P-51 dogfighting performance

[Tempest V]

My first post here. My 8 year old son and I are most interested in WWII combat aircraft and joined to learn together. For all the statements about the P-51 being the best fighter fielded by the allies during the war, and a great deal said about its speed and range, I wonder if someone could enlighten us as to it's performance as a dogfighter. How did the P-51 compare in rates of climb, dive, turning radius and overall maneuverability to types such as the BF109, FW190, Ki-84, and other formidable foes?

Thank you.

[Corsarius]

Hi! Welcome!

I'm not a real expert on the Mustang, but I think the quote that sums it up is: 'The p-51 can't do what a Spitfire can do, but it can do it over Berlin'

[Kutscha]

Welcome Tempest.

This site has some comparison tests as well as lots other info.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

[Trexx]

INDEED! Welcome.

Just about everything I know about that I've learned from the gentlemen here on this site. There's a core group of regular contributors here that are extremely knowledgeable. More than one are published authors and most are skilled researchers.

I've been enlightened also with this book:


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-10/1283790/greatbookWWIIairplanes.jpg

It has detailed, technical comparisons of the P-51 vs a slough of it's contemporaries.
From RH Value Publishing. It's a huge, hardcover book with amazingly high quality illustrations too. (many foldouts too!)

[GregP]

Hi and welcome ...

The best Allied dogfighter was most probably the Spitfire. During much of its life and development, it had an engine almost the same as the Mustang, but was several thousand pounds lighter. That means better power-to-weight ratio (for better climb) and a lower wing loading (for better maneuverability).

Most British aircraft were very short on range, and the Spitfire was exactly that for most of its life. Late in the game, they added enough fuel to make it a good candidate for escort, but by then the Mustang was THE premier escort fighter, and the primary mission of the Spitfire never really changed.

Speaking of fighters, there are several kinds:

1) pure air superiority (dogfighter)
2) escort (gotta' have long range and decent overall performance)
3) fighter-bomber (must be able to deliver a reasonable bomb load, calleda "strike-fighter" today)
4) Naval (carrier with folding wings and heavier landing gear, etc.)
5) Heavy fighter (hard hitting, robust, large)
6) Night fighter

Most of these categories had subcategories such as low altitude (no supercharger or single speed, single stage unit), medium altitude (usually a two stage supercharger, sometimes two speed too), and high altitude (multi-stage, multi speed supercharger). In addition, there were usually short, medium, and long range fighters in each category.

In general, the best Allied dogfighter was the Spitfire, though the Bearcat would have been a great choice if it had participated much in WWII. The Russian Yak-3/9 series were also a superb dogfighters, but were low to medium altitude units. The Soviet Lavochkin La-5 / La-7 were also superb, and were probably better than the Yaks overall. As for the Axis, there are those who feel the Fw-190D-8 or Ta-152 were the best ever. I don't agree but they have a great set of choices to argue over. The Focke Wulfs were superb. The Japanese had the best dogfighter period in 1941 in the Zero. Later, the Ki-84 Frank was probably their best, though the Ki-100 was a delightful accident when they ran short of liquid cooled engines and fitted a radial to the Ki-61.

For pure Naval fighters, it is VERY hard to argue with the Grumman Hellcat for the Allies since it had the best kill ratio of ANY fighter in the war at 19-to-1. Some diehards try very hard to argue that the FM-2 was a plane by itself and argue that it had the best kill ratio, but the FM-2 in in the Wildcat family solidly, and it wasn't the best by a long margin. The Japanese had ongoing Zero variants and they were good but becomming obsolescent by late 1943. The Germans didn't have a carrier, and so didn't develop and production Naval fighters though they DID prototype a Naval Me-109.

Many argue with great justification that the Vought Corsair was the best piston fighter ever, never mind Naval fighter, and they have a pretty good argument in top speed, load carrying ability, and maneuverability.

For escort fighters, the Allies had two great ones in the P-51 Mustang in Europe and the P-38 Lightning in the Pacific. They were long range, adequately armed, and were at least good at all tasks. The Germans really didn't HAVE an escort fighter. The Me-109's were far too short-ranged and the Me-110's (started life as an escort fighter) needed an escort themselves to stay alive in combat. The Japanese really didn't have an escort fighter either, but the Zeros had great range and sufficed.

For fighter-bombers, the Allies had the P-47 Thunderbolt, widely regarded as the best strike fighter of WWII. It could hit hard, could take a LOT of punishment, and was heavily armed. The Germans had a great stike fighter in the HS-129, but deployed it primarily as a Russian tank killer instead of as a strike fighter. The Japanese had several really heavily armed heavy fighters, but they were made in very small numbers and so did not have any great effect on the war at all. The Soviet Tu-2 and Pe-2 were very hard-hitting aircraft that were appreciated by the Soviets but largely ignored by the rest of the Allies. It must have been terrifying to actually attack in a Tu-2 with four big cannon muzzles only about a foot from your head! The British Tempest and later Sea Fury were probably among the best, but were very late in the war when developed and debugged.

The Allies had one purpose-designed night fighter, the P-61 Black Widow. It was excellent at the task, especially in the Pacific. Improvised night fighters included the Mosquito (a good one in anyone's book), and even the P-70, which was an A-20 bomber armed as a night fighter. The Germans used the Bf-110 very successfully in the role, but the He-219 was probably among the best of the best, though built in small numbers. Most other night fighters were improvised from day fighter types.

