- Thread starter
- #81
Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
This accurately describes the advantages of each.
I doubt that P-51s were careful to avoid attention of any aircraft when escorting bombers.
At escort altitudes, 20k up, the P-51D performance ranged from roughly equivalent to the Fw-190D-9 at 20k to clearly superior above. Aside note, the P-51B performance was equivalent to the Dora from SL to 15k, where it pulled away in speed. Above 20k it was no contest, the P-51B had a great advantage in speed, an improving advantage in climb, and of course, an advantage in dive. The Dora had better avoid the P-51B above 20k.
The Spitfire XIV was generally superior to the P-51D in airspeed and climb throughout the envelope. The ace up the sleeve for the P-51D was, of course, range. A note here, the P-51B, Spitfire XIV, and the Dora were quite similar in performance up to 15k where the Dora was starting to run out of air. At about 25k, the P-51B was starting to lag behind the Spit, which continued good performance above 35k.
- Thread starter
- #83
The average P-51B wasn't much faster above 20kft Davparlr, and maneuverability still wasn't as good as that of the Dora. The fw-190Dora-9 held clear advantages in speed, climb rate maneuverability up to 25 kft, after which the P-51B was slightly faster and started climbing faster as-well. However caliming it was no contest is wrong, as proven during actual dogfights at bomber alts where the Dora's were causing the escorts some real trouble.
Sadly for the Germans there were never enough Dora-9's to go around and they were always grossly outnumbered by the Allied escorts.
The real champ at all alts was the Dora-13 which was superior to any Allied fighter in service from SL and up.
Sadly for the Germans there were never enough Dora-9's to go around and they were always grossly outnumbered by the Allied escorts.
The real champ at all alts was the Dora-13 which was superior to any Allied fighter in service from SL and up.
drgondog
Major
The Dora never had enough numbers to do any damage, and yes they were an equal to the 51. Having said that, 8th AF pilots chased them and shot them down with the same entusiasm as the Anton.
This was all about relatively equivalent aircraft and inferior pilots, The 355th, which only number five in air to air awards for 8th AF, lost one shot down and one hitting the ground chasing a Dora for 9 awarded. This was actually a lower air ratio than against the 262.
- Thread starter
- #85
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
While I love the D-13 for its looks and performance, it never played any role at all.
- Thread starter
- #87
eddie_brunette
Senior Airman
Spitfire for me
edd
edd
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
But are they cross-checked with German losses?
I'm sure by the time the Dora arrived in any relevant numbers it simply was too late to get the recognition it might have gained if available in late '43 or early '44. It's funny though how it is seen as the ultimate German piston fighter in modern public opinion. In the end it only equalized the advantage the Allies had gained with the P-51. Back in its best days the Anton did far better than the Dora. Because it gave a performance advantage and didn't just equalize one.
Regarding the Spitfire vs. the P-51: I think you guys go by performance figures way too much. First of all the P-51 D was available in much greater numbers than the Mk XIV. It was cheaper, more reliable and safer. Development potential also was higher (imo), especially when taking into consideration that the P-51 achieved a top speed of what 40-50 (?) km/h higher than the Spitfire with the same engine. The P-51's airframe was simply better. Finally, from a strategical point of view the P-51 could do anything the Mk XIV could and more.
KrazyKraut
as Suren put it
"The Spitfire Mk.XIV if its for country defense, and the P-51 if it's for escort duties."
Spit XIV climbed clearly better, P-51D had much better range. I don't have price for Spit XIV (price comprasions are always a bit problematic when incl exchange rate but as USAAF late war fighter P-51D was clearly cheaper than P-47D or late P-38s), reliability or safety info, can you give some figures?
TIA
Juha
as Suren put it
"The Spitfire Mk.XIV if its for country defense, and the P-51 if it's for escort duties."
Spit XIV climbed clearly better, P-51D had much better range. I don't have price for Spit XIV (price comprasions are always a bit problematic when incl exchange rate but as USAAF late war fighter P-51D was clearly cheaper than P-47D or late P-38s), reliability or safety info, can you give some figures?
TIA
Juha
- Thread starter
- #91
The Dora didn't just equalize things, it also gave the Germans the advantage at low to medium altitudes. (Hence its sterling record in the east where it litterally slaughtered the VVS fighters) The Dora-9 was faster than the Allied fighters at low to medium alts, climbed faster and featured unrivalled manuverability at the speed regimes where most fights took place. Sadly for the Germans however there were never enough proper trained pilots, fuel or Dora's to allow it to have any significant impact. Furthermore the fights on the western front usually took place at alts greater than 25,000 ft. But the Dora did nonetheless cause the escorts some problems, as Willi Reschke relates in his book 'Wilde Sau', as it gave an enormous boost in high alt performance compared to the Anton.
