PDA

View Full Version : FW-190 vs. P-51



Fedda
01-03-2006, 01:52 PM
Hi!
Some sources states that the Focke Wulf 190 (A-D) was the greatest piston engine fighter of WW2 and some sources have given this honor to the infamous Mustang of the same period.
Just out of curiosity: What do you mean were the greatest fighter of the two mentioned above?

danjama
01-03-2006, 01:53 PM
FW190A

Brain32
01-03-2006, 01:55 PM
FW190D

jugent
01-03-2006, 01:56 PM
I dont think that such questions are possible to ansver. A scientific investigation is not possible to do, and its the winner that writes the history.

horseback
01-03-2006, 02:05 PM
The FW 190A was THE dominant fighter in Europe from late 1941 to early 1944; the arrival of the Merlin Mustang models at that point in time was quite irrelevent to the 190's loss of the championship belt...

cheers

horseback

LStarosta
01-03-2006, 02:06 PM
Fw-190Z

JSG72
01-03-2006, 02:14 PM
Being a BIG fan of the Luftwaffe for Nearly Forty years now.
Have to say the Mustang was definitly feared by
the Jagdwaffe. If only because there were so many of them towards the end of War.
However. Many of Pilots (Flying the later 190s A-D) have said the Late model Spitfires were the superior "ONE on ONE" Fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

JuHa-
01-03-2006, 02:52 PM
...Fw190 was the greatest ->German<- fighter in WWII... This is widely seen in various sources,
including Internet.

At best, the claims about the two might mean that they were closely matched. Or that those got most
votes on polls. Who cares?

HayateAce
01-03-2006, 03:14 PM
The Best? Simple, it was the winner.

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/p51mustang/p51-m005.jpg

Kuna15
01-03-2006, 03:22 PM
Who knows; I can't draw some solid conclusion from the game. If I could I'd say FW-190D.
I guess in RW I would say P-51D.

faustnik
01-03-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Fedda:
Hi!
Some sources states that the Focke Wulf 190 (A-D) was the greatest piston engine fighter of WW2 and some sources have given this honor to the infamous Mustang of the same period.
Just out of curiosity: What do you mean were the greatest fighter of the two mentioned above?

The one with the better pilot in it.

Loki-PF
01-03-2006, 03:51 PM
This is a completely nonsensical question. It cant be answered in a logical fashion.

The FW-190 shure as hell couldn't have done the Mustangs primary job (escorting bombers for longgg distances at highhhh altitudes-fighting-and then flying longgg distances home), and the Mustang would have sucked at the FW-190's primary job (breaking up heavily armed strategic bomber formations.)


.

Flakwalker
01-03-2006, 04:39 PM
The FW-190 D-9 will be the one. Personally I will select the Ta-152 C, powered by DB-603LA, 4x MG-151/20 + 1x MK-108 or MK-103.

ImpStarDuece
01-03-2006, 05:16 PM
Depends on what your given value of 'best' is.

If I wanted a high altitude, long range escort fighter, then the P-51D would be the 'best' fighter. If I wanted a medium altitude, air superiority fighter, then the FW 190D would be the 'best' fighter. If I wanted a low level interceptor and dogfighter then the Yak-3 would be the 'best' fighter. If I wanted an all altitude fighter then the Spitfire XIV would be the 'best' fighter.

What categories do you asses the performance in? Speed, range, firepower, ceiling, climb, dive, roll, turn, visibility, reliability, survivability, ease of flight, take-off/landing performance, ease of maintence, etc, etc. Differing opinions will place differing weights on each category.

For example, from Jan-Jun 1944, the P-51 scored far more kills than the Spitfire. It had range advantages that meant it could engage enemy fighters much further out than Spitfires. Does that make it a better fighter, given the Spitfires advantage in a dogfight?

p1ngu666
01-03-2006, 05:54 PM
5 bladed props for the win http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LStarosta
01-03-2006, 06:15 PM
Fw190Z = 6 blades.

f0ck3 4 teh win!11!1!1oneone

Werg78
01-03-2006, 09:10 PM
easy! La7 :P

Unknown-Pilot
01-03-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Werg78:
easy! La7 :P

..... in Oleg-world.

WOLFMondo
01-04-2006, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Fw190Z = 6 blades.

f0ck3 4 teh win!11!1!1oneone

Did Megile get into your account? :P

tonedog2005
01-04-2006, 04:02 AM
how do u mean in oleg world? was the LA series of russian fighters as good in real life as they r in the game?

WOLFMondo
01-04-2006, 04:09 AM
Apparently yes although there faults come to light more in this sim, there peformance at altitude sucks and they fall apart in high speed dives. Enough to put me off flying them unless theres no other choice.

The Doras high altitude performance isn't what it was in FB but I'd take it anyway over any P51 unless the fight is going to remain at 8K+. If the option was there I'd take a Tempest or a Spitfire XIV over either of them.

Hristo_
01-04-2006, 05:39 AM
Well, I'd take 109K over both of them.

OberUberWurst
01-04-2006, 06:59 AM
FW190D

DaimonSyrius
01-04-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
What categories do you asses the performance in?

That's a very good question and, possibly, the most relevant one in the context of the original poster's query. Especially when considering how 'asses' are not the same thing as the verb 'to assess' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
S.

D13th_Toppy
01-04-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
This is a completely nonsensical question. It cant be answered in a logical fashion.

The FW-190 shure as hell couldn't have done the Mustangs primary job (escorting bombers for longgg distances at highhhh altitudes-fighting-and then flying longgg distances home), and the Mustang would have sucked at the FW-190's primary job (breaking up heavily armed strategic bomber formations.)
.

Amen to that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
it's just no way to compare them. Sure, a strict comparision of figures could give you some sort of answer, but even those are conditioned by certain instances as altitudes and tactics.

WOLFMondo
01-04-2006, 09:56 AM
While there is a problem comparing them, they did meet frequently in combat, so for either one to get the edge over the other you need to compare the strengths and weakeness of both.

Xiolablu3
01-04-2006, 12:01 PM
I'm sure Unknown Pilot is in the ******ss book of records for his bias knowledge :P

JtD
01-04-2006, 12:19 PM
While at some points of the war I'd say the Focke Wulf was the single best fighter aircraft of the World, I wouldn't say a similar thing about the Mustang. A good aircraft with an excellent cost/performance ratio. Some bird did the job, other were buisy collecting all the glory.

msalama
01-04-2006, 12:27 PM
The Sturmovik won the war. Be sure.

Loki-PF
01-04-2006, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Some bird did the job, other were buisy collecting all the glory.

You must be talking about the P-47.



.

OldMan____
01-04-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
While there is a problem comparing them, they did meet frequently in combat, so for either one to get the edge over the other you need to compare the strengths and weakeness of both.

But thier engagements one aganst the other don ´t say wich one is best.


Just suppose. FW 190 and P51 had met 1000 times. On 2/3 of them the FW shot down the bombers being escorted, loosing FW190 s to P51 fire 1/3 of time And not shooting any P51.

Which plane would have fullfilled their role best in this hypotetical scenario?

Bremspropeller
01-04-2006, 01:14 PM
Both were great aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

faustnik
01-04-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
While at some points of the war I'd say the Focke Wulf was the single best fighter aircraft of the World, I wouldn't say a similar thing about the Mustang. A good aircraft with an excellent cost/performance ratio. Some bird did the job, other were buisy collecting all the glory.

Well, the Fw190 was the best fighter in the world in 1942 because of its high speed performance and maneuverability. The P-51 was the first a/c to arrive in the ETO to challenge, and in some areas surpass, the Fw190 at high speed performance.

I am always surprised on this forum when people try to discount the abilities of the Mustang (this isn't aimed at you JtD, just the forum in general). Please name another piston engined fighter that could surpass the Mustang for pure speed and high speed maneuvability.

??????????????

JtD
01-04-2006, 02:00 PM
High speed, good high speed maneuverabilty, excellent range and quite a few other things make this plane a good fighter, like I said. I just wouldn't label it "the best" at any given time of it's career. There are contemporaries like the F-4U, P-47, Spitfire (Mk. XIV included), Typhoon, Tempest, Yak-3, Yak-9u, La-7, FW-190 D-9 and even the Me 262 & Gloster Meteor it has to compete with and all of those have serious advantages over the P-51 in one or another important aspect.

Xiolablu3
01-04-2006, 03:23 PM
The P51 could do something that no other fighter could do, which is why it should be remembered.

I would rather be in many other planes one-on-one tho.

When the P51 reached Germany with the bombers it was there to cover them. The German fighters were straining up to get them, so the p51 usually had the height advanatge, which is critical, as everyone know.

Plus the German fighters priority was the bombers, and they were highly outnumbered, so its hard to compare them.

Unknown-Pilot
01-04-2006, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Please name another piston engined fighter that could surpass the Mustang for pure speed and high speed maneuvability.

??????????????

P-47.

Tougher too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, and much greater ordnance capability and all around flexibility (of use). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JSG72
01-04-2006, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Being a BIG fan of the Luftwaffe for Nearly Forty years now.
Have to say the Mustang was definitly feared by
the Jagdwaffe. If only because there were so many of them towards the end of War.
However. Many of Pilots (Flying the later 190s A-D) have said the Late model Spitfires were the superior "ONE on ONE" Fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

We are talking real world Luftwaffe Pilots here!
Not one of twelve 'stang Flyers all bearing down on that solitary FW 190 and ALL claiming a KILL! Go Figure.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hristo_
01-04-2006, 11:37 PM
Maybe it is time to test ? How about 12 Fw 190 vs 12 P-51 to find out ?

LuftWulf190
01-05-2006, 12:37 AM
Humm that depends. I will compare a Fw-190D-9 with a P-51D. The Mustang has the range, and the speed over the Dora, if the Dora is not useing the MW50. The Dora also has a higher wing loading. The Mustand also can out climb The Dora. At 2000m they are the same, but after that the Mustang Wins. The Mustang also has a Higher service ceiling.

The information was compared in Focke-Wulf Fw-190 "long Nose" by Dietmar Hermann.

Now What the comparison does not take in to account is the Dora's high roll rate. The D had almost the same high roll rate as the A. Also the D is armed with two 20mm cannons, and most people would have to agree a 20mm cannon has the hitting power of at least 3.5 heavy machine guns. So that roughly gives the Dora a fire power comparison of a P-47.

