P-51 Mustang Out-Turned by Fw 190 D-9? Yes, This Happened But...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Please Support This Channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Did a Fw 190 D-9 aka Dora out-turn a P-51? According to an interview on Flight Line Media, yes. I find the story to be entirely credible for reasons I'll outline in this video. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | ครอบครัวสะท้านทุ่ง "นางบี & อ้ายสติ๊ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1rhYcxxNtA/mqdefault.jpg)
Please Support This Channel:
www.patreon.com/GregsAirplane...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Greg, if you return to the B17/Lancaster debate it may be worth noting the US supplied the vast majority of high octane avgas to the RAF starting before the Battle of Britain and almost half of Lanc's (Marks III and X) were fitted with Lend Lease Packard Merlins and the US wrote off all but 586 million USD of Britain's Lend Lease debt in 1945.
In addition H2x radars and radios were LL.
Mark III's were used on the Dambusters mission, B.III Special per BAE Lancaster page.
I have a copy of Robert Shaw's book "Air Combat" (1985). Shaw was in on the Top Gun program and knows his stuff. The book is very complex but he makes a big deal out of roll rate - something that the FWs excelled at. Not sure how this would have played out in a fight between Doras and 51s. When it comes to turn fights, RAF "top gun" Johnny Johnson said in his memoirs that turn fights were actually pretty rare - everything happened of course, but getting in a turn fight meant losing speed and left you vulnerable to another enemy. Johnson did stress caution. Johnson considered the P51 the best "attack fighter" of the war because it could get to the battlefield - Gunter Rall who for a period commanded the LW's "allied air force" of about 70 planes agreed. When I was writing Touched with Fire I interviewed Robert DeHaven (14 kills, 10 in P40s) and he also was keen on caution. DeHaven made a couple of interesting comments. First "a successful air engagement was usually made up of a relatively small number of relatively simple maneuvers executed at the right time" and "when units engaged invariably the fight went from high altitude to low and from order to chaos." DeHaven was a great guy - flew for Howard Hughes for several years postwar and very active in 5th AF veteran affairs.
When I flew Aces High none of the FWs were not very popular despite their firepower (LA 7s and Spit 9s were the "dweeb" planes are very common. I usually flew P51 or P47Ns. I was patient enough to get to at least 20K feet before engaging.) BF109s were more common because they could climb so well. If you had enough points you could fly the 262 and that was very effective. BTW: years ago I played on Air Warrior and Shaw was on also - call sign "maus" - he wasn't very good. Figure.
Is is true that most fighter to fighter combat happened under 12,000 feet, with about a third at relatively low altitude?
@@clintonreisig 15,000 ft or lower on the Eastern Front - but in the West bomber escorts were above the bombers - figure 25,000 feet. They might end up lower. Good pilots tried to attack without being seen - Hartmann was famous for following a victim for a very long time and opening up at point blank range. Like all of the German uber aces Hartmann was shot down many times - six in his case: Gunter Rall was down I think 4. It was a big advantage flying over your own territory.
Pilot and engineer here. We like it when you do the math.
Genial gesprochen! Das hat hier aber leider niemand verstanden. Es ist wirklich amüsierend auf welch unglaublich hohen(?) Niveau die vornehmlich amerikanischen Kommentatoren hier spekulieren. Absolute Spezialisten, alle mit einer Menge von realer Erfahrung und tausenden Stunden an der Konsole des richtigen Lebens. Wirklich beeindruckend. ceddavis, I wish you always a pleasant and safe flight (Hals- und Beinbruch) and keep on engineering, it's important.
Same. Engineer and pilot is the best combination. I find the views of some pilots without profound engineering knowledge to sometimes be lacking. But that is just a snapshot view of things and should not be taken as a blanket statement.
@@berndbrakemeier1418 The Mustang was designed by a Austro-German, Edgar Schmued.
My German books on Dora units point out there were few experienced pilots that could fly Dora to its max.
similar problem with the P-38 in ETO. Most engine troubles are attributed to improper leaning of the engine when making throttle changes. (in part due to 2 engines, needlessly complex controls, and carburetor issues that caused leaning issues all by itself). Many pilots commented on this, how the P-38 was too much airplane for most low-time fighter pilots (Doolittle, Robin Olds, and other mention this).
Pilot skill a big variable at this stage in the war, usually to the Luftwaffe disadvantage. The increasingly rare Luftwaffe expert, though, with l500+ combat hrs, and you had your hands full. Of course, he did too, with a 10 or 20 to 1 numerical disadvantage. Quoting Knocke: "Too many hounds are the death of the hare!"
