PDA

View Full Version : " P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes"



BSS_Goat
08-31-2004, 06:06 AM
"What was important was the German Air Force had a formation of captured aircraft restored. They came for training to my fighter leader school. Certainly, I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect."

Per Gunther Rall 275+ kill German Experten

Maybe the P-51 isnt UBERED after all?

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

[This message was edited by BSS_Goat on Tue August 31 2004 at 05:21 AM.]

BSS_Goat
08-31-2004, 06:06 AM
"What was important was the German Air Force had a formation of captured aircraft restored. They came for training to my fighter leader school. Certainly, I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect."

Per Gunther Rall 275+ kill German Experten

Maybe the P-51 isnt UBERED after all?

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

[This message was edited by BSS_Goat on Tue August 31 2004 at 05:21 AM.]

Bearcat99
08-31-2004, 06:20 AM
There is absolutely no doubt that the P-51 was one of the best warplanes of the era. Just keep in mind guys...... he said ONE OF THE BEST.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

(Hoooooo boy.... I can see thios one taking off.... ROFLMAO... I can imagine what it will look like when I get home from work.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

BSS_Goat
08-31-2004, 06:22 AM
What does some dude named Gunther know? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

[This message was edited by BSS_Goat on Tue August 31 2004 at 05:34 AM.]

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-31-2004, 06:24 AM
yup like mr Rall said "one of the best"
as is reflected ingame

Mr Rall is not realy talking about the P51 performance but more about comfort like good view to the back,easy engine starter,stable undercarriage,weapon set etc

and yes when whe are talking about that i think the P51 is one of the best if not the best http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-31-2004, 06:26 AM
damn you guys are fast with the reply http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

BSS_Goat
08-31-2004, 06:33 AM
Agreed Sunburst not trying to start another war just bored at work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

Xnomad
08-31-2004, 07:08 AM
Didn't we have the same thread a week ago?

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

Xnomad
08-31-2004, 07:10 AM
double post, the forums going all funny again.

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Tue August 31 2004 at 09:31 AM.]

arcadeace
08-31-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Didn't we have a thread like this a week ago?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same exact quotation, I think it ended locked?

LEXX_Luthor
08-31-2004, 10:32 AM
I believe it may have been Rall who stated that P~51 was "the best" WW2 fighter because of its long range. Saw this in an interview with one of the great German Aces. Saburo said the same thing cos unlike the Zero, the P~51 didn't sacrifice everthing else to fly 2000km.

Thankfully, Rall's opinion can be safely ignored by us, who use 30km dogfighter maps.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A [I]...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BSS_Goat
08-31-2004, 10:58 AM
<A HREF="http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html" TARGET=_blank>

Mr RALL on range:
I was particularly interested about, when in combat, for example against the P-51 with the later fighters.
Rall: Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! &lt;Laughs&gt; Ja? And the pilot sits... But, you know, if you fly seven and a half hours, you cannot fly seven and a half hours in the cockpit in the 109. You MUST have a better cockpit, which the P-51 has, they came from England. They flew 7 hours, you know? And so there are differences. But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, end quote

You are right LEXX I posted this just to show it was a good fighter, maybe not the best but among the best, as it is now in FB.

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

[URL=http://www.blacksheep214.com/]http://www.blacksheep214.com/</A>

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

Kartveli
08-31-2004, 11:49 AM
What makes a fighter gret in RL doesnt make it so in FB...remember, Rall's appriasal includes ergonomics, which is not an issue in a sim....performance-wise, the P51 is not as spetacular as its record would indicate...one must remember that by the time decent numbers were available for use in the ETO, the LW had already had its keen blade dulled, if only somewhat....and not long thereafter, the sky was an aluminum overcast (apologies to the peacemaker) of stangs, so its superiority could not be challenged by then....

In fact, if not for the unit cost of the P38 vs the P51, not to mention 2x the royalties that would have to be paid to Rolls Royce fo rtwice as many packard-built Merlins in the 38s, the (then) USAF would have gone with the older, yet more capable P38 as its standard prop day fighter

RedDeth
08-31-2004, 11:58 AM
"VERY GOOD WEAPONS SET" and thats just the 4 and 6 machine guns of the p51s. not the 8 of the jug!!


Rall praises the weapons of the p51. note how nobody mentions that that.

rall didnt say the mustang had puny machine guns next to our cannons.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

BSS_Goat
08-31-2004, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kartveli:
the (then) USAF would have gone with the older, yet more capable P38 as its standard prop day fighter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read that also but I thought it came from a P-38 pilot(grain of salt added). I have never seen (or looked for) any records or reports stating this.

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

horseback
08-31-2004, 12:56 PM
P-38s flew on turbosupercharged Allison V-1710 engines, not Merlins. In addition, the Lightning had too long a learning curve for the ETO, not to mention the cooling and cockpit heating issues. The key words leading to the choice of the Mustang are: easy to fly.

A pilot entering combat for the first time doesn't want an airplane, no matter how capable, that is hard to fly, and takes several months to master. That was the major contrast between the Mustang and the 109 series (and, coincidentally, the Lightning). Good ergonomics translate into better pilot efficiency.

As long as the planes' performances are roughly similar, the pilot who can control his aircraft better wins the vast majority of the time. It took less time for a rookie to learn to fly and fight with the Mustang than it did for any other USAAF fighter, far less than it took to master the 109, conferring a huge advantage upon the rookie Mustang driver over the even less experienced average 109 driver, even after flying for a couple of boring hours on oxygen.

In this respect, even more than long range, the Mustang was a better fighter than the 109. Young pilots had a lot less apprehension of takeoffs and landings, and survived them in greater numbers to gain greater combat related skills. Experten with long years of experience in the type were capable of exploiting all of the 109's combat potential, but doing so was a lot harder for the younger guys just coming into the Jagdewaffe.

In many ways, the Mustang would have been preferable for the Luftwaffe in 1944 to the 109 or 190.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Friendly_flyer
08-31-2004, 03:47 PM
Well yes, the Pony is an easy plane to fly in the game, at least compared to the '109 and '190. I think Horsebacks analysis is a very good one.

Fly friendly!

Petter B├┬Şckman
Norway

Lord-Raptor
08-31-2004, 05:48 PM
Spitfire allll the way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

During the Battle of Britian, Hermann Goering asked Adolf Galland "What do you need to defeat the British?" to which Galland Replied "A Squadron of Spitfires"

LStarosta
08-31-2004, 06:09 PM
You know, you wouldn't be saying that if Oleg removed the Spit's gravity-off button.

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!

Chuck_Older
08-31-2004, 06:22 PM
Pfft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Nobody likes the Mustang. Gentile was a n00b, Godfrey wasn't any better. Preddy was lucky. Anderson and Yeager made up stories while drinking whisky. Howard musta had a horsehoe up his butt.

Anyone who even likes the looks of the Mustang needs glasses. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Chuck_Older
08-31-2004, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kartveli:

In fact, if not for the unit cost of the P38 vs the P51, not to mention 2x the royalties that would have to be paid to Rolls Royce fo rtwice as many packard-built Merlins in the 38s, the (then) USAF would have gone with the older, yet more capable P38 as its standard prop day fighter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, but that would have been a grave mistake. Consider how difficult it was to maintain a single engined plane for combat readiness, and then imagine how hard it would be to service and repair the twin engined and turbocharged P-38 as quickly as a ground crew could service a P-51. The P-38's cowlings were very tight fits to the engines and were not particularly loved by ground grew.

Horseback has already mentioned who built the engines, so I won't touch on that except to say that blow-by was a real concern for the Allison and only recently has this been rectified to any large degree (By Bud Wheeler and Allison Competition Engines)

The Allison was a very serviceable engine that was simply outshined by a better, supercharged one.

In regards to pilots, Mustang pilots were rotated home just as quickly as any other US fighter pilot, I beleive the common tour was 300 hours, and a long range pilot like a P-51 jock could rack that up quickly. What this means is that there was the potential for P-51 pilots to not be all battle-hardened veterans, they would be a mix of experienced and novice pilots. It always intrigues me to hear how the Luftwafee was stripped of it's best pilots, but nobody mentions that similar to German pilots, US pilots were often novices- just not for the same reason. The US pilots that weren't flying combat were home somtimes on 30 day leave between tours, or back home as instructors (one of the very skilled Mustang jocks only had 6 kills- he was an instructor for a long time), or re-assigned, while German pilots who weren't flying were...dead. It seems more dynamic to say that Germany was stripped of it's best pilots, but it always seems to slip everyone's mind that US pilots didn't fight for years and years- they went home and were replaced. So if the Luftwaffe's sword had been blunted, they were not fencing with the same swordsmen who blunted it- in many cases, they (US pilots) were novices by the time US forces had air superiority.

As a last note, there was no USAF until 1947 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It was the USAAC and then the USAAF

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Tue August 31 2004 at 05:40 PM.]

JG7_Rall
08-31-2004, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
You know, you wouldn't be saying that if Oleg removed the Spit's gravity-off button.

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Someone nominate this man for president!

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/InGallantCompany.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!
Flying online as Hutch51

3.JG51_BigBear
08-31-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord-Raptor:
Spitfire allll the way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

During the Battle of Britian, Hermann Goering asked Adolf Galland "What do you need to defeat the British?" to which Galland Replied "A Squadron of Spitfires"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One quick little thing here if I may. Galland made this statement after Goering had just reamed the jagdwaffe units for, in Georing's opinion, not safe guarding the bombers enough. It was at this time that the Lufwaffe 109 units were ordered to fly even tighter escort formation and thus began to think of themselves as "chained dogs" (sorry I can't remember the German word for this). Galland made this statement because he felt the close escort role negated all the advantages of the 109 over the spitfire and accentuated all the advantages that the spitfire had over the 109.