Now If we add in the MW50 so the equation the Dora can out match the Mustang in low level climb rate, and in low level and maximum speed.

Now I am not sure how these figures match up in the game as it is now.

Now useing Hardball's aircraft view the Dora has only 1340hp, that should read 1740 me thinks. The Dora has a low level speed advantage over the Mustang, thats not right. Now the Mustang also has a faster turn, but not by much. The Dora in both comparisons has a lower gross weight, but higher empty weight, and in the Hardball the Dora is shown to have a higher power to weight ratio.


When it all boils down, I'd say the better pilot wins. Now if the Mustang start sthe fight loaded with fuel, well thats a dead give away who isn't coming home. but given the terms, I'd say its an equal fight.

Now a Spitfire Mk.XIV versus a Dora. I say the Spitfire takes it.

Hristo_
01-05-2006, 12:53 AM
In reality both planes were built as group fighters, not dueling machines.

Please stop looking at them in a context they were never designed to fight in.

Instead, I suggest you analyze a scenario of many vs many.

In many vs many, these factors are most important, IMO:

- firepower
- speed
- ruggedness
- maneuverability at combat speeds
- visibility


I dare to say even a Spit XIV would lose this fight to the Dora.

WOLFMondo
01-05-2006, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Please name another piston engined fighter that could surpass the Mustang for pure speed and high speed maneuvability.


Where shall we start? :P

robban75
01-05-2006, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by LuftWulf190:
Humm that depends. I will compare a Fw-190D-9 with a P-51D. The Mustang has the range, and the speed over the Dora, if the Dora is not useing the MW50. The Dora also has a higher wing loading. The Mustand also can out climb The Dora. At 2000m they are the same, but after that the Mustang Wins. The Mustang also has a Higher service ceiling.

A Fw 190D-9 using MW50 is slightly faster up to 6000m. The Mustang being faster than the D-9 at 7500m. The D-9 outclimbs the Mustang from sealevel up to at least 6000m. The higher wingloading of the D-9 is compensated by its higher powerloading. The D-9 should outaccelerate the Mustang quite easily. In the later stages of a dive the Mustang was superior, thanks to its lower drag.


Now a Spitfire Mk.XIV versus a Dora. I say the Spitfire takes it.

I don't think so. The D-9 is still faster. At the lower altitudes it is alot faster. The XIV was a better turner, but its rollrate was poor. The XIV was probably slightly superior in level acceleration at the lower speeds, whereas the D-9 was superior at the higher speeds. The XIV cannot catch a diving D-9. All in all, I'd say the two fighters was equally matched.

WOLFMondo
01-05-2006, 04:19 AM
I think with the XIV vs the Dora is like comparing a Tempest with a P47. One is very happy at low and medium altitudes while the other is happier at high altitudes. Certainly in FB, the Dora doesn't seem to have its high altitude performance in FB.

I'd take the XIV though. Saturn 5 like climb rate and high altitude performance which can't be matched.

Freefalldart
01-05-2006, 09:07 AM
FW-190A

First real multirole aircraft. The F/A-18 of the 40's. The plane I like to crash in.

HellToupee
01-05-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
I don't think so. The D-9 is still faster. At the lower altitudes it is alot faster. The XIV was a better turner, but its rollrate was poor. The XIV was probably slightly superior in level acceleration at the lower speeds, whereas the D-9 was superior at the higher speeds. The XIV cannot catch a diving D-9. All in all, I'd say the two fighters was equally matched.

Wasnt the XIV faster, its max speed around 440mph, d9 around 420mph, sealevel for 18lbs boost xiv was like 360mph

faustnik
01-05-2006, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Please name another piston engined fighter that could surpass the Mustang for pure speed and high speed maneuvability.


Where shall we start? :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go ahead start, let's see it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

robban75
01-05-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
Wasnt the XIV faster, its max speed around 440mph, d9 around 420mph, sealevel for 18lbs boost xiv was like 360mph

The D-9 could reach 379-385mph at sealevel, and 435-443mph at alt. The higher numbers are with C3 fuel which gave better performance compared to B4 fuel. The XIV reached its top speed at 7900m(?), the D-9 reached its top speed at 5500m.

p1ngu666
01-05-2006, 11:17 AM
a clipped wing XIV would be very formidable, a properly sorted mk21/22 would be more formidable in the multiplane thing, bit faster, better roll, plus 4 hispano V cannons.

a XIV would put the 190s on the defensive

Xiolablu3
01-05-2006, 11:51 AM
The Spitfire is one of the best defensive planes to be, you have a very good chance of getting out of trouble in a plane like that.

The 190 is a fantastic offensive plane with its heavy armament and strong strucure.

Slickun
01-05-2006, 12:38 PM
The P-51B was the best fighter in the world in Jan-May 1944.

Someone asked, does the fact that the P-51 had the range to engage planes beyond what the Spitfire could make it a beter plane?

Well, of course. Why have long range otherwise?

In making this comparison, Fw vs P-51, do not simply use the P-51D at 67" hg. There were many examples, serving in numbers, that had better performance.

All the RAF marks at 81" hg, 150 octane; all the 8th AF marks at 72" hg; all the PAF Mustangs operating at 80" hg 145 octane.

All the high boost Mustangs could go 380+ on the deck, RAF Mustangs went over 400 mph. The -3 engined Mustangs reached 450 mph at 28,000 feet. The -7 B/C/III reached 442 at 25,000 feet. The D reached 437-442 mph.

The high boost Mustangs accelerated very well, the 81" hg Mark III gained well over 5 fpsec/sec (significantly better than the P-38L operating at 1725 hp), the 80/81" D model just behind it. One can imagine the effect it had on low and mid level zoom and dive, already excellent in planes pulling only 67" hg.

The P-51 was built to go far and fight fast. It maneuvered and rolled well at high speeds, its flaps could be deployed at speeds up to 400 mph ias, had a lead computing gunsight and G-suit provisions on later models. It dove and zoomed like a champ. It engaged enemy fighters over their homes, didn't wait for them to arrive.

it's combat record, especially in the fierce, decisive air battles over Germany in the Jan-May 1944 period, when the LW was still full of great pilots and planes, is amazing.

It was good from the deck to 30,000 feet. It destroyed more planes on the ground than any other fighter in Europe. It proved its value as a fighter bomber in WW2 AND Korea.

Just something to keep in mind.

p1ngu666
01-05-2006, 12:42 PM
in jan may period the first XIV's are poping up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Slickun
01-05-2006, 12:58 PM
So?

How many kills were they getting?

They lacked range to do what the P-51/47/38 were doing. Despite some opinions on board here, range IS a factor in determining a plane's worth, ability, success, battle readiness, whatever you want to call it. We can argue till blue in the face about the Spitfires and Mustangs, turn, climb, acceleration, dive, zoom, firepower etc, but in early 1944 the US types had the range to take the fight to the enemy, over their skies, and this HAS to be factored in.

If memory serves me correctly, the first Mk 14's went about 420 mph?

Flakwalker
01-05-2006, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
So?They lacked range to do what the P-51/47/38 were doing.

I agree that the P-51 (with drop tanks) and the P-38 had a great range, but the P-47 had a very bad range, even when using drop tanks.

Don´t forget that almost all FW-190 versions where able to carry drop tanks. One of the versions, the FW-190G where made for long range attacks, with fuselage guns removed and drop tanks under the wings.

JtD
01-05-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
The P-51B was the best fighter in the world in Jan-May 1944.

This either implies that
a) the Germans had been better of if they were flying Mustangs instead of the Focke Wulfs. But actually I doubt that long range eascorts had been necessary at all, if there had been Mustang instead of Focke Wulfs.
b) You mean it was the best long range escort fighter in that persiod of time.

So, what exactly do you mean?


It was good from the deck to 30,000 feet. It destroyed more planes on the ground than any other fighter in Europe.

Europe or just Western Europe?

BigganD
01-05-2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
In reality both planes were built as group fighters, not dueling machines.

Please stop looking at them in a context they were never designed to fight in.

Instead, I suggest you analyze a scenario of many vs many.

In many vs many, these factors are most important, IMO:

- firepower
- speed
- ruggedness
- maneuverability at combat speeds
- visibility


I dare to say even a Spit XIV would lose this fight to the Dora.

I agree

Slickun
01-05-2006, 01:38 PM
"The Best Fighter in the World" implies nothing. I'm saying the P-51B was the best fighter in the world. Period. Yeah, it was the best high altitude long ranged escort fighter that still had to shoot down the enemy planes from 30,000 feet to the deck from the channel to Berlin.

The statements I made about the Mark 14 v the P-51 extend to the LW types as well.

Are you implying that the AAF would have been better off if they had flown FW's or 109's? Using someone else's reasoning, the role the Mustang took up was impossible for the LW types. Their role, bomber interception, was easily done by the Mustang, probably on a par with the 109's of that time frame, not as well as the 190's due to ruggedness and firepower.

Slickun
01-05-2006, 01:45 PM
Flakwalker, the P-47 of the Jan-May 1944 timeframe had the range to get into the fight over the Continent on bomber escort missions. Not as long legged as the Mustang or Lightning of that timeframe, but enough to get in the fight. P-47's had more kills than the P-51's until March, when the types reached parity.

Slickun
01-05-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

Europe or just Western Europe?

Of Western Allies types. Spit, Hurri, Tiffie, Tempest, Jug, Lightning.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

VW-IceFire
01-05-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
While there is a problem comparing them, they did meet frequently in combat, so for either one to get the edge over the other you need to compare the strengths and weakeness of both.
Excellent point. Interestingly enough I think the FW190 and P-51 are actually in some ways somewhat similar in their strengths and weaknesses.

Both are build for high speed combat, the FW190 has a good roll at all speeds and the Mustang rolls exceptionally at high speeds, the FW190 is extremely well armed and durable while the Mustang is not as well armed but has several times the flight duration.