@@josephstabile9154 numerical disadvantage doesn't always work the way you think. The US made good use of numerical advantage, however, on teh Eastern front, the numerical disadvantage favored the Germans. Target rich environment (Eastern front), vs getting hunted by a wolf pack (Western front).
@@r.p.3192 but was teh Ta152 a "technological leap"? Nothing I've seen indicates it was. It was just better than previous german fighters, and on par with Allied fighters, especially late war allied fighters. But just as with the Me262, the Ta152 wasn't going to turn the tide.
@@SoloRenegade Very few 152’s even made it into combat. It was very late in the war at that point, but the pilots that did fly them had extremely positive things to say. And about the Eastern Front, the numerical advantage of Stalin’s Red Army was its only real advantage, aside from Allied aid. And fighting on familiar terrain and without supply line issues of an invading army. And some critically poor strategic decisions made by Germany. Germany needed a swift and decisive victory. They couldn’t afford a long, dragged out war of attrition, which is what the Eastern Front became.
The American lend/lease program really saved the Soviets. They also got help in the aircraft design department for their late-war aircraft by studying examples of the Spitfire sent by England. I don’t know what it is with Communist countries but they seem to have endless numbers of people that they just throw at military opponents. Half of them aren’t even armed! But in large enough numbers anything can be a problem. The same thing happened during Korea. The Chinese came over the hills in droves. Some of them would run around American positions and then move laterally and cut supply lines.
There are so many variables that change so quickly moment by moment. This is what makes first hand accounts so confusing. They cannot take in account for the other guys energy state etc.
Good point Max. We really don't know much about what was going on with the Dora in that encounter, all we really know is that one P-51 pilot thought the Dora was out turning him. I think it's possible he was correct.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
G'day,
Pretty much...
And the point within
Statistical Science where an
Anecdote becomes
Sociological
Oral-History and thus is treated as being
Cultural Reality...; seems to be something of a
"Low-Bar" to get over and qualify.
But, somewhere along the way the
Plural of Anecdote becomes
Anecdata which may be
"Mined" for indications of what
Actually tended to occur, when
Statistically significant "Universes" of Cases are collectively analysed.
Meanwhile, what you're apparently aiming at is to chart the actual
Boundaries of the two Aeroplanes' Performance and at what weights, speeds, and altitudes...; within which any
One
Encounter might have occurred
In real life...
And, indeed, once
ALL such variables have
Bin-Included into the simultaneous multifactorial polyvalent
Equations which will actually decide
What happens in each individual
"Statistical Universe of ONE"
Encounter at a time -
Like the one recollected and described within the interview you mentioned.
I feel you're bumping up against
Relativity itself with this one.
Everyone feels that they "live" somewhere around where their Pituitary Gland is - looking out on the Universe, hearing and seeing everything
From their own individually
Unique perspective.
Seen through their own Eyes, heard through their own Ears,
Lit by the light of all their own
Experiences, and their personal history, and memories, and whatever they've been taught about how
Reality works, what happens, when, and why...
So..., the question of which one of a pair of contemporary WW-2 Fighter Aircraft turns tighter than the other, based on one person's memory of their impressions formed under stress, in Combat, 75 years ago....; it's not quite as moot as asking,
"Red is prettier than Blue ; True or False...?"
But the answer is surely a very long way out into
Specific Variables and
Subjective Memories as to be
Probably a bit
Beyond being definitively
Answered.
But, of course, one may well be wrong.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe...
;-p
Ciao !
As someone who has gotten unreasonably frustrated about getting stomped by mustangs in the Dora, I thank you for making this video. It really contextualizes and bears out a lot of the impression I had gotten in my fights. Your last comment about the Dora being one the aircraft you perform best with is interesting to me as well. I find that all Fw-190 missions for me, either in DCS or IL-2, are either huge successes or crushing defeats. There's very little middle ground with this aircraft.
You might like my video on how to use the Dora in DCS. You're right, against a competent 51 pilot it's close to hopeless, you really have to avoid areas where there are a lot of 51s and avoid those fights.
In an actual multiplayer arena scenario there are so many more things to consider than just plane vs plane performance. In a battle arena you're most likely going to face opponents who are actively engaging or recovering from engaging other opponents. This leads to a situation where you can utilise even a 190A8 very effectively. Keep your speed up, pick your shots and avoid being bounced from above. In a larger scale arena things will bever be just 1 vs 1 you always have options to pull the fight towads your teammates for example. I don't know how many thousands of times I survived a fight by extending from it. Even if the enemy is a little faster, you can still dodge his shots usually for a long time and then let your friends take him out while he focuses on shooting you... This is actually one of the biggest downpoints of IL2 and DCS. They lack a true 24/7 multiplayer arena. The best sim experience I ever had was the times when Aces High had up to 1500 simultaneous players internationally on one arena. Oh the good old days.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you - I will check that out! That sense of always being at the mercy of a potential 1v1 always scares me. I guess it's kind of like being a flying U-boat. You're not out there to get into a brawl with a "destroyer", but by being stealthy and tactical you can hit really hard where it counts.
