Thoughts on the K-4 Manouverability

[Bremspropeller]

I sometimes also converge with other players' simulations without delay

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The 400l figure is fine, but as badatflyski pointed out, it would be a little more realistic to compare all aircraft at a comparable mission fuel-state.

 

That would be roughly 50% fuel for all of them - with the P-51 having a longer commute.

And hence in order not to penalize the P-51, run the same equation again for a P-51 at comparable fuel remaining to the Fw 190 and Bf 109 at 50% fuel - let's say 190kg.

 

OK, with mission fuel-state I'm assuming you mean that since the P-51 had to hike all the way to Germany and back that this would be a fair comparison but I still stick with the action radius fuel state being a more fair comparison from a technical and engineering standpoint while the 50% fuel state would maybe be a more historically fair comparison

 

However, since @Requiem did the testing at 50% fuel for both I had to bite the bullet so you got your wish in the end anyway!

[LColony_Kong]

Comparing a mission fuel state is not going to be a comparison of the fighters themselves. That is a comparison of the strategic and operational situation the aircraft were in in a specific scenario. If P-51s were being used for short range front line air cover etc, they could or would be loaded more lightly. And it certainly isnt going to be useful for in game information since the latter scenario is the one people are flying in game.

[ZachariasX]

It gaming is concerned, the spectrum of full (wing) tank(s) and small fuel load should be sufficient to ballpark actual situations. I say wingtanks because with the rear fuselage tank used, neither the Mustang nor the (later) Spit was much of a fighter due to CG issues.

 

But in the end not even that matters, as it is obvious that for practical purposes, both the 109K4 and the Mustang perform very evenly on average given equal fuel state, the pilot making the difference there. Hence you can be fairly confident engaging a 109 with full tanks when flying a Mustang that is itself running on fumes. Conversely, if you are in a 109 and you‘re after a Mustang that had to drop external tanks to counter your attack, you know you have meat on your table.

 

If Jason would reveal the selected fuel states in MP, I guess we would see Mustangs with 120 liters of fuel fighting 109‘s with 70 litres of fuel. That would be as ridiculous as it it would be fair.

[LColony_Kong]

Personally I always carry 35 percent in the Mustang and a full tank in 109. No idea what others do. If it's a particularly short range mission I'll carry 50 percent in 109 and 25 percent for mustang.

 

 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

12 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Great, thanks for collecting this data @Requiem! As I understand it this testing was done in-game with 50% fuel for both meaning the P-51 is carrying roughly 327 l and the K4 200 l ?

50% fuel for the P-51 would be 510 liters ^^

[ZachariasX]

45 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

50% fuel for the P-51 would be 510 liters ^^

Given the wing tanks hold almost 700 litres, not an unreasonable amount of fuel, given the Mustang had sometimes a long way to fly home from where action was.

 

It would be interesting to know how much they filled the tanks on planes stationed on the continent to do some sort of CAP. But I wouldn‘t be surprised if they still went with 700 litres.

[Aurora_Stealth]

Thanks again for the input and data analysis, I think that's pretty conclusive.

 

It does contradict some of the data collected on the previous thread (back around August) last year which I think can no longer be considered/justified as an accurate picture.

 

From my own personal perspective, the shown data has come as a somewhat surprising result... as I was expecting the K-4 to extend its advantage the slower it got - apparently it doesn't and its sweet spot is higher than expected.

 

So... to summarise what I've learnt / taken out of this:

 

- Safest area of the envelope for the K-4 to maneuver against a Mustang (especially with 150 octane) is when sustaining a speed between 450 - 580 km/h [280 - 360 mph].

- Take the DB 605 DC engine if its available, to improve the energy retention while trying to sustaining the above speeds.

- Don't let the speed drop much below 400 km/h (250 mph) otherwise margins become very thin and the P-51 can quickly deploy its flaps to close the gap.

- The advantage of the '109's slats tapers off as you approach the stall, the higher weight of the K-4 (compared to G models) is playing a part here.

- If the P-51 starts to turn-in (early on), do not overcompensate on the stick but try to initiate an evasive turn as early as possible, tighten it with minimal use of flaps and use only small climb angles (if at all) to assist this... otherwise the risk of bleeding energy too soon becomes a liability later.

- Flaps are not recommended to be used for extended periods of time in the K-4 once settled into the sweet spot speed range, as they will drag the fight down to very low speeds where the P-51 (with flaps down) may end up gaining a temporary advantage / snapshot.

[Zirashi]

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Given the wing tanks hold almost 700 litres, not an unreasonable amount of fuel, given the Mustang had sometimes a long way to fly home from where action was.

 

It would be interesting to know how much they filled the tanks on planes stationed on the continent to do some sort of CAP. But I wouldn‘t be surprised if they still went with 700 litres.

The P-51D-5 pilot's manual I'm looking at says they could expect a burn of 100 gph (378 LPH) at max continuous power with the V-1650-7 engine running on 100 octane, give or take 15 or so gallons depending on altitude. The chart also says to give an allowance of 29 gallons (109 L) for warm-up, take-off, climb, etc. 

 

Full wing tanks (184 gal, 696 L) would probably give them just shy of 2 hours of flight at max continuous at 46" and 2700 RPM and give them a 510 mile (820 km) range.