As for other fighters, the German Dornier Do-335 was extraordinary, but too few to matter. The Me-262 was the first OPERATIONAL jet fighter and they were still figuring how to best employ it when the war ended. Though it didn't have a great effect on the war (decent record but unspectacular), it is widely regarded as a quantum leap in fighters. Almost all first, second, and some third-generation jet fighters owe something to the Me-262. The British Meteor and Vampires weren't far behind the Me-262, but weren't nearly as innovative as the Me-262 in many respects, particularly aerodynamically. The American P-80 performed about like the Me-262 but only had one engine, and was innovative in that respect. It is still flown today in some Air Forces as the T-33.

The Italians had some really innovative dogfighters in the Reggiane Re-2005 and Macchi MC.202/205 series, but they were too few to matter and were not in combat long enough to make a difference before the armistice.

There is almost no way to pick a "best fighter" since so much depends on the mission. The factors are range, load, armament, altitude, and maneuverability. No single mission requires the best of all of the factors.

One last point that I MUST make. Many peope do not think the Me-109 was a great fighter candidate because of its many well-known shortcomings. It is useful to remember that the Me-109 shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in history put together, produced the greatest aces of all time (Erich Hartmann with 352 kills, Gerhard Barkhorn with 301 kills and Gunther Rall with 275 victories), and was in production from before the war to the end of the war. How bad can it BE?

Kinda' confusing, huh? Maybe that's why we STILL cuss, discuss, and argue about it after 65+ years!

Welcome again and please join the discussions as you see fit.

[Wuzak]

Hi Tempest V, welcome to the forum.

As you can see from Greg's post there is a lot to consider when comapring aircraft performance - such as role.

The P-51 with Merlin engine (P-51B & D) was faster than the Spitfire with the equivalent Merlin mark (MkIX & VIII), but I don't believe it ever had the same climb capability. This is due partly to their roles - as an interceptor the Spitfire needed to get to altitude quickly, whilst the P-51 wing provided greater efficiency for higher speed and longer range.

The Spitfire improved its performance by 100mph from prototype to the end of WW2. Similarly for the Bf109. It could be argued that the earlier, lighter and less powerful versions of each were better dog-fighters than the later versions.

The Fw190 was arguably the best fighter upon its introduction. But the British soon improved on that, and then so did the Germans, etc.

Eric Brown, a pilot for the Royal Navy and test pilot the Royal Aircraft Establishment, flew many allied and axis aircraft during and post WW2 and rated the Spitfire MkXIV as the best, followed by the Fw190D-9 and the P-51, with not much difference between them.

[Corsarius]

Stuff....

As usual, Greg has given us a very informative post. Now Tempest V, there's no need to listen to him. I agree with a lot of what Greg says. I also disagree with quite a bit. He's right about the conjecture and disagreements. I don't think we'll ever have a complete consensus. If you look through our old threads you'll find one with a lot of posts in it called 'best fighter'. I once tried to make a poll to see which ones people would vote for, and I found that I had literally dozens of aircraft, all with great merits.

Well, some with great merits anyway. I will assume that whoever suggested the P11c was joking.

I actually thought (based on the number of posts mentioning it in the 'best fighters' forum) that we had come to a consensus that the 'best' (whatever that means, refer to Greg's post above) fighter was the Fw-190 family, with the D-9 and Ta-152 particularly mentioned.

The most important point that Wuzak makes is the last one. Eric 'Winkle' Brown is the patron saint of this forum. He said he enjoyed flying it, and then it was good. Amen.

[GregP]

In Winkle's book "Duels in the Sky," on page 208, he lists the greatest top 5 fighters as:

1. Tied: Supermarine Spitfire and Focke-Wulf Fw 190
3. Grumman Hellcat
4. North American P-51 Mustang
5. Mitsubishi Zeke

He also said there was VERY little to choose between the top 4, with pilot skill probably being the most important factor. While Winkle didn't have the Corsair in there at all near the top 7, many knowledgeable pilots disagree.

Disagree? I'm shocked! Ha!

In my experience, WWII pilots who flew the Mustang say it's the best. Pilots who flew the Spitfire say IT's the best. Likewise the Fw 190 and Hellcat.

The main reason I like Winkle's choices is simple ... he flew THEM ALL. Not enough to get really familiar with them, but fly them he did.

I believe that many German aces who started with the Me 109 tried and failed to make the change to the Fw 190 because they were so familiar with the Me 109's characteristics and didn't really take the time to get familiar with the Fw 190's characteristics.

Recall that, at the time, the Luftwaffe was fighting for its life, and taking the time to get familiar with the nuances of a new mount might well mean your death in combat when you made a move that was right for the old plane but wrong in the new plane.

So, veteran WWII pilots almost ALL seriously wanted to stick with an old friend in combat unless the new plane was a complete replacement and there was no possibility of keeping the old mount ... unless the new plane was immediately WAY better than the old one. If they were high-ranking enough or high-scoring enough, like Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, Galland, or Johnny Johnson, or Dick Bong, they could usually fly whatever they wanted as long as it was available.

Again, if all you flew was a Tempest, then it was obviously the best you ever flew in combat.