@@Munakas-wq3gp You are 100% right. I always think of it that the 109 is the better aircraft for the air duel, but the 190 is better suited to the air battle. I wish I had been flight simming back when Aces High was a thing. It always sounds fun from the way people describe it.
@@hanswolfgangmercer Oh it was a blast. I contributed to our squad winning the squad dueling ladder in the last months I was playing. I was spending about 100 hours per month online (in addition to doing my daily job) and my wife gave me 2 options: Divorce or quit gaming. I chose the latter. Oh well, about 10 years later we divorced anyway when I asked her the same exact question lol.
There's a story about how Kurt Tank, the designer of the FW-190 took a high altitude version of this airplane called a TA-152 to a factory. En route, he was "jumped" by a couple of P-51's; He simply turned on the water-methanol injection system on his Junkers Jumo engine and pushed the throttle to the end of its travel.
He left the Mustangs in the dust....
I don't know how many times I've left Mustangs in the dust in my various Porsche's and Volkswagens....
what altitude was this at? if not at high altitude, his high altitude performance doesn't apply. Why would you cruise within Germany from factory at high altitude for such a short flight?
@@SoloRenegade
G'day,
Objection...
SPECULATION...
(and remember what the Speculum was invented to achieve...).
{lol...; Jokularis jokulii }
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@SoloRenegade I don't know, but he still left the vaunted Mustangs behind. 2350 brute horsepower ruled the day from the 44 liter V12. They became nothing more than "two dots on the horizon".
By the way, he didn't even need to use the NOS system the airplane was equipped with...
I don't make the news, I just report it, sorry.
@@WarblesOnALot You ASSUME too much.
Now, what does the word "ASSUME" break down into....?
I kinda like the thought that:
If you pull too hard:
-Below Maneuvering Speed, your wing stalls and you fall out of the sky.
-Above Maneuvering Speed, your wings fall off and you fall out of the sky.
Don't Pull Too Hard.
Great video as always, Greg! Thank You.
On the subject of P-51 turning ability, there was an interesting "Flight Journal" article about Japanese pilots evaluating captured P-51 C "Evaline" and claiming that it out-turned the Ki-84. My best guess would be that the squadron "hot-shot" was flying the Mustang against a beginner in the Hayate.
It is well known that the N1K "George" had automatic combat flaps.
@@AlanToon-fy4hg That's not a Ki-84 though.
A P-40 pilot also said you could out turn a Zero if you kept the speed high enough, where the Zero doesn't maneuver as well. But as Greg points out, you have to verify the specific condition.
@@SoloRenegade It's a well known fact that the zero had high compressibility at higher speeds. But in a fair 1v1 fight it's extremely hard to take this into advantage. Basically if you end up in a fight and lose your speed trying to turn with it, going for a dive is the only way to shake the zero, a P40 will be able to turn tighter in high speed and also accelerate to a higher dive speed. But then when you do turn and the zero will trail you, it will dominate again. It will outclimb you, outturn you and depending on the type of P40 and altitude also outrun you. Basically in a P40 your only chance is to boom&zoom and then run if you miss your passes and lose energy.
@@Munakas-wq3gp When Greg Boyington served with the AVG in China I believe he came close to being shot down by trying to prove that he could out-turn Japanese fighters in his P-40.
First, Bill Lyons stalled in a high G turn to meet the attacking FW-190Ds, and stalled out. It was not a maneuvering turn engagement. The 190D shot at him in the quick pass at Lyons in a spin. Lyons recovered and caught one of the 190s chasing his flight leader and shot it down. Further Lyons four ship flight was flying CAP for rest of the 357FS strafing Kothen airfield, closer to 5K. As a final point Lyons load out was probably ejected wing tanks, and burn of fuselage tank to 20-30gal. I obtained this data from Bill back in 2007 when I was researching my book on the 355th.
That doesn't detract from Greg's presentation to discuss 'in general' maneuver comparisons.
The only issue I take with the technical discussion is that CLmax (max lift coeffcient) is critical - and can be 'reasonably' Estimated by symmetric stall for power on. Not having the FW 190D Stall speed and resultant 'estimated' CLmax is kind a non starter for a thorough discussion. That is the easy part.