 

At WEP settings, 67" at 3000 RPM for the D-5, the maximum expected burn was apparently 194 gph. So even if a P-51 could run on permanent WEP, it would still take almost an hour to empty the tanks.

 

If I had to guess, just the full wing tanks were probably enough for most continental tasks. 
 

Fun fact I just looked up:

 

The distance from London to Berlin is around 579 miles (932km) by air.
 

If I'm reading the flight planning chart correctly, a P-51D-5 could hypothetically take off in London and land in Berlin on just its internal wing tanks.

 

While still using enough engine power to maintain 587kmh TAS.
 

Carrying a pair of 500lb bombs.

 

...and with 25 gallons (94L / 13.5%) of fuel left over.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Zirashi

[Bremspropeller]

...and yet you still have people arguing the 109 somehow was a better fighter...

 

 

[Holtzauge]

36 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

...and yet you still have people arguing the 109 somehow was a better fighter...

 

 

 

Can't imagine who you had in mind when you wrote that.......

 

On a more serious note: Even Galland himself said at the Latimer House debriefing after the war that the Me-109 should have been phased out of production already during 1943.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Holtzauge

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Can't imagine who you had in mind when you wrote that.......

 

On a more serious note: Even Galland himself said at the Latimer House debriefing after the war that the Me-109 should have been phased out of production already during 1943.

Hindsight is an amazing thing. Developing the FW190 D and Ta152 to their full potential would have given the LW a single seater with enough performance to meet any allied fighter, at any altitude. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

3 hours ago, Zirashi said:

Snip

Greg really broke it down in his P-47 Range Video. The Range was calculated from Memory: Take-Off and Climb to 25000ft over the Airfield, Cruise Flight towards the Target at a Speed I forgot, but higher than standard econ-cruise, 30 Minutes of Combat in Combat over the Target, the return flight and 30 Minutes of Reserve.

A Bf109 would get an Escort Range of 0 in that Standard, a P-47 and P-51C without the Aux. Tank got roughly 100 Miles by that metric.

 

Only quite late, when the Bomber Mafia wanted to hide their failures did they Relax the Standards so the P-51 would look better on Paper thant he P-47 measured by these really strict old standards.

Edited May 19, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Holtzauge]

11 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

50% fuel for the P-51 would be 510 liters ^^

 

OK, If I run that in the simulations the P-51 turn rate drops by almost a degree/s:

 

P-51D best sustained turn rate 18.7 deg/s at 288 Km/h

 

So now the difference is noticeable to the Me-109 K4 at 20.5 deg/s (i.e. K4 almost 10% better) but then again the K4 is only carrying 200 l while the Mustang is hauling around 510 l .......

 

42 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Hindsight is an amazing thing. Developing the FW190 D and Ta152 to their full potential would have given the LW a single seater with enough performance to meet any allied fighter, at any altitude. 

 

Actually IIRC then it was not hindsight and Galland said that the Me-109 should have been withdrawn already in 1943 but that it was kept simply to keep up production numbers. In the debriefing he mentioned exactly what you say above: He would have preferred Ta-152 and Me-262 production but apparently logistics put a stop to that.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Holtzauge

[Bremspropeller]

18 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

So now the difference is noticeable to the K4 but then again the K4 is only carrying 200 l while the Mustang is hauling around 510 l .......

 

That's what I was trying to say all the time ?

 

32 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Greg really broke it down in his P-47 Range Video. The Range was calculated from Memory: Take-Off and Climb to 25000ft over the Airfield, Cruise Flight towards the Target at a Speed I forgot, but higher than standard econ-cruise, 30 Minutes of Combat in Combat over the Target, the return flight and 30 Minutes of Reserve.

A Bf109 would get an Escort Range of 0 in that Standard, a P-47 and P-51C without the Aux. Tank got roughly 100 Miles by that metric.

 

Only quite late, when the Bomber Mafia wanted to hide their failures did they Relax the Standards so the P-51 would look better on Paper thant he P-47 measured by these really strict old standards.

 

That's the problem with Greg: He's not really consistent and all his P-47 videos are a bit agenda-sided. That is okay to break the narative of the 47 not having *teh range*. but it doesn't tell the whole story either. If a P-51D can do the same job on less gas and less MX support with less cost. It wins.

 

Take those with a grain of salt, but they seem to be in the ballpark:

 

The P-47N would go 60miles farther with twice the amount of internal fuel - and the external fuel was more, too.

(2x108gal vs 2x150gal)

 

Being lighter, carrying a less complicated supercharging-system and bringing less drag to the show helps tremendously.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[JtD]

With the benefit of hindsight you could scrap a few German development projects that didn't work out, such as the Jumo222, in favour of a more rapid development of projects that worked out, such as the Jumo213. Personally I believe the world would be a worse place without a Jumo222, but then techno-nerd-geek-stuff isn't really the relevant perpective.

[Holtzauge]

3 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's what I was trying to say all the time ?

 

 

Yes, you made it pretty clear you think that a P-51D carrying 510 liters compared to a Me-109K4 carrying 200 liters is a fair comparison and this is where we will have to agree to disagree: I can concede it's a HISTORICALLY fair comparison but never a TECHNICALLY fair comparison.

