Fw-190 vs Spit/P-51/P-47

[jakal]

Hunter368

I read Female Russian Pilots during WW@ kicked *** with the little training they received!

[lesofprimus]

Female Russian pilots were killed by the hundreds.... There were a handful that scored kills...

[plan_D]

"Advantages of the P-51:

-Range big time
-Good rec plane
-Damn raids deep in enemy territory was b/c it had such range and very good speed.
-It was available in large numbers
- Decent armament on it.

Some not so great traits:
- Ok maneuverability only
- Not as tuff as the P-47, admittedly not many planes were.
- I have heard many times from unbiased reports that it could be tricky to handle at times, but over all pretty good.

But over all put all those + facts and very small - facts into one plane and you are right you have a pretty good plane. But if you could ever get that sort of range out of a Spit I would take a Spit over a P-51 anytime. What made the P-51 dangerous was its speed, range and numbers. But it is over rated to a degree."

The P-51 at high speeds was no slouch in the turn fight. But that aside, the P-51 achieved a great overall speed (cruise and top speeds both being high), exceptional fighter vs. fighter armament and easily flown. This is what we both agree on.

Rating the P-51 survivability as a negative point is a little unfair, as you point out it wasn't as tough as the P-47 but nothing much was. Compared to the other inline fighters of the era, the P-51 had no disadvantages worth mentioning.

If the P-51 didn't have it's legendary range, it would have provided an above average plane for actions down low. The RAF used the Mustang Mk.I and IA extensively over Northern France before deep penertrations were being made by the Allison cousins; Mustang Mk.IIIs started them. Pairs or trios of cannon armed Mk.IAs could provide a nasty surprise for the Luftwaffe when they were training or lining up to intercept a bomber formation early in the morning. The speed of the Mustang let it in and out of Axis Europe quickly, the Luftwaffe had a difficult time intercepting this small incursions. The 2nd TAF Mustangs achieved quite the success flying missions that could have been covered by the Spitfires range.

The real niché of the P-51 was it's range, we all know that. The 2nd TAF used the Mustang III with great success on early morning raids against enemy airfields in Germany. These were another shock to the Luftwaffe, they never expected to see six Mustangs dive-bombing German bases in Germany before the Allies were on the continent! Nothin' like puttin' on your Lieder-Hosen in the mornin' and hearing six Merlins roaring overhead!

A lot of people mistake the Mustang for being "relegated" to the armed-recon role by the RAF. But the Mustang was ordered for this role, to free up the Spitfire for the air superiority role. This provided a great partnership between the Spitfire and Mustang that is rarely mentioned. A great, and efficient sight to see, Mustang IIIs escorting "Bombphoons" while Spitfire IXs fly high over them. And these Mustangs weren't in a 10:1 situation against the Luftwaffe, like their USAAF brethren were.

We don't need to mention the role of the P-51 in the escort duties for the USAAF bomber streams, it's known by everyone.

The role of the Mustang as a war winning weapon is not over-rated. People will say the P-38 could have filled that role, but it didn't. The Mustang carried the bombers on it's shoulders to Berlin and beyond, then home again. The technical ability of the Mustang in a dogfight is the over-rated part, but be careful and don't instantly assume the Mustang was useless in one on one combat - pilots have many a wonderful story to tell!

That said, if they managed to get Spitfire Mk.IXs with the range of the Mustang while keeping every other ability. I would take the Spitfire Mk.IX everytime - but again, they didn't get anything like that into service.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Female Russian pilots were killed by the hundreds.... There were a handful that scored kills...

Correct

[Hunter368]

PlanD,

I have been waiting for you to respond to my post so we could debate. But......I can't debate anything you have said b/c it is 100% correct. I agree with you on every single point 100%. Well done it was like you were reading my mind.


I liked how you slipped that point about the 2ND TAF in there, lets see if syscom says anything about it.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by jakal

Hunter368

I read Female Russian Pilots during WW@ kicked *** with the little training they received!

