Favorite fighter/interceptor?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Indeed, in fact even pure water could be used without any additive in emergency.

As for Caldwell, where did you contact him ? Personally, I found his book a great read (it was translated here, too) and an extremely well written unit history that is both very readable and yet informative. OTOH I don't think Caldwell did much research into aircraft, thing I read in his book about various aircraft types merely seem to repeat old topos taken from old books like Green, and in cases uncorrect. In short I wouldn`t rely on at all how he rates different aircraft, opinions of veterans he gives is an entirely different matter of course, but I realize how subjective those are, and how much based on perception/feel/personal preference.

Yes I did Kurfurst. The comments I just made were very close paraphrase of what he told me from the email I received last night. Soren raised a question about Caldwell's 'accuracy' and I was interested not so much in validating Don's opinion or refuting Soren's as I was in various reactions from many fine fighter pilots that helped Don compile his various books.

But that`s fine, it`s a unit history after all, not a danged type catalouge...!

As for anecdotes about the 109K in Caldwell`s book, I can only recall two, summerized by Caldwell; one being that the K-4s JG 26 received were at first equipped with gondolas, while G-10s were not, and this made the G-10 more popular for high altitude work - no big surprise here - so later the gondies were removed.

The one I asked him about some time agao came from the December timeframe in his Top Gun book. I do not remember the exact words but in effect the pilot describing the high altitude formation flying efforts as difficult to maintain in contrast to the G-10 or G-6. Conversely, the P-51H was described in Flight test as having a tendency to 'hunt' which I interpreted as a little Dutch Roll... so maybe the 109K pilot was describing one annoying characteristic and failed to mention all the good one?

The other being the story of a German pilot who dived sometime in the winter in his 109K and his canopy glass misted/freeze up in the dive. Again, no big surprise. Neither accounts tell too much about the type`s qualities, the only tactical experience report I own is from units on different types (Bf 110, but mainly 262), which has a couple of paragraph devoted to the experiences with the K model. Not much there either, though. I don`t want to dig up the details, but the story was something about a higher ranking pilot shooting down three Thunderbolts in his K-4, then forced landed because of a radiator hit he received during combat.

The question of subjectivity is always a difficult perspective to separate from objective evaluations. I don't exclude myself from this curse but I try to hold a balance (the engineer in me won't go away).

Don also made the comment that at that stage of the war and the early introduction of the Dora into JG 26 made for a range of reactions to this powerful new fighter - some expecting invincibility were disappointed, others expecting parity against the best the Allies had weren't disappointed.

But your point on tactical observations is a strong key point. They are largely written by survivors of air combat. It is rare that you see "Despite this pig of an airplane" my skill overcame great odds and I emerged victorious".. on both sides.

I talk to Mustang veterans all the time that seriously believe no Me 109 could ever out turn a 51. We know that statement is false - just that none he engaged with escaped in a turn, or continued, closed and shot him (MUstang pilot) down. That makes for one sided evaluations - both sides

Having said that there were very very few Mustang aces shot down in aerial combat in ETO. That is a reflection of the superb performance, the tactics of the Luftwaffe to AVOID fighter-fighter combat by orders, and the decline in pilot standards over time from 1943 on.

So, to summarize. He stood by his words, said he was not 'chastised' for mis hearing what was discussed regarding such anecdotal reflections by the pilots, is NOT a 8th AF/US bigot on this subject and IS a great admirer of the Luftwaffe and its battle skills and aircraft. He describes his role as a trusted 'scribe', not a serious evaluator of aerodynamics and performance.

At any rate I respect your POV, as well as Soren's. I depend on my own capacity to sort facts from opinion and sometimes fail - but I do a lot of cross checking on interesting topics - this is one of them

Regards,

Bill

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

Regarding take off roll, well according to the POH which lists minimum figures the P-51D at 10,000 lbs takes off after 1600 ft (487m) and will clear a 50 ft (15m) object after 2400 ft (731m).