Hence the 65-year discussion of what really WAS the "best!" I like the arguments; they bring out interesting opinions and some actual facts. The trick is to figure out the difference between opinions and fact ... Some people take as fact what old Uncle Fred said, who had a friend, who had another friend who flew Corsairs and said it was the best ever. But we never learn that the friend of a friend only flew Corsairs in the Air National guard after the war, and never flew any OTHER WWII fighters.

That's why it is great to talk with people like Steve Hinton who flies a great variety of warbirds on a regular basis. I think Steve, or Kevin Eldrige or John Maloney or John Hinton probably have a better perspective than a verteran who flew the same aircraft type for most of his career. There are many OTHER people in this group, too, in the U.S.A., in England, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, etc. who fly different warbirds regularly. It would be enlightening to interview THESE GUYS and publish their thoughts on "the best."

Probaby never happen, but it WOULD be intersting.

Oh yeah, Steve (and probably others) will have a chance to fly ANOTHER type soon as the Planes of Fame has acquired a new-build Yak-3 with an Allison engine. It will be at the Museum soon and will be a regular flier, so there will be some new comparisons to make, especially in maneuverability.

One more update: We got the port engine installed into the Bell P-59A Airacomet today! Starboard before Christmas!

[Stony]

Some people take as fact what old Uncle Fred said, who had a friend, who had another friend who flew Corsairs and said it was the best ever. But we never learn that the friend of a friend only flew Corsairs in the Air National guard after the war, and never flew any OTHER WWII fighters.




Corsairs? in the ANG?;)

[GregP]

Just an example ... but I suppose you are correct. Perhaps Naval Reserve?

I think you get the point.

[ickysdad]

You can take the FW-190, Me-109, Spitfire, Tempest, P-47,P-51, P-38, F4U, F6F, Yak's Lavochin's, Ki-84's ,George's, with maybe a couple of others and they would all be essentially equal providing you have equal pilots. Now the Allies also had access to large amounts of higher grade fuels then the Axis counterparts did which can make a big difference.
Now on Eric Brown a gentleman on another website says his analysis are flawed because the German planes he flew weren't in good condition when he flew them. This same person also criticised test results from Boscombe Downs for the same reason however I would like to know if you all have any more info?

[Kutscha]

ickysdad, you do know that the octane rating of German fuels was done at the lean mixture setting and for Allied fuels the octane rating was done at the rich mixture setting.

German C3 fuel, rich mixture, had an octane rating of ~140. Also, because German avgas was made from coal instead of from oil, it had different properties.

[ickysdad]

ickysdad, you do know that the octane rating of German fuels was done at the lean mixture setting and for Allied fuels the octane rating was done at the rich mixture setting.

German C3 fuel, rich mixture, had an octane rating of ~140. Also, because German avgas was made from coal instead of from oil, it had different properties.


No I didn't know that. However just how availiable was it? Also how were the properites different? Do you have any info on my other question as per the validity of Eric Brown's tests & those at Boscombe Downs?

[Red Admiral]

You've got to take into account the widespread use of Methanol-Water injection in the German engines as well allowing more boost to be used.

>>Now on Eric Brown a gentleman on another website says his analysis are flawed because >>the German planes he flew weren't in good condition when he flew them.

Its probably a fair enough complaint but these comparisons are some of the best available. Nothing is going to be perfect and unbiased because that isn't the aim in any of these tests.

[Kutscha]

No I didn't know that. However just how availiable was it? Also how were the properites different? Do you have any info on my other question as per the validity of Eric Brown's tests & those at Boscombe Downs?

The 'word' is slowly getting out about German avgas unlike the myth of MG151s in the K-4 which continues on like the Energizer Bunny.

Nice link for German avgas:
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition%20and%20Specificat ions

from the link;

"The relative volumes of production of the two grades cannot be accurately given, but in the last war years the major volume, perhaps two-thirds (2/3) of this total has the C-3 grade."

Part of the problem with Faber's A-3 testing was the use of Allied avgas.

[ickysdad]

The 'word' is slowly getting out about German avgas unlike the myth of MG151s in the K-4 which continues on like the Energizer Bunny.

Nice link for German avgas:
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition%20and%20Specificat ions

from the link;

"The relative volumes of production of the two grades cannot be accurately given, but in the last war years the major volume, perhaps two-thirds (2/3) of this total has the C-3 grade."

Part of the problem with Faber's A-3 testing was the use of Allied avgas.

Now on the test of the A3 are you saying that the use of Allied fuels caused it to perform better or caused to perform worse?

[Kutscha]

Now on the test of the A3 are you saying that the use of Allied fuels caused it to perform better or caused to perform worse?

It performed not up to what it would have if using German avgas.

[ickysdad]

It performed not up to what it would have if using German avgas.

So the Germans actually had better fuel then us?

[Kutscha]

So the Germans actually had better fuel then us?

No. If the Germans tested Allied a/c and used German avgas the a/c would not perform the same as when using Allied avgas. There wouldn't be much difference but it would be noticeable. ditto for Allied testing of German a/c.

Even Allied fuel was slightly different. This was because of the different chemical composition of the oil the avgas was refined from. For example, oil from the Borneo/Java/Sumatra area had a higher aromatic "straight cut" than what US oil had. This was first noticed during WW1 when oil began arriving from BJS and the a/c performed better than when using gas refined from US oil. American oil, it was found, had an octane rating of 50 or less while the BJS oil had an octane rating of 70.