[ZachariasX]

18 minutes ago, JtD said:

but then techno-nerd-geek-stuff isn't really the relevant perpective.

It‘s the only perspective!

[Aurora_Stealth]

Mmm... the only problem with speculating about what "could have been" is... it wasn't and usually for very good (usually practical) reasons, which are not always going to align from a piloting perspective. It's also no good having the technically "better" or even "best" performing fighter (you could make the same arguments for the Me 262) if there are too few to make a difference, or if they are only specialised at doing certain things.. or they come too late to have a decisive impact, or so late that the requirements change.

 

It's also easy to make a better design from scratch after you have had the hindsight of previous years learning and experience from others.

 

I do understand people's preferences and at least partially agree regarding the P-51, it was a generation ahead in aerodynamics and a design that had moved firmly on from the 1930's view of aircraft design - but to make generic claim's about "the best" when there were so many things the P-51 wasn't suited to at all... and the fact it didn't arrive as a mature design till 1944 is ... summarising a book based on only reading its final page and then thanking only the publisher for the great read in my opinion.

[Holtzauge]

20 minutes ago, JtD said:

With the benefit of hindsight you could scrap a few German development projects that didn't work out, such as the Jumo222, in favour of a more rapid development of projects that worked out, such as the Jumo213. Personally I believe the world would be a worse place without a Jumo222, but then techno-nerd-geek-stuff isn't really the relevant perpective.

 

Yes, the Germans had a lot of nice things going on the technical side during the war for sure. While "Spitzenklasse" technology is always a German thing I guess it was also done in recognition they would never win a war of attrition and that their only hope lay in beating the opposition through quality, not quantity.

[LColony_Kong]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

That is okay to break the narative of the 47 not having *teh range*. but it doesn't tell the whole story either.

I mean he didnt even get that right. That entire video he made on the P-47 about the supposed "treachery" was total nonsense. He made a number of large historical errors and didnt seem to try very hard to understand the perspective of the "evil" bomber generals or the actual situation in general. I generally enjoy Gregs videos and find them well done, except for his bit on the P-47 and his video on John Boyd. Boyd was a dumb ass...but thats another story.

 

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

but to make generic claim's about "the best" when there were so many things the P-51 wasn't suited to at all... and the fact it didn't arrive as a mature design till 1944 is ...

The reason the P-51 gets thrown around non-nonchalantly as "the best" is because it was, at least to any reasonable extent that you could ever call a single airplane "the best." Most of this has to do with the significance of the aircraft at the point it entered the war. It doesnt really matter what the other planes were doing before the Mustang showed up because it was the Mustang that facilitated actually destroying the Luftwaffe and changing the tide of the air war. 70-80 percent of Germanys single engine daylight fighter force was in the west, and 50% alone was in Germany itself as part of defense of the Reich Units. This was the case as of mid-1943 until February of 1945. The air force that was requiring this much German attention was primarily the 8th, followed by the 12th and 15th. What made the Mustang truly remarkable compared to any other major production fighter of the war, is that it had the range to fly to Berlin but had better or equal performance to the typical short range fighters in use by everyone else. Also if you compare the Mustang to the 109s and 190s it was facing, especially during the first sixth months of the major battles of the bombing campaign from Jan44 to June44, the Mustangs performance blew the socks off the competition. Look at a speed vs altitude chart of a P-51 vs a contemporary spitfire or 109 or 190, its absurdly more fast than any of them. The G-14 would gain back some of that speed, but only at low altitudes and it was still slower. It would not be until mid-October of 1944 that the 109K would come out with speed equal to the mustang. But well before that Mustangs were operating at 150 octane fuel, making them faster or equal to the K4, equal in climb, and as this game and Holtzauges simulations show-practically parity in turn.

 

Also there was very little the Mustang was not suited to do. A lightly loaded Mustang could have and DID perform short range front line air cover. They also were far more multi-role than any British, German, or Soviet fighter you might compare them to (except the Typhoon/Tempest)

 

To summarize, calling it "the best" might be too much of a generalization but the Mustang has its unique reputation because it had world class fighter performance while having 4 times the range of anything comparable and also being able to perform ground attack and other missions better than many dedicated strike aircraft of the time.

[JtD]

8 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

They also were far more multi-role than any British, German, or Soviet fighter you might compare them to (except the Typhoon/Tempest)

 

What plethora of roles did the P-51 perform a Fw190 did not, which would make it far more multi-role?

 

Not that this really matters to the K-4 manouverability, but still curious.

[LColony_Kong]

28 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

What plethora of roles did the P-51 perform a Fw190 did not, which would make it far more multi-role?

 

Not that this really matters to the K-4 manouverability, but still curious.

Long range escort, for one.

 

But the phrase "far more" also means capacity, not necessarily the roles themselves. The Mustang had more range, speed, and payload ability than the 190. Its also faster, more agile (except roll), and climbs better. The Dora matches the climb and speed, but it barely saw service at the very end of the war, especially the 2100bhp version everyone takes for granted but didnt even exist until november of 44 and by 45 there were only 60 of them.