P-51D Performance

Use this as one reference for 51D flight test at 9600 pound (no fuel in fuse, full internal wing fuel, full ammo and oil and 200 pound pilot - equipped for 1100 mile range fighter config

Summary @9600pounds on STP calibration
to = 1040ft, then 1720ft to clear 50'

with 1/2 fuel @ 9071pounds on STP
landing roll = 1520 at 110mph
to clear 50ft = 2250ft

I wonder if your source confused the landing roll with Take Off stats? Or was using flaps 'neutral' instead of short field 15-20 degrees. If so, their figures make sense but doesn't tell the whole story

the extra 560 pounds fro full fuse tank would mean perhaps another 100-120 ft to generate the airspeed to lift the extra weight.

These numbers closely approximate my own experience, which for the one I was flying in - would have been around 9300+ (me in back, no fuse fuel, full wing tanks, no guns/ammo, extra radio/nav/flight controls) and routine take offs in 1000 feet with flaps at 20 degrees


Compared to other LW a/c:

P-51D: 487m, 731m to clear 15m object.
FW-190 A-8: 430m, 715m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 A-9: 390m, 600m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 D-9: 365m, 570m to clear 20m object.
Ta-152H-0: 295m, 495m to clear 20m object.

German data for fully loaded weight and take off power.

I'm a little suprised that the 190D took 10% less take off run than the A-8. What were the differences in weight between the two?

[Soren]

Bill,

The figures you have presented are calculated and VERY optimistic IMO, just take a look at the Spitfires take off roll which was renowned for being very short, it's longer than that calculation. The POH lists the true minimum 1600 ft take off roll at 10,000 lbs and 1400 ft at 9,000 lbs. Don't you have the P-51D's POH ?

Interestingly though the better aerodynamics of B version made for a 200 ft shorter take off run at 1400 ft, compared to the 1600 ft of the P-51D.

Also why are you surprised about the difference between the A-8 & D-9 ? While weighing roughly the same the D-9 is less draggy and it's prop produces slightly more thrust.

[Soren]

Btw, also remember that down low and at slow speeds the FW-190 A-8 has a better sustained turn rate than the P-51D, hence the shorter take off roll.

The excellent charts by Crumpp:
FW_190 A-8

P-51D

[Soren]

He was very emphatic that the Dora pilots felt they had an edge overall on the P-47 and Tempests - their main opponents but were disappointed that the Mustang still seemed to have an edge.

According to German comparisons the Dora was slightly better than the P-51 down low and about the same at high altitude.

He finished by saying that the Anton did have an edge in manueverability but what could you expect in comparison with a heavier, longer ship against the best fighter roll rate in the ETO

Roll rate isn't turn rate

However in short I wouldn't trust Caldwell when it comes to a/c performance, and that's not that he's untrustworthy, he just isn't much into this area.

Please also bare in mind that most Dora-9's flown by JG-26 weren't equipped with the MW-50 system, so that would explain the remarks Caldwell has recieved.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

The figures you have presented are calculated and VERY optimistic IMO, just take a look at the Spitfires take off roll which was renowned for being very short, it's longer than that calculation. The POH lists the true minimum 1600 ft take off roll at 10,000 lbs and 1400 ft at 9,000 lbs. Don't you have the P-51D's POH ?

What I presented you was Flight Test Report, May 1944 test results at Wright Pat taking a random P-51D-15 and running it through its paces.

What it (Report) presented you was average observed take off roll in fully loaded combat condition except for fuselage fuel. for short field conditions using 20 degrees of flaps


Interestingly though the better aerodynamics of B version made for a 200 ft shorter take off run at 1400 ft, compared to the 1600 ft of the P-51D.

That wasn't our discussion but I knew that. The P-51B in similar load, short field, hard runway, 20degrees flaps is probably less than 1000 feet.

Also why are you surprised about the difference between the A-8 & D-9 ? While weighing roughly the same the D-9 is less draggy and it's prop produces slightly more thrust.