Depending on the FW190 and Mustang type involved I think we've got two very solid aircraft to combat each other with. The same tactics are required on both sides.

p1ngu666
01-05-2006, 01:56 PM
a p51 of the early 44 period had the massive firepower of 4 50cals, which had a tendancy to jam.

typical 190 had 4 20mm cannon, worth about 3 50cals each, plus 2 7~mm, or two 12.7mm
the 190A has over 3 times the firepower.

spits had 2 20mm, 4 303 or 2 50cals. nearly all of them could easily upgraded to 4 20mm if needed.

typhoons, tempests had 4 20mm (3x the firepower)

109 had 1 20mm, 2 12.7mm, plus optional 2 extra underwing cannons. (just under 3x firepower)

so p51 B's are poor interceptors compaired with contempories, cos it doesnt climb aswell as the above either.

its great for long range escort yes, but funnily enuff thats not the only role for a fighter.

russian fighter pilots wanted less range to reduce the weight of there plane

JtD
01-05-2006, 01:56 PM
I see we disagree on meaning of the "best fighter" attribute. Imho it's wrong to assign that title to a plane that excelled at one task it was purposly built and severly needed for.

Aside from that long range alone does not make the best fighter, and the B models still had a lot of faults that clearly prevent them from coming out on top on my list. Crappy cockpit vision and mediocre, unreliable armarment would be two thing to be considered even in it long range escort role.

To each it's own, I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
01-05-2006, 01:59 PM
Thanks for posting those P-51 numbers Slikun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Performance numbers don't tell the entire "high-speed" story. You have to look at the P-51's excellent ability to maneuver at those high speeds too.

Slickun
01-05-2006, 02:07 PM
Yet those 4 x 50 cals downed E/A at a rate twice that of the P-47's and 4 times that of the P-38 groups in this time frame.

Obviously, there was SOMETHING the P-51 had going for it that mitigated all that.

Rapid SUSTAINED climb was nice, but not essential for intercepting bombers in this time frame. Radar gave a ton of warning.

Check out the climb rates for the P-51B compared to its contemporaries in Jan 1944. Not bad, certainly not so bad as to disqualify it from a discussion about intercepting bombers.

Gents, I'm probably not even going to get into a discussion of how long range is BAD.

jtd, et al, P-51's did every role a fighter could be asked to do in WW2, and did them all well, most superbly, at all altitudes, in all theatres. Except operate from carriers.

That's all I ask that folks look at. It seems to be almost a fashion to denigrate the Mustang here. Part of that, I think, is that we fly in a computer world of low speed low level turning.

Best to all.

Unknown-Pilot
01-05-2006, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
It dove and zoomed like a champ. It engaged enemy fighters over their homes, didn't wait for them to arrive.

it's combat record, especially in the fierce, decisive air battles over Germany in the Jan-May 1944 period, when the LW was still full of great pilots and planes, is amazing.

It was good from the deck to 30,000 feet. It destroyed more planes on the ground than any other fighter in Europe. It proved its value as a fighter bomber in WW2.

You seem to have gotten a little over excited, and in the confusion, started talking about the P-47 there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
01-05-2006, 02:11 PM
I said from the deck to 30,000 feet.

P-51 destroyed more planes on the deck than the P-47, in the ETO.

Slickun
01-05-2006, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
It proved its value as a fighter bomber in WW2.

You seem to have gotten a little over excited, and in the confusion, started talking about the P-47 there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/QUOTE]

I modified that sentence to read:

It proved its value as a fighter bomber in WW2 AND Korea.

You probably copied it before I got the edit in.

Slickun
01-05-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I see we disagree on meaning of the "best fighter" attribute. Imho it's wrong to assign that title to a plane that excelled at one task it was purposly built and severly needed for.

Aside from that long range alone does not make the best fighter, and the B models still had a lot of faults that clearly prevent them from coming out on top on my list. Crappy cockpit vision and mediocre, unreliable armarment would be two thing to be considered even in it long range escort role.

To each it's own, I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Agree.

Simple range numbers mean nothing. What did it do once it got to that far away place? The P-51 shot down lots and lots of planes, and blew up lots and lots of stuff on the ground. It applied the range in an effective manner.

Bad vision indeed. Rated pretty bad. Some, however, had tha Malcolm hood, rated superb.

The guns were unreliable on the B/C/III models, but as I said earlier, the Mustangs STILL downed planes at rates far exceeding their Jug and Lightning brethern. The kinks were worked out. D model had few problems.

WOLFMondo
01-05-2006, 03:05 PM
@Icefire

A good proportion of the combat between the 190's and P51's would have been at the ideal height for the P51's Merlin and a less than ideal height for the FW190's BMW.

lrrp22
01-05-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:

That's all I ask that folks look at. It seems to be almost a fashion to denigrate the Mustang here.

No doubt about it. Some of it is legitimate backlash from the History Channel "P-51 won the war" tripe. Some of it isn't.

Eventually though, any comparison on these boards between a Mustang and an Fw 190 will end up being between a fully-fueled P-51D at 67" Hg and an Fw 190D-9 at its most optimistic estimated performance.

LRRP

Slickun
01-05-2006, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
@Icefire

A good proportion of the combat between the 190's and P51's would have been at the ideal height for the P51's Merlin and a less than ideal height for the FW190's BMW.


Again, from the deck to 30,000 feet, the P-51 was good to great. Pick your height, Mustangs and FW's tangled from a few inches over the ground to whatever.

One function of having long range is getting to pick, most of the time, the altitude you are going to be starting the fight at. The FW's, mostly, had to come to the Mustang. Give credit for this where it is due.

fordfan25
01-05-2006, 05:20 PM
F4u-4 was the best be sure

Slickun
01-05-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
F4u-4 was the best be sure

Another story, but...not from my seat.

Oh, unless you are doing as lrrp said, take that 67" hg fully loaded P-51D and compare to the year-later -4.

Compare it to it's Mustang contemporary in the Pacific, a P-51D, computing gunsight, g-suit, vlr fuel tanks, and running at 80" hg on 145 octane fuel.

p1ngu666
01-05-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:

That's all I ask that folks look at. It seems to be almost a fashion to denigrate the Mustang here.

No doubt about it. Some of it is legitimate backlash from the History Channel "P-51 won the war" tripe. Some of it isn't.

Eventually though, any comparison on these boards between a Mustang and an Fw 190 will end up being between a fully-fueled P-51D at 67" Hg and an Fw 190D-9 at its most optimistic estimated performance.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed mate, not saying the mustang is a bad plane, but for certain roles, other aircraft are better.

its forte's where long range escort, and low level oblique fotophagraphic recon, it is probably the best at those. in other tasks there where almost certainly better aircraft

lrrp22
01-05-2006, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

indeed mate, not saying the mustang is a bad plane, but for certain roles, other aircraft are better.

its forte's where long range escort, and low level oblique fotophagraphic recon, it is probably the best at those. in other tasks there where almost certainly better aircraft

Really though, what is long range escort? It's air superiority a long ways from home. The Mustang was just as deadly over Normandy as it was over Berlin. More so in fact, since it would require much less fuel weight for the return trip.

These arguments always seem to come down to the fact that the Mustang wasn't a 1930's style interceptor, or, a Sturm Fw 190-style heavy interceptor. In the proper configuration, the P-51 could do the first mission type quite well (excellent climb rate at +25 lbs boost) while the latter is so specialized that aircraft properly configured for it can do little else.

LRRP

Slickun
01-05-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

indeed mate, not saying the mustang is a bad plane, but for certain roles, other aircraft are better.

its forte's where long range escort, and low level oblique fotophagraphic recon, it is probably the best at those. in other tasks there where almost certainly better aircraft

Almost certainly nothing! It's a certaintyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-05-2006, 08:16 PM
Where do you get your #s for ground objects destroyed? It was not NEARLY as proficient at CAS type operations as the Jug was. It didn't have the firepower, ordnance capacity, nor strength.

Oh, and BTW, most aerial combat in WW2 took place between 0 and 30,000'. And it was the Jug that broke the LW, meeting them head on, before the Mustang, giving the Mustang an easier time of it.

Similar to how the Hellcat broke the back of, and practically wipped out, Japanese air power and left clean up detail, and all the glory, to the overpopular, over budget, over priced, hose nosed, ensign eliminator.

The ones that do the real work never get the glory. And the ones that get all the glory never do the real work. That alone tells ya something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
01-05-2006, 08:23 PM
I don´t take anyone who says the Mustang was the best fighter of WWII seriusly as they are probably biased or not very objective and settless with that opinion.
It is just very stupid, planes had different roles they were specialised at,
as fighter to fighter its very hard to compare,
Its 90% up to the pilot who is better,
Im not saying the Mustang was bad, It was an excellent fighter but so were many others,
What fighter who was the best in WWII waried alot depending on what year, almost everyone of all our famous different fighters have sometime during WWII been the "best" wich is really a stupid word for it,
the ones that have gotten the most credit have almost always been the most forgiving and easy planes to fly, wich isnt to hard to understand from a pilots poin of weiw.
Im not biased at either the Axis or Allies,
Im just wery impressed with that Germany had only "two" fighterdesigns doing all the different types of operations that the Allies had several more of doing the same thing, and still competing with all the Allies different kinds of fighters,
and also be almost alone fighting a brutally dominating force!
Impressive!
and my god did the Allies put out some brutal different fighters that could give the 109 and 190 a run for its money.


the best fighters of WWII was made of flesh and blood. period!

fordfan25
01-05-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
F4u-4 was the best be sure

Another story, but...not from my seat.

Oh, unless you are doing as lrrp said, take that 67" hg fully loaded P-51D and compare to the year-later -4.

Compare it to it's Mustang contemporary in the Pacific, a P-51D, computing gunsight, g-suit, vlr fuel tanks, and running at 80" hg on 145 octane fuel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

compair it any way you want to. the f4u-4 could do more things and do most of them better.

HellToupee
01-05-2006, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Wasnt the XIV faster, its max speed around 440mph, d9 around 420mph, sealevel for 18lbs boost xiv was like 360mph

The D-9 could reach 379-385mph at sealevel, and 435-443mph at alt. The higher numbers are with C3 fuel which gave better performance compared to B4 fuel. The XIV reached its top speed at 7900m(?), the D-9 reached its top speed at 5500m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Il2 Viewer lists 580kmh for the lade whats it, thats 360mph, and 600kmh with MW50(jan 1945), so thats even with the XIV at 18lbs boost, unless it uses mw50.

WOLFMondo
01-06-2006, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
@Icefire

A good proportion of the combat between the 190's and P51's would have been at the ideal height for the P51's Merlin and a less than ideal height for the FW190's BMW.