I don't think Galland ever had any great love for the spit and he certainly did well enough for himself in the 109, his statement was more a sarcastic remark meant to piss off Georing and point out his disatisfaction with his new orders.

http://img75.photobucket.com/albums/v228/AFunderJack/bigbearsig.jpg

Bearcat99
08-31-2004, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kartveli:

In fact, if not for the unit cost of the P38 vs the P51, not to mention 2x the royalties that would have to be paid to Rolls Royce fo rtwice as many packard-built Merlins in the 38s, the (then) USAF would have gone with the older, yet more capable P38 as its standard prop day fighter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, but that would have been a grave mistake. Consider how difficult it was to maintain a single engined plane for combat readiness, and then imagine how hard it would be to service and repair the twin engined and turbocharged P-38 as quickly as a ground crew could service a P-51. The P-38's cowlings were very tight fits to the engines and were not particularly loved by ground grew.

Horseback has already mentioned who built the engines, so I won't touch on that except to say that blow-by was a real concern for the Allison and only recently has this been rectified to any large degree (By Bud Wheeler and Allison Competition Engines)

The Allison was a very serviceable engine that was simply outshined by a better, supercharged one.

In regards to pilots, Mustang pilots were rotated home just as quickly as any other US fighter pilot, I beleive the common tour was 300 hours, and a long range pilot like a P-51 jock could rack that up quickly. What this means is that there was the potential for P-51 pilots to not be all battle-hardened veterans, they would be a mix of experienced and novice pilots. It always intrigues me to hear how the Luftwafee was stripped of it's best pilots, but nobody mentions that similar to German pilots, US pilots were often novices- just not for the same reason. The US pilots that weren't flying combat were home somtimes on 30 day leave between tours, or back home as instructors (one of the very skilled Mustang jocks only had 6 kills- he was an instructor for a long time), or re-assigned, while German pilots who weren't flying were...dead. It seems more dynamic to say that Germany was stripped of it's best pilots, but it always seems to slip everyone's mind that US pilots didn't fight for years and years- they went home and were replaced. So if the Luftwaffe's sword had been blunted, they were not fencing with the same swordsmen who blunted it- in many cases, they (US pilots) were novices by the time US forces had air superiority.

As a last note, there was no USAF until 1947 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It was the USAAC and then the USAAF

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Tue August 31 2004 at 05:40 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice post Chuck.... and something that I had not even thought of. Boy am I glad to see this thread hasnt morphed into some ugly beastie... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

robban75
08-31-2004, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The key words leading to the choice of the Mustang are: _easy to fly._

In many ways, the Mustang would have been preferable for the Luftwaffe in 1944 to the 109 or 190.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't agree with you fully on this one. The Fw 190 was certainly not harder to fly than a P-51. It's widespread landing gear offered good stability and strength, the plane seldom needed to be trimmed during flight, it was very stable at all times. The "kommandoger├┬Ąt" took alot of the workload from the pilot, enabling him to focus on the mission at hand. I'd say the Fw 190 was every bit as good as the Mustang in this regard.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Aaron_GT
09-01-2004, 12:01 AM
"In many ways, the Mustang would have been preferable for the Luftwaffe in 1944 to the 109 or 190"

The Luftwaffe, for defence of the Reich at least, needed planes with good cannon armament, but only needed limited range, for primarily attacking bombers. The P51B (early 1944) was a long range air superiority fighter with armament that would not have been sufficiently heavy for primarily attacking bombers (unless the Mustang 1A armament had been used). In addtion the 190A was the primary close-in attacker of the bombers in 1944, with the advantage of having a more robust radial engine.

WTE_Galway
09-01-2004, 12:02 AM
with regard to the P38 vs P51D debate


the P38 dominated land based fighter ops for the US in the Pacific for most of the war score more japanese kills then any other allied plane

but to be technical about it .. it SUCKED bigtime in the cold conditions of Northern Europe ... and would have taken a lot of work to be made suitable for Northern european operations

Aaron_GT
09-01-2004, 02:52 AM
"the P38 dominated land based fighter ops for the US in the Pacific for most of the war score more japanese kills then any other allied plane"

The long range P51 wasn't available until 1944, so the P40, P38, F4F, F4U, F6F (and to a minor extent the P39, plus the P35 and P36 very early on) were holding the line for the USAAF, USN, and Marines for a good 2 years before the P51 was an option. It would be interesting to see what the kill:sortie rate for each of these planes was, as it would give a more equal footing. AFAIK the F6F/FM2 is the plane awarded the most kills in the Pacific theatre, but then carrier planes probably got to fly more sorties in the Pacific (or the island hopping part - depends what theatre you count CBI as, I suppose).

Friendly_flyer
09-01-2004, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Fw 190 was certainly not harder to fly than a P-51.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we assume that the flight models for the two planes in the game are reasonably close to what they where actually like, I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. I take it you have tried them bout out? I not a particularly good flyer (actually, I suck), but I have no problems flying the P-51 (I even completed the Hells Gazells campaign), but have quite a fight even keeping the 190 in the air, let alone hitting anything with it. The 190 is particularly unforgiving to an inexperienced pilot like me. If I were a Hitlerjugend lad drafted to the Luftwaffe in 1945, I would have vastly preferred a plane with the P-51's flight characteristics over the 190.

Having flown neither in real life, I can not assess whether the two are accurately modelled, though.

Fly friendly!

Petter B├┬Şckman
Norway

csThor
09-01-2004, 04:58 AM
That's because the Fw 190 has a far too low climbrate paired with an excessive E-bleed (in comparison to other planes) and lacks two of its main advantages:

dive acceleration
zoomclimb

Put in the strange "wobbling" of the controls (which does not correspond to pilot reports who loved the direct and crisp controls) and somewhat strange MG 151/20 effects when compared to say Hispano 20mm and you've got the problems you report. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

Friendly_flyer
09-01-2004, 05:32 AM
Nope, it's bacause the FW-190 consistently ends up in a stall, starts to spin and fall out of the sky whenever I tuch the controlls. The P-51 is fairly user-friendly.

Fly friendly!

Petter B├┬Şckman
Norway

robban75
09-01-2004, 06:17 AM
The Fw 190 in FB/AEP suffers from an undermodelled climbrate, unstable flight characteristics, excessive rollrate, undermodelled firepower, and a totally inaccurate stall/spin behavior. In RL the Fw 190 was VERY easy to fly, according to several test reports!

In FB/AEP, well, I find it quite easy to fly and I rarely stall with it, but I've flown it since the dawn of IL2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The 190 requires a gentle hand. The Fw 190 is very nose heavy compared to the P-51, which is as light as the Spitfire in this regard. Correct or not I don't know.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

horseback
09-01-2004, 09:06 AM
Range of the Mustang would have been a huge plus for the Reichsdefense fighters-especially with the limitations of radar and ground control at the time. A large standing CAP loitering at high alts on likely avenues of entry for the 'Fat Cars' with the speed and range to reach distant intruders, make more than one pass-dive away from the escorts-climb back up for more cycle. 109s had barely enough fuel capacity for one climb to alt and a pass through the bombers before having to avoid the escorts by diving for home.

The 190, by virtue of its lesser climb and high altitude performance, was not much better in the face of escorted bombers, despite its much greater hitting power. It was comparable to the Mustang in ease of operation, but it was at its best below 7000m, while the bombers came in at over 8000m almost from the beginning, and the Mustang seemed to get better the faster and higher it got.

Range is a classic force multiplier, and the superior performance at high alts is a further advantage over the FW 190. While it lacked the four cannon armament of the 190, from a German perspective, how hard would it be to pack a few MG 151s in those wings?

On the other hand, if the P-38 had been developed in say, Buffalo, NY instead of Southern California, it might have even better suited the needs of the Jagdewaffe than the Mustang...

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

131st_Staind
09-01-2004, 09:13 AM
Lets remember guys ,and I love the pony with all it's faults,that no matter how good an airplane is the skill of that pilot in his aircaft ,gained through his experience in it,is what matters,all of the fighters in the ETO and PTO had good strengths and sometimes considerable weaknesses but pilots through experience would learn how to exploit and in the cause of shortcomings avoid them that is what produced success in the air.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/staind558-il2sig2.jpg
The Idea is not to arrive at the grave, safely in a well preserved body, but to slide in sideways at 400 miles an hour, totally exhausted saying "WOW,what a ride"-
CWO3 (Gunner) CH Harris USMC

[This message was edited by 131st_Staind on Thu September 02 2004 at 03:40 AM.]

[This message was edited by 131st_Staind on Thu September 02 2004 at 03:41 AM.]

geetarman
09-01-2004, 09:17 AM
I'm no expert on why the USAAC made the move to the P-51 over the P-38. I imagine it was down to many reasons including performance, cost, etc.

That said, many pilots felt the 38 was as good as the 51, particularly at lower and much higher altitdes, except for top speed. The one problem, besides complexity of operation, that the 38 had was it's poor engine reliability at high altitude in the ETO.

Many of the pilots in the PTO did not want to give up their Lightnings and go over to 51D's.

What is interesting is you can feel a lot of this in the sim. The 51 does really well in some things and the 38 comes close. Then again the 38 has some advantages over the 51. Basically they seem to be modelled well in respectto each other.

horseback
09-01-2004, 01:38 PM
Modellingwise, in FB both aircraft lack their greatest strengths; the P-38's lack of torque and extremely forgiving stall and the Mustang's tremendous dive accelleration advantage over LW fighters.

However, as I have pointed out on several threads on the P-38, it took a long time to master. Nobody could fully exploit the Lightning's strengths without over 150 hours (figure at most 2-3 hours a day flying time during the early 1940s. That's two or three additional months after completing the basic pilot and fighter training) in the type, according to the experts of the time. It was probably even harder to master than the 109.

From an economics standpoint, that alone made it a problem in the ETO, never mind the added base price of the aircraft over the P-47 or Mustang.

Successful P-38 units either enjoyed a significant performance advantage over the opposition (in the Pacific, for example), or they had a long gestation period in the type (as in the case of the 1st & 14th FGs in North Africa, who had been 'babysat' through the initial introduction of the big fighter by Lockheed and AAF experts back in the States).

Other units bringing the Lightning into combat either had limited enemy air contact or had their heads handed to them.