Yes......whats your point???? For every one that did well I would guess hundreds were killed.

Thats like saying that its a good retirement plan to buy lottery tickets and when I actually win one, you say I am a genuis. If someone depends on lottery tickets for their retirement....whether they win or not they are still a dumbass. You get my point?

[plan_D]

My history on the 2nd Tactical Air Force has been a great help in learning about tactical strikes, but also about the usage of many aircraft types involved. The Mustang story in the 2nd TAF is completely different from that in the US Eighth Air Force and it still held it's own. Helped me create an unbias opinion on the plane, took a while though.

[lesofprimus]

"Katya" Yekaterina Vasilyevna Budanova (KIA 18jul43) 20 - 11 (6 + 5 OTG?)
Olga Nikolayevna Yamshikova 17 - 3 (3 + 14 OTG?)
"Lili" Lidya Vladimirovna Litvyak (KIA 1aug43) 12 (+ 3 sh) (7 + 5 OTG?)
Klavdiya Yakovlevna Fomicevova (Fomicheva) 11 (all OTG?)

A different List...

Litvjaková, Lidia Vladimirovna 15 [12+3]
Budanová, Jekatěrina V. 11 [6+5]
Fomičevová, Klavdija Jakovlevna 11 [0+11]
Pankratová, Klaudie 4
Beljajeva, Rajsa Vasiljevna 3 [1+3]
Burdina, Galina Pavlovna 3 [2+1]
Dolina, Marija Ivanovna 3 [0+3]
Jamščiková, Olga Nikolajevna 3
Lebeděva, Antonina Vasiljevna 3
Surnačevskaja, Raisa Fedorovna 3 [2+1]

Lidia Vladimirovna Litvjaková is sometimes credited with eleven individual victories and three shared.
Jekatěrina V. Budanová is sometimes credited with four individual victories and six shared.
Rajsa Vasiljevna Beljajeva is sometimes credited with four confirmed victories.
Olga Nikolajevna Jamščiková is sometimes credited with seventeen victories.
Tamara Ustinovna Pamjatnych and Raisa Fedorovna Surnačevskaja shot down four enemy aircrafts in one combat.

[wmaxt]

PlanD, I agree with your assessment of the Mustang at least to a point.

The P-51s performance was average at best before the Merlin/long range capabilities to the poiint that production had stopped for several months. The -51s project coordinator for the AAF also had a father in congress who was friends with the White House who helped put a priority on the P-51 for a second production plant (I will have to search for the names but I'll try to get them).

An interesting point I have run across several times: The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status.

Yes the P-38 could have done it and at least as well as the P-51 - in fact it did for a bit. The truth is that with more factory space and easier construction, the Mustang was available in larger numbers faster. The decision to move the P-38s to other theaters, the idea being to consolidate the aircraft types was right one for the time, place and conditions. Committing both aircraft piecemeal in all places they were needed would have reduced the effectiveness of the AAF.

Its nickname was the Spam Can, and its loss rate was quite a bit higher than the P-47 or the P-38, at least in the 8th AF (the one I have the best info on), that was the price for expediency.

IMHO: To say the Mustang was the best AAF fighter is not correct, to say it was the premier fighter of WWII is Ludicrous but so is saying it was less than a great fighter plane and amoung the best. It did what it was there to do and did it effectively. Any differences in performance, with other fighters, are a matter of degree not magnitude.

wmaxt

[Jank]

wmaxt said, "The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status."

Wore out how? It's engine was quite reliable and didn't required the overhaul schedule of the Merlin powered Mustang. It didn't have the plug fouling problems of the Mustang nor the plethora of engine problems of the pre-J model P-38's.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Jank

wmaxt said, "The P-47, we all agree was the toughest fighter in combat but strangely enough, it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status."

Wore out how? It's engine was quite reliable and didn't required the overhaul schedule of the Merlin powered Mustang. It didn't have the plug fouling problems of the Mustang nor the plethora of engine problems of the pre-J model P-38's.