Again, from the deck to 30,000 feet, the P-51 was good to great. Pick your height, Mustangs and FW's tangled from a few inches over the ground to whatever.

One function of having long range is getting to pick, most of the time, the altitude you are going to be starting the fight at. The FW's, mostly, had to come to the Mustang. Give credit for this where it is due. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I thought it was the allies that flew to Germany. :P

Not taking away any credit but looking at it objectively. They height where they would meet was the height the bombers were at, generally speaking, which was where the FW's BMW's power was falling off rapidly and the P51's Merlin was best.

robban75
01-06-2006, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
Il2 Viewer lists 580kmh for the lade whats it, thats 360mph, and 600kmh with MW50(jan 1945), so thats even with the XIV at 18lbs boost, unless it uses mw50.

There were certainly lots of Doras that couldn't match the 379-385mph speeds at low level. But if we are to believe the charts, as well as pilot stories, then these speeds were very much possible.

OldMan____
01-06-2006, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
So?

How many kills were they getting?

They lacked range to do what the P-51/47/38 were doing. Despite some opinions on board here, range IS a factor in determining a plane's worth, ability, success, battle readiness, whatever you want to call it. We can argue till blue in the face about the Spitfires and Mustangs, turn, climb, acceleration, dive, zoom, firepower etc, but in early 1944 the US types had the range to take the fight to the enemy, over their skies, and this HAS to be factored in.

If memory serves me correctly, the first Mk 14's went about 420 mph?

range is only importante IF you need it! If you are using as a defensive plane, it doesn ´t pay to have a plane to this task with range greater than the coutnry radius for example!!! Even with much smaller radisu than that, a few positions are enough to cover all areas of importance.

THe Mustang was in attack (the missions where it was used were offensive missions), so it needed that range. If the FW had capability of reaching 9000km range.. it would change NOTHING, so that is irrelevant to its role.

That is wahy you cannot simply say Mustang is btter case it has greater range.... do you think that If range was needed from the beggining, Kurt Tank would not have given it more fuel?


Planes capabilities are dictated by the needs of its usage. RAfa mustangs were made taht fast don low because they needed it !! They needed it because of V1. The Mk108 as invented because the germans needed it. If the US had not brought huge bombers to war, there would be no need for it so it would not exist...

If the fastest Allie plane flew at max 250 mph.. do you think germans would have spent all that time to make jets?



Also does someone has figures for range on FW190 like the A8 with the behind seat extra fuel tank and external drop tanks?

WOLFMondo
01-06-2006, 04:27 AM
Doras were know to give Tempests a run for there money and Tempest V series II's in 1945 were hitting 400mph around SL and just shy of 440mph at 18,000ft. The RAF's own tests show the XIV is woefully outpeformed by the Tempests top speed and not surpased until something like 22,000ft, if thats some indication of how much better the Doras low and medium altitude performance has an edge over the XIV.

WOLFMondo
01-06-2006, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
So?

How many kills were they getting?

They lacked range to do what the P-51/47/38 were doing. Despite some opinions on board here, range IS a factor in determining a plane's worth, ability, success, battle readiness, whatever you want to call it. We can argue till blue in the face about the Spitfires and Mustangs, turn, climb, acceleration, dive, zoom, firepower etc, but in early 1944 the US types had the range to take the fight to the enemy, over their skies, and this HAS to be factored in.

If memory serves me correctly, the first Mk 14's went about 420 mph?

range is only importante IF you need it! If you are using as a defensive plane, it doesn ´t pay to have a plane to this task with range greater than the coutnry radius for example!!! Even with much smaller radisu than that, a few positions are enough to cover all areas of importance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The XIV was not a defensive plane by any means, the IX and VIII were not defensive planes either, they could be used as such but these planes were very much used on the offensive (you know a Spitfire IX with an external tank can actually reach Germany http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). The XIV was 100% offensive. Like the Typhoon and Tempest, there range never exceeded 800KM but they didn't need it. They were not long range escorts but assualt planes, CAS planes, offensive air superiority fighters over the front lines.

The airfields they operated from where so close to the front lines the crew and fitters at times came under sniper fire, some were so close that they had to be abandoned because of enemy action near by.

While they the P51 was taking off from airbases in the UK in mid and late 1944, XIV's were taking off from France and Holland, minutes away from Germany.

By 1945, 2nd TAF Tiffies, Typhoons and Spitfires were actually using old lufttwaffe airfields inside Germany. Range isn't all its cracked up to be if you can be positioned right next to the fighting.

ImpStarDuece
01-06-2006, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:


If memory serves me correctly, the first Mk 14's went about 420 mph?

The aircraft data sheet for the Spitfire XIV lists 448 mph at 26,000 feet as maximum speed in FS gear and 391 mph at 5,000 feet in MS gear. Max RoC was 5,100 fpm

Slickun
01-06-2006, 10:10 AM
My statement stands. In January 1944 the P-51 Mustang was the best fighter in the world.

A few rebuttals and restatements of facts:

The P-51 destroyed more planes on the ground than the P-47 in the ETO/MTO. Try "Victory Roll" by Wolfe to get the numbers. It's not really close.

The P-47 did not destroy the LW before the P-51 "arrived". Jeez. Check out any timeline you wish concerning late 1943-May 1944. Boyne's "Clash of Wings" is a good starting place. We can renew this discussion in another thread, anytime, but it will be a waste of time. Just another myth or fallacy anti-P-51 types like to throw around.

Some very nice attempts at rationalizing away any edge a long ranged plane has over a short ranged one. Fact remains, a plane with range is more useful, and can do more things, than a plane without. Reduce the P-51's range to that of the contemporary (Jan 1944) Spitfire's, and we aren't having this discussion. Conversely, extend the Spit's range, in Jan 1944, to the Mustang's, and we aren't having this discussion. Please stop with the "range isn't important" routines? That is ridiculous.

To answer another poster, the LW came up to attack the bombers. They had to, basically. The allies knew it. Surprise of surprises, there were P-51's waiting. All because of an attribute of the plane...RANGE. A basic part of the P-51's, that so many people toss of, refuse to recognize, or minimize, allowed them to meet the enemy on favorable terms. Give credit where it is due.

Let me ask again. In Jan-May 1944, how many kills was the Spit 14 getting? Pre-Invasion? This is not a tough question. You want to make the case it was a "better" plane than the P-51, throw out some kill numbers, make a case it did something to be decisive in the air war. It was incapable of doing what the Mustang, Lightning, and T-Bolt were doing, going to where the LW HAD to appear, and fighting them over their turf. This wasn't magic, it wasn't because God hated the 14, it wasn't because the Brass decided to send the P-51 instead. The Spit 14 was incapable of doing it BECAUSE OF LACK OF RANGE. An attribute of the plane. You are free to feel that a short ranged plane with blistering performance, not able to get where most of the action is, is a better plane than a similar plane able to GET where the action was. That the plane doing the killing wasn't as good as the one NOT doing the killing. Feel free. Once the invasion happened, and we got airfields close enough to the front, the Spit excelled.

ImpStarDeuce, I have no doubts that the Spit 14 went that fast eventually. The first versions, running on the original engines, Jan 1944 fuel, how fast did they go? I have at least two pubs that say the 420 mph range. This question is kind of moot in this thread, anyway. By the Brit's own admission, there was very little to choose between the two types, except range.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 10:15 AM
Range isn't all its cracked up to be if you can be positioned right next to the fighting.

And if you're not, the plane's role is reduced to defensive patrols.

Umm, Mustangs were positioned on the Continent as well. With that same useless range advasntage.

Mustangs were involved in defensing the Bodenplate raids, for example, and did extremely well at intercepting the Jabos, at extremely low levels.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 10:16 AM
The airfields they operated from where so close to the front lines the crew and fitters at times came under sniper fire, some were so close that they had to be abandoned because of enemy action near by.

Not during the Jan-May 1944 time frame they weren't.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 10:20 AM
Hey Old Man!

In Jan-May 1944, the Spitfire's needed it. Range, that is. You didn't answer the question, how many kills were the Spit 14's getting in that time frame?

Cause and effect was indeed in play during WW2? So? The Western Allies needed a competitive plane with range. Voila! The 450 mph Mustang appears, fits the bill, takes the fight to the enemy. Best plane in the world. Only one that could haul all that gas and still be competitive.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 10:23 AM
Jimmy Johnson, the great ace and leader, Spitfire flier extraordinare, acknowledged the importance of long ranged fighters. See his book "Wing Commander" I believe. He knew how important it was to be able to take the fight to the other guy.

WOLFMondo
01-06-2006, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Range isn't all its cracked up to be if you can be positioned right next to the fighting.

And if you're not, the plane's role is reduced to defensive patrols.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Defensive patrols? You know the 2nd TAF had somewhere in the region of 700 Spitfires performing fighter sweeps, ground attack, armed recon and escorts don't you?

No one is disputing the use of range as something not useful however it was only required for two or three specific tasks i.e. recce, escort and maritime. No one disputes the Mustangs range or the usefulness of that rangehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The airfields they operated from where so close to the front lines the crew and fitters at times came under sniper fire, some were so close that they had to be abandoned because of enemy action near by.

Not during the Jan-May 1944 time frame they weren't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfires were flying over France and the low countries in 1941, 1943 to the German border, over a year before the Mustang arrived in any decisive numbers. There was more to the war than just high altitude escort. Allot more.

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 10:56 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slickun:
My statement stands. In January 1944 the P-51 Mustang was the best fighter in the world.

QUOTE]

Maybe add best US fighter. Not THE best fighter.

You often refer to destroying planes 'on the ground', this is not really a test of a fighter. It was great at doing what it did best, long range escort and fighter sweeps deep into Germany.

The Spitfire could turn way better than the Mustang, and was generally more manouvrable. The quote that the Mustang could do 'everything that the spit could do' is false.

p1ngu666
01-06-2006, 11:09 AM
sure range is usefull, but its not the be all and end all. after all planes like the b17 had massive range, shame it got shot down alot. zero outranged the p51 i think?

p51 great for the american way of war, ie do it from other ppls countries, to other countries along way from home.

europeans where more concerned about defensive, a strong interceptor force is a good deterent without being a agressive force.

robban75
01-06-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Spitfire could turn way better than the Mustang, and was generally more manouvrable. The quote that the Mustang could do 'everything that the spit could do' is false.