[JtD]

I disagree, performance is not role in my opinion. The Fw190 performed long range escorts as well, even if the range was shorter. Saying this doesn't qualify is like saying the P-51 was no interceptor, because it had less fire power, or that the A6M was no real fighter aircraft, because it was slower.

 

Payload ability of the Fw190 was certainly not less than that of a P-51.

[LColony_Kong]

2 hours ago, JtD said:

I disagree, performance is not role in my opinion. The Fw190 performed long range escorts as well, even if the range was shorter. Saying this doesn't qualify is like saying the P-51 was no interceptor, because it had less fire power, or that the A6M was no real fighter aircraft, because it was slower.

 

Payload ability of the Fw190 was certainly not less than that of a P-51.

I didn't say performance was role. The 190 did escort. It did not by any useful relative definition do long range escort. The 190s range is only slightly better than they typical 500mile range of the typical ww2 fighter aircraft. If you define "long range" escort simply by same yardstick as every single fighter in the war, than the word loses any meaning whatsoever.

 

The payload ability of the 190 is certainly inferior. Its realistic max bomb load is a single SC 500 with little mini-bombs on the wings. Basically a single 1000lb bomb and the equivalent of a 500lber in 4 parts. A Mustang can easily carry two 1000lb bombs and rockets to boot. And that's without going down the rabbit hole of the unicorn loadouts of either plane.

 

But anyway, again the term "far more" didn't necessarily refer to being able to perform exclusive roles. It refers to better general performance which means more efficacy in actually being multi role. Pretty much every WW2 fighter had some multi role capability. But they are not created equal in this regard. With regards to the 190 this is mainly the range if were comparing it the 51. The general interceptor or general purpose fighter of ww2 could not do long range escort missions because their design tended to preclude it in design tradeoffs. Until the P-51 every other major production fighter had to make very serious compromises in order to ALSO have long range. The P-47 struggled to get the range at all until later variants and it was so optimized for high alt it sucked everywhere else. 109s, 190s, Yaks, Spitfires, Laggs, and almost everything really, sacrificed range for performance, with the only truly long range fighters being too large to duke it out with fighters at anything near parity. The P-38 might be the only other exception, but that's worth its own discussion. The Mustang has the performance of a short range interceptor with the range of a heavy fighter or strategic bomber. Then to boot, it has strike capability that is very nearly top of its class so far as bomb carrying fighters are concerned. The range comes into play there as well, since a bomb laden 51 would easily be able to carry its payload much further, making it useful for deep interdiction etc.

Edited May 20, 2021 by LColony_Red_Comet

[ZachariasX]

The P-51 is:

• Cadillac of the Sky
• Best Turning Fighter of Hearts

A Fw-190 is:

• Fw-190

Clear win there.

 

 

[JtD]

The Fw190 could carry a ton of bombs, max, or typically max 500kg in WW2. The P-51 could carry 908kg of bombs, max, with poor handling restricting it to straight and level flight, leaving 454kg as the typical max WW2 loadout. Less than that of the Fw190 in both cases. The P-51 could carry rockets, and so could the Fw190. Both could carry rockets and bombs combined (and both rarely did in WW2).

 

The Fw 190 could also carry 500kg with 1200l of fuel over the same range the P-51 could carry 454kg on then internal fuel only. Not at the same speed, but it could do it at night.

 

Anyway, if your whole argument comes down to "due to the larger range, the P-51 could do all the roles it did more effectively and thus it was more multi-role than anything else" - well, in that case we don't need to argue. Because range as a combat quality is really hard to weigh in, and I'd consider any discussion about the exact value of range a moot discussion.

[JV69badatflyski]

1 hour ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

109s, 190s, Yaks, Spitfires, Laggs, and almost everything really, sacrificed range for performance, with the only truly long range fighters being too large to duke it out with fighters at anything near parity. The P-38 might be the only other exception, but that's worth its own discussion. The Mustang has the performance of a short range interceptor with the range of a heavy fighter or strategic bomber. Then to boot, it has strike capability that is very nearly top of its class so far as bomb carrying fighters are concerned. The range comes into play there as well, since a bomb laden 51 would easily be able to carry its payload much further, making it useful for deep interdiction etc.

Range(Long) wasn't a a parameter in the 190 design.
The 190 is a very small compared to the p-51, you can't squeeze more fuel into it anyway.Just as in a spit.
As For the multi role, you can't beat the 190 in anyway, it was the most versatile airframe of WWII...could the P-51 carry a torpedo?...?

[Aurora_Stealth]

1 hour ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

The P-47 struggled to get the range at all until later variants and it was so optimized for high alt it sucked everywhere else. 109s, 190s, Yaks, Spitfires, Laggs, and almost everything really, sacrificed range for performance, with the only truly long range fighters being too large to duke it out with fighters at anything near parity. The P-38 might be the only other exception, but that's worth its own discussion. The Mustang has the performance of a short range interceptor with the range of a heavy fighter or strategic bomber. Then to boot, it has strike capability that is very nearly top of its class so far as bomb carrying fighters are concerned. The range comes into play there as well, since a bomb laden 51 would easily be able to carry its payload much further, making it useful for deep interdiction etc.