German B4 fuel contained normally 10 to 15 percent volume aromatics, 45 percent volume naphthenes, and the remainder paraffins.The C-3 grade was a mixture of 10 to 15 percent volume of synthetic isoparaffins (alkylates and isooctanes) and 85 percent of an aromatized base stock produced by hydroforming types of operation on coal and coal tar hydrogenation gasolines. The C-3 grade was permitted to contain not more than 45 percent volume aromatics. (from the link posted earlier)

You will have to do some searching for the chemical composition of American and British fuels, for I don't have it.

The Germans had C3 available during the BoB time period, though not in large quantities.

[GregP]

The Germans were and ARE not technologically backwards. Their late-war equipment was excellent if not revolutionary.

To suppose they would not develop the fuels they had available is unreasonable and did not happen. The fact that their fuels were of different composition than Allied fuels is of no importance; it was developed.

B4 and C3 grades did not run as well in Allied engines and Allied fuels very probably did not run as well in developed German engines as the home-developed brew did.

This only adds fuel to the fire, pun intended, in the engine and fuel debate that has been raging for 60+ years, and we are no closer to reaching a conclusion without some current B4 or C3 fuel to test in a running German engine that could also be tested on Allied-type fuel for comparison purposes.

I personally doubt that anyone would allow their precious German powerplant, if any exist that could be cajoled into use, to be run on a dyno to establish the baselines. So, we are left with the same evidence we have at this time, and it is nothing if not inconclusive as we see in the posts before this one.

For your reference, we have a Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero running on the original Nakajime Sakae 21 engine at the Planes of Fame, and it runs just fine on fuel available at Chino, California, U.S.A. . In fact, it runs GREAT!

I have not seen any claims that Japanese fuels were of the German B4 / C3 varieties, but I threw that in for reference since we do not currently run our Me-109G with a DB engine in it.

If you fly warbirds, you will break something. When you do, if you have spares, you can get it running and get it back home. If you don't, the plane is stuck where it broke. For most Allied warbirds, parts are available, so a spare engine is a luxury you can do without since you have parts.

For a German-engine warbird, if you don't have a spare engine, you don't HAVE any spare parts and you really can't fly it except for local flights around the airport.

Planes of Fame Mueum policy is simple; no spare engine, no fly the warbird. We fly our Zero because our spare Sakae 21 is in the form of spare parts. We don't fly our Me-109G because we don't have a spare DB engine for it or spare parts.

Still, a real comparison of Allied and German fuel in a German engine WOULD be interesting if difficult to arrange.

[jpatrick]

I personally like Francis H Dean's "Report of Joint Fighter Conference" which details how pilots from all services and Allied countries rated fighters. This conference, held at the patuxent NAS in Maryland in 1944 is very interesting since it gives the performance reviews of pilots who flew the aircraft during the war. While I do admire Capt. Brown, this book details the thoughts of several hundred contractors, test pilots, combat pilots, etc. All phases of combat - climb, speed, manuverability are rated for such planes as the Seafire, Mosquito, P47, P51, P38, F4U, F4F, F6F, Aeke, Xp-59, etc, including some with several variants. Of the USAF fighters, the P51 was preferred, while the F4U was chosen over the F6F.

In addition, you can also browse some of the performance tests conducted at the Patuxent NAS when they evaluated a captured FW-190 versus a F6F and F4U - they are on the web and make interestng reading.

[GregP]

Very true jpatrick. I have the report as do many here in the forum ... but, all fighters were flown on U.S. fuel.

I believe the point being made here is that U.S. fuel would not perform as well in German planes as German fuel due to different chemical makeup.

I cannot personally rate the claim of different performance on U.S. fuel, but I have no reasonable doubt that it is true since German engines were developed running on German fuels. I also have no doubt that captured American and British planes flown by the Germans in tests were not running at peak performance either since THEY were developed on Allied fuels.

Still, the 1944 report IS interesting reading that sheds some light on the thinking at the time. Great point and a very good read.

[FalkeEins]

I wonder if someone could enlighten us as to it's performance as a dogfighter. How did the P-51 compare in rates of climb, dive, turning radius and overall maneuverability to types such as the BF109, FW190, Ki-84, and other formidable foes?

Thank you.



The two volume history of JG 300 by Jean-Yves Lorant & Richard Goyat (Eagle Editions) provides a fund of first hand accounts from Fw 190 & Bf 109 pilots over Germany during 1944 describing combat with the P-51. While the 'Stangs did great execution when in packs they were as vulnerable as any other lone fighter when caught on their own over Germany - the 359th FG alone lost ten a/c & pilots over the course of two 'big' days - 11 & 12 September 1944 - while 5./JG 300 Fw 190 ace Konrad Bauer caught three more P-51s on 11 September and shot them all down. Total Mustang losses over Germany for 11 September 1944 were seventeen in air combat & eleven in strafing attacks, while a further seventeen returned home with combat damage. (German losses were catastrophic too). The 109 in particular being smaller & lighter could invariably out-climb and out-turn the P-51 - if the pilot had the requisite skill & experience of course. Both the 190 & 109 were cannon armed as well - the Fw 190 A-8/R2 touted two 30mm - so a few hits were usually pretty serious. Two pieces of advice were generally given to Jagdwaffe tyros; never try and outdive the P-51 - and always remember they rarely flew alone...