Because you didn't present the Report stating each condition, and elements of test, including either corrections for STP or the actual temperatures or the field conditions for take off, definitions for what constituted the load. You present no context.

Even Combat Load has different connotations depending on the mission. I was careful to highlight the specific meaning and demonstrate the difference the internal fuselage tank load meant to Max Gross TO 'Clean External -except for racks'

Your source is already suspect because the data you give is for clean (no flaps) take off for a P-51D. If that is what it states, the 1540-1600 ft is correct, or close enough depending on pilot skill, altitude of the airfield, hard or soft, hot or cold day.

What is your source?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

According to German comparisons the Dora was slightly better than the P-51 down low and about the same at high altitude.

Please post the German comparisons you are alluding to. I have done so fro anecdotal reference, have never found a written comparison performed by test pilots except for the ones performed by RAF and USAAF - which you refute. Post the tests and comparisons that meet your standard for fairness.

Absent that, you waste both our time covering the same ground.

Roll rate isn't turn rate

Soren -When did you come to that realization? Having said that how would you prove that D-9 out turned an A8 or A9? The anecdotal evidence that came from Caldwell's book indicated the Anton out turned and out rolled it. You say no. What is the German Report making these comparisons that I should look at? The D-9 is heavier, I suppose the W/L is higher for exactly the same comparison combat load? - but tell me other wise if you have the facts. What difference in wing parameters would favor the Dora and overcome the weight and possible length influence?

Additionally, unless you have flight test comparisons between Fw 190D-9 and P-51B/C/D for turn or acceleration or roll, what factual base are you arguing from. The P-51D and B could turn with a Fw 190A. Altitude and speed would dictate which one had an advantage however slight.

If the Anton indeed out turned the Dora, as related, it is logical to conclude that the Dora DID NOT out turn a Mustang - unless you have evidence to the contrary.

However in short I wouldn't trust Caldwell when it comes to a/c performance, and that's not that he's untrustworthy, he just isn't much into this area.

Soren, unless you have the data, the Reports and the Comparisons to state unequivocally your point, neither do you (or me).

Please also bare in mind that most Dora-9's flown by JG-26 weren't equipped with the MW-50 system, so that would explain the remarks Caldwell has recieved.

That would not explain any remarks regarding comparisons between the Anton and Dora. Nor have I seen evidence that JG26 was punished by witholding MW50 systems. Where would you direct me for evidence of this?

[Soren]

From the P-51D & P-51B POH:





Those are the official average take off distances, so obviously they're with flaps Bill. The figures you presented were calculated, the doc says so itself in the beginning.

Here are the Official German figures, the same Leistung Daten chart, and ALL the take off & landing distance figures are at std. atmosphere and zero wind:





Moving on to turn rate;

First Crumpp's comparison:
FW-190 D-9


FW-190 A-8


This is real physics, and they don't change.

I'll post the German comparative remarks tommorrow.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

From the P-51D & P-51B POH:





Those are the official average take off distances, so obviously they're with flaps Bill. The figures you presented were calculated, the doc says so itself in the beginning.

Two points Soren - first look to the note on the lower right side of the 51 chart you presented - highlighting that "20 degrees flaps -80% of Chart" - Obviously the table values on the left do Not represent flaps used in TO - and for what it is worth the tables you found seem accurate otherwise

Second Point. The Flight tests in June 45 by Gentile yielded Better results than the Calulated results for 2-46.

Here are the Official German figures, the same Leistung Daten chart, and ALL the take off & landing distance figures are at std. atmosphere and zero wind:





Moving on to turn rate;

First Crumpp's comparison:
FW-190 D-9


FW-190 A-8


This is real physics, and they don't change.

I'll post the German comparative remarks tommorrow.

I have a lot of respect for Crump's charts and his math. I would also point out that the models presented are subject to the engine performance at different altitudes, depending on where the blowers kick in so even the models must be carefully used with all caveats discussed

They do not, however, represent anything more than a mathmatical model. Aerodynamics and flight mechanics are math models to arrive at estimates of predicted performance.