 

Range is only one characteristic of an aircraft's capability. Not saying anyone is full-proof but what Greg mentioned did make sense, the P-47 could have been better supported - his point being it was technically possible and practical to do so - superior drop tanks could (should) have been manufactured and provided earlier on had political reasons (obstacles) not interfered. The ultimate point is its not really a limitation of the aircraft itself and therefore it shouldn't reflect badly on it. The P-51 was still preferable for other reasons though as an escort fighter, agreed.

 

Also one of the reasons the Bf 109 gets its "your a short range little fighter aren't you" priority badge is the Germans did not have reliable drop-tanks available at the start of the Battle of Britain (they did by September 1940 but the initiative had been lost). The Bf 109 is then pointed to for having such short range (like most other fighters of its time), but... its range was improved significantly and usefully when they actually had available decent drop-tanks. In 1942 - 1943 especially the G models employed these quite a bit - but this is barely mentioned because its not as long ranged as yours truly. The Fw 190 though, was definitely more versatile from an operational standpoint as its not just the greater range, but its robust nature and heavy load carrying ability combined together - this is more useful in some ways compared to the Mustang. You still need to make it back in one piece after all.

 

When the A-36 (P-51) was used as a ground attacker it suffered the heaviest losses of any allied ground attacker - that isn't world class. Just because it can do something doesn't mean its always suitable to do so. For similar reasons, the P-51 can intercept bombers, but would you want to try and intercept a large formation of Ju 88's or He111's with its limited armament (the B model had only four .50's) and its many vulnerabilities? just carrying large amounts of fuel in the wings in such a situation is a recipe for trouble, on top of having that one large, easy to hit radiator with no redundancy... potentially being a long way from home... and this is among its other highly sensitive design features.

 

Some other important things to note:

 

It wasn't very well suited to operating from rough and unprepared frontline airfields in difficult environments (think eastern front), or another example... the desert - again the very low radiator is a real liability here dealing with ingestion. The long takeoff and landing run is also a significant limitation here, and yes you could travel/fly a long distance from further back to get to the same target, but what if you need to repel fast attacks for close support for ground forces? what if you don't have radar to support your every move and get there in time? these were big issues on the eastern front.

 

The P-51 can also hardly be described as an all weather fighter or night fighter, you're more limited / vulnerable to crosswinds in the P-51 and there were quite famous reports and stories of what happened when P-51's flew through storms in it or had their wings freeze up during extended time in clouds - it did not end well.

 

I could go on, the bottom line is there were many limitations with it, it wasn't quite the all rounder you're making it out to be.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[Bremspropeller]

The 190's max bombload IIRC is a single 1800kg bomb. Not sure if it was operational, though.

 

The 190 had potential for more fuel-volume. It started with the 115l Reichweitenbehälter, but it could be extended.

The Fw 190D-13 had plans for up to four bags inside the wings (one for MW50, the rest for fuel) - a similar (but scaled-down) arrangement to the six bags in the Ta 152.

 

In fact, there were plans for filling the outer gun-ports with fuel-bags quite early, yet they never materialised.

 

The lack of internal fuel in the 190 was a choice - even more so than sticking with less than optimal engines. Albeit not a good one.

 

14 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Also one of the reasons the Bf 109 gets its "your a short range little fighter aren't you" priority badge is the Germans did not have reliable drop-tanks available at the start of the Battle of Britain (they did by September 1940 but the initiative had been lost). The Bf 109 is then pointed to for having such short range (like most other fighters of its time), but... its range was improved significantly and usefully when they actually had available decent drop-tanks

 

The P-51 has the same amount of fuel internally (just using the two 92gal wing-tanks!) as a 109 has with a gas-bag. The P-51 on top is a less draggy airframe.

The 109 and P-51 are leagues apart!

 

15 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

When the A-36 (P-51) was used as a ground attacker it suffered the heaviest losses of any allied ground attacker - that isn't world class. Just because it can do something doesn't mean its always suitable to do so. For similar reasons, the P-51 can intercept bombers, but would you want to try and intercept a large formation of Ju 88's or He111's with its limited armament (the B model had only four .50's) and its many vulnerabilities? just carrying large amounts of fuel in the wings in such a situation is a recipe for trouble, on top of having that one large, easy to hit radiator with no redundancy... potentially being a long way from home... and this is among its other highly sensitive design features.

 

The A-36 suffered a high amount of losses, but those weren't neccessarily related to the airplane. The Mustang Ia had 4x 20mm.

 

18 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

It wasn't very well suited to operating from rough and unprepared frontline airfields in difficult environments (think eastern front), or another example... the desert - again the very low radiator is a real liability here dealing with ingestion. The long takeoff and landing run is also a significant limitation here, and yes you could travel/fly a long distance from further back to get to the same target, but what if you need to repel fast attacks for close support for ground forces? what if you don't have radar to support your every move and get there in time? these were big issues on the eastern front.

 

The fact that the US was able to prepare airfields to a degree they were suitable for large-scale strategic operations (see PTO) implies that this wasn't a huge issue speaking against the use of Mustangs. The use of rough, unprepared airfields by ze Germans and ze Soviets was mostly a choice (by not having a comparable engineering corps).