Pilots who had learned the Lightning didn't want to have to deal with the inherent insecurity of only one engine, or build the stronger thigh muscles necessary to deal with all that torque; the vast majority, once they had gotten into combat in a Mustang, quit their whining.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

robban75
09-01-2004, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Modellingwise, in FB both aircraft lack their greatest strengths; the P-38's lack of torque and extremely forgiving stall and the Mustang's tremendous dive accelleration advantage over LW fighters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tremendous dive acceleration advantage? The P-51A and Fw 190A-3 were roughly equal in the dive. The P-51B/D was faster than the P-51A in the dive, and the Fw 190D-9 was significantly faster in the dive compared to the Fw 190A-3.
On a whole the P-51B/D probably had a slight advantage in the dive compared to the Fw 190D-9, but I wouldn't call it tremendous.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Aaron_GT
09-01-2004, 02:43 PM
horseback wrote:
"Range of the Mustang would have been a huge plus for the Reichsdefense fighters-especially with the limitations of radar and ground control at the time."

Germany had one of the most advanced ground radar systems in the war. The ground control procedures for day fighting were perhaps not quite as well developed as those of the RAF, though. However it was not really a problem for the LW to track day raids forming up well before they got anywhere close to Germany. Some increase in endurance (and comfort) for the 109 would have helped in terms of forming up large numbers of fighters, but these seemed to be possible to form anyway. Given the failure to take the Caucasian oil fields fuel was typically in short supply and so long loitering wasn't really an option anyway (a slight chicken and egg situation perhaps, as if the air defence was better than the oil targets would have been hit less, but then the natural oil targets were in Romania anyway). So basically 1000 mile range for the 109 or 190 wouldn't have done the LW very much good.

Aaron_GT
09-01-2004, 02:46 PM
horseback wrote:
"However, as I have pointed out on several threads on the P-38, it took a long time to master. Nobody could fully exploit the Lightning's strengths without over 150 hours"

Even with CEM engine management of the P38 is a lot easier in the 109.

There are a whole series of factors not modelled in FB, though - especially component reliability, ease of use of systems, and factors affecting pilot fatigue. It would be nice to see some of these modelled in some way in BoB, although I am sure it would cause all sorts of unholy debates on these forums about whether or not the fatigue factor of the 109 is too harsh o r the P51 too comfortable!

horseback
09-01-2004, 05:00 PM
CEM in FB and RL are two vastly different things. You can't model ergonomics, and CEM, by necessity, has to skip over some steps (switching fuel tanks before releasing your drop tanks, for example, was a notable pain in the *** for Lightning drivers).

The big bugaboo for the 109 was not it's flying characteristics, which were universally acclaimed, but takeoff and landings, which cost hundreds, if not thousands, of pilots injuries and lives. If FB modelled that accurately, nobody could play the game.

As for the wartime German radar system, it was orders of magnitude less effective than the British, largely because of the size of the territory that had to be covered. Because of the range of the bomber streams, they could enter German airspace from three sides (from the west, the north, and the south), and the short range of the 109s (the best climbing German fighter) was crippling.

On several occasions, US air raids were missed completely because the bomber stream turned in a direction not predicted by Ground Control, and the fighters lacked the range to compensate.

The chicken and egg issue is a legitimate one, though.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Magister__Ludi
09-01-2004, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The big bugaboo for the 109 was not it's flying characteristics, which were universally acclaimed, but takeoff and landings, which cost hundreds, if not thousands, of pilots injuries and lives. If FB modelled that accurately, nobody could play the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have a solid proof for your affirmation, like a take-off/landing accidents per 1000 sorties ratio comparison between Fw-190 and Bf-109? You cannot compare this ratio with that of a P-51, which was operated in much better conditions than 109s and 190s on the rough fields in Russia. Be sure that P-51s would not be even able to operate there. Mustangs were evaluated but refused by the Russians and the fragile Spitfires were not front line qualified, just kept in the rear to defend the cities.

P-51s were hard enough on take-off on the long and well maintained runaways they were operated in England. I remember a pilot thanking God that he first flew P-40 in combat then transitioned to P-51. He pitied the young guys forced to fly directly the P-51. I have a long description of a P-51 take-off pointing to the risks the pilot is facing. Are you interested in it?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for the wartime German radar system, it was orders of magnitude less effective than the British, largely because of the size of the territory that had to be covered. Because of the range of the bomber streams, they could enter German airspace from three sides (from the west, the north, and the south), and the short range of the 109s (the best climbing German fighter) was crippling.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an inept affirmation. German radar defense was the most extensive and effective ww2 radar network. Radar equipped fighters destroyed more than 7000 planes during the war. British Command lost between March '43 and March '44 more than 5000 bombers (including written offs), USAAF lost in ETO+MTO during 1944 more than 6000 bombers (without written offs). Note that these losses are not LW claims but BC and USAAF statistics. BC and USAAF combined lost in Europe in one year 10 times the bomber arm of Luftwaffe!! Also note that BC lost at night as much as USAAF at day (similar numbers anyway, considering that BC was smaller than USAAF) meaning that German radar technology enabled LW to be as effective at night as at it was at day. This is truly remarkable, considering the technologies available during ww2.

SkyChimp
09-01-2004, 07:34 PM
That does it for me Magister, Germany won the war! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
USAAF lost in ETO+MTO during 1944 more than 6000 bombers (without written offs). Note that these losses are not LW claims but BC and USAAF statistics. BC and USAAF combined lost in Europe in one year 10 times the bomber arm of Luftwaffe!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. And I suppose we can chalk all those up to the Luftwaffe? Of the "over 6,000", 2,329 were attributable to enemy aircraft.



Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature2.jpg

Magister__Ludi
09-01-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
That does it for me Magister, Germany won the war!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's 9:30 Chimp, go to sleep.

SkyChimp
09-01-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
That does it for me Magister, Germany won the war!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's 9:30 Chimp, go to sleep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm like a police officer. I'm on duty 24 hours a day to prevent fraud.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature2.jpg

Magister__Ludi
09-01-2004, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
That does it for me Magister, Germany won the war! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
USAAF lost in ETO+MTO during 1944 more than 6000 bombers (without written offs). Note that these losses are not LW claims but BC and USAAF statistics. BC and USAAF combined lost in Europe in one year 10 times the bomber arm of Luftwaffe!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. And I suppose we can chalk all those up to the Luftwaffe? Of the "over 6,000", 2,329 were attributable to enemy aircraft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes they were, Flak was part of the Luftwaffe. Can I buy you a book or something? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
09-01-2004, 07:51 PM
Hitler was right about one thing. Germany should have melted down its fighters and made more AA guns. They were far more effective. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature2.jpg

Magister__Ludi
09-01-2004, 07:55 PM
Chimp, you're funny. Come by more often.

SkyChimp
09-01-2004, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Chimp, you're funny. Come by more often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gop ahead, Huck. Sorry to throw in a monkey-wrench.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature2.jpg

horseback
09-01-2004, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Do you have a solid proof for your affirmation, like a take-off/landing accidents per 1000 sorties ratio comparison between Fw-190 and Bf-109? You cannot compare this ratio with that of a P-51, which was operated in much better conditions than 109s and 190s on the rough fields in Russia. Be sure that P-51s would not be even able to operate there. Mustangs were evaluated but refused by the Russians and the fragile Spitfires were not front line qualified, just kept in the rear to defend the cities.

P-51s were hard enough on take-off on the long and well maintained runaways they were operated in England. I remember a pilot thanking God that he first flew P-40 in combat then transitioned to P-51. He pitied the young guys forced to fly directly the P-51. I have a long description of a P-51 take-off pointing to the risks the pilot is facing. Are you interested in it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it was my understanding, from reading the descriptions of modern pilots who had opportunities to fly the few examples left (Mark Hanna?) that the Me 109 was actually more forgiving on a grass field than on a concrete runway. This was confirmed by a number of pilots' memoirs and unit histories. It was also noted as being difficult to land in all but near ideal conditions, and not even experten were immune to the occasional groundloop. Almost every memoir mentions pilots lost to injuries in takeoff or landing accidents in 109s.

As the most produced fighter of the thirties and forties, hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of takeoffs and landings were made in the various models of the 109, and almost all of them were made under less than ideal conditions.

Constant improvements were made to correct the aircraft's greatest flaw: it's ground handling. The landing gears' 'rake' was modified, the tailwheel was made taller, the wheels kept getting wider (and the bulges on the wings correspondingly larger) all to make taxiing, takeoffs and landings easier.

In any case, the comparison is one of relativity. Yes, Mustangs were prone to ground loops like any high powered piston engine fighter with a lot of torque. It was undoubtably more of a 'handful' than the comparatively docile P-40, especially on the habitually wet airfields of Great Britain (where I spent a significant part of my childhood), but it still handled better in takeoff and landing than the 109. It's landing gear was at least half again farther apart, providing much greater stability, which coupled with a much higher takeoff weight, would seem to me to have made torque much less of a factor.

While your offer of sharing the article about taking off in a Mustang is interesting, one should note that these things tend to be written to emphasize the danger and drama, and it still doesn't give any comparison to the risks inherent in taking off in a knock-kneed, undersized hotrod like the Me 109. It would be just as informative to get a description of the dangers of taking off in the GeeBee racers. As usual, your arguements generate more heat than light.

Mustangs operated from grass fields in Russia/Ukraine for the 'Shuttle' raids without mishap; the P-51A groups operating in Burma seemed to survive monsoon season there from rough strips fairly well, too. Generally though, Allied rough strips used the pierced steel matting rather than risk grass stains on their tires.

