Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang

[CharlesBronson]

Originally Posted by Erich

in additon to what Lunatic informed us.........get the book on March 2, 1945 with the 352nd fg taking it to II./JG 300 especially.

Mustang had better gunsight optics, although quite a unique sight was being tested with Fw gruppe II.Sturm/JG 300.

largest factor and maybe the prime one of importantce is the Mustang had the better altitude ceiling. As I have said countless times, the US pilots could say with ease.........come on up, whether Dora 9's or Bf 109G-10's

Do you mean the Akania EZ42 Adler...? I read some statement of Oskar Romm wich said that he had a "giroscopical gunsight" in his aircraft..but I tough he was wrong.

[paul.kachurak]

I found or rather calculated the P-51D CLMAX from the ASI stall speeds at various weights given in the pilot's manual. I then corrected the ASI to CAS by using the correction factors found at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...stangtest.html. That is the site I got the speeds and climbs, too.

I found the Fw190D-9 CLMAX on a FW sheet that gives detailed drag data for each aircraft component. 1.58 also matches up well with the general rule of thumb that an aircraft CLMAX = 0.9 cos (leading edge sweep angle) * airfoil CLMAX.

Interestingly the F6F-3 Hellcat was found to have a CLMAX of 1.4 in turns - it was higher at 1-g stalls - based on tests done by the USN. The F6F and the Fw190 used the same NACA23015 series airfoil at the root and 23009 at the tip. I found that Hellcat report at the NACA site, too, under the War Time Reports section. No table of contents of the WRs. I had to go through them one by one.

I admit that in a turn that CLMAX isn't the same as a straight 1-g stall speed but I figured it was close and that since I did it "wrong" for both then relatively both would be penalized the same or similar amount. I meant the turn perf chart to show relative performance rather than absolute to prove/disprove the often cited statement that the D-9 and P-51D were at least performance wise below 7km very close.

Also note that in the sustained turn I used 67" Hg for the P-51D and Start-u-Notleistung power for the D-9. I felt this would be more representative of a power used in a sustained turn rather than the 72" or Sondernotleistung (1900PS or 2100PS w/ MW50) which I believe we not really sustained for very long, maybe 10-15 minutes. I guess I could look at those higher power settings but I doubt that they would really change the relative positions much.

It certainly isn't perfect but I have better than 75% confidence that I am close to correct.

I totally agree with others comments that above 7km that the P-51D had better performance since it's power didn't drop off as much as the Jumo213A in the D-9. Ever been to the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio USA? If my memory serves correct the D-9 is right next to the P-51D. Both beautiful airplanes.

[alejandro_]

think about the waste of a good high alt. job carrying bombs on ground attack and then high alitidue Tanks brought down to low level to ward off Soviet Migs and Jaks.

I fully agree. The point of developing the Fw-190D-9 is to get a good performance at medium and high altitudes. It doesn't make much sense to use it against the Lavochkins and Yaks at low levels.

Other points that could be discussed:

- Vulnerability of radiator? the P-51 and Fw-190D-9 had liquid-cooled engines. In the P-51 it was quite vulnerable, any comments on the D9?

- Roll rate: IIRC the D9 was inferior to the A in this, in actual fact it was the only parameter in which the D9 was inferior to the A8.

- By the way, what is the basis for deciding that the Mustang was cheaper than the D9? configuration, actual data?

My Grandfather thought that the Dora was the second best prop job the Germans produced, behind the -152H, and I still agree with him... I also feel that the Dora was a better combat aircraft than the Mustang below 30,000 feet...

I agree with you.

Regards.

[paul.kachurak]

Was the D-9 inferior to the A series in roll? The D-9 is basically and A8 with a Jumo 213A, longer fuselage forward to accomodate it, longer aft fuselage to balance it all out, and two less MG151/20s outboard. All of the modifications are basically along the roll axis except for the deletion of the outboard 20mms which should increase roll rate rather than decrease it. Do you have any data to support that belief?