[ickysdad]

The two volume history of JG 300 by Jean-Yves Lorant & Richard Goyat (Eagle Editions) provides a fund of first hand accounts from Fw 190 & Bf 109 pilots over Germany during 1944 describing combat with the P-51. While the 'Stangs did great execution when in packs they were as vulnerable as any other lone fighter when caught on their own over Germany - the 359th FG alone lost ten a/c & pilots over the course of two 'big' days - 11 & 12 September 1944 - while 5./JG 300 Fw 190 ace Konrad Bauer caught three more P-51s on 11 September and shot them all down. Total Mustang losses over Germany for 11 September 1944 were seventeen in air combat & eleven in strafing attacks, while a further seventeen returned home with combat damage. (German losses were catastrophic too). The 109 in particular being smaller & lighter could invariably out-climb and out-turn the P-51 - if the pilot had the requisite skill & experience of course. Both the 190 & 109 were cannon armed as well - the Fw 190 A-8/R2 touted two 30mm - so a few hits were usually pretty serious. Two pieces of advice were generally given to Jagdwaffe tyros; never try and outdive the P-51 - and always remember they rarely flew alone...

Oh I agree a '109 can outturn a Mustang at lower speeds and lower altitudes especially but at higher speeds & medium to higher altitudes the edge in this regard would probably go to the Mustang. In rollling the 'Mustang probably has a bigger advantage. In "Luftwaffe Fighter Planes & Aces" several German aces(they shot down 28,49 and 68 planes in thier careers so certainly no slouches) said thier memories of the P-47 & P-51 weren't pretty . The P-47 wasn't so bad as the P-51 because you could outturn it but the P-51 was a different matter altogether.
That's the biggest problem with describing dogfighting/manuverability ,alot depends on the speed & altitude. Also some great "rollers" aren't that good at turning while the opposite is also true,i.e. some great turners don't roll that well. Some great "allout/sustained" climbers " aren't that great of "zoom climbers" . The '109 & P-51 comparison probably can bring up some of these same points.

[FalkeEins]

..sure, I always find these sorts of threads a little sterile - so many different parameters & starting points. But the question asked for an idea of dogfighting performance so thought it would be good to point everyone in the direction of some accounts from the other side.

Fw. Hansotto Nehls (8. & 11./JG 300)

".. At low to medium altitudes the P-51s were agile and could pull tight turns but the AS-engined Messerschmitt was generally superior over 6,500 metres due to the lower wing loading. Our Messerschmitts largely out-performed the P-47. I would often re-trim during a dogfight but had to be careful not to let too much speed bleed off in the turn. Combat was usually very brief.."

(my translation)

[ickysdad]

..sure, I always find these sorts of threads a little sterile - so many different parameters & starting points. But the question asked for an idea of dogfighting performance so thought it would be good to point everyone in the direction of some accounts from the other side.

Fw. Hansotto Nehls (8. & 11./JG 300)

".. At low to medium altitudes the P-51s were agile and could pull tight turns but the AS-engined Messerschmitt was generally superior over 6,500 metres due to the lower wing loading. Our Messerschmitts largely out-performed the P-47. I would often re-trim during a dogfight but had to be careful not to let too much speed bleed off in the turn. Combat was usually very brief.."

(my translation)


Now our sources seem to disagree so just who's right? Of course to listen to "accounts" both from yours and mine sources we can probably tend to agree that some pilots in say a F6F could outturn certain pilots in say an A6M even at very low altitudes & low speeds . Myself about all one can say is ,looking at all the evidnece, a late '43 Mustang is essentially equal to say a late '43 model '190 or '109 or a late '44 Allied fighter is essentially equal to a late '44 model Axis fighter. Now one can nick-pick which one is faster at what altitude or what one can climb at a certain rate at what altitude. Wieght is something else one has to look when looking at speed and climb rates . Of course we're looking at dogfighting performance here so I'm getting a bit off subject here. Anyways USAAF & USN aircraft seemed to have optimised towards the "boom & zoom" rather then dogfighting .

[Sid447]

The Tempest V,

Wasn't a bad candidate for one of the best either, once they'd got the Sabre engine out of the sudden stop routine.

It was v.good at low and medium altitudes and had the highest limiting dive speed of all WW2 fighters(?)

The Napier Sabre was developed into quite a good powerplant by the end of WW2.

That reminds me....anyone know what happened to the five or so (ex-Indian AF?) Tempests that were purchased a good while ago now. I believe they at least initially went to the UK and there was talk of two(?) being made airworthy
(If this part of the post belongs in another section of the Forum, please remove).

[GregP]

This sounds like a "best fighter" thread again.

To get back on track, the P-51 was an excellent dogfighter, even if not the best one. It had great zoom climb and range, decent roll rate and decent turn rate. The armament was average, but then again, so was the armament of many other fighters ... that's why it is called "average."

In order to GET the range mentioned above, the Mustang had a rear fuselage tank. When it was full, the Mustang could not dogfight at all and was a handful just to stay in formation. Escort pilots would burn fuel from the rear tank first and, if the Germans had ever found out, they might have attacked early in the bomber route inctead of waiting until the bombers were deep into Germany.

The Mustang is a favorite pick of many peope as the best all-around fighter ever built. The diehard Spitfire fans are, of course, incensed about this and wax roth on their favorite mounts, as do the Ta-152 guys (see below).

Many pick the Spitfire XIV as the best dogfighter, but it did not have a great roll rate or range and was relatively fragile.