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
Well I disagree. The Dora was a nice fighter and somewhat superior at low-to-medium altitudes to contemporary western props (though the P-51 was still faster down low iirc), but the difference (real and felt) was never as big as the difference the Anton made in late '41 / early '42. Considering the combat altitudes the Dora was still at a disadvantage a lot of times.
The VVS got slaughtered by Antons and Bf 109s aswell, the reasons mostly lie elsewhere. On the eastern front, in theory, the difference between Anton and Dora should be relatively small as the combat altitudes were so low.
The VVS got slaughtered by Antons and Bf 109s aswell, the reasons mostly lie elsewhere. On the eastern front, in theory, the difference between Anton and Dora should be relatively small as the combat altitudes were so low.
- Thread starter
- #93
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Price comparisons aren't always best either, as -durring wartime- time (man hours) required to complete them is a much more important factor than actual cost. (actual use of strategic materials would be important too, less so for the US though given the massive resourses)
If somthing is more expensive but can be built in less time the latter could be advantageous. (again, use of materials is an independent concern as well)
I'm not sure on the exact figures but iirc (from several comparisons made previously on this forum) the P-38J cost about 2x the P-51, while the P-47 cost ~1.5x the P-51 (this remaining fairly constant from 1944 onwards), however the construction times fluctuate cosiderably more (generally decreasing as the war progressed) but in one comparison the P-47 took ~2x as long as the P-51 and the P-38 ~1.5 times as long I think.
In peace time cost (and maintainence costs) would be much more of a concern.
If somthing is more expensive but can be built in less time the latter could be advantageous. (again, use of materials is an independent concern as well)
I'm not sure on the exact figures but iirc (from several comparisons made previously on this forum) the P-38J cost about 2x the P-51, while the P-47 cost ~1.5x the P-51 (this remaining fairly constant from 1944 onwards), however the construction times fluctuate cosiderably more (generally decreasing as the war progressed) but in one comparison the P-47 took ~2x as long as the P-51 and the P-38 ~1.5 times as long I think.
In peace time cost (and maintainence costs) would be much more of a concern.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
?
All performance figures are for fighter weight, 9069 lbs for the P-51B, and 9480 lbs for the Fw-190D-9.
Around 15k ft, performance comparison, at fighter weight, between the P-51B and the Fw-190D-9 is roughly equivalent.
Airspeed
P-51B 428 mph
Fw-190D-9 432 mph
Very slight advantage Fw
Climb
P-51B 3700 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 3740 ft/min
Very slight advantage Fw
Turning – advantage Fw
Dive - advantage P-51
However at about 16k ft, the Fw-190D-9 engine starts losing significant power, while the P-51 engine is into its second wind. This starts to show up around 20k where the P-51 gains significant improvement of airspeed over the Fw.
Airspeed
P-51B 442 mph
Fw-190D-9 426 mph
Significant advantage P-51
Climb
P-51B 2940 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 2992 ft/min
No advantage here for the Fw since climbing would only improve P-51 performance over the Fw.
Turning – advantage Fw
Dive – advantage P-51
Above that, the P-51B is continually improving in performance, with only turn performance an advantage for the Fw-190D-9, a historically not an overpowering advantage. At, 25k,
Airspeed
P-51B 440 mph
Fw-190D-9 417 mph
Significant advantage P-51
Climb
P-51B 2650 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 2158 ft/min
Advantage P-51
Turning – power loss will affect turn performance but I'll give advantage to Fw
Dive – Advantage P-51
So, at bomber altitudes, 20k and above, the Fw-190D-9 was at a disadvantage and was not the best aircraft for the job. The Bf-109K was a much better choice.
The Fw-190D-9 a/s numbers are taken from Fw chart showing Fw-190As, Ds, and Ta-152s. Other charts show various a/s for different D-9s (different engines?). These show some versions better at lower altitudes but worse at higher altitudes. All show the Fw-190D-9 falling behind the P-51B in a/s above 15k, significantly above 25k.
Less wrong than your statement "as the "Dora" was superior in every aspect of flight except diving !", as I have just shown.
Their best use would have been for protecting the Me-262s, more of which were really needed by the Luftwaffe.