Actually the 2800 though a great engine and very reliable required overhaul in intervals that weren't much different than the in-line engines. Turbo's and there related components are also relatively high maintenance items. The actual causes of the reports is unknown to me though I have seen them from several different sources - I am looking for more info on this and will relate it when I have found it. I don't consider it verified yet that is why I noted "It has been reported".

Average manhours to overhaul the big three's engines
2800 - 288 hours
1710 - 198 hours
1650 - 320 hours

This has nothing to do with run hours between overhauls but might be considered in to war weary status.

The early P-38 engine issues and a few Js to to a very great extent were due to
1. Fuel, the fuel in Europe was of fairly poor quality to begin with and affected Mustangs too but turbo'd engines are more susceptible to poor fuel.
2. Intercoolers, early intercoolers were designed for 1,100hp max, worse the long path from the turbo through the wing and back at cold temps separated the TEL from the fuel causing denotation or the lead would cause the valves not to seat thereby melting the valve or causing the piston to hit it.
3. Operating techniques, low turbo pressure let the intake air cool exacerbating the fuel issues plus letting the engine oil and coolant cool to much for proper lubrication.

The same and worse conditions were encountered in the Aleutions with none of these issues. Cockpit heat was also better for the same reasons, a warm engine and exhaust heated the cockpit much more effectively to. Cockpit heat on the P-38 came from a metal jacket around the exhaust pipe between the engine and turbo. The exhaust pipe heated the air as it was drawn through the space between the jacket and the pipe then to the cockpit. At low manifold pressures and very cold outside air it never warmed sufficiently, higher manifold pressures caused the exhaust pipe to be much hotter making the system that much more efficient.

You probably know that already but others may not.

PlanD

We both missed the P-51's best feature, esp for a low time pilot, ease of getting reasonable flying competency for combat. The P-38 was a better performer - for an experienced pilot but significantly harder for a 20hr fighter pilot to get very good results out of.

Thats probably its very best feature.

wmaxt

[Jank]

Can you share where you saw that "it has been reported that it also wore out most quickly to an overhaul/war weary status"?

I am interested because I have read an account from a crew chief (I wish I had it to share) that indicated that the R-2800 could go longer between maintenance intervals than the Merlin powered Mustang - I think, in part due to the spark plug problems suffered by the Mustangs but I'm not sure.

I have also read in The Report on Joint Fighter Conference 1944 that the mechanical maintenance on the P-38 was more complicated and troublesome.

[Jank]

Only semi-related but interesting nonetheless.

These are the results of a maintenance study of the use of 150 grade fuel on the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in 1944.

150 Grade Fuel

4. Maintenance difficulties can be summarized as follows:

a. P-38 (V-1710 Engine).

Spark plug leading was increased. The extent of this leading was such that plug change was required after approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than leading.

b. P-47 (R-2800 Engine).

Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.

c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines).

The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.

[FLYBOYJ]

I think a lot of the fouling problems were due to improper leaning. Many greener pilots had no idea what "peak of lean" meant and would most certainly forget to lean after going W/E during the heat of battle.

Something else to consider - a V-12, 24 spark plugs fairly accessible; an R-2800, 36 spark plugs a lot less accessible. Although the round engines were more robust, they could be a lot more difficult to work on (I say that from experience).

[lesofprimus]

Ive read countless accounts of spark plug fouling in the P-51, on climb out, on cruise and combat conditions.... Sometimes pilots were grounded for days at visiting airfields till more spark plugs could be delivered...

Ive never seen much mention of this problem with the P-47 jocks or their mechanics...

The biggest problem Ive seen concerning maintenance issues for the P-38 was their propellers... Guys in the Propeller Shops got less sleep than just about anyone else.... It wasnt an exact science either, as alot of these mechanics would sit and wait for the birds to come home, praying that no one had prop issues....