Still others pick the Ta-152 series. I am at a loss to understand here because only about 150 total were built, and only 67 ever reached a squadron. How much effect could 67 airplanes, even ignoring the ones destroyed on the ground (mostly by Mustangs), have on the war? Answer none. Since so few were ever fielded, I relgate them to the "interesting prototype" category. The performance was great, but they were simply not a factor in WWII at all.

There is another member of the Fw 190 family I might nominate, the Fw 190D-9. There were enough made and fielded to be a factor and they were very good.

Persoanlly, I'd say the P-51H, Fw 190D-9, and Spitfire XIV were all very close. The P-51H was not widely available in Europe until very late in the war (though they WERE available in the USA), and probably both the Spitfire XIV and Fw 190D-9 were better than the P-51D, but not by enough to make much of a claim. Pilots would probably determine the outcome.

If we listen to the great aces of all nationalities, and I think they know best, pilots were by FAR more important than the mount they were flying. Near the end of the war, if there were a single-plane combat between a Bf 109F and a Spitfire XIV, you'd generally HAVE to favor the XIV ... unless the 109F were being flown by Erich Hartmann, Guenther Rall, or Gerhard Barkhorn! In that case, I'd favor the 109F every time!

Bottom line: The Mustag was ALWAYS a dangerous foe ... whenever it was aware of the enemy. All fighters, even the proverbial "best" one were meat on the table for a lower-performance machine that could sneak up with the advantage of surprise ... so "Beware of the Hun in the Sun!" lest you be a victim. Many great planes and pilots were the victim of a surprise attack, and even Erich Hartmann was shot down by someone he never saw.

Coincidentally, he was also shot down when he ran out of ammunition and fuel at the same time! Good thing he had some altitude left to bail out!

[Kutscha]

Still others pick the Ta-152 series. I am at a loss to understand here because only about 150 total were built, and only 67 ever reached a squadron.

Not even 67 Greg. Cottbus only produced 43 152Hs (W.Nr. 150 001 > 150 040, - 167, -168, -169). Of these, 14 were destroyed at Neuhausen (Jan 16 1945) before delivery to III./JG301. Some went to Rechlin and Jagdstaffel 152. III./JG301 never reached its planned compliment of 35 a/c.

If one includes the 'V' a/c, I think the number would be close to 67.

The P-51H was not widely available in Europe until very late in the war.

When the P-51H arrive in Europe?

[GregP]

Hi Kutscha!

The P-51H service deliveries began in 1945, but actually I was wrong. :rolleyes: .. at least according to at least one source.

Some were delvered to units in Europe by late summer of 1945, but too late for WWII in the ETO.

A few made it to the Pacific and were working up to operational status when the surrender happened ...

At the time of VJ-day, 555 P-51H models had been built and were deployed or in deployment, but ... no WWII combat.

So ... I suppose we are left with the P-51D for comparison purposes.

Almost the same can be said for the Ta 152 series since so few were made. Their method of "working up to operational status" was to fly combat since the enemy were over their airfields. Obviously, they never made it to "operational status." The deliveries wouldn't staff more than a couple of flights, much less a wing.

The Tempest, on the other hand, and the Spitfire XIV DID make it to operational status and DID make a difference.

[Lightning]

Hi Trexx,

I've been enlightened also with this book:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-10/1283790/greatbookWWIIairplanes.jpg

It has detailed, technical comparisons of the P-51 vs a slough of it's contemporaries.
From RH Value Publishing. It's a huge, hardcover book with amazingly high quality illustrations too. (many foldouts too!)

I have that book, and I like it very much. It has lots of text and superb foldouts. It's just so danged heavy! :)

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

I just finished reading your several responses to Tempest V's original question. I think your description of the various classes of fighters and their characteristics was excellent. You managed to sum-up for Tempest V what he would otherwise have to learn by reading quite a few entire books. I'm quite impressed with the quality of your presentation.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Hi Trexx,

I have that book, and I like it very much. It has lots of text and superb foldouts. It's just so danged heavy! :)

Regards,
Lightning

I have the original with each a/c in a single book. The original publisher was Crown of NY. That is from about 30 years ago. The Allied a/c are fairly accurate but the Axis a/c info is somewhat dated.

[GregP]

Thank you Lightning.

I think we in here all try to sum up our opinions succintly, but we never get too much feedback about it. I appreciate it.

I think this forum in general is populated with knowledgeable people who may have a favorite, but not to the point of lying about it like some other places I have visited online. Also, many of us are able to admit our mistakes when they can be backed up with facts. I appreciate that, too.

You are one of the people who generally posts well thought-out replies. I know my many mistakes usually happen when I post from memory instead of checking a few things out before I spout off.

Cheers!

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

I know my many mistakes usually happen when I post from memory instead of checking a few things out before I spout off.

I know what you mean first hand! It's maddening when I post from memory and then get home to find out that memory has failed me (again!). I think Romantic Technofreak made a good point a while back when he said that, if you have to research everything before you make a comment, it takes the fun out of it. Life's too short. I'll forgive your little faux pas if you'll forgive mine. :)

Regards,
Lightning

[GregP]

As usual, Lightning, you are right on the money.

I make enough mistakes for 2 people, but I have a great time doing it!