As for the Russians' opinion of the Mustang, they wouldn't have gotten very many of them even had they wanted them; we couldn't produce enough of them for our own needs in the ETO, Med, CBI or Pacific theaters until very late 1944. As an aircraft optimized for high altitude, long range escort duties, it didn't fit their combat philosophy, and the maintenance demands of the type didn't match up well with their disposable combat aircraft design philosophy either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This is an inept affirmation. German radar defense was the most extensive and effective ww2 radar network. Radar equipped fighters destroyed more than 7000 planes during the war. British Command lost between March '43 and March '44 more than 5000 bombers (including written offs), USAAF lost in ETO+MTO during 1944 more than 6000 bombers (without written offs). Note that these losses are not LW claims but BC and USAAF statistics. BC and USAAF combined lost in Europe in one year 10 times the bomber arm of Luftwaffe!! Also note that BC lost at night as much as USAAF at day (similar numbers anyway, considering that BC was smaller than USAAF) meaning that German radar technology enabled LW to be as effective at night as at it was at day. This is truly remarkable, considering the technologies available during ww2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, about that radar control thing: who was mounting effective bombing campaigns on whom? Effective large scale German bombing of Great Britain ended just coincidentally with the advent of the radar equipped Beaufighter and Mosquito nightfighters in sufficient numbers to cover the British Isles's southern approaches in mid 1941. Daybombing had been thoroughly discredited by the end of September, 1940 (due largely to the superior British ground control), so night bombing, with its inaccuracy and emphasis on terrorizing civilians was all that was left to the Luftwaffe in the West.

Admittedly, the bulk of the Axis' bomber strength was committed in the East at that point, but the raids they did make led to sufficiently heavy losses that they became an irregular and random occurance. Given that RAF nightfighters rarely had anything like the opportunities to score like their German counterparts (on the "practice makes perfect" principle), their efficiency is all the more impressive. Allied bombing advocates were not similarly dissuaded from pursuing their strategy, wrong-headed as this may seem in retrospect.

Now, I should point out that my reference to German ground control and radar vectoring was essentially for daylight fighters, which did not usually carry radar (being barely capable of holding enough fuel to make contact half the time as it was). It should also be pointed out that a substantial portion of Allied bomber losses were to the incredible flak batteries that seemed to carpet major portions of Germany (according to surviving Allied aircrew). In any case, if German ground control were as good as the British system, fighters would not have entirely missed the daylight bomber formations as often as they did. There was no excuse for missing any on days when the weather permitted takeoff if the system had been as good as you seem to claim.

My point was, and remains, that the limited endurance of the 109 and even 190 model fighters severely limited their usefulness as interceptors. Both, I believe, were conceived as point defense fighters, and remained most effective in those roles.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Aaron_GT
09-02-2004, 04:23 AM
horseback, I am a bit confused as to whether you mean that the 109 or the 190 had difficult ground handling. The wide track undercarriage of the 190 was similar in form to that of the P51. The 109 narrow track undercarriage was more difficult to handle, and also weaker. Actually earlier in the war when single seat single engined fighters were used as night fighters pilots often preferred the 109 due to the weakness of the undercarriage as if they came down in the dark too heavily the 109's undercarriage would simply fold back up, where as with the 190 there was a danger of bouncing over and ending up upside down.

horseback wrote:
"Effective large scale German bombing of Great Britain ended just coincidentally with the advent of the radar equipped Beaufighter and Mosquito nightfighters in sufficient numbers to cover the British Isles's southern approaches in mid 1941."

As you note, the biggest factor was probably the diversion of the bombing forces to the East. It took until much later for the RAF night fighters to actually score kills that marked a significant portion of attacking forces. If I can remember where my copy of Nightfighter is (might be at work or home) it gives breakdowns of RAF and LW figures for interceptions and kills. Interceptions, even with radar, were relatively infrequent in 1941.

By 1943 radar had improved, on both sides of the channel, but by this time the Germans had largely given up on strategic bombing of the UK (the Beidecke raids of 1942 being the last gasp). They lacked strategic bombers, and the tactical force was needed in the East. By mid 1944 strategic bombing wasn't an option at all. From 1943 onwards night fighter kill numbers increase considerably.

German radar by day was using the same ground installations, and was pretty effective as German radar equipment was of good quality, hence the extensive use of window from 1943. Also shorter wavelength airborne radars were significant, again on both sides of the channel, and there was some cross-polination (mostly East to West) from captured aircraft and defectors.

"My point was, and remains, that the limited endurance of the 109 and even 190 model fighters severely limited their usefulness as interceptors. Both, I believe, were conceived as point defense fighters, and remained most effective in those roles"

Some increase in endurace over the base endurance of the 109 would have been useful, but then for this they carried external tanks to give them more range for assembling larger numbers to attack en masse. There really wasn't really a great need for increases in internal tankage for this role. Increased loiter time for the 109 certainly wouldn't have been an option without a more comfortable cockpit as crew fatigue would have been a factor first, most likely. With improved crew comfort and no problem with fuel supplies more loiter time might have been nice, but I don't see that there is a great argument for it needing to be a requirement.

269GA-Veltro
09-02-2004, 04:42 AM
P51 is not a problem......or better, is not THE problem.

THE problem is the FW 190 serie we have in AEP: a stone with a poor engine.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

JG14_Josf
09-02-2004, 08:01 AM
Horseback wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mustang's tremendous dive accelleration advantage over LW fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Robban75 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On a whole the P-51B/D probably had a slight advantage in the dive compared to the Fw 190D-9, but I wouldn't call it tremendous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robert Shaw wrote:

"Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Focke-Wulf 190D-9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skillful use of flaps. The focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here the two masters at work:"

John Godrey wrote:

"A plane was approaching, and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock; it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf; its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW. These planes with the longer noses were rumored to have more horespower than their predecessors, and were capable of giving a Mustang a rough time. We met practically head-on and both of us banked our planes in preparation for a dogfight.
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire - but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him. I still had 400 miles of enemy territory to fly over before I could land. Something had to be done. Throwing caution to the wind I lifted a flap, dove and pulled up in a steep turn, at the same time dropping a little flap. The G was terrrific, but it worked, and I had the Jerry nailed for sure. Pressing the tit I waited, but nothing happened, not a damned thing. My guns weren't firing."
"By taking this last gamble I had lost altitude but had been able to bring my guns to bear while flying below the FW. With his advantage of height he came down, pulled up sharp, and was smack-dab on my tail again. The 20mm. cannons belched and I could see what looked like golf balls streaming by me. A little less deflection and those seemingly harmless golf balls would have exploded instantly upon contact with my plane. "Never turn your back on an enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the stick to my gut. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove. The needle stopped at 600 miles per-that was as far as it could go on the dial. Pulling out I expected at any minute to have the wings rip off, the plane was bucking so much. The last part of my pull-up brought me up into clouds. I was thankful to have eveaded the long-nose FW. for that pilot was undoubtedly the best that I had ever met."
(Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw)

Note:
FW190D is:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>gaining speed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
over P-51B while the FW190D is:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>swinging down in his turn, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
After the FW190D is:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>quickly pulling up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The FW190D then has:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the advantage in height <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
over the P-51B.


The advantage in height gained by the FW190D after employing a greater dive acceleration advantage and a greater zoom climb advnatage over the P-51B was able to go from an inferior possition where the P-51B was:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>in a position to fire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
to a possition where the FW190D was able to:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>pour down on my tail <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In the words of Robert Shaw the FW190D had the capacity to employ the:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>successful use of energy tactics <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because the FW190D had:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>better power loading <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Just who are the ones who should know how an FW did in fact stack up against a Mustang?

JG14_Josf
09-02-2004, 09:34 AM
Here is more information on the supposed tremendous dive accelleration avantage the Mustang had over LW fighters:

Wings of the Luftwaffe
by
Captain Eric Brown
(Eric Brown flew captured LW aircraft during WWII conducting combat evaluations)

page 157

Mustang III (P-51C)
vs
Bf 109G6/U2 Werk-Nr-41 2951 (underwing gondolas and drop tank rack)

"When dived and then pulled up into a climb there was little to choose between US and German fighter, but the Mustang could steadily outdive the Bf 109G-6 and had no difficulty in out-turning the Messerschmitt"

Note: The following comment made earlier in Eric Browns book:
"we had no GM 1 or MW 50 at Farnborough!"

On the FW190A-3 vs Mustang 1A (P-51A)

From Focke-Wulf FW190 in combat
by
Alfred Price

page 52

Dive
"Comparative dives have shown that there is little to choose between the two aircraft and if anything the Mustang is slightly faster in a prolonged dive."

Manoevrability
"The acceleration of the Fw190 is better than that of the Mustang and this becomes more marked when both aircraft are cruising at low speed."

"Trials were carried out to ascertain the best manoeuvre to adopt when 'bounced'. If the Mustang was cruising at high speed and saw the Fw 190 about 2,000 yards away, it usually managed to avoid it by opening up to full throttle and diving away, and once speed had been built up it was almost impossible for the Fw 190 to catch it. When the Mustang was 'bounced' by the Fw 190 when flying slowly, it was unable to get away by diving and was force to evade by means of a quick turn as the Fw 190 came into firing range."

"When the Fw 190 was 'bounced' by the Mustang, it could evade by using its superiority in the rolling plane and then pull up violently from the resultant dive into a steep climb which left the Mustang behind. If the Mustang is not seen util it is fairly close, it will get the chance of a short burst before it is out-climbed."

Note: A recuring superior performance attribute of the FW190 series plane is an energy maneuverability advantage in dives and zooms. This vertical dog fighting ability held by the early FW (pre in-line engnine)over the early Mustang (pre Rolls Royce), and the later FW190D vs the P-51B is remarkable when contrasting how the P-47 was known to be even better in vertical energy maneuverability than the FWs.

horseback
09-02-2004, 01:46 PM
Josf, I don't know if English (or American) is your first language, but I don't think you got the picture. The Godfrey vs the Dora fight struck me as a dead-even affair: neither could gain an immediate decisive advantage without risking everything. The 190D was apparently doing a shallow yoyo to keep his speed up and cut the corner, but he was still unable to bring his guns to bear until Godfrey gave up some altitude to get a shot. Had Godfrey's guns worked, the fight would have been over.

However, the gamble didn't work, and gave the Dora driver an opening. When the Jerry missed, Godfrey was able to roll over and dive for the deck, and if his opponent was trying to get him in earnest, he wasn't able to catch him in the dive.

Comparing an Allison Mustang to FW 190 is not the same as comparing a Merlin engined Mustang to a later model 190. The P-51B and later models were more aerodynamically refined than the Allison powered models, and the engine at 18000 ft and above was considerably more powerful. Similarly, the later model FW appears to have become a bit more refined, but pilot accounts make it clear that trying to dive away from a Mustang was every bit as hazardous as diving away from a Thunderbolt.

