944 against V-1's - long before the first P-51H rolled off production in Feb 1945
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