Incidentally, we may violently disagree in this forum (who, US?), but it's NOTHING in life because we are usually talking about things that happened 70 years ago ... and they already happened ... or things that never happened and won't ever happen. We can always argue about secret German warplanes fighting pie-in-the-sky Allied airplanes, but it'll never happen. They don't exist anymore, if they ever did.

With apologies to the Ta-152 guys, their pet fighter made no difference in WWII at all, despite any supposed performance advantage. Neither did the Me 262. Shot down a few, but was lost in the noise of the rest of the war.

Meanwhile, many of the things we discuss are pretty much negated by relative pilot skill. Put a great pilot familiar with the aircraft in a P-40 and an average pilot out of school in a Spitfire XIV, and I'd bet on the great pilot every time.

So, OK, I'll forgive your occasional misqueues if you forgive my mine ... :-)

Besides, I happen to LIKE obscure airplanes! And obscure what-if scenarios ... heck, I'm deeply involved in restoring to flight status the most obscure jet ever made, a Bell YP-59A. Talk about obscure! How much more unrecognized can you GET? Almost no one knows what it is or the significance of its existence. But, we still work away on it, and it'll fly within a year.

[Eagledad]

Greetings all!
In regards to the Merlin powered P-51 capabilities, In speed at 25,000 ft, the P-51 was faster by (speed in mph)
Bf-109G +35
FW-190A +50
A6M5b +90
Ki-84 +60
Spit IX +25
Tempest +15
P-47D +5
P-38J +20
F4U +5
At 10,000 ft the P-51 was faster by
Bf-109G +25
Fw-190a +50
A6m5b +80
Ki-84 +60
Spit IX, P-38J, P-47D, and F4U by +20.
Tempest V was faster than P-51 by +20

In a sustained climb, the Bf 109G and Spit IX were faster, the Fw-190A was slightly faster, while the Tempest V and F4U climbed better under 10,000ft, but the Mustang was better above 10,000ft. The P-51 was slightly faster than the P-38J, and climbed better than the A6M5b, Ki-84, and P-47D. In zoom climbs, the P51 was faster than the Me-109G, Fw-190A, Ki-84, A6M5b, Spit IX, Tempest V, P-38J, F4U, and P-47D. However, the P-47D would match the Mustang's zoom initially. In a dive, the Mustang would pull away from all the fighters considered here with the exception of the Tempest V and P-47D. These two aircraft were considered equal to the Mustang. Turning combat was a mixed bag with the Mustang. The turning circle of the P-51 was better than the Me-109G, Tempest V, P-47D, and P-38J, equal to the Fw-190A, and inferior to the A6M5b, Ki-84, and Spit IX. No mention was made in comparison to the F4U. Results in rolling combat were also mixed. The P-51 rolled better than Tempest V and P-38J, was equal to the Me-109G, and inferior to the FW-190A, and P-47D. In regards to the A6M5b, Ki-84 and Spit IX, the Mustang's rate of roll was slower at low speeds and low altitudes, but became better as speed approached 400 mph. No comparison was given between the Mustang and F4U in terms of roll.

The data in the tables can be found in the book "Mustang, The P-51 Merlin Mustang in World War 2" by Roger A. Freeman, published originally by Ian Allan LTD, 1989.

The book does not give any information about weights, engines, or conditions of the planes when tested, or how much time each pilot had in the planes that they flew. There are probably other reports out there that would contradict what is presented in these tables. However, this is one summary of how the Merlin powered P-51 compared to its contemporaries.

May God fly your wing always!

Eagledad

[Lightning]

Hi Eagledad,

Your posting was very interesting. Right off the top of my head, a few questions:


In zoom climbs, the P51 was faster than the Me-109G, Fw-190A, Ki-84, A6M5b, Spit IX, Tempest V, P-38J,...

I don't believe that the Mustang could out-perform the P-38J in a zoom climb. Others may disagree.

The turning circle of the P-51 was better than the Me-109G, Tempest V, P-47D, and P-38J, equal to the Fw-190A, and inferior to the A6M5b, Ki-84, and Spit IX.

This would depend on speed and altitude. Because of its counter rotating props and maneuvering flaps, the P-38 was well known to be highly maneuverable at low speeds and low altitude. It even approached the maneuverability of the Japanese A6M Zero under these conditions.


Results in rolling combat were also mixed. The P-51 rolled better than Tempest V and P-38J, was equal to the Me-109G, and inferior to the FW-190A, and P-47D.

This implies that the P-47D could roll faster than the P-38J. A very important question here is was the P-38J an airplane that did not yet have the boosted ailerons (i.e. a pre-J-25) Only the P-38J-25 had them. If it was the P-38J-25, then I question this implication.

Regards,
Lightning

[Eagledad]

Greetings Lightning!

Thanks for the response! Please excuse my tardy response as I have been very busy at work! Freeman’s book does not mention which version of the P-38 was tested or if the same aircraft was used in all the tests. What we may have here are just general impressions by various pilots, and not “hard data”. In fact Freeman’s book credits the P-38J with a top speed of only 390 mph!

There were tactical trials carried out between the Mustang (P-51B-1) and the P-38J-1/5 in early 1944, found in Army Air Forces Board Project No. (M-1) 50. In these trials, the weight of the P-51B was about 9000 pounds, the P-38J‘s weight was not known. (My suspicions are that the P-38 tested can be found at this link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html, what appears to be a later test of the P-51B used in the comparison can be found here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html) I believe that the P-51B did not have an auxiliary fuel tank in the fuselage, and of course the P-38J did not have the leading edge tanks, dive flaps or aileron boost.