The reason flight tests are performed, other than for better understanding of the limits of aircraft, are to demonstrate the REAL physics and characteristics.

An aircraft is a complicated model. Extrapolations on lift are influenced by Wing-Body interaction, laminar flow separation, unexpected wash out, complications introduced by aeroelastic effects due to wing loads when angle of attack is changed by those loads, etc, etc.

That is why we will always be talking past each other. If you make an statement that a Fw 190D-9 out turns an Anton or a P-51D and I ask you for the Test data - and you present Gene's performance calculations - I'm interested but unconvinced for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Gene would tell you the same thing about calculations versus flight tests. The calcs lead to design, tests lead to adjustment of calcs/models to fit real life, modified models lead to next design, etc. I lived in that world, but mostly airframe structures after my first two years.

Circle back to key points.

Caldwell reproduces comments and diary from JG26 during December, 1944.

Diary expresses disappointment that the Anton out turns and out rolls the Dora, and worse does not out perform the Mustang.

You say Caldwell 'full of it' and every LW pilot knows that none of that is true.

And the debate rolled on from there. I found flight tests as late as March 1945 that refuted your top numbers, you found performance charts that substantiated yours. In all candor, I don't read German so I don't know if the charts you presented on the D were Flight Test or Theoretical calculations based on wind tunnel drag results.

and so on.

So, what do you believe substantiates your claim that the Dora was faster and out turned the Mustang? Do you have anything in the way of Flight tests or other one on one comparative tests that substantiate your claim? An anecdotal comment is interesting as part of the equation, but not the conclusive fact

You just dismissed the Calculated values from USAAF Flight Test Reports (even though the calculated figures for speed and climb were less than actual test results), but posed Gene's very nice performance charts as gospel. Why the selective embrace of one while dismissing the other?

At any rate I KNOW that the take off roll for a loaded 51 as I described it above, on a hard runway with 20 degrees of flaps is in the 1000-1100 foot range from personal experience so I had to really look at the tables you presented to try to figure the discrepancy. But by my own rules, anecdotal is interesting but not conclusive fact - I buy that.

[Soren]

It says "Optimum take off" which means the setting which yields the quickest take off, it doesn't say flaps werent used.

80% of 1600 ft (487 m) is 1280 ft (390m), which sounds reasonable at take off power. I'll happily believe that (1600 ft did sound a little high).

As to your personal experience with a restored P-51, well the P-51's in service were heavier as they were stacked with ammo and also different electrical systems I'd presume?

Moving on....

Regarding the calculations made by Crumpp, well I've talked to him over PM and his calculations are based on actual flight data on the a/c, stall speed, thrust etc etc.. So they are in the right ballpark, and are good for comparing a/c.

The elastic deformation of the wings is something which needs be considered yes, and it has been. Infact this very effect actually gave the FW-190's wings elliptical lift distribution in tight turns, hence the violent stall. (Elliptical lift distribution makes for violent stalls)

By looking at the power available to the Dora-9 and the lower drag it's quite obvious it was a better turn fighter than the A-8, and the German comparative reports and the opinions of the vets who flew the a/c agree with this. Actually I have a very nice original aerodynamics chart on the FW190 & Ta-152 series I'll post here tommorrow when I get home, then you can see the difference between the a/c for yourself.

As for Caldwell, I never said he was full of it, I infact said otherwise. What I did say is that he has little insight into technical aspect of these fighters, where'as Dietmarr has covered this area extensively.

Finally like I said, I'll provide the German comparative report tommorrow.

PS: I really don't appreciate your accusations of bias Bill, I haven't been biased or selective I have just looked at and compared the data I have and have been made available. So I hope for the sake of this debate that you don't continue with these blind accusations, either that or I will cease to participate.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Regarding the calculations made by Crumpp, well I've talked to him over PM and his calculations are based on actual flight data on the a/c, stall speed, thrust etc etc.. So they are in the right ballpark, and are good for comparing a/c.