The Dora-13 looked like an impressive aircraft, out performing the Ta-152H up to 37k. It makes one wonder why they spent resources on the Ta-152H when there was no threats up there. I've commented on this before. It still would have been outperformed by the P-51H up to 25k, which, by the way, was in service, as was the Tempest II, which would have outperformed the Dora-13 to 20k.
This is not correct. The Tempest II, which was delivered, was MUCH faster at all altitudes compared to the Fw-190D-9. The P-51B airspeed and climb performance was within error calculations of both speed and climb up to 15k where it started to exhibit superior performance.
SL
Airspeed
Fw-190D-9 385 mph
P-51B 386 mph
Tempest II 416 mph
Climb
Fw-190D-9 4429 ft/min
P-51B 4700 ft/min
Tempest II 4700 ft/min
5k
Airspeed
Fw-190D-9 405 mph
P-51B 400 mph
Tempest II 425 mph
Climb
Fw-190D-9 4134 ft/min
P-51B 4500 ft/min
Tempest II 4200 ft/min
10k
Airspeed
Fw-190D-9 413 mph
P-51B 420 mph
Tempest II 440 mph
Climb
Fw-190D-9 4134 ft/min
P-51B 3750 ft/min
Tempest II 3900 ft/min
It is obvious that the Fw-190D-9 did not have a significant advantage over allied aircraft at any altitude.
Had the Germans fielded a threatening number of Fw-190D-9s or Bf-109ks in late 44, you would have seen a rapid build up of P-51Hs, P-47Ms, Tempest IIs, and possibly P-72s, by January, '45, which would have negated any prop planes the Luftwaffe could field (except at very high altitude where the Ta-152H would still reign supreme.)
The truth is that by fall, 1944, the Allies considered that the war in Europe could be won with the aircraft on hand and did not pursue advanced aircraft, except for performance evaluation like the P-80, in the theater. Had the threat changed, this would have changed.
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
We had this a couple of times now and there is no "truth" in neither what you or Soren say, because it's all just seculation. Besides that, the Tempest II never seeing any action was due to a pretty messed up production planning not because it wasn't needed. It also makes more sense to evaluate the Dora vs. the P-51 D because the transition had progressed well when the Dora arrived in numbers and I highly doubt the USAAF would've ever switched back because of the B's small performance advantage.
I think the "had this happened had that happened" game has been played to death. Let's focus on the things that actually fought.
drgondog
Major
We had this a couple of times now and there is no "truth" in neither what you or Soren say, because it's all just seculation. Besides that, the Tempest II never seeing any action was due to a pretty messed up production planning not because it wasn't needed. It also makes more sense to evaluate the Dora vs. the P-51 D because the transition had progressed well when the Dora arrived in numbers and I highly doubt the USAAF would've ever switched back because of the B's small performance advantage.
I think the "had this happened had that happened" game has been played to death. Let's focus on the things that actually fought.
At least 20% of 8th AF FC in April 1945 were still B/C with the 1650-7 Merlin.
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
I know but just because the B and C had some better performance figures doesn't make them the overall better planes and I think the D would be a better comparison to the Dora.
For a similar case: Some of the early 109 Gs also had better performance than the G-6 and were used for a long time after the latter had been introduced, still it makes more sense to take the G-6 if you want to compare '43 fighter aircraft.
For a similar case: Some of the early 109 Gs also had better performance than the G-6 and were used for a long time after the latter had been introduced, still it makes more sense to take the G-6 if you want to compare '43 fighter aircraft.
drgondog
Major
Well the 51D had more guns and ammo but weighed 600-900 piunds more for same airframe. 51B turned better and climbed better and was faster. One of those will usually work to your advantage. After all the wheel uplock and tail mods they were structurally more sound in a high pullout - load to load being equal.
Malcolm Hood had good visibility but not as good as teardrop so that is a downcheck, ditto the 4 vs 6 50 cal and ammo.
Hello KrazyKraut
Later Tempest Vs with Sabre IIB were faster than 190D-9 at sea level and up to appr 9500ft and then again from 19500ft upwards, early Tempest Vs with Sabre IIA were faster than 190 D-9 between appr. 1,000 - 10,000 ft and then again from 19500ft upwards.
Juha
Later Tempest Vs with Sabre IIB were faster than 190D-9 at sea level and up to appr 9500ft and then again from 19500ft upwards, early Tempest Vs with Sabre IIA were faster than 190 D-9 between appr. 1,000 - 10,000 ft and then again from 19500ft upwards.
Juha