The Mustang was much faster and more aerodynamically efficient though. Turnrate and manouverability is all good, but speed is much more important. The Mustang was also more manouverable than most other fighters at high speed.

Unknown-Pilot
01-06-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
The Mustang was much faster and more aerodynamically efficient though. Turnrate and manouverability is all good, but speed is much more important. The Mustang was also more manouverable than most other fighters at high speed.

The pilots who flew it called it a "true 2 hander". It wasn't all that far off from a late 109 actually. But the P-51 fanbois want to bury that fact. Just like they want to claim it did any real work, never mind that the edge had been taken off the LW by the workhorse that preceeded it in the long range escort role and did all the real CAS work (and best/funniest of all, was faster at altitude).

lrrp22
01-06-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Spitfires were flying over France and the low countries in 1941, 1943 to the German border, over a year before the Mustang arrived in any decisive numbers. There was more to the war than just high altitude escort. Allot more.

In the decisive destruction of the Luftwaffe during the first half of 1944, high altitude escort missions did the lion's share of the work. When it comes right down to it, it was long range that led to the destruction of the Luftwaffe, period. As great a fighter as the Spit XIV was, it played no role during that phase of the war.

And remember, both R.A.E. and Eric Brown himself ranked the Spit XIV and P-51 (and Fw 190D-9) so close that personal preference was the deciding factor in which was "Best". We often forget on these fora that sustained turn and climb rates are not the end-all, be-all of performance. The Mustang definitely did some important things better than the Spit XIV- and I'm not talking about range.

Having said that, I do believe that these "Best" discussions are enjoyable but somewhat pointless- there simply is no "Best" fighter without adding a pile of qualifiers first.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 11:51 AM
Wolf, how many kills for the Spit 14 in Jan-May 1944? Fighter sweeps were a failed tactic, the LW basically didn't come out to fight much until the heavies appeared.

European way of war? The Germans were across the channel. We (Western Allies) needed to cross it. To do that the LW needed to be defeated, neutralised, whatever term you want to use. The European style of fighter was not going to do much about that. Or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Unknown Pilot. In Jan-May 1944, two handed or not, the P-51 downed a whole lot more planes than the P-47, destroyed more on the ground, and went faster at high altitudes. Your continued assertion that the LW was depleted by the appearance of the Merlim Mustangs is not factual. If Boynes "Wings at War" won't do it, try Gallands "The First and Last", or Caldwell's "JG-26, Top Guns of the LW" for their take on this question. All three are known P-51 fanbois. After the 8th AF was defeated over Schweinfurt in Oct 43, there were virtually no deep penetration raids for the rest of the year. Both sides retooled, took a deep breath, then hurled themselves at each other starting in January 1944. The P-47's did yeoman work in the early stages of the battles, with the Mustangs doing their part, but getting a bigger share as the year progressed. Mustang groups scored at a rate roughly twice that of their P-47 brethern.

Destroying planes on the ground isn't a sign of a good fighter? How 'bout in the air? P-51 downed more E/A than any other US type. That good enough?

Wolf, forgive me, but there ARE guys here trying to make the case range is not that big a deal. In jan-May 1944 it was the big deal.

There was a thread a few weeks back that went something like combat results can't be used to determine a plane's worth, it's all about the pilot. Take the best 16 pilots that ever lived, put them in a Spitfire Mark 14 in England in Jan 1944, and they will be unable to do what any Mustang pilot was called upon to do.


Now, my qualifiers:


Gentlemen, my assertion that the P-51 was the best A/C IN THE WORLD in Jan 1944 is just that. I didn't say it was the best plane of the war, best at all things. Overall, though, it was the best A/C in the world in Jan 1944.

faustnik
01-06-2006, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:


The pilots who flew it called it a "true 2 hander". It wasn't all that far off from a late 109 actually. But the P-51 fanbois want to bury that fact. Just like they want to claim it did any real work, never mind that the edge had been taken off the LW by the workhorse that preceeded it in the long range escort role and did all the real CAS work (and best/funniest of all, was faster at altitude).

What?????

How can you even compare Bf109 and P-51 maneuverability? The Bf109 was a good low speed handler and poor at high speed, the Mustang was average at low speed and excellent at high speed. I don't think anyone is trying to bury facts.

No real work?

Are you fishing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
01-06-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
The Mustang was much faster and more aerodynamically efficient though. Turnrate and manouverability is all good, but speed is much more important. The Mustang was also more manouverable than most other fighters at high speed.

The pilots who flew it called it a "true 2 hander". It wasn't all that far off from a late 109 actually. But the P-51 fanbois want to bury that fact. Just like they want to claim it did any real work, never mind that the edge had been taken off the LW by the workhorse that preceeded it in the long range escort role and did all the real CAS work (and best/funniest of all, was faster at altitude). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they did not. Some warbird pilots flying a 1990's P-51D in a non-wartime configuration said that- not WWII pilots.

All, I repeat- ALL, wartime tests showed light elevators (too light in some conditions) in virtually every condition. Look at the findings of the Joint Fighter Conference. Read AVIA 18/732. Read the October 1944 Wright Field dive tests. Claiming the P-51 was as heavy as a 109 at high speeds is pure unadulterated revisionist cr@p. Slickun's father confirmed that very fact.

LRRP

Unknown-Pilot
01-06-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:


The pilots who flew it called it a "true 2 hander". It wasn't all that far off from a late 109 actually. But the P-51 fanbois want to bury that fact. Just like they want to claim it did any real work, never mind that the edge had been taken off the LW by the workhorse that preceeded it in the long range escort role and did all the real CAS work (and best/funniest of all, was faster at altitude).

What?????

How can you even compare Bf109 and P-51 maneuverability? The Bf109 was a good low speed handler and poor at high speed, the Mustang was average at low speed and excellent at high speed. I don't think anyone is trying to bury facts.

No real work?

Are you fishing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not fishing, talking about control forces. It was a "heavy" plane in that regard. Of course the fanbois are screaming now that it's been mentioned. 0 to screaming "revisionist" in seconds flat. Those guys are dam<i>n</i> quick anymore. lol

Big difference of course is that you had more room in the Mustang with which to pull. This made the forces much more managable. That means a lot.

Also remember the other side. The fanbois want to push this agenda that the 109 was impossible to fly at speed, claiming that a report made by an enemy, flying the Emil, applied to all of them, even up to K4. Fact is, the Finns had NO problem pulling out of even 750kph IAS dives (hell, they even turn fought in G6s, against the commies - something that should be impossible according to these fanbois). Also, Hartmann couldn't have done what he did the way he did it if it was as bad as the fanbois want everyone to beleive - unless he had cybernetic limb replacements from sci-fi. lol

Slickun
01-06-2006, 12:30 PM
Dad flew the Jug and Pony.

i asked him, more than once, about the assertion that there were very heavy stick pressures in the Mustang. He would look give me a funny look and say, "no more than any other plane". I'd press him on the issue, and he would say that if impropperly trimmed it would be very heavy on the stick.

He always like to talk about throwing the stick over at high speeds in the Pony and his head would hit the opposite side of the canopy.

There is a set of pictures of Mustang pilot's preferences in combat, of John Godfrey and Don Gentile, two of the 4th FG's best pilots. One had one hand on the stick, one on throttle, the other had both hands on the stick. Draw your own conclusions.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:


The pilots who flew it called it a "true 2 hander". It wasn't all that far off from a late 109 actually. But the P-51 fanbois want to bury that fact. Just like they want to claim it did any real work, never mind that the edge had been taken off the LW by the workhorse that preceeded it in the long range escort role and did all the real CAS work (and best/funniest of all, was faster at altitude).

What?????

How can you even compare Bf109 and P-51 maneuverability? The Bf109 was a good low speed handler and poor at high speed, the Mustang was average at low speed and excellent at high speed. I don't think anyone is trying to bury facts.

No real work?

Are you fishing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not fishing, talking about control forces. It was a "heavy" plane in that regard. Of course the fanbois are screaming now that it's been mentioned. 0 to screaming "revisionist" in seconds flat. Those guys are damn quick anymore. lol

Big difference of course is that you had more room in the Mustang with which to pull. This made the forces much more managable. That means a lot.

Also remember the other side. The fanbois want to push this agenda that the 109 was impossible to fly at speed, claiming that a report made by an enemy, flying the Emil, applied to all of them, even up to K4. Fact is, the Finns had NO problem pulling out of even 750kph IAS dives (hell, they even turn fought in G6s, against the commies - something that should be impossible according to these fanbois). Also, Hartmann couldn't have done what he did the way he did it if it was as bad as the fanbois want everyone to beleive - unless he had cybernetic limb replacements from sci-fi. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we get beyond the name calling?

We're responding fast because this is fun.I would suggest that your quickness says the same thing.

Check the roll rates for the two types, P-51 and 109. This kind of supports the idea of high speed handling for one type. BTW, who brought up bad high speed handling in the 109? Wasn't me. I've said nothing negative about any type except that range constraints limited the use in Jan-May 1944.

There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence for the elevators, of P-51's following 109's in a screaming high speed dive, pulling out and watching the 109 auger in.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 12:42 PM
Oh, BTW. Hartmann felt the P-51 was better than the 109's he was flying when he faced the Mustang. See his last interview published in "WW2" magazine.

I am a huge admirer of the man, and take him at his word.

lrrp22
01-06-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Not fishing, talking about control forces. It was a "heavy" plane in that regard. Of course the fanbois are screaming now that it's been mentioned. 0 to screaming "revisionist" in seconds flat. Those guys are damn quick anymore. lol

Big difference of course is that you had more room in the Mustang with which to pull. This made the forces much more managable. That means a lot.

Also remember the other side. The fanbois want to push this agenda that the 109 was impossible to fly at speed, claiming that a report made by an enemy, flying the Emil, applied to all of them, even up to K4. Fact is, the Finns had NO problem pulling out of even 750kph IAS dives (hell, they even turn fought in G6s, against the commies - something that should be impossible according to these fanbois). Also, Hartmann couldn't have done what he did the way he did it if it was as bad as the fanbois want everyone to beleive - unless he had cybernetic limb replacements from sci-fi. lol


Talk about 'fanboi's'. Like I said, read the reports...