I didn't disagree about 'ballpark' - I noted to you (and Gene - and he agrees) that each comparison must be made for the altitudes and power curves of the engines - which they do. A Mustang will kick into a high horsepower rating under automatic boost than an Fw 190... ditto an Fw 190D or whatever. So, if you wish to present each curve - note the altitude and rated Hp of the engine at that condition? Take the rated Hp of the Fw 190A-8 against the P-51B Mustang at say, 15, 20, 25 and 30,000 feet - then make your case.

Sea Level to 5,000 feet should be easy, above that it will get more complicated

By looking at the power available to the Dora-9 and the lower drag it's quite obvious it was a better turn fighter than the A-8, and the German comparative reports and the opinions of the vets who flew the a/c agree with this.

Then by definition of low drag as the criteria, it should be 'quite obvious' that the Mustang is a better turn fighter than either of the Fw's or 109's?

And part of this debate is that the comparisons that some made, as reflected in JG26 were in opposite opinion - so what are we to believe when one set of vets disagree, anecdotally, with the others?

And where are the Comparative reports you just mentioned? I can find them from the RAF and the USAAF but nowhere else?

Even CALCULATIONS, if founded on the drag results from Flight Tests are useful


As for Caldwell, I never said he was full of it, I infact said otherwise. What I did say is that he has little insight into technical aspect of these fighters, where'as Dietmarr has covered this area extensively.

Soren - this is cut and pasted from your comments

"In short, Caldwell is talking trash and knows nothing of what he's talking about as all the vets, experts & physics tell a much different story from the one told by Caldwell in that article.

This is ofcourse not your fault Bill, I'm just letting you know that the article is pure BS."

How did I mis interpret what you wrote? It isn't obvious to me.


PS: I really don't appreciate your accusations of bias Bill, I haven't been biased or selective I have just looked at and compared the data I have and have been made available. So I hope for the sake of this debate that you don't continue with these blind accusations, either that or I will cease to participate.

I looked back to find an accusation of bias. I did say we talk past each other, I did say that on one hand you dismiss Flight Tests on comparisons made by RAF and USAAF as biased, but produce no 'unbiased' flight tests for a counterpoints.

I probably mentioned that for every anecdotal comment you could find I could find one rebutting, and vice versa.

I have probably asked you tens of times "where are the referenced tests by the Luftwaffe (that you reference all the time) that demonstrate superior turn performance of say an 109 versus the Dora, or Anton versus the Dora, or 109 versus the Mustang, etc.. You zip right past that discussion and introduce the next series of claims.

In all of these clashes regarding the 'obvious superiority of say, a Me 109G or K versus the Mustang, you have yet to produce one set of flight test comparisons to substantiate your claim, but frequently dismiss other actual tests as 'biased', unfair, or simply wrong. I for one would be happy to know there is another set of tests , say at Rechlin, in which this is documented?

When I bring up Rall's comments on his reflections about comparative turning ability, when he was running the LW program at Rechlin for awhile, you dismissed his comments on the basis of his fear of using slats, but still present no test data to refute his observations.

You have zero qualms about doubting the experience of one of Germany's top warriors when it contradicts your point of view.

You do this to me and everyone who would express real curiosity, and a real interest in facts.

Is this what you mean by bias?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

It says "Optimum take off" which means the setting which yields the quickest take off, it doesn't say flaps werent used.

80% of 1600 ft (487 m) is 1280 ft (390m), which sounds reasonable at take off power. I'll happily believe that (1600 ft did sound a little high).

As to your personal experience with a restored P-51, well the P-51's in service were heavier as they were stacked with ammo and also different electrical systems I'd presume?


Soren, this is what I wrote

"I wonder if your source confused the landing roll with Take Off stats? Or was using flaps 'neutral' instead of short field 15-20 degrees. If so, their figures make sense but doesn't tell the whole story

the extra 560 pounds fro full fuse tank would mean perhaps another 100-120 ft to generate the airspeed to lift the extra weight.