I'm not surprised that the 109 could zoom climb with a Mustang; it had a better power to weight ratio, and better overall climb. However, 109s, after climbing to higher altitudes to meet the Mustang, rarely had sufficient fuel to climb away for long. Climbing is thirsty work, and as pointed out earlier, endurance was not among the 109's strengths.

So climbing away from a pursuer late in a sortie would not be a good option, especially when your base is hidden by low hanging cloud and you have to hunt around for it (visual flight rules-these guys had limited ability to get a useful vector back to base).

As for the accelleration issue, it was a known problem, overcome by staying fast. German fighters used similar doctrine against Russian fighters with an accelleration advantage, so it was a successful and valid tactic. You rarely caught a veteran Mustang driver flying slow.

By the way, the narrow track landing gear issue is strictly with the 109- the 190 had the broader track landing gear, and notably better ground handling, which was a huge selling point for units converting from the 109.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

JG14_Josf
09-02-2004, 02:27 PM
Horseback,

If you have an issue with language then you will have to take that up with Robert Shaw.

I'll take his evaluation of the Robert Johnson quote over yours any day.

Your opinion does not strike me as having much value based upon your words written in plain english like these:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mustang's tremendous dive accelleration advantage over LW fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found examples that definitely contradict your statement.

If you can back up your opinion with some evidence then by all means do so.

If you have a contention with Shaw's evaluation of the Robert Johnson fight between a P-51B and a FW190D then take it up with him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Focke-Wulf 190D-9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skillful use of flaps. The focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here the two masters at work: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(Shaw, Figher Combat page 162)

Chuck_Older
09-02-2004, 04:03 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

You guys act as if Horseback was some 12 year old troll talking out his backside!

He can be mistaken or plain wrong like anybody else, but folks who want respect for themselves should give a little too. He's provided tons of info on this forum and I guess some folks don't like that. That's up to you, but the tone of some replies really leaves little to the imagination as to the decorum of some folks. On the other hand, I couldn't give a fiddly-f#@% what you think of me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif so bash that statement all you like. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

The only thing I can add to this discussion is that I am currently looking at a transcript of an RAF report for the Mustang III, in which the Mustang III is is called "Faster at all heights" than the Bf109G, climb rate is "rather similar" and better than the Bf109G above angels 25 but a little worse below angels 20, "similar" in zoom climb, "On the other hand, in defence [Brit spelling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif] the Mustang III can STILL INCREASE THE RANGE [my caps] in a prolonged dive", has "greatly superior" turning circle than the 109G, worse than the 109G in roll, but also that the sustained climb is worse than a 109G (as noted, below 20K feet).

(From: AFDU Report, dated March, 1944, AFDU RAF Station Wittering, Report No. 107 on tactical trials)

In regards to German radar-
Yes, their radar was good. So good, Window worked great. Those strips of chaff allowed the German advanced radar stations to see thousands and thousands of "B-17s", so many that they could not hope to intercept or even get a proper vector to intercept.

In this regard, the Luftwaffe could indeed have benefited from an interceptor with long range- they could patrol an area for hours and hours, or even shadow the bombers back to the Channel coast, at which time escorts were probably out of ammo and/oe released from escort duty.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

horseback
09-02-2004, 04:56 PM
Josf, I intended no insult by asking about your English comprehension. Many people posting here do not have a native speaker's comprehension, and this often leads to misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions on both sides.

As here, where Shaw uses John Godfrey's book (written, I believe, with an eye to his political aspirations-Godfrey was elected governor of Rhode Island before his passing in the 1950s) to illustrate the use of energy tactics. Since the episode described appears to take place after Godfrey returned for his second combat tour (Doras being exceptionally rare prior to late summer '44), I question whether Godfrey was flying a razorback. In any case, remember that the book was written to emphasize the drama of the situation (books don't sell if there are no 'good' parts, and publishers won't print books they don't think will sell).

As I read the account, both fighters turned tightly immediately after the merge, each trying to turn inside his opponent's curve, so that he could bring his guns to bear. Godfrey, having what appears to be a tighter turning aircraft, is using his flaps to pull it in tighter in the horizontal plane. His opponent, on the opposite side of the circle, is essentially 'porpoising' up and down in order to keep his speed (energy) up to close the circle and bring his guns to bear. He may have a bit of a roll advantage, although the Dora didn't roll as well as the Anton.

Godfrey is 400 miles (approx. 640km) from Debden, over enemy territory, and he has a time limit. From his perspective, his opponent has all the time in the world. He says that "he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him." Otherwise, it appears that the see-saw battle for position could have continued in this way indefinitely, without either pilot gaining a decisive advantage.

Godfrey stated that he could get a momentary firing solution, and his opponent would immediately maneuver out of his sights, and pull away a bit. I expect that both pilots were looking up at each other through the tops of their canopies, and calculating how much they could relax the pressure on the rudder pedal before the other guy had a firing solution. This was a test of physical endurance as much as one of the aircraft, and Godfrey had already been flying for a couple of hours.

The aircraft were roughly equal, if both pilots flew to their strengths. Had Godfrey tried to overpower his opponent and just run him down, or had the German pilot tried to stay strictly horizontal, the situation would have resolved itself quickly. Superior tactics are the ones that work for you and your weapon. Godfrey maintained his E best in the horizontal, and the German, enjoying higher power loading, pushed as much of the fight as he could into the vertical. Neither was able to dictate the terms of the fight.

In any case, it was a stalemate, due to Godfrey's malfunctioning guns and the German's poor shooting, and Godfrey dove away. The Dora did not catch him in a dive.

Intelligence appraisals and pilot accounts from the time all agree that the key to getting kills in the ETO was to make Jerry dive. Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces #31, 'Long Reach', contains descriptions of the tactics and advice from several distinguished aces and flight commanders of the Eighth Air Force, including Godrey's fellow former Eagle and 4th FG ace, Duane Beeson.

Every single Mustang driver in the book says that you can catch Jerry in a dive-FW 190, Me-109, whatever (this was before the Me-262 arrived), just like every P-47 driver, and just like the P-38 drivers state flatly that they could out-turn and at least climb with their opponents.

That's just one example. I've been reading accounts of the air war in WWII since I was seven, and my English neighbors were celebrating the 20th anniversery of the Battle of Britain. Not once can I recall an account of an American pilot flying anything but a P-38 (or a Spitfire) having an opponent in trouble, and losing him because he dove away.

If there is anything the record indicates, it is that once a 109 or 190 heads for the deck with a Mustang or P-47 500m or less away from his tail, from 6000m or more, his career is probably over. Tests, charts, and factory specs aside, the one glaring statistic is that if you were an Axis pilot having your aircraft perforated by an American fighter, trying to dive away only compounded your problems.

Maybe I should have said 'decisive dive acceleration advantage' or 'higher terminal dive speed', but my point was simple enough. In RL, German fighters didn't dive away (for long) from Mustangs that were already close enough to start shooting at them. They flew right on into the ground, were shredded by .50 cals, or they were torn apart by the stresses of pulling out (and don't try to tell me that 109s were structurally stronger than Mustangs).

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

JG14_Josf
09-02-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>respect for themselves should give a little too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the decorum of some folks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Josf, I don't know if English (or American) is your first language, but I don't think you got the picture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Chuck_Older,

I had to look up decorum.

Could you please explain where someone was lacking in politeness or propriety?

This statement by Horseback:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mustang's tremendous dive accelleration advantage over LW fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Contradicts information that I have so I posted some of the information that I have illustrating this contradition.

Horseback responds with a statement that comes from where; polite propriety?

Do you too question my ability to comprehend the english (or American) language?

If so, if you actaully do think I have trouble in this regard then please do back up your perspective with reason. I fail to see it.

Robert Shaw has written a book that communicates a combat doctrine he terms 'Energy tactics'. He (Robert Shaw) offers an example of energy tactics in his book. His words describing this example are stated in his book as follows:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read Shaw and then I read words like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mustang's tremendous dive accelleration advantage over LW fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a problem.
I do not have a problem with the source of the words.

Even if Robert Shaw and Robert Johnson wrote that the Mustang has a tremendous dive acceleration advantage of LW planes I would still have a problem with those words because of the contradiction.


I am comfortable in my reasoning concerning just what Energy Tactics mean and the performance advantages required to employ them.

I am also comfortable in knowing what these words mean:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>swinging down in his turn, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>gaining speed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>quickly pulling up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the advantage in height <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>pour down on my tail <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not need an interpreter to understand those words or their context and meaning, to suggest that I do is hardly appropriate, Fit, or polite, in my opinion.

My response to what looks like a thinly veiled insult is measured, restrained, and to the point, in my opinion.

If you have a problem with me, as your post appears to indicate, then please be a little more specific as to just what is the problem.

I am interested in WWII Fighter Combat.

Notice the topic title. Notice the context of my post. Notice, please, that I am not inclined to vere from appropriate decorum.

If in fact my post is out of line then please be specific in pointing out my error. I will then be able to avoid making that error again.

JG14_Josf
09-02-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe I should have said 'decisive dive acceleration advantage' or 'higher terminal dive speed', but my point was simple enough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Between a decisive dive acceleration advantage and a higher terminal dive speed exists a flight envelope. One of the 'Masters at work' in Robert Johnsons example obviously understood this area in the flight envelope where his FW190D was capable of out performing the Mustangs and according to that account (despite your attempts to discredit it) include a dive acceleration advantage held by the FW190D. A dive acceleratoin avantage that was enough to allow the FW190D pilot to go from defense to offense.

If you do not think much of Robert Johnsons integrity is describing actual and factual combat accounts then I am glad you were not the one who wrote the book: Fighter Combat. I am happy that Robert Shaw wrote that book because he obvious has a higher opinion of Robert Johnsons integrity otherwise he would not have included that account to illustrate a specific point (very specific and having no ambiguity) concerning fighter combat.