LRRP

BTW, you must be reading different Finnish 109 pilot accounts than I am.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 12:45 PM
Big difference of course is that you had more room in the Mustang with which to pull. This made the forces much more managable. That means a lot.

And how is this not a positive attribute of a plane?

Unknown-Pilot
01-06-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Can we get beyond the name calling?

We're responding fast because this is fun.I would suggest that your quickness says the same thing.

Check the roll rates for the two types, P-51 and 109. This kind of supports the idea of high speed handling for one type. BTW, who brought up bad high speed handling in the 109? Wasn't me. I've said nothing negative about any type except that range constraints limited the use in Jan-May 1944.

There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence for the elevators, of P-51's following 109's in a screaming high speed dive, pulling out and watching the 109 auger in.

If you want to "get beyond" that, then check your tone, but also talk to lrrp first. With me you'll always get a reflection. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Read the post again - more room in the pit. This is something the 109 was always slammed for (justly so). Just as an example, sitting upright, upper arm at your side, forearm extended out from the elbow, hand holding a lever. From this position, it's much harder to move that lever under heavy resistance than it would be if you could get your elbow behind the direction of push and instead of twisting your upper arm, extended it. Hard to describe, but I think you know what I mean.

As for 109s augering, well, you say fighting mustangs. 10 hour kids without enough training, skills, experience, or physical conditioning would auger, sure. Doesn't really mean much.

Look at Finnish 109 pilots for a better example. There's an example (just to grab one in particular) where the pilot hit about 850kph IAS. At that speed, he described the stick as being welded in place, but he pulled out survived. They had no problems taking it to 750kph IAS however.

p1ngu666
01-06-2006, 01:00 PM
he used trim to pull out, didnt he?

Slickun
01-06-2006, 01:06 PM
My tone has been respectful, and totally devoid of any name calling. If disagreeing with you is an automatic negative tone....

I'm not a mirror. You will continue to be answered in a respectful manner regardless of how you post in my direction. Again, can we get beyond the name calling?

Mustangs dove at mach .83, still controllable, just starting into compressability, and pulled out.

Please, in Jan-May 1944 the LW was not peopled solely by ill-trained pilots. Later sure, after they'd been killed off at a rate faster than they could be replaced.

Room in the pit is an attribute of an airplane. What difference does it make if, theoretically, the roll rate would be better if you could put more force on it from a wider cockpit? You couldn't. End of story.

faustnik
01-06-2006, 01:08 PM
UnKnown-Pilot,

The problem I have is with people refusing to admit the importance of the P-51. The other issue is people talking like the Mustangs only positive attribute was range. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

For importance, the P-51 provided fighter protection for USAAF heavies anywhere the bombers wanted to go. In addition, using its range, it could attack the LW high and low anywhere in the ETO.

In addition to range, haw can anyone deny the P-51's attributes of level speed, high cruising speed, dive acceleration and speed, zoom climb and high speed maneuverability??? The Mustang's exceptional drag characteristics just put it on a higher level.

danjama
01-06-2006, 01:15 PM
P51 sux in this game thats all i know, it was probably alot better in real life.

Oh, same can be said for the FW190

p1ngu666
01-06-2006, 01:15 PM
thinkin about it, the mustang was what the 8af needed, for them it was the best.

however, it wouldnt be the best for the LW, interceptors where needed, even ignoring the lower roc, its still turnin up with 4 50cals, conteporaries have double or more the firepower.

it was certainly useful for the RAF in some respects, but not everything..

useful to the russians if it had been supplied to them, but buliding it, probably too much metal used.

curiously, i think it would be the japanease who might like it the most

Unknown-Pilot
01-06-2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
My tone has been respectful, and totally devoid of any name calling.

Then you are blind to your snobishniss. And if you assumed I was talking about you, then apparently you felt the shoe fit. If I wish to call out a specific person on something, I name names. If I refer to a group, there will be some people to whom it may not totally apply.

You don't have to like it.




If disagreeing with you is an automatic negative tone....

No, the following is -


I'm not a mirror. You will continue to be answered in a respectful manner regardless of how you post in my direction. Again, can we get beyond the name calling?

Not sure who you think you are, but I can tell you this much, trying to dictate to me will not help matters.



Room in the pit is an attribute of an airplane. What difference does it make if, theoretically, the roll rate would be better if you could put more force on it from a wider cockpit? You couldn't. End of story.

Learn to read better then. The comment was about control forces. Not which plane could react better as a whole. It was in response to the idea that it was a feather-weight.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 01:45 PM
Presence of long ranged planes changes everything. Countries possessing such would develop tactics to maximise the advantage.

Unknown-Pilot
01-06-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
curiously, i think it would be the japanease who might like it the most

Interesting thought, but they seemed to like their radials, and the pilots even complained that the Zero was too sluggish compared to what it was replacing. I'm not sure I could see them using something like the Mustang. But I'm not an IJNA/AAF officianado....

Unknown-Pilot
01-06-2006, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
In addition to range, haw can anyone deny the P-51's attributes of level speed, high cruising speed, dive acceleration and speed, zoom climb and high speed maneuverability??? The Mustang's exceptional drag characteristics just put it on a higher level.

I'm not, but many are doing just that (and more) with the P-47.

Chris455's sig says it best. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:

Having said that, I do believe that these "Best" discussions are enjoyable but somewhat pointless- there simply is no "Best" fighter without adding a pile of qualifiers first.

Maybe not pointless, but impossible to find an answer, well said mate.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 01:57 PM
To Unknown Pilot.

Sorry we can't get beyond the name calling.

My tone probably won't change much. I'm not sure how assuring that I will treat you in a respectful manner is disrespectful. Could you explain that one? Did you think I was kidding?

I'm at a loss. I don't understand your hostility.

carguy_
01-06-2006, 02:05 PM
I can`t really answer about real life.Those two were one of the greatest if not greatest at performing their specific duties.


In the game I feel both planes as they have similar wing design,they hurt far too much in energy retention.

In a P51D you can do a 30deg turn at 560kph(level) and lose half of your energy.Same in FW190A.

Both planes are very fast and should basicly outpace their enemy by far,so turning is not needed.

Ingame I would choose

fighter vs fighter - P51
fighter vs bomber/fighter-bomber - FW190A


The FW190D I find to be a class better than any of Me109.It`s odd,but the FW190D combines it`s advantages plus those of the Me109,besides monstrous climbrate ofcourse.



Still,many of you simmers disregard the unsynching 50cal.It seems you guys don`t know how comfortable and effective is being able to put a crosshairpush the trigger waiting for the enemy to fly in the stream of 12mm bullets.For B&Z vs fighter - the .50cal should have been the best weapon.

Bremspropeller
01-06-2006, 02:27 PM
Granted they're both flown to their ultimate limits, it's up to the pilots who's gonna walk home and who's gonna fly home.

I'd always take a 20mm over a cal 50 though.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 02:58 PM
Back to the original question:

The P-51D and FW-190D were as closely matched as two prop planes can be. Which had the edge depended on the fuel, boost, situation under the wing, and altitude.

And, of course, the pilot.

VW-IceFire
01-06-2006, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
@Icefire

A good proportion of the combat between the 190's and P51's would have been at the ideal height for the P51's Merlin and a less than ideal height for the FW190's BMW.
True...although once the fights on I imagine the altitude drops drastically and things end up being fairly even between the two.

faustnik
01-06-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
@Icefire

A good proportion of the combat between the 190's and P51's would have been at the ideal height for the P51's Merlin and a less than ideal height for the FW190's BMW.
True...although once the fights on I imagine the altitude drops drastically and things end up being fairly even between the two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Standard Fw190 pilot tactics were to draw USAAF fighters into low altitude turning fights. The Fw190 pilots felt they had the advantage if they could do that. So, your idea sounds right to me IceFire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

faustnik
01-06-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Back to the original question:

The P-51D and FW-190D were as closely matched as two prop planes can be. Which had the edge depended on the fuel, boost, situation under the wing, and altitude.

And, of course, the pilot.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Who saw who first is the big factor.

OldMan____
01-06-2006, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Hey Old Man!

In Jan-May 1944, the Spitfire's needed it. Range, that is. You didn't answer the question, how many kills were the Spit 14's getting in that time frame?

Cause and effect was indeed in play during WW2? So? The Western Allies needed a competitive plane with range. Voila! The 450 mph Mustang appears, fits the bill, takes the fight to the enemy. Best plane in the world. Only one that could haul all that gas and still be competitive.

I was talking about FW190 vs P51. FW didn ´t needed huge range.. so using range as a important factor to compare FW190 vs P51 is not a good idea.

Slickun
01-06-2006, 05:13 PM
Gotcha. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We disagree, but I gotcha.

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:

Still,many of you simmers disregard the unsynching 50cal.It seems you guys don`t know how comfortable and effective is being able to put a crosshairpush the trigger waiting for the enemy to fly in the stream of 12mm bullets.For B&Z vs fighter - the .50cal should have been the best weapon.

This is a very good point. The 50's need unsynching badly, deflection shots are so much harder than they need be right now, I find it very difficult to tell if I am leading correctly because of the daft 'syncing'.

I am sure the p51 would be used much more if the guns were unsynced.


About the FW190 VS P51, James Goodson (US pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain and USAF, flying Spits, P47s and P51's) said in his book 'Tumult in the Clouds' that the FW190 could outurn the P51 down low, no idea of the mark of either P51 or FW190 tho so its not very useful info really.

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
To Unknown Pilot.

Sorry we can't get beyond the name calling.

My tone probably won't change much. I'm not sure how assuring that I will treat you in a respectful manner is disrespectful. Could you explain that one? Did you think I was kidding?

I'm at a loss. I don't understand your hostility.

I wouldnt bother with him mate, just ignore his posts. I have been on the receiving end of his barrages and he will just continue baiting you with his 'clever' posts.

Spend your time replying to someone who is worth replying to/debating with.

geetarman
01-06-2006, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:


Mustangs were involved in defensing the Bodenplate raids, for example, and did extremely well at intercepting the Jabos, at extremely low levels.

That's an understatement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The fuel loaded Mustang cleaned the German's clocks right on the deck in a donnybrook. I laugh when I think of the thread a few months back about this where certain posters were doubting it even happened. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

geetarman
01-06-2006, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by robban75:

Turnrate and manouverability is all good, but speed is much more important.