 

There's a high probability that the residial issues (e.g. dust- or sand-ingestion) could have been fixed in the field. Either by jury-rigging or by actual engineering support by NAA. The USAAF admin wasn't the driver of inventions here (much like the Navy and USMC upper echelons weren't).

 

21 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

The P-51 can also hardly be described as an all weather fighter or night fighter, you're more limited / vulnerable to crosswinds in the P-51 and there were quite famous reports and stories of what happened when P-51's flew through storms in it or had their wings freeze up during extended time in clouds - it did not end well.

 

"All weather" is relative. The susceptability to weather comes with the type of operations, the theater of operations and the general performance of the airplane.

General rule of thumb: If you can't climb through the weather, any type of icing is potentially dangerous. FIKI-devices (like early pneumatic boots) were just feel-good devices. You can make the argument that early laminar type wings (including the Davis wing on the B-24) were a bit less forgiving of any kind of leading-edge contamination, but those are relatives - if you're icing up, you're quickly in trouble in any kind of airplane.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Page Six of a Bf109 Thread is: P-51 vs Fw190.

 

Just to add my Mustard:

 

The P-51 as a Standalone Aircraft would have sucked in any Air Service other than the US, especially once you imagine them locking the Tailwheel down and removing Wheel Fairings, reducing it to Spitfire Performance.

I mean, a cleaned up Spitfire with fully retracting Tailwheel and complete Wheelcovers, as well as cleaned up Rivets will compete with a P-51 no Problem.

                                         

But imagine the Fw190A would have been a RAF or USAAF Fighter with the Mods available in Terms of Drop Tanks and Fuel Quality that RAF and USAAF had. On American 100, 100-30 and 100-50 Octane would have completely outclassed any other Fighter, and with the Engineering Equipment available to the Americans would have been so much easier to Service.

Doing anything to a 190 as an under equipped German Mechanic without a Crane at Hand required a Block and Tackle and a strong enough Tree nearby to really do anything.

Edited May 20, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[JtD]

15 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

I mean, a cleaned up Spitfire with fully retracting Tailwheel and complete Wheelcovers, as well as cleaned up Rivets will compete with a P-51 no Problem.

 

You forgot the redesigned wing and the radiator installation. Basically, if you keep the engine and swap the rest for a P-51 airframe, a Spitfire can compete with a P-51 no problem. Pretty much like a Bf109, but there you'd have to swap the engine as well.

 

In terms of maximum engine performance, German C3 fuel was pretty much as good as Allied 100-30 fuel.

[Aurora_Stealth]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The P-51 has the same amount of fuel internally (just using the two 92gal wing-tanks!) as a 109 has with a gas-bag. The P-51 on top is a less draggy airframe.

The 109 and P-51 are leagues apart!

 

Sure, but my point is why single out an individual aircraft as being inferior; and ignore the fact that most other designs were in the same boat. The Fw 190 had better range than a Bf 109 and was used quite successfully mid-war using drop tanks, the need for the Bf 109 to do an identical task can also be argued as not being there. Trying to make a single aircraft design do all tasks in the first place isn't that sensible - that's the point.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The A-36 suffered a high amount of losses, but those weren't neccessarily related to the airplane. The Mustang Ia had 4x 20mm.

 

Well the argument being made there was that the P-51 (B / C / D - the A-36 being similar to the B model but with an Allison engine) was great at ground attack and is a multi-role aircraft... do you think a Bf 109 or Fw 190 used in the same role would have suffered worse? I doubt it... the P-51 was much, much more vulnerable. In a broadly similar way to the Bf 109 - but with even less survivability against ground fire. Sure, and the cannons hoped to be used by the US (the UK used hispano's for the IA) were considered unreliable and unsuitable.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The fact that the US was able to prepare airfields to a degree they were suitable for large-scale strategic operations (see PTO) implies that this wasn't a huge issue speaking against the use of Mustangs. The use of rough, unprepared airfields by ze Germans and ze Soviets was mostly a choice (by not having a comparable engineering corps).

 

There's a high probability that the residial issues (e.g. dust- or sand-ingestion) could have been fixed in the field. Either by jury-rigging or by actual engineering support by NAA. The USAAF admin wasn't the driver of inventions here (much like the Navy and USMC upper echelons weren't).

 

Again... there are so many assumptions tied to this. In war you don't always get to choose ideal locations for airfields, and what if you don't always have ideal manpower and equipment available?... the other argument just made was the P-51 was a great short range interceptor so we're talking about how flexible the aircraft itself is (short range interceptors often require short field performance). You cannot always rely on favorable circumstances including the environment and weather.

 

Residual issues could have been fixed, but it may also have come at a significant penalty in drag - the whole point of the aircraft's design in the first place was to minimise drag to gain a performance advantage. Regardless, unless you move the location of the radiator it was still going to be much more susceptible [by design].

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

"All weather" is relative. The susceptability to weather comes with the type of operations, the theater of operations and the general performance of the airplane.

 

General rule of thumb: If you can't climb through the weather, any type of icing is potentially dangerous. FIKI-devices (like early pneumatic boots) were just feel-good devices. You can make the argument that early laminar type wings (including the Davis wing on the B-24) were a bit less forgiving of any kind of leading-edge contamination, but those are relatives - if you're icing up, you're quickly in trouble in any kind of airplane.