This report states in zooming from cruising speeds, the P-38J and P-51B are equal at the start, with the 38J pulling away as the zoom continued. However from high speeds (425 IAS) the P-51B pulls away and ends its zoom at a higher level. As expected the P-51B had a faster rate of roll than the P-38J. In one on one fighting, the P-51B had a smaller turning circle at all altitudes. However, in acceleration from a dive or the level, it appears that the P-51B was slower in initial acceleration. As the runs continued, the P-51B would pull away from the P-38J once the Lightning reached its limiting dive speed of 325 IAS, and on the level once the P-51B reached its max acceleration. (It sounded to me like once the P-38J reached its max speed; the P-51B would catch and pass it because it had a higher speed. The above is paraphrased from “Mustang a Documentary History” by Jeff Ethell, published in 1981).

As for the roll rate of the P-47, Thunderbolt ace Bob Johnson in his book “Thunderbolt” claimed that “the P-47 would out roll anything in the air bar none.” NACA tests indicate that the P-47 steady roll rate while good was not remarkable. What is interesting though, was an article found in “Sport Aviation, June 1990”, when a fly-off was held between a P-47D-40 (Thunderbolt), a P-51D (Mustang), a F6F-5 (Hellcat), and a FG-1D (Corsair). These war birds were not flown at max power but were flown at military power. At 10,000 feet and rolling 360 degrees at 200 KIAS the aircraft had the following rankings, Corsair, Hellcat, Mustang, Thunderbolt. However, when the aircraft were tested doing a 180 degree roll with a 3 G load at 220 KIAS, the rankings went Thunderbolt, Corsair, Mustang, and Hellcat. Perhaps it was under G loads that made the P-47 look so good in the rolling plane.

Sorry Lightning, this old man is rambling.

I guess what I am trying to say: if the speeds were equal, I believe the P-38J will out-zoom the P-51B. However, if the P-51B was traveling faster, it would zoom higher. As for turning, the report made no mention of the P-38J using flaps in the one on one combat. I agree, with the P-38J using its fowler flaps, it certainly would turn with or out turn a P-51. However, don’t forget the P-51 pilots also used their flaps to tighten their turn. Perhaps the use of flaps and differential throttling would give the P-38J an edge. Acceleration was definitely in the Lightning’s favor until it reached its limiting speed, at which time the P-51B would pull away.

As for rate of roll, my understand is that physics decrees that the P-38J would never have brisk initial roll acceleration. There was just too much weight too far from the center line. That said, once the P-38J started rolling (perhaps after the first 5 or 10 degrees) it would hold its own with other fighters. Certainly, the P-38J-25 and P-38L with boosted ailerons and at a high speed would roll with or out roll anything.

Finally, when talking about rate of roll, I don’t know if there is much data on how the rate changes under G load. Certainly, the short test in Sport Aviation may suggest that the G load at the time the roll is initiated may have as big an effect on the outcome of the test as perhaps stick leverage, speed, and other factors.

May God fly your wing always!

Eagledad

[Lightning]

Hi Eagledad,

The P-38 was one of the best-climbing fighters of the war. On "war emergency" power, it could climb at approaching 4000 fpm, and it could get to 20,000 ft in a little under seven minutes using normal (not military) power. (In my refferences, the P-63 was the fastest-climbing US fighter of all, reaching 20,000ft in about six minutes, but that was on military power; the time to 20,000 ft for the P-38L on military power was not available in those referrences.)

Once it had established a lead in a zoom climb, it is unlikely that the P-38 could be caught in a steady climb to altitude by a P-51 or any other fighter in the US WWII inventory.

It should be noted here that the Navy's fastest-climbing fighter, the F4U-4, could reach 20,000 ft in only 12 seconds less, using military power, than could the P-38L using only normal power. Had the stats on the climb performance of the Lightning to 20,000 ft at military power been available, I'm quite sure that they would have been superior to those of the F4U-4.

The turning performance of the Lightning in its basic configuration put it somewhat behind the other top US fighters, but that is not the whole story. It is true that those other fighters could drop flaps in order to turn tighter, but the P-38 had a "Fowler" flap that quickly deployed in the maneuvering setting to give 8 deg of maneuvering flap. In addition, the Fowler flap did not just drop down as did the flaps of the other fighters, it rolled out of the wing to actually increase wing area thereby reducing wing loading.

At higher speeds, the power boosted ailerons gave a 6:1 force advantage when deflecting the ailerons into the high-speed airflow. When other pilots were struggling to exert 50 or more pounds of force on the aileron control, the Lightning pilot had to apply about 8 to 10 pounds. This gave the P-38 a very much improved roll performance.

An experienced Lightning pilot could also increase roll and turn performance by using asymmetric thrust on the engines. This worked in two ways. First, having more power on one side pulled the plane around in the opposite direction. Second, since both props were "out-turning," both torque and P-factor on the more powerful side worked together to roll and pull, respectively, the plane in the opposite direction. Therefore, in addition to the normal rolling and turning forces, the pilot also had asymmetric-thrust, torque, and P-factor all acting together in the desired direction.

Perhaps the overall roll and turn performance of the P-38 would still be less than some of the other fighters under consideration, but the differences would not be nearly as great as some would believe.

Regards,
Lightning