P.S. I hope my writing can serve to show that I have a passable understanding of the English (or American) language.

hop2002
09-02-2004, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Effective large scale German bombing of Great Britain ended just coincidentally with the advent of the radar equipped Beaufighter and Mosquito nightfighters in sufficient numbers to cover the British Isles's southern approaches in mid 1941."

As you note, the biggest factor was probably the diversion of the bombing forces to the East. It took until much later for the RAF night fighters to actually score kills that marked a significant portion of attacking forces. If I can remember where my copy of Nightfighter is (might be at work or home) it gives breakdowns of RAF and LW figures for interceptions and kills. Interceptions, even with radar, were relatively infrequent in 1941.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF radar equipped night fighters were becoming increasingly effective in early 1941. They claimed 22 bombers in March 41, 48 in April, 96 in May, even though the bombing offnsive dropped sharply after the 14th of May. The Luftwaffe lost (to all causes on operations, and accidents are high on night ops) 42 in March, 77 in April, 81 in May.

Again, the Blitz is generally reckoned to have ended mid May, so there really was a fairly sharp rise in Luftwaffe casualties just before they broke off for the capaign in Russia.

horseback
09-02-2004, 10:43 PM
First of all, the episode you've repeatedly quoted from Shaw's book is taken from John Godfrey's long out of print book (I've been trying to get my mits on it again for thirty years). Robert Johnson flew Thunderbolts in combat, not Mustangs.

Again, I want to make clear, by repetition, that I intend no insult by questioning your comprehension of the story Godfrey tells. But we simply seem to be getting very different mental pictures from his description, and that is most likely explained by a difference in our relative understandings of Godfrey's jargon.

Again, the account was taken from Godfrey's book, written in the late 1940s or early 1950s, aimed at a largely adolescent male market. Like 'Thunderbolt!' (Robert Johnson), 'Reach For the Sky' (about Bader), 'Tumult In the Clouds' (Goodson), or 'Fly For Your Life' (about Tuck), the stories in these books tend to be couched in dramatic language, even if they are basically accurate. So I try to mentally edit the words down to bare facts.

So, as a long time student of air combat who has had a chance to quiz a few old pros from WWII as the son of a career Air Force air traffic controller (USAF officers don't have quite the formality with senior noncoms that I have noticed in other countries' militaries-overseas, we attended the same church services, lived in the same housing, had kids in the same schools and Boy Scout troops...) and as a guy who built models on commission for a number of Top Gun instructors (and pestered them incessantly for information sources) back in the 80s and 90s (before Miramar became a Marine base) I filter what I read a bit with what I know.

So, after the merge, Godfrey and the Dora both broke hard, trying to get on each other's tails. They ended up on opposite sides of the circle, chasing each other & looking up at each other through their canopies. This means they are both turning in the same direction, with one leg jamming the rudder pedal down against some significant resistance, one arm straining at the stick, the other hand working the throttle, trim, flaps and prop pitch, in Godfrey's case. Add in the effect of Gs and the fact that they've been sucking on oxygen for a while, and there is a significant fatigue factor. It is no accident that a significant fraction of the aces were athletes of some distinction in their youths.

Godfrey's Mustang holds its E better in a horizontal turn, and he can 'cheat' in a little tighter by adding flaps for short periods. The Dora has better accelleration, but doesn't hold its E as well turning in the horizontal plane.

If the contest stays strictly in the horizontal plane, Godfrey will gain on the Dora, and when he's close enough for a sure shot (if the reason his guns failed to fire was because he'd exhausted his ammo, he may have been aware that he didn't have a lot of rounds left, so he'd want to be absolutely sure of his target before pulling the trigger), take out his opponent. I do not believe either pilot (and Godfrey did not have a reputation as a sniper) would have had a lot of faith in his ability to hit a target he couldn't see under his aircraft's nose, so each of them would probably have wanted to get close, on the order of 50m, before firing, because when you're on the edge of a stall, the recoil of your guns can put you into that stall, and at your opponent's mercy. Therefore, you would want the first burst to be as accurate and destructive as possible.

The Dora's pilot probably realized that the Mustang was turning better and gaining on him during the first circle. He decided to cut the corner on Godfrey by using his greater power to tilt the plane of the turning circle down and and then up. The Mustang doesn't follow this maneuver too closely, because Godfrey lacks the spare energy from his engine, which is about 300 hp less for the about the same weight of airplane, and partly because there's a short gap in reaction time when the enemy plane drops out of his field of view, so the Dora can 'duck' beneath his sights, straightening out downwards from the circle and then spend some of the excess E to gain on the Mustang by taking the plane of the circle upward, moving further away from the Mustang's guns and bringing it closer to his own. It's a shallow yoyo, widening the circle for himself in the vertical plane, maintaining or conserving his speed rather than gaining from short dives and zoom climbs. The expression 'pour down on my tail' simply means that the Dora was gaining on Godfrey at that point, not that it ever actually got into position to fire on him.

There were too many degrees to the circle to be made up, and the Dora's gains, like the Mustang's, appear to me to have been temporary. Godfrey says that they could go on like that for an hour, which tells me that they were able to nullify, but not overcome, each other's advantages. It would come down to whose foot slipped off the rudder or who tried to break away from the circle.

Godfrey doesn't know how tired the other guy is, but he knows that John Godfrey's been in the air for a couple of hours minimum, and every turn leaves him with less gas to get home to his dog Lucky and a certain Red Cross nurse. He dives down a bit, imitating his opponent's tactic, but lacking the horsepower to pull all the way back up into the Jerry. He does get a good shooting position, though. But his guns don't fire, whether it's because he's out of ammo, the feed to his guns are jammed, or he'd accidentally turned the arming switches off at some point earlier. In any case, he is out of energy, and on the edge of stalling out. He can't get back in the turn, allowing the Dora to roll down on him and shoot. When the Dora misses, Godfrey rolls out, probably under the Dora's long nose, and dives.

The Dora driver either does not or can not follow him to get the kill, as he probably would have if he thought he could catch a diving Mustang with a short lead.

The Mustang was never tested directly in comparison with the Dora. In fact, the Dora was only tested by the USAAF postwar, and not very thoroughly (it's roll rate was reported as comparable to the P-38L, for instance), about two or three hours' flight time in all. Not long enough to learn to fly it properly, much less get a clear picture of it's capabilities. I haven't read Eric Brown's book, but I doubt that His Majesty's government had the extra money to test the aircraft of an already vanquished enemy extensively, so at most, I expect he got a limited impression no better than the three pilots who tested the Dora at Wright-Patterson.

All we have to compare the two types is factory specs (which vary somewhat) and pilots' memoirs. Slight differences in factory specs have sometimes led to huge disparities in actual combat performance, where an improvised maneuver, as opposed to a planned one, is simply much easier to perform in one type than in another.

The record indicates that the Mustang's aerodynamic cleanliness allowed it much better performance than a statistical comparison of weight to power would lead us to expect, and that cleanliness, in a full power dive would lead me, at least, to expect it to dive faster than a slightly smaller, lighter and less aerodynamic fighter like the Dora or the 109. The combat record seems to support me in this contention.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Jungmann
09-02-2004, 11:26 PM
Horseback, you rock.

Right of you to bring the human factor into any consideration of a given aerial combat. They're not just machines performing to factory (or test-pilot) specs, they're devices two men are using to bring guns to bear on each other, and to really know the fight, you must know the man. Have read all those books you mentioned--loved them when I was a kid--but older now, know they're not Holy Writ; they're open to exegesis. In addition to what Godfrey mentions, his fatigue, his fuel concerns, etc., add his fear, the brain-drain of constant G forces, the turbulence from the plane he's trying to chase, the fact he needs to pee and sweat dripping into his eyes. And I bet I haven't begun to list the possiblities.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/Jungmann/IL-Sig3.jpg

Jungmann

"Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga..."

JtD
09-03-2004, 01:07 AM
The pilot report doesn't prove the P-51 outdived the 190. I think in that occasion it's way more likely that

a) the German pilot lost sight of him or
b) he simply thought he shot him down or
c) he refused to give up alt for some unknown strategic reason.

Regarding dive performance in general:
US planes were better than the 109 and not worse than the 190. They were heavy, high powered, had good aerodynamics, good high speed handling, had a good structural strenght and were well manufactured and maintained if compared to a 1944 109. The 190 negates some of these benefits.

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 04:28 AM
JtD,

Thanks for the contribution. I am certain that anyone can form an opinion concerning Robert Johnsons account, they can imagine just about anything they want but the fact remains that Robert Shaw's opinion concerning that account is stated in his book: Fighter Combat.

Horeseback,

If you are able to find out for certain which plane Robert Johnson flew in that engagement then please post that find.

I did not read your second version of what you think happened during Robert Johnsons combat account. I prefer to read the original version written by the guy flying the plane. It makes more sense to me than your first version of his fight. You know how rumors work right?

Chuck_Older
09-03-2004, 05:02 AM
Hold on there, pardners. I'm not on trial here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif If you don't agree with anything I say, then hey, that is up to you. If you feel defensive about what I say, maybe you should think about why.


In any case, I wonder why my points about chaff and German radar have been overlooked, and also why the RAF report I have quoted from has been overlooked?

Also, Josf, I am not talking about or specifically to you in particular. If I had wanted to address you, I would have.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

NorrisMcWhirter
09-03-2004, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Do you too question my ability to comprehend the english (or American) language? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

English, not american. That annoys me - when someone stick the US flag on a website to indicate English language being used.

Ta,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

horseback
09-03-2004, 10:43 AM
Norris-The English/American differentiation was started by me-sort of a play on the wartime expression "Two great peoples divided by a common language." English spoken by the average Englishman is damned near incomprehensible to the average American; the rhythm, slang, phrasing and pronunciation are different. The English, on the other hand, having 'benefited' from sufficient exposure to American TV and movies, can usually figure out what the American is saying.

As for Josf, clearly he is uninterested in any information that contradicts what he thinks he knows. He still seems to be confused about who wrote the Mustang vs Dora story, since he keeps talking about Robert Johnson, who did not fly Mustangs in combat.