He shoots! He scores!

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


Mustangs were involved in defensing the Bodenplate raids, for example, and did extremely well at intercepting the Jabos, at extremely low levels.

That's an understatement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The fuel loaded Mustang cleaned the German's clocks right on the deck in a donnybrook. I laugh when I think of the thread a few months back about this where certain posters were doubting it even happened. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, thats me. I am sorry, I really thought it was false, it sounded so unlikely.

I have since read some more on it and found out that it did indeed happen as you guys said. It just sounded impossible, a group of great fighter planes (FW190's) makes an attack with speed and altitude advantage and then gets massrecred, I just couldnt see it.

I hold my hand up to being totally and unreservadly wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

geetarman
01-06-2006, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
UnKnown-Pilot,

The problem I have is with people refusing to admit the importance of the P-51. The other issue is people talking like the Mustangs only positive attribute was range. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

For importance, the P-51 provided fighter protection for USAAF heavies anywhere the bombers wanted to go. In addition, using its range, it could attack the LW high and low anywhere in the ETO.

In addition to range, haw can anyone deny the P-51's attributes of level speed, high cruising speed, dive acceleration and speed, zoom climb and high speed maneuverability??? The Mustang's exceptional drag characteristics just put it on a higher level.

check out what some of the guys the REALLY flew it had to say:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m...071003862#5071003862 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5071003862/r/5071003862#5071003862)

geetarman
01-06-2006, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:


Mustangs were involved in defensing the Bodenplate raids, for example, and did extremely well at intercepting the Jabos, at extremely low levels.

That's an understatement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The fuel loaded Mustang cleaned the German's clocks right on the deck in a donnybrook. I laugh when I think of the thread a few months back about this where certain posters were doubting it even happened. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, thats me. I am sorry, I really thought it was false, it sounded so unlikely.

I have since read some more on it and found out that it did indeed happen as you guys said. It just sounded impossible, a group of great fighter planes (FW190's) makes an attack with speed and altitude advantage and then gets massrecred, I just couldnt see it.

I hold my hand up to being totally and unreservadly wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rgr that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif True story

Slickun
01-06-2006, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
To Unknown Pilot.

Sorry we can't get beyond the name calling.

My tone probably won't change much. I'm not sure how assuring that I will treat you in a respectful manner is disrespectful. Could you explain that one? Did you think I was kidding?

I'm at a loss. I don't understand your hostility.

I wouldnt bother with him mate, just ignore his posts. I have been on the receiving end of his barrages and he will just continue baiting you with his 'clever' posts.

Spend your time replying to someone who is worth replying to/debating with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok.

hop2002
01-07-2006, 04:54 AM
In Jan-May 1944, the Spitfire's needed it. Range, that is.

No. The B-17s and B-24s needed a fighter with very long range, the RAF didn't. If they had, I should think they would have built more Spitfire VIIIs with wing tanks, rear fuselage tanks, and drop tanks (maximum 195 imp gallons internal on the Spitfire VIII). The fact that they continued to build Spitfire IXs with 85 gallons internal shows they weren't that desperate for range.


In the decisive destruction of the Luftwaffe during the first half of 1944,

Why is the first half of 1944 decisive? Why not, say, the second half of 1940, or the second half of 1942? Both were times when the war was actually in balance, rather than a time when the outcome was no longer in question.


To do that the LW needed to be defeated, neutralised, whatever term you want to use. The European style of fighter was not going to do much about that.

Of course it was. Just as it did in 1940. All it needed was to attack a target that needed defending, and in 1944, with an invasion pending, France was full of targets that needed defending.


Wolf, forgive me, but there ARE guys here trying to make the case range is not that big a deal. In jan-May 1944 it was the big deal.

It certainly was for the USAAF. Without it, they would have had to rethink their bomber doctrine, or return to attacking targets in France.


Take the best 16 pilots that ever lived, put them in a Spitfire Mark 14 in England in Jan 1944, and they will be unable to do what any Mustang pilot was called upon to do.

Escort the USAAF heavy bombers in to Germany? Of course not. Defeat the Luftwaffe? No, I think they could do that just a bit better than the Mustang.


Please, in Jan-May 1944 the LW was not peopled solely by ill-trained pilots. Later sure, after they'd been killed off at a rate faster than they could be replaced.


The Luftwaffe started losing pilots faster than they could be replaced in 1940. From Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray:

"By the begining of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air forces. The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to meet the demand of the front for new pilots. By January 1942, of the pilots available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while the number in the bomber force was down to 47 percent. For the remainder of the war, the percentage of fully operational fighter and bomber pilots available, with few exceptions, remained below, and at many times substantially below, the 70 percent level. Further exacerbating this situation was the fact that the Germans were forced to lower their standards for a fully operational pilot as the war continued . There was, one must note, no decisive moment in this decline in expertise. Rather as Winston Churchill has suggested in another context, the Luftwaffe had entered the descent from 1940 "incontinently, fecklessly.... It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning but after a bit the carpet ends. A little further on, there are only flagstones; and a little further on, these break beneath your feet."

The Luftwaffe began cutting training early in the war to hurry replacement pilots in to action. As Murray continues, after mentioning the cuts in the training programme in 1942 and 1943, (after 1943 the Luftwaffe pilots received about half the training given to allied pilots):

"However, few German pilots survived the attrition of the first war years, and thus the Luftwaffe became, in fact, two distinct forces: the few great aces - the Hartmans, Galands, and Waldmans - and the great mass of pilots who faced great difficulty in landing their aircraft, much less surviving combat. Only 8 of Germany's 107 aces to score more than 100 victories joined their squadrons after mid 1942."

People who try to assign some sort of criticality to the first half of 1944 are barking up the wrong tree. It was simply a continuation of the decline the Luftwaffe had been in since early in the war. It escalated, of course, along with the scale of the attack, but to suggest that the Luftwaffe were winning, or even holding their own, until 1944, is wrong.

Slickun
01-07-2006, 05:35 AM
That is your take, hop, and I'm familiar with it, just as you are with mine.

Fedda
01-08-2006, 05:06 AM
Does anyone of you have any experience with the Mustang in FB? I know it was one hell of a fighter plane in real life even if it could`nt take to much punish in battle before it went down. But how is the bird in FB?

OldMan____
01-08-2006, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Fedda:
Does anyone of you have any experience with the Mustang in FB? I know it was one hell of a fighter plane in real life even if it could`nt take to much punish in battle before it went down. But how is the bird in FB?

You will find quite different opinions arund. Some people try to use it as a spitfire and then come alming all gods and deamons of being in a consipracy against US planes. Others just try to use it as It was suposed to be and work better. The Mustang III is the US/RAF plane I find easier to fight, very hard to be hit when you have better climb and SL speed than enemy. But if you tangle with a bf109 at 280 kph you WILL GO DOWN!!!

It won´t reach its true max speed at best height, but most planes in this sim won´t also, so don ´t worry about that.

Fedda
01-08-2006, 06:34 AM
Thanks for the reply!
So far I have only fought against the Mustang and I have found it easy to down with almost barely hitting it with my guns. But I have also found the Mustang to be a formidable adversary in skilled hands; I can easily imagine the Luftwaffes shock when they encountered this bird for the first time.

btw:
I have flown against the Mustang in planes like the Me-109, Me-262 and the FW-190.

Pinker15
01-08-2006, 08:21 AM
For me P51 mustang is really piece of **** plane In FB ponny Woobles allaround all the time. Has badly stall characteristic. Accel not too well. 50 cal are weak and hard to aim in deflection. Yes its fast on certain altitudes but it dont give U advantage if U want to fight not run. P51 climb and turn really bad compare to 109 ( even on high speed 109 can turn as good as P51 because elewator trim exploit ). In 1 vs 1 condition 109 have big advantage over P51 and if no one come for help its toasted.

Kurfurst__
01-08-2006, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Take the best 16 pilots that ever lived, put them in a Spitfire Mark 14 in England in Jan 1944, and they will be unable to do what any Mustang pilot was called upon to do.

Escort the USAAF heavy bombers in to Germany? Of course not. Defeat the Luftwaffe? No, I think they could do that just a bit better than the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The statement is a bit funny in view that Brtiain managed to produce just 18 Spitfire XIVs up to January 1944... one got to be Hop to believe 18 planes would defeat an entire airforce.

Up to May 1944, a mere 68 Spit XIVs were produced, in total.. and how many thousend Mustangs...?
Hell even the 262 was more numerous than the XIV.

VW-IceFire
01-08-2006, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Take the best 16 pilots that ever lived, put them in a Spitfire Mark 14 in England in Jan 1944, and they will be unable to do what any Mustang pilot was called upon to do.

Escort the USAAF heavy bombers in to Germany? Of course not. Defeat the Luftwaffe? No, I think they could do that just a bit better than the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The statement is a bit funny in view that Brtiain managed to produce just 18 Spitfire XIVs up to January 1944... one got to be Hop to believe 18 planes would defeat an entire airforce.

Up to May 1944, a mere 68 Spit XIVs were produced, in total.. and how many thousend Mustangs...?
Hell even the 262 was more numerous than the XIV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We're we able to figure out how many Spitfire XIV's were on the frontlines by the end of the war? Despite a low production number, most of that number was likely deployed. They certainly faced and brought down a fair number of aircraft in combination with the Tempest and Spitfire IX/XVI squadrons.

Kurfurst__
01-08-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
We're we able to figure out how many Spitfire XIV's were on the frontlines by the end of the war? Despite a low production number, most of that number was likely deployed. They certainly faced and brought down a fair number of aircraft in combination with the Tempest and Spitfire IX/XVI squadrons.


IIRC it was 7 Squdrons (incl. a recce one with a mixed set of Allison Mustang/XIV) that saw any kind of action during WW2. Greanted, more were in the process of raising, but that's what was actually there. About 350 were produced until the end of 1944. I really wonder what took so long... shortage of engines?

7 Squadrons would mean a maximum of 140 planes in the field (20 plane / sqn each), but out of that 20, only 12 would fly missions the rest were reserves, so effectively I think there'd be somewhat less than 100 XIVs available for action at any time, considering losses, servicibilty rates and rest..