[alejandro_]

I had a few references but at the moment the only one I can give is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190

I know it's not extremely reliable but I have to remember where I found it. There were also some pilot quotes stating that the D9 was superior in everything except roll rate, and most references mention that the Dora would be better in climb & dive but never in roll rate.

I hope this helps.

Regards.

[paul.kachurak]

Thanks. I guess from an engineering standpoint I don't see how the mods to get from A8 to D9 would decrease roll rate. Maybe the larger vertical tail added some roll inertia? Seems odd that same wing structure, decreased outboard wing weight from taking out the outboard cannons, and all the new weight added mostly along the centerline would decrease roll rate.

[NR61]

Perhaps they meant the D was superior in every way except roll rate - roll rate could have been the same?

[Soren]

Paul, the Jumo 213A-1 could maintain 2,240 HP in 10min at a time at low altitude. So if the fight is down low, the Fw-190D-9 will definitely prove superior to the P-51D, and thats in every aspect of flight.

However the bombers which striked Germany didn't fly low.

[Erich]

but look at the armament, and although II./JG 301's Dora 9's went after the US heavies they expended way too much ammo to try and bring down a bomber, something their III. gruppe A-8/R2's had much better success at. It had been proven in the fall of 44 that the D-9 was better suited to the fighter vs fighter role.

Ale your comments about rates could of been from Oskar Romms staements while on the Ost front in February 45. He flew at least three different D-9's while in Stab./JG 3 finding the craft superiror in his feelings that the earlier A-8 in combating Soviet craft

[Erich]

somethng to make your mouth water as I have been talking about ....... from EE's web-pages and released this year

[paul.kachurak]

It is an error somewhere in history that the Jumo213A could output 2240 HP. The only document I could find, a series of power curves at different altitudes, on the Jumo213A with MW50 clearly says that the output was 2100 PS at sea level dropping to 1900 PS at the MW50 full throttle height of about 5400m.

1 PS (Pferdestaerke) = 0.986 hp = 542 foot-pounds per second
1 HP (horsepower) = 550 foot-pounds per second

I have one set of power curves that indicated that Jumo was working on what is termed a 1900-basis engine that gave 2240 PS at sea level, but as far as other more knowledgeable people who has studied the subject have told me the 1900 basis Jumo 213 never got off of the test bench. And that document doesn't even have Jumo213 on it any where.

[Erich]

by the way the lat chap on the sig list was II./JG 301 Gruppenkommandeur flying yellow 1 at times, a former Bomber pilot. another page to stimulate, some technical aspects will be covered for you doraphiles. It would be safe to say a pre-order from EE should be on your wish list(s). I'll wait this summer

[FLYBOYJ]

WOW!!!

[Erich]

there is one volume out right now by Eric Larger and two other Czech ? authors, going to be a two volume set, and Jerry C. said they would delay their massive single volume until the second Czech ? volume would be released. Jerry was hoping all three books would aid one another though it is pretty obvious that photo quality will overlap as Dora pics are limited, amny still in the hands of private parties. I actually have 1-2 that I am keeping for self preservation until I feel time will permit to release them. Had my cousin lived to see the day in December 44/januar 45 he would of flown a D-9 in 5th/JG 301, but alas

the Czech ? volumes are released through, and I hope this is correct, JaPo publications which have done some exciting things-books on the Bf 109g and K series machines. JaPo has a web-site if anyone cares to further their interests

[Udet]

Mr. Paul Karchurnak:

Sorry, but I am somewhat confused here.

The P-51D was better than the 190 D above an altitude of 7km?

7 kilometers=23,000 ft.

The cousin of the Dora, the Fw 190 A-8, began losing its full value above 25,000ft (or 7.6 km). Beneath that point, the Fw 190 As were very troublesome and lethal beasts.

Now, the Dora had as one particularly interesting feature, the ability to bring the Fw190 to the realms of high altitude combat and tangle with the dreaded Mustangs while the Ta 152 was still being cooked.

Yes, better high altitude performance than A series.

So what you are basically saying there is the Fw 190 Dora began losing power at an altitude where its predecessor, the Butcher Bird, was just about to commence losing its own.

Seems quite incorrect.