For those not initiated into the mysteries of the 4th FG, John Godfrey was one of the RAF-trained members of the 336th (formerly 121 'Eagle') Squadron. His combat career included a short stint in Spitfire Vbs & then almost a year in P-47s in 1943, and then Mustangs starting in late February 1944. Godfrey was reputed to have the sharpest eyes in the Group, almost always spotting enemy aircraft first, and this may have led to Don Gentile cultivating him as a wingman. During the Spring of 1944, both blossomed into formidible aces, Gentile finishing his combat tour in April as the leading 8th AF ace (at that time), credited with 21+ air to air kills and Godfrey was a double ace. They returned to the States together to sell War Bonds and the concept of team tactics to the next crop of fighter pilots.

Gentile stayed in the States, but Godfrey literally sneaked back to the ETO and the 4th FG in July or August of 1944, resuming his combat career in a bubbletop D-model, serial #44-13412. He finished the war as a Major, and 18 (16 1/3 after postwar reviews of claims) kill ace (air to air; he picked up 18 on the ground), returning to his native Rhode Island. He died of Multiple Sclerosis in the late 1950s, aged less than 40.

Jungmann, you might enjoy '1000 Destroyed: the Life & Times of the 4th Fighter Group', written almost immediately postwar by the Group's former Public Information Officer, Grover C. Hall. It was written for adults, and it contains more about the people these young men were than most stories of the war. There is a lot of humor and personal history.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 11:43 AM
Horseback,

Thanks, for the clarification. I am not really sure why I made the jump to Robert Johnson from John Godrey.

I did make that mistake. Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw page 162 has it in black and white as follows:

"Actaul combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Foce-Wilf 190D-9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skillful use of flaps. The Focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here are two masters at work:"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"A plane was approaching, and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock; it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf; its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW. These planes with the longer noses were rumored to have more horespower than their predecessors, and were capable of giving a Mustang a rough time. We met practically head-on and both of us banked our planes in preparation for a dogfight.
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire - but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him. I still had 400 miles of enemy territory to fly over before I could land. Something had to be done. Throwing caution to the wind I lifted a flap, dove and pulled up in a steep turn, at the same time dropping a little flap. The G was terrrific, but it worked, and I had the Jerry nailed for sure. Pressing the tit I waited, but nothing happened, not a damned thing. My guns weren't firing."
"By taking this last gamble I had lost altitude but had been able to bring my guns to bear while flying below the FW. With his advantage of height he came down, pulled up sharp, and was smack-dab on my tail again. The 20mm. cannons belched and I could see what looked like golf balls streaming by me. A little less deflection and those seemingly harmless golf balls would have exploded instantly upon contact with my plane. "Never turn your back on an enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the stick to my gut. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove. The needle stopped at 600 miles per-that was as far as it could go on the dial. Pulling out I expected at any minute to have the wings rip off, the plane was bucking so much. The last part of my pull-up brought me up into clouds. I was thankful to have eveaded the long-nose FW. for that pilot was undoubtedly the best that I had ever met." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't know why you are all but injured over the fact that I prefer to take the actual combat pilots account of what happened over yours. John Godfrey's language is perfectly understandable. He speaks clear and precise "fighter pilot". It is not as if I called your version of what you think his words mean to be bullcrap. I didn't, my preference is to get the information from the horses mouth so to speak. Not the horses back.

Jungmann
09-03-2004, 01:31 PM
Horseback--thnx for the tip. I have that book, have read it many times, and knew immediately when I first saw your call where you got it from.

Got a new book--not handy, will look it up if you want. Somebody in 4th FG operations pulled the tower log from the first day to the last out of a trashcan when they were cleaning up and returning ZOI and they've published it. A day by day record, plus included daily pilot combat reports, including Godfrey's.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/Jungmann/IL-Sig3.jpg

Jungmann

"Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga..."

NorrisMcWhirter
09-04-2004, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Norris-The English/American differentiation was started by me-sort of a play on the wartime expression "Two great peoples divided by a common language." English spoken by the average Englishman is damned near incomprehensible to the average American; the rhythm, slang, phrasing and pronunciation are different. The English, on the other hand, having 'benefited' from sufficient exposure to American TV and movies, can _usually_ figure out what the American is saying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I divvna watch much TV at all but I'd have to agree in part. Also, I don't think that Americans use quite so much slang as the British as a general rule.

My point was that it's mildly annoying to see the 'credit' for the language being shifted but, then again, English has evolved from many sources so complaints can be few. What's worse is the current trend for the upwards inflection at the end of a sentence (typically denoting a question) caused, IMO, by these fricken Aussie soaps. Lordy!

Oops, went OT.

As to the thread, anyone have any 'normalised' data on the P51/P47 regarding air victories? I read Heinz Knocke's book a few weeks ago and he talked of regularly having 8 P47s (/P51s) on his 6 after attacking a bomber stream. Assuming that there were engagment ratios of 8:1 [P51:109, say], what is it safe to assume the kill ratio would be for 1:1 engagements?

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

SVT40
09-04-2004, 07:20 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I believe it may have been Rall who stated that P~51 was _"the best"_ WW2 fighter because of its long range. Saw this in an interview with one of the great German Aces. Saburo said the same thing cos unlike the Zero, the P~51 didn't sacrifice everthing else to fly 2000km.

Thankfully, Rall's [I believe] opinion can be safely ignored by us, who use 30km dogfighter maps.



I met Gunther Rall, Walter Schuck, and Chuck Yeager in person, and Rall did indeed think that the P 51 was the best performing fighter in the war. At least that is what he told the audiance that night. He is such a nice cool and FUNNY guym you wouldnt believe it !!!
But performance wise, he was just impressed no end about the P 51 !

He had a LOT of respect for the P 47 too. His story about being shot down was downright hilarious the way he told it. ("When my thumb got shot off, I knew it was time to go over the side")


SVT40

berg417448
09-04-2004, 11:52 AM
Being outnumbered might depend upon your perspective! On this link you'll find a comment from American ace Bud Anderson about always seeming to be outnumbered.

http://www.cebudanderson.com/ch1.htm

JG14_Josf
09-04-2004, 12:51 PM
berg417448,

Thanks for the awsome link. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
09-04-2004, 03:44 PM
I have spent a significant part of the last 24 hours trying to find something-anything!-that would give us a comparison of the Mustang vs the FW 190 dive characteristics.

There just aren't a heck of a lot of clear-cut, Mustang vs Dora 9 combat accounts or information sources that I could find that made mention of the Dora's diving abilities.

There appear to have been no serious flight evaluations by the Western Allies. No Doras were acquired in one piece and flown before the end of hostilities. According to Monogram Close-Up #10, FW 190D, one of the four 190Ds brought back to Wright-Patterson for evaluation was flown:

"...by various pilots for a total of six hours to determine its handling characteristics. The consensus of opinion was that the cockpit was cramped but the instruments were generally well-positioned. Taxying (sp) and ground handling were difficult owing to poor brakes and limited visibility, and more discomfort was experienced from the acrid exhaust fumes if the canopy were left open. The noise level in the cockpit was high, and excessive vibration was experienced on takeoff and at high speeds.

"General handling was acceptable, but the pilots complained of the lack of rudder and aileron trimming controls (one has to wonder if the trim tabs were properly set for cruise-I imagine a few dozen sailors playing with them on the ship during the Atlantic crossing-HB). Stability was also found to be good except in the power-off stall condition. The airplane's best feature was its outstanding rate of roll which compared well with the P-51D and P-47 although it was considered inferior to that of the P-38J and P-80. The turning radius was poor and elevator forces in tight turns were found to be excessive. Constant stabilizer adjustments were required in turns which, if pulled too abruptly, resulted in an unheralded fast stall.

"The functioning of the Jumo 213 engine was found to be excellent, and seemed to provide ample power to make the Fw 190D a high performance airplane comparable with contemporary Allied fighters. The operation of all electrical and hydraulic systems was found to be poor; failure of the undercarriage to retract and the flaps to extend being a common experience. The report concluded:

'The Fw 190 D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the Fw 190 using the BMW radial engine. Any advantage that this airplane may have over other models of the Fw 190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics.'"

The first thing that strikes me about this evaluation is that 'several' pilots flew the aircraft for a total of six hours to put together this report. Hardly sufficient time for one pilot to familiarize himself with a foreign built high performance fighter, let alone three or more pilots.

Interesting too, is the comment about roll rate-it compared "favorably" (all right, better) to the P-51D and P-47, but less than the hydraulically assisted P-38J & P-80 (Lightning whiners, take note!). Conspicuous by its absence is a comparison of diving speeds to the primary US fighters.

This means that there was no notable difference between the Dora and the radial engined Focke Wulfs (most likely, IMO), or that the test pilots assigned, not being combat veterans (those who have read Yeager's book will remember that he was assigned to W-P at that approximate time, and he mentioned that none of these guys could dogfight) were too dumb to check, or that there was a massive right wing conspiracy, financed by Halliburton-oh wait a minute, that was the other thread I'm working on...

In any case, a marked superiority over the primary US fighter types would have been noted, and probably highlighted.

As a counterpoint to the USAAF evaluation, the same source describes the initial German users' experience with the Dora about ten pages earlier:

"However, as they became accustomed to their new charges they began to revise their opinions. They discovered that the Dora 9 was faster, with better acceleration and maneuverability than the BMW-engined Focke Wulf. Eventually they agreed that it would not only out turn the Fw 190 A-8 but the Bf 109 G as well. In fact, most pilots who flew the new variant considered it the best piston-engined fighter to enter Luftwaffe service during the Second World War."

I've found about three accounts of German pilots stating that the Dora could dive away from trouble with Russian fighters like the La-7 and YaK-3, but none saying the same thing about Western fighters, even the Spitfire. William Green's 'Warplanes of the Third Reich', although often derided for its obsolete information, says that pilots in III/JG 54 found that the Dora could outclimb and outdive the Anton "with ease."

From the American perspective, I did find one source; Impact, the Confidential monthly USAAF intelligence magazine, distributed to operational squadrons world wide. It was republished in book form by the National Historical Society under the Sponsorship of the Air Force Historical Foundation in the '80s. I found an article in the May 1944 issue entitled 'Introducing the P-51 In Combat', and it included combat reports from P-51A units in China and P-51B units in the ETO.