These numbers closely approximate my own experience, which for the one I was flying in - would have been around 9300+ (me in back, no fuse fuel, full wing tanks, no guns/ammo, extra radio/nav/flight controls) and routine take offs in 1000 feet with flaps at 20 degrees"


The airplane had GI issue electrical and plumbing. Only Mod was, canopy, second cockpit/remove fuselage tank, no guns/ammo, second set of oxygen equipment - essentially what would be found in a TF-51D with very little weight difference.

I have the POH, it is an old ratty Manual that is missing the Tables..

With a full load plus two pilots I think it was around 9200-9300 but it might have been lighter.

[davparlr]

Best fighter interceptor is, as usual, difficult to nail down. I am going to address the interceptor part and assume the fighter part follows along.

In order to be a great interceptor, an aircraft must have several excellent characteristics as follows:
1. Time to climb. The interceptor must reach the altitude of the bomber, or higher, in a minimum time.
2. Firepower. The interceptor must have sufficient fire power to quickly dispatch heavily armed bombers. Most American fighters are short in this area (no need, no heavily armed bombers to shoot down).
3. Evasive capability. The interceptor must be able to evade escort fighters. This does not necessarily mean to defeat them, only evade them. I would assume airspeed and high altitude performance, for attack from above, is most valuable for evasion.
4. Endurance. The interceptor must have enough endurance to do severe damage to the bomber formation. The job of the interceptor is to disrupt the bomber formation and inflict severe losses on the attacking force.

The primary bomber threat falls into three categories, small and medium bombers, and fighter bombers, all usually operating below 15k ft., early heavy bombers, B-17 et.al., at 20-25k, and the B-29, operating above 30k.

For comparison purposes, I will address bombers at 25k and 33k. Two aircraft that should be included are the P-38L and Bf-109K. I have little data on the P-38L and limited data on the Bf-109K.

Time to climb, 25k ft.- quickest first

Spitfire XIV 6.6 minutes
P-51B 7 minutes (75”hg boost)
P-51H 7 minutes
P-47M 7.3 minutes
F4U-4 7.5 minutes
Bf-109G about 7.5 (7.8 at 26k) minutes
Fw-190D-9 7.6 minutes
Ta-152H 8 minutes
P-51D 9.2 minutes (67”hg, probably a bit longer than the P-51B at 75”hg)


Time to climb, 33k

Spitfire XIV 9.5 minutes
P-51H 9.8 minutes
Ta -152H 10.1 minutes
Bf-109G 11.9 minuets
P-51B 12.4 minutes
Fw-190D-9 12.5 minutes
F4U-4 12.8 (mil power only)
P-51D 12.8 minutes
P-47M 13.4 minutes


Firepower – best first (a guess)

Bf-109G two 15mm, two 20mm, one 30mm-excellent
Ta-152H one 30mm, two 20mm-excellent
Fw-190D-9 two 13mm, two 20mm Very Good
Spitfire Mk XIV two 20mm, two 30 caliber-very good
F4U-4 six 50 cal-(Medium), or four 20mm (very good}
P-47M eight 50 cal.-Probably Good
P-51D six 50 cal.-Medium
P-51B four 50 cal.-Poor
P-51H four 50 cal.-Poor


Evasive potential-25k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling-fastest first

P-51H 466 mph, 2350 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-47M 453 mph, 3000 ft/min, >33k
Ta-152H 449 mph, N/A (2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500 ft
F4U-4 448 mph, 2600 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Spitfire XIV 446 mph, 3100 ft/min, 43,500 ft
P-51B 440 mph, 2120 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 440 mph, 2100 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Fw-190D-9, 422mph, 2280 ft/min, 39,370 ft
Bf-109G, 420mph, (2135 at 26k), 38,700 ft