As for how many aircraft they'd probably take down, no idea... 50? a hundred? They're credited with 300+ V-1 kills though, and some victories against 262s. It's a very nice performance aircraft in any case, but it's operational significance was truely minimal compared the the mainstay MkIX, P-51D... not to mention it was still a pure air superiority fighter/interceptor as it was in 1940, with only marginal range.

tweak26
01-08-2006, 09:59 AM
Well,If you did your homework instead of relying on a game to do it for you you'd know that the P51 mainly the NT and the NA shot down more planes than any other ww2 fighter during the war.Over 5000 NA produced and over 2000 NT produced.Though you wont see this in the game this is the truth.

geetarman
01-08-2006, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
For me P51 mustang is really piece of **** plane In FB ponny Woobles allaround all the time. Has badly stall characteristic. Accel not too well. 50 cal are weak and hard to aim in deflection. Yes its fast on certain altitudes but it dont give U advantage if U want to fight not run. P51 climb and turn really bad compare to 109 ( even on high speed 109 can turn as good as P51 because elewator trim exploit ). In 1 vs 1 condition 109 have big advantage over P51 and if no one come for help its toasted.

If you're idea on air combat involves tight turns, loops and the like, I would agree with you. Most, if not all USSAF piots did not fight that way.

A P-51 pilot in IL2 can engage and feel confident handling any 109 or 190 in a high speed engagement. If you drop your speed to below 230mph you begin to really tip the scales aginst you. If you stay at 250mph+, I truly believe a good jock holds the advantage over the German birds.

arjisme
01-08-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If disagreeing with you is an automatic negative tone....

No, the following is -


I'm not a mirror. You will continue to be answered in a respectful manner regardless of how you post in my direction. Again, can we get beyond the name calling?

Not sure who you think you are, but I can tell you this much, trying to dictate to me will not help matters.

[...]

Learn to read better then. [...] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, the irony! U-P, you apparently misread his original statement and saw it as "dictating" to you how you will behave. In fact, he was dictating only how his own responses would be to your postings. Get it? It was an assurance from him that you would receive only respectful postings, regardless of your tone and this is why he says he is not a mirror.

On topic: I think subjects like this can never be resolved unless you first get everyone to agree on how you measure what "best" means. If you can't get general agreement on that, then list several candidates (like best interceptor, best escort, best dogfighter, best k/d ratio, etc.) and rate planes in each category.

Xiolablu3
01-08-2006, 11:32 AM
The same argument Kurfurst puts across for the Spit 14 can be used agains many many aircraft, 109K4 (how many of the 1000 actually got to fight?), Ta152, FW190D and so on.

They had around the same range as his beloved 109 Kurfurst, a little more in fact.

I dont think there was any real need to rush out more Spit14's, the war was almost won by that time, had there been a crisis, they would have been rushed thru.

This wasnt a discussion about numbers, not even about Spit 14.

Grendel-B
01-08-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by tweak26:
Well,If you did your homework instead of relying on a game to do it for you you'd know that the P51 mainly the NT and the NA shot down more planes than any other ww2 fighter during the war.

Maybe you should do your homework better, as the claims of P-51 victories do not exceed the victories of Me 109s. After all, it did fight on all fronts from 1939. Me 109 is the highest scoring aircraft type in the history of aerial warfare, just like the highest scoring pilots were Me 109 pilots.

Xiolablu3
01-08-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by tweak26:
Well,If you did your homework instead of relying on a game to do it for you you'd know that the P51 mainly the NT and the NA shot down more planes than any other ww2 fighter during the war.Over 5000 NA produced and over 2000 NT produced.Though you wont see this in the game this is the truth.

Although I dont like to bash the p51 this statement is 100% wrong.

If you actually read about history instead of beleiving rubbish on TV you would know this. I think what you may mean is that is probably destroyed more planes on the ground than any other fighter.

p1ngu666
01-08-2006, 12:43 PM
p51 most successful american fighter, or usaaf fighter.

109 got more kills, but got shot down more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

still, there was more XIV's around than k4's for a long time, k4 turned out in november 44?

so there was more XIV's for 10months or so, and thats assuming k4 production in november eclipsed the total XIV production in 1 month.

IX's have similer performance to the non alcholic 109s anyways, and 109s got alchol in mid to late summer. there was a few about before that for chasing PR aircraft..

ImpStarDuece
01-08-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
We're we able to figure out how many Spitfire XIV's were on the frontlines by the end of the war? Despite a low production number, most of that number was likely deployed. They certainly faced and brought down a fair number of aircraft in combination with the Tempest and Spitfire IX/XVI squadrons.


IIRC it was 7 Squdrons (incl. a recce one with a mixed set of Allison Mustang/XIV) that saw any kind of action during WW2. Greanted, more were in the process of raising, but that's what was actually there. About 350 were produced until the end of 1944. I really wonder what took so long... shortage of engines?

7 Squadrons would mean a maximum of 140 planes in the field (20 plane / sqn each), but out of that 20, only 12 would fly missions the rest were reserves, so effectively I think there'd be somewhat less than 100 XIVs available for action at any time, considering losses, servicibilty rates and rest..

As for how many aircraft they'd probably take down, no idea... 50? a hundred? They're credited with 300+ V-1 kills though, and some victories against 262s. It's a very nice performance aircraft in any case, but it's operational significance was truely minimal compared the the mainstay MkIX, P-51D... not to mention it was still a pure air superiority fighter/interceptor as it was in 1940, with only marginal range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


AFAIK there were only 8 pure fighter Spitfire XIV squadrons who served in the ETO before VE Day.

No 610 Sqn in January 1944
No 91 Sqn in March 1944
No 322 Sqn in March 1944
No 130 Sqn in August 1944
No 350 Sqn in August 1944
No 402 Sqn in August 1944
No 403 Sqn in August 1944
No 41 Sqn in September 1944


All 8 squadrons were operating from European bases by September 1944.


There were also several squadrons who operated the Spitfire FR XIVE, a dedicated low altitude fighter-reconnisance version of the Mk XIV. The FR XIV had E type armament (2 .50 cals, 2 Hispanos), cut down rear fuselage, bubble canopy, clipped wings, an additional 33 imperial gallon (136 L) fuel tank in the rear fuselage and a removable oblique F.24 camera, also in the rear fuselage.

No 2 Sqn in November 1944, who operated the type in parallel with Mustang IIs (Allison engine) until Jan 1945, when they completely switched over to Mk XIVs
No 430 Sqn in November 1944.
No 268 Squadron in began a slow coversion in October 1944, but operated the type in parallel with Mustang IIIs until April 1945.
No 414 Sqn, who began to convert from Mk IXs in April 1945 but didn't finish until shortly after VE Day.


No 11 and 17 Sqns arrived in India in June 1945 with Mk XIVs, but were not declared operational until August.

So ETO usage was 3 squadrons operational before D-Day, 8 by September 1944 and 9 1/2 squadrons by January 1945. Not massive, if you consider that the RAF operated around 56 squadrons Spitfires in Europe at the time, but still quite significant.

p1ngu666
01-08-2006, 03:41 PM
going off ingame data (yes i know its awful) shipments of k4s started in october 44. *think* they started to turn up in units novemberish.

so 9months (jan-october) XIV vs 0 k4s

october to may 8th (ve day) 7 and abit months being generous, probably nearer 6months

another 2 weeks say for the XIV's in india http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

so 16 and a half months of service in ww2 for XIV (active theatre), the k4 has 7 and a week or so, or 6ish if we are harsh on dates.

adding postwar europe would add 2-3 months to xiv, and then post war service was several years?

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/spit/spit1946.html

1 January 1951 Last combat mission of the Spitfire. A pair of F.18s fly a strafing mission over Malaya.

XVIII's are very similer to XIV's. http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkXVIII

1957 The last RAF Spitfires, used for meteorological flights, are retired.
(i dont know the types)

a extra 5 years or so of post war useage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-08-2006, 03:43 PM
lol.
5x12 = 60, plus 16 months = 76, which are rough numbers yes, but funnily enuff 10x k4 service length http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
01-08-2006, 04:54 PM
Am reading Bodenplatte by John Manrho. Chap 7 is about the attack on Asch by JG11. The 487th FS was waiting to take-off as the the attack began. These P-51s had full wing and fuselage tanks. In the low level dogfights they claimed 24 German a/c (17 190s, 7 109s (G-14, G-14/AS, K-4)). Not bad for an a/c that was suppose to be illhandling with a full fuselage tank. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

In Chap 4, the attack on Eindhoven by JG3, it is mentioned that H Bar in a Dora had to keep throttling back as the 109s could not keep up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

On the eve of Bodenplatte, the LW had the following servicable a/c:

A-8 - 258 (26.8%)
A-9 - 20 (2.0%)
D-9 - 167 (17.4%)
F-8 - 75 (7.8%)
G-14 - 136 (14%)
G-14/AS - 45 (9.9%)
G-10 - 52 (5.4%)
K-4 - 92 (9.6%)
G-6 - 2
G? - 35 (in NAGr)
262 - 24
234 - 6

luftluuver
01-08-2006, 05:31 PM
Up to May 1944, a mere 68 Spit XIVs were produced, in total.. and how many thousend Mustangs...?
Hell even the 262 was more numerous than the XIV.

There had only been <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">23</span> Me 262s produced up to May 1944.

p1ngu666
01-08-2006, 05:37 PM
nice luft, if all 8 squadrons of XIV's had 12 planes servicable, then thats 96 XIV's

20x8 = 160

plus the FR squadrons, say 1 and a half worth

114(ish)/178?

a 80% serviceability (average in raf) and avalibility that would put about 152 XIV's (inc FR's) avalilble.

the g10 and k4 had similer performance, and many k4s where operated as g10s, tailwheel locked down, wheel cover thingys removed as they clogged with grass and stuff.

52+92= 144, surpose u could add the g14/as (like our ingame g6/as) takes us too 189

given combined varients for our 189 total, then lets see if we can dig up some more griffons.

100 mk 12's, tho they where retired but not sure when.

XVIII, The basic Mk VIII airframe was fitted with 2-stage, 2-speed 2035 HP Griffon 65 or 2375 HP Griffon 67 engines. 300 were produced.

PRXIX
This aircraft was the photoreconnaissance derivative of the Mk XIV, and was pressurized. 225 were built.

mk21 ? 120 produced

plus some seafires had griffons, but they maybe too late for our date.