Generally, there is about a two or three month lag between the events reported and the issue date (instantaneous world wide communication being a recent development), so I'm guessing that the incident described took place no later than late February, 1944. This means that the "long nosed Focke Wulf" described here was most likely a Versuchs, or Test aircraft, possibly the V19, which crashed on February 16th. Bear in mind that this is a contemporary account, that the aircraft described is an early pre-production model, and that the pilot was probably not a combat veteran, although apparently very skilled. No mention is made of any US losses in this fight.

The account is as follows:

"Although the long-nosed FW-190 is generally conceded to be one of the most maneuverable high-performance planes in existance, the following encounter, described in the words of 8th Fighter Command pilot Capt. Jack R. Warren, makes it clear that even in the split-S and Immelman (the (FW's best tricks) the P-51B can follow until the 190 runs out of altitude and then, with superior speed and dive, nail him on the deck:

"I was flying No. 2 position in my flight when we spotted two long-nosed FW-190s at 15,000 ft. about 50 miles southeast of Berlin. We turned toward them and ...(in the ensuing combat one of the 190s) ended up on the tail of the No. 3 man who went into a Lufberry to the left. I came in on the enemy and broke off his attack on our No. 3 man. The 190 then split-Sed for the deck. I was indicating about 400 mph and began to pull up on him. I closed to about 300 yds. and gave him a burst. He pulled up into a loop with a half roll on top. I followed him up, then rolled out and came back on his tail. He dove for the deck again and I closed to about 300 yds. anbd gave him a long burst with only two guns working. He again looped and rolled. I followed, rolled out and came in on him again. He dove for the deck a third time, flying between trees, houses, and under power lines, I closed to about 300 yds. and fired a long burst, this time with only one gun working. I noticed smoke pouring out as he got lower and lower and as I passed over him, he crashed in an open field. I pulled up and came around to strafe the plane (I guess he hadn't gotten the "enemy plane destroyed" message on his screen-HB) when I noticed the pilot jump out and start running. My last gun jammed so I joined formation and came on home. The 190 is a fast and maneuverable plane and this pilot was way above the average."

Draw your own conclusions, but if you ask a former WWII fighter pilot what happened if his Axis opponent (regardless of type) tried to dive away from him, you'll find out exactly what is meant by a "wolfish grin."

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

robban75
09-04-2004, 04:03 PM
Bare in mind Horseback that most of the D-9's were flown by kids or at least very young men with not even 1/3 as much flying time as what was required for a U.S pilot to even come close to an airbattle.

I can recommend anyone to read the book "Green Hearts, first in combat with the Dora-9". It very much explains the hopless situation for the young D-9 pilots at the last 6-7 months of the war. You'll also read on how well the D-9 performed in the hands of an experienced pilot.

I'd think it's safer to believe what the Dora drivers thought about how their crate stacked up against the opposition, mostly because the absolute majority of the D-9's that were shot down were piloted by boys that barely had experienced takeoffs and landings.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Bearcat99
09-04-2004, 04:47 PM
Oh my...... I cant believe this...... do you guys realize this is the first thread in this forum EVER (since before FB there were no American planes here except the P-39) that praised the P-51 and didnt turn into a flaming mass of pixels heading for abrupt deletion? Seriously!! I just knew this one was going down after 3 pages... You guys made my frickin day in this forum today!! My hats are off to all of you for your civility and a hearty ~S~ to each of you!!

Im.... Im..... Im all chocked up inside.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifWaitaminnit!! If this kind of stuff persists we may not need anymore moderators!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gifNAAAAHHHH!!!!!! That'll NEVER happen.

Good work gentlemen.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959)
IMMERSION BABY!!

hop2002
09-04-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I found an article in the May 1944 issue entitled 'Introducing the P-51 In Combat', and it included combat reports from P-51A units in China and P-51B units in the ETO.

Generally, there is about a two or three month lag between the events reported and the issue date (instantaneous world wide communication being a recent development), so I'm guessing that the incident described took place no later than late February, 1944. This means that the "long nosed Focke Wulf" described here was most likely a Versuchs, or Test aircraft, possibly the V19, which crashed on February 16th.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allied pilots were encountering "long nosed" 190s in combat throughout 1944, long before they got into service.

Most, if not all of them, are like the He 112s, Curtiss, and Moranes shot down during the BoB, misidentified.

Allied intelligence knew the Germans were fitting a new engine to the 190, although they thought it was the Db 603. They asked pilots to be on the lookout for long nosed 190s, and of course the pilots duly spotted them.

I'd take any account of combat with a Dora before autumn 1944 with a huge pinch of salt, it's almost certainly a misidentified Anton.

horseback
09-05-2004, 01:38 AM
Given the saturation of German airspace by 8th AF fighters by May of 1944, and the fact that we know of at least one occasion where a pre-production Dora did encounter Allied fighters (Kurt Tank himself got caught out during a raid and had to outrun a couple of Mustangs, as I recall), it is entirely likely that some of the early encounters described by US pilots were the Real Deal. Godfrey was a PoW (shot down by his wingman while strafing) by mid August, so his encounter might well have been one-I have a hard time imagining a guy with two years' combat experience in the ETO getting within a couple hundred yards of a FW 190 and not being able to tell if it's an Anton or a Dora, especially one with Godfrey's rep for superior vision.

Recon and ground level photos of the Dora were available to Allied air combat units almost as soon as the production models started coming out, just as photos and drawings of the Heinkel and Messerschmitt jets were put out there within weeks of flight testing.

If the Germans followed the British or American pattern, most of the flying of these prototypes would have been done by company pilots, excused from military duties because of the value of their work or possibly, age. Probably not a combat veteran in most cases. I would therfore expect a test pilot to be pretty skilled, but not necessarily a good shot, particularly in a combat situation.

That certainly appears to apply to Godfrey's opponent, who had him dead to rights, and just flat missed his shot.

Oh, and Robban, the ratio of flight hours before combat assignments for US pilots in the 8th AF was more than 10 to 1 over their LW opponents by the Fall of 1944 (average 300+ hours to 29 hours). Fighter pilots joining 8th AF Fighter Groups averaged a month of hard flying in the Group's 'Clobber College' before being allowed to fly on a Real fighter pilot's wing.

Still, by that point in the war, the only ones who weren't grass green when the shooting started were the guys doing an ETO tour after an early-war tour in the Pacific or CBI-as a group, these guys were shockingly successful. After dealing with Zeros and Oscars in a P-40 or P-39, even facing the occasional skilled pilot in a Dora from the behind the stick of a Mustang might have seemed like a good sharp Friday night poker game.

As a former Top Gun instructor once told me, "If my plane is close to even with his, I figure his @$$ is mine."

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

FI_Macca44
09-05-2004, 07:16 AM
guys,I'm not sure if there was a single best fighter plane in WW2.There were many great planes , Spits, Mustangs, 109s, 190s and many more. Incredibly important wes how good the pilot whichg flew a given fighter was. Some would say that Fw190 was the best fighter plane of the WW2- but why did Mr Hartmann prefer 109s?There are so many factors that have great influence on plane's flight characteristics, some say that they like P47 for her speed and some would choose Spitfire due to her wonderful manouverability (hope I spelled it righthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
So....109s, 190s,51s,Spits, Hurris....Wildcats...Zekes....all these and many other were wonderful and deadly in ahnds of good pilot..And a good pilot can fly even barn door....As long as it is equipped with engine and a propellerhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I just want to have the warbirds modelled as closely to reality as it is possible without losing the pleasure of virtual flying.

Regards to all fellow Il-2 fans!!!

VFA-195 Snacky
09-05-2004, 10:08 AM
P51 Stinks, FW190 Rocks! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Oh my...... I cant believe this...... do you guys realize this is the first thread in this forum EVER (since before FB there were no American planes here except the P-39) that praised the P-51 and didnt turn into a flaming mass of pixels heading for abrupt deletion? Seriously!! I just knew this one was going down after 3 pages... You guys made my frickin day in this forum today!! My hats are off to all of you for your civility and a hearty ~S~ to each of you!!

Im.... Im..... Im all chocked up inside.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifWaitaminnit!! If this kind of stuff persists we may not need anymore moderators!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gifNAAAAHHHH!!!!!! That'll NEVER happen.

Good work gentlemen.

http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org_vflyer@comcast.net_ http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959
_IMMERSION BABY!!_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."

horseback
09-05-2004, 12:59 PM
Redirct:I think the issue here is not which airplane was the best in terms of performance or even combat potential. All of the frontline piston engined fighters of the major players fell into the same general performance parameters.

Each had things it could do better than one or most of the others, and things it couldn't do as well as one or most of the others. In actual practice, it didn't matter that much, because most of the fighter aircraft shot down in WWII were hit by an enemy aircraft the pilot never saw.

With the exception of its range, dive and high altitude performance, the Mustang was pretty much an average fighter: average accelleration, average climb to altitude, average roll, competitive turn at medium to high speeds, adequate firepower for fighter to fighter combat.

It was, however, easy (maybe it would be more accurate to say easier) to learn to fly and fight in. It's ergonomics were better than most of its contemporaries, meaning that the pilot didn't have to contort himself into a pretzel to perform emergency, or even the most basic, procedures. It warned you reasonably in advance of a stall (as long as that fuselage tank was empty), and in dirty weather, gave you enough time (fuel endurance) to find a place to put down relatively safely. Simply put, being easy to fly means that the pilot can concentrate on learning to fight that much sooner.

From Rall's perspective, in the spring/summer of 1944, trying to train young kids to be effective fighter pilots, those qualities must have seemed very attractive.

The Dora and the 262 had not arrived yet, and the 109 required more time to learn to exploit its potential (and its ground handling and takeoff & landing characteristics won it no fans), and the FW-190A had most of the right ingredients except the one most critical: high altitude performance, for evading the escorts and hitting the bombers.

A Mustang-like fighter for the Luftwaffe might have seemed very desireable at that point. Certainly, the Dora seems to meet that description. It just arrived at least six months too late for the Luftwaffe.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944