 

Okay... well it certainly seems very unfavourable to be relying on sunny days with no harsh weather conditions, crosswind always being under 15 knots and no major cloud cover, rain, snow or storms - that seems just a bit less flexible to me in that regard lol.

 

I'll re-phrase this for you, compared to the majority of aerofoils on comparable fighters, it is a lot less forgiving and more prone to an unrecoverable and catastrophic stall and spin in unfavourable conditions. Because of the configuration and aerofoil type its also much harder to keep the temperature of the internal systems in the wing (including guns) at operable temperatures.

 

These are a lot of limitations.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

9 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

You forgot the redesigned wing and the radiator installation. Basically, if you keep the engine and swap the rest for a P-51 airframe, a Spitfire can compete with a P-51 no problem. Pretty much like a Bf109, but there you'd have to swap the engine as well.

 

In terms of maximum engine performance, German C3 fuel was pretty much as good as Allied 100-30 fuel.

The German Fuel was equal 100-30 IF and only IF you ran it in a Direct Injection Engine at the insanely rich Mixtures that you simply couldn't get out of the TBI the Allied Engines ran. In an American Engine the C3 was 93 Octane but because it was Part Synthetic, you could run it richer because the fouling would burn off easier in normal running again, unlike Mineral.

 

A cleaned up 109 is a K-4, but now imagine instead of having Fuel+Water Methanol, you just have 150 Octane and increase Fuel to something like 550l. And with the extended Tailwheel you can carry 108 Gallon Drop Tanks.

[Bremspropeller]

26 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The P-51 as a Standalone Aircraft would have sucked in any Air Service other than the US, especially once you imagine them locking the Tailwheel down and removing Wheel Fairings, reducing it to Spitfire Performance.

I mean, a cleaned up Spitfire with fully retracting Tailwheel and complete Wheelcovers, as well as cleaned up Rivets will compete with a P-51 no Problem.

 

The aircraft you're proposing did exist - it's called "Spiteful".

 

The funny thing is that you could just reverse that argument and wonder what a stripped down P-51 would have looked like.

No, wait! That's a P-51H!

 

The Brits were pretty fond of their Mustangs. And rightly so.

 

30 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

But imagine the Fw190A would have been a RAF or USAAF Fighter with the Mods available in Terms of Drop Tanks and Fuel Quality that RAF and USAAF had. On American 100, 100-30 and 100-50 Octane would have completely outclassed any other Fighter, and with the Engineering Equipment available to the Americans would have been so much easier to Service.

 

How? The Germans couldn't re-invent physics and thus would have come up with comparable solutions to the Allies. The power-output was comparable, so there's little an allied Fw 190 would have been able to do on top.

 

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

 

7 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Sure, but my point is why single out an individual aircraft as being inferior; and ignore the fact that most other designs were in the same boat. The Fw 190 had better range than a Bf 109 and was used quite successfully mid-war using drop tanks, the need for the Bf 109 to do an identical task can also be argued as not being there. Trying to make a single aircraft design do all tasks in the first place isn't that sensible - that's the point.

 

The 109 lacked range. Always. It sucked for the air war the Luftwaffe was trying to win, but couldn't. No matter which front you're looking at.

The fact that you'd have to strap a 300l tank onto the belly to have enough fuel for climbing up, getting into formation and attacking a bomber-formation tells the whole story. As a rule of thumb, a third to half the fuel in that external tank is used to overcome the additional weight and drag.

 

If you have all that fuel internally, your performance isn't going to suffer quite as bad.

 

10 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Well the argument being made there was that the P-51 (B / C / D - the A-36 being similar to the B model but with an Allison engine) was great at ground attack and is a multi-role aircraft... do you think a Bf 109 or Fw 190 used in the same role would have suffered worse? I doubt it... the P-51 was much, much more vulnerable. In a broadly similar way to the Bf 109 - but with even less survivability against ground fire. Sure, and the cannons hoped to be used by the US (the UK used hispano's for the IA) were considered unreliable and unsuitable.

 

The A-36 isn't similar to the B. There have been quite a few mods between the Allison Mustangs and the Merlin Mustangs. The Allison-powered airplanes were great at low to medium altitudes. They were limited by the Allison's supercharger setup. That's it.

 

The argument of additional vulnerability is always brought up, but how much of that is actually real. Bill Marshall has once pointed out that F4Us in Korea didn't really fare that much better than Mustangs in terms of losses to ground fire.

 

The 354th FG preferred Mustangs over Jugs anyway.

 

"Unsuitable" could have been fixed by just installing british hispanos. They seemed to have figured them out.

 

13 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Again... there are so many assumptions tied to this. In war you don't always get to choose ideal locations for airfields, and what if you don't always have ideal manpower and equipment available?... the other argument just made was the P-51 was a great short range interceptor so we're talking about how flexible the aircraft itself is (short range interceptors often require short field performance). You cannot always rely on favorable circumstances including the environment and weather.

 

Residual issues could have been fixed, but it may also have come at a significant penalty in drag - the whole point of the aircraft's design in the first place was to minimise drag to gain a performance advantage. Regardless, unless you move the location of the radiator it was still going to be much more susceptible [by design].