Evasive potential-33k, top speed, rate of climb, service ceiling

P-47M 475 mph, N/A (2200 ft/min at 30k), >33k
Ta-152 458 mph, NA (2854 ft/min at 30k), 48,500k
P-51H 440 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Spitfire XIV 438, 2000 ft/min, 43,500
F4U-4 434 mph, 1600 ft/min, 41,600 ft
P-51B 423 mph, 1200 ft/min, 38,500 ft
P-51D 418 mph, 1250 ft/min, 41,600 ft
Bf-109G 398 mph, 1175 ft/min, 38,700 ft
Fw-190D-9 391 mph, 984 ft/min, 39,370 ft


Endurance-longest first (a guess)

P-51B With 184 gallons of main fuel and a 85 gallon extended range tank-excellent
P-51D Probably a mite less than the P-51B-excellent
P-51H Unknown, probably excellent
Ta-152 With 263 gallons, excellent
P-47M With 250 gallons and a 100 gallon reserve, endurance should be excellent
F4U-4 With 237 gallons, endurance should be excellent
Fw-190D-9 No data, probably medium
Spitfire XIV With 134 gallons, medium
Bf-109G No data, probably medium

Conclusion based on this data, at 25k feet, best to last:

1. Spitfire XIV. Excellent time to climb beating the next fastest by 20-30 seconds. Good firepower. In top mix of airspeed, best in rate of climb, and very good ceiling. Let down a bit by endurance.

Next four are very close.

2. F4U-4. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower with 20s medium with 50s. In the top mix of airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

3. P-47M. Very good time to climb. Good firepower. In the top mix of airspeed (second to P-51H), second behind Spitfire in rate of climb, good ceiling. Excellent endurance.

4. Ta-152. Good time to climb, excellent firepower. In the top mix of airspeed, rate of climb among the best, excellent ceiling. Excellent endurance. Great performance, only let down by time to climb, almost a minute and a half slower than the Spitfire.

5. P-51H. Among the best in time to climb. Poor firepower. Excellent airspeed-best in class, very good rate of climb, very good ceiling. Firepower prevents competing for best at 25k.

The next four are all pretty equal

6. Fw-190D-9. Very good time to climb. Very good firepower. Much slower in airspeed than other contestants except the Bf-109G, 18 mph slower than the next slowest on the list. Very good rate of climb, among the lowest ceiling in mix. Airspeed would make it difficult to penetrate an equal number of escort fighters including P-51B/D/H and P-47s.

6. Bf-109G. Very good time to climb. Excellent firepower. Slowest of the bunch, so comments similar to Fw-109D-9.


7. P-51D. Probably reasonable time to climb with max boost (probably would have scored higher if I had the data for 75” Hg boost). Medium firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, good ceiling. Forte is long range escort.

8. P-51B. Excellent time to climb-tied with P-51H for second. Poor firepower. Very good airspeed, good rate of climb, lowest ceiling (maybe early model). Forte is long range escort.

Conclusion based on this data, at 33k feet, best to last:

1. At 33k, only one aircraft contending, the Ta-152H. The only aircraft in this bunch with any advantage at all at 33k ft. is the P-47M with a 17 mph airspeed advantage, but not much else.
2. Spitfire
3. F4U-4
4. P-47M
5. P-51H
6. Everybody else.

Overall, of the above choices, I think the Ta-152H would be preferred, due to its outstanding high altitude performance, and its very good capability at lower altitudes.

I think the best interceptor at all altitudes is the Me-262. Its higher speed and powerful armament supersedes slower climb and lesser ceiling than most of the listed aircraft. In flown appropriately, and with protected airfields, I think the Me-262, with a reasonable amount of aircraft available, could have stopped daylight bombing in Europe.

This is just my rationale. All of these aircraft were superb aircraft and proved to be deadly. In addition, variation from the mean has a big impact on assessment. For example, it was noted in this thread that Fw calculated data was guaranteed to 3%. Well, at 400 mph, that means it could be anywhere between 388 mph to 412 mph, a 24 mph spread. Flight test also has range variable. I have found both calculated and test d