 

The US had the manpower. Pretty much always. It's not the US' fault that other armies went to war forgetting their shovvels.

Short field performance is relative. Have a look at how quickly the Allies built runways in Normandy. If you can operate a bombed-up P-47 or Typhoon from these fields, you can operate an intercepting P-51.

 

The Brits figured out how to build a workable solution into their Spitfires (not talking Vokes). I'm quite sure the US and Brits could figure out a solution for the P-51.

 

18 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I'll re-phrase this for you, compared to the majority of aerofoils on comparable fighters, it is a lot less forgiving and more prone to an unrecoverable and catastrophic stall and spin. Because of the configuration and aerofoil type its also much harder to keep the temperature of the internal systems (including guns) at operable temperatures.

 

Icing is dangerous. No matter which airfoil.

Which internal systems would that be? Guns freezing wasn't that much a problem; it was a feeding issue that was fixed with the P-51D.

 

 

 

 

[unreasonable]

P-51s did just fine on improvised airfields in Korea. Also they had an additional advantage which range gives a CAS plane: loiter time. If you are operating any kind of "cab-rank" CAS system, this becomes hugely important.

 

It also cost 50,000 USD per unit in WW2 compared to 80,000 USD for a P-47. 

 

I also am not sure where this P-51 radiator installation was more vulnerable to ground fire suggestion comes from. All water cooled engines had this problem in general, and I am not sure why the configuration of the P-51s is worse than one which smears the radiators out all over the wing surface.

[Dakpilot]

Flying from Iwo jima to Tokyo with an hour or two loitering and back were some of P-51's most impressive exploits, and destroying more than 1000 enemy aircraft during those missions. 

 

Sometimes range is a weapon 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

4 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

How? The Germans couldn't re-invent physics and thus would have come up with comparable solutions to the Allies. The power-output was comparable, so there's little an allied Fw 190 would have been able to do on top.

The 190A was Octane limited to 1.42ata on 100ROZ, which is worse than American 100 RON, thus I'd say even on 100 RON it would have been able to boost 1.58ata in 1942.

[Bremspropeller]

6 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The 190A was Octane limited to 1.42ata on 100ROZ, which is worse than American 100 RON, thus I'd say even on 100 RON it would have been able to boost 1.58ata in 1942.

 

That's not the point.

The point is that german and american (or british) engines at the end of the war had a comparable power-output anyway, so using the other's way of chieving that power doesn't quite change the outcome in terms of performance.

 

Did the octane-rating in 1944 change? The BMW 801D would eventually run up to 1.65 ata. Why?

Necessity made them figure out a way. The power-output wasn't the dealbreaker - the supercharger was. Always.

 

[Kurfurst]

49 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

The Fw 190 had better range than a Bf 109 and was used quite successfully mid-war using drop tanks,

 

Not entirely, unless we completely ignore the German's own range tables, which state the following range data for the mid-war variants. These shows slightly higher range for the 190 if internal fuel is used only, the exact same range with external droptank; and with the maximum permissible bomb load fitted, the situation reverses and the 109 has a bit more range in that role (note  it carries a smaller 250 kg bomb). 

 

on internal fuel (400 and 525 liter respectively?

Bf 109F-4 at maximum speed cruise, range is 525 km at 585 kph cruise, with allowances for take off etc. with a total of 1 hour and 5 minutes of endurance (at 7 km).

Bf 109F-4 at maximum range cruise, range is 835km at 410 kph cruise, with allowances for take off etc, with a total of 2 hour 10 mins of endurance (at 7 km).

Fw 190A-3 at maximum speed cruise, range is 590 km at 585 kph cruise, with allowances for take off etc, with a total of 1 hour of endurance (at 7 km).

Fw190A-3 at maximum range cruise, range is 945 km at 420 kph cruise, with allowances for take off etc., with a total of 2 hour 20 mins of endurance (at 4.9 km).

 

On internal fuel (i.e. 400 and 525 liters) and a 300 liter droptank, maximum range cruise at cc. 410 kph is given as 1600 km for both Bf 109F-4 and Fw 190A-3. 

 

Further interest is range with maximum bombload (250 kg for 109 and 500 kg for 190) is given as 780 km for the Bf 109F-4 and 750 km for the Fw 190A-3.

 

Range figures for 109G are not yet given in table save for the remark 'expected to be better than F-4'. 

 

Now the interesting part is the ideal altitude for maximum range is 4.9 km for the Fw 190A, and 7 km for the 109F-4. The figures get relatively better for the 190 for mid altitudes, and better for the F4 at higher altitudes.

 

For all practical purposes, they pretty much had the same range where it mattered (i.e. carrying bombs or when carrying droptanks).

 

Quote

the need for the Bf 109 to do an identical task can also be argued as not being there.

 

Indeed. The 190 was ideally suited for low-mid altitude fighter bomber operations, therefore it was logically used as such more, freeing up 109s for mostly fighter duties (as up the that point they had to perform both fighter and fighter bomber duties.)

 

  

51 minutes ago, JtD said:

In terms of maximum engine performance, German C3 fuel was pretty much as good as Allied 100-30 fuel.

 

In fact - far better. However fuel knock resistance wasn't a limitation for engine development.

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by VO101Kurfurst