Absent report data, Greg might look up CL vs AoA charts for NACA 23015.5 (FW 190 airfoil, and then correct 2-D windtunnel data for Aspect Ratio) to test his assumptions. The 2-D Clmax for NACA 23015 is~ 1.8 @16degrees Angle of attack. The WING airfoil section drag coefficient CDp at 1.6 CL (2-D) is ~ .022 in low Reynolds Number/high AoA range. That is more than the total Drag of a production P-51B at NACA full scale wind tunnel at 100mpg (CDp= 0.021@RN=6.19x10^6).
The other factors which must be considered for accurate discussion include;
1. Turning fights at constant altitude, assuming equal pilot skill, equal internal load out for comparative Gross weights are by NECESSITY 'asymmetric' flight conditions - namely more lift on high wing and lower lift on low wing, imposing more drag on upper wing, while at same time approaching CLmax. The first wing to stall is the upper wing with higher relative angle of attack. Further the 190 had an unusual washout, constantly decreasing to 80% semi span - then constant = 0. This resulted in lower Induced drag but also less aileron authority as the lift distribution tapered quickly near the wing tip..
2. Developing a model for comparisons requires an estimate to include trim drag imposed by pilot on rudder and elevator to track in level flight as an additional component to Hp lost.
3. Power Available for full speed range in the model is required and, as Greg noted, propeller efficiency has wide variations as a function of airspeed, density altitude and tip speed when at high altitude. Lowest efficiency for the P-51 Ham Std prop was in turning at low speed in less than optimal blade pitch angle. Suspect FW 190 prop as bad.
Power Available for this discussion also must look to 'power sucking' factors like increased Pressure Drag over prop diameter vortex across fuselage and wing immersed in the vortex, THP generated by exhaust gas thrust, THP losses due to cooling drag and momentum recovery of carb intakes. By comparison the drag of the Mustang was superior to the FW 190 for all these discussions. The FW 190 compensated with higher power available in several flight envelopes.
4. Constant altitude Flight is maintained when Lift x Cosign of Bank Angle = Gross Weight. The 'break' between a level altitude turn and a descending cork screw is when CLmax is approached and CLmax is a function of Angle of Attack (as TAS approaches Stall).
5. When CLmax is reached with high wing, increasing bank angle or reducing airspeed causes loss of a sufficient Lift vector to maintain level flight.
6. Any discussion about using combat flap settings with either fighter is meaningful only when talking about creating sharper turn/bank for a deflection shot - but dramatically increases drag and the initial high G turn rate can not be sustained - either in Rate of turn or constant altitude. See 3 above.
Even though these nagging complaints were rattling my attention I still enjoyed Greg's presentation.
Just to be clear, it wasn't Bill Lyons' P-51 that was out-turned by the Dora. It was the other 51 pilot in the story who literally said "he is out-turning me".
Points 1 through 5 all relate to sustained turn performance, which wasn't a factor here and not covered in this video. I did show a chart for it for a few seconds and specifically said we would not be covering sustained turn performance. Nothing you said is wrong, but context matters here.
As for point 6, all numbers in this video are with flaps up. We didn't get into flaps down data at all. If we did it would favor the 51.
The hot rod analogy is great.
Thank you very much. I felt it was pretty good too.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The Japanese made a hot rod too. The KI-61, which had an inline engine based on whatever powered the BF-109E - badly made in Japan - got a real second wind when they put in a Mitsubishi radial engine that actually was pretty reliable - also did good service in the NIK-1 Shiden. Of course this was in 1945 - late in the day.
I think that quite a few fighters from that period qualify as hotrods, and infact the Spitfire is probably the most deserving of the title, as it did so in 2 different forms:
1)In it Merlin evolutionary path, it went from ~1000hp to ~1700hp in a relatively short period of time, by using improved fuels/ increased boost, newer tech Superchargers etc. Shame these Spits never got the 2000hp Merlin 130 series, that would have been quite a thing in the mkviii airframe.
2) replacing the Merlin with the Griffon on the mkxii, xiv and later marks. 'No replacement for displacement'. Massive power from an additional 10l capacity. The coolings on these aircraft, shaped to fit the rocker covers of the Griffon, are pure hotrod.
Lol
Definitely the Spitfire was never designed for such a powerful engine this became more of a problem with Seafire variant.
@@corporalpunishment1133 Do remenber the last Spitfire ever built was the Sea/Spitfire FR Mk.47 with the Contra-Rotating configuration. It negated the torque issue entirely and gained extra thrust with the 2nd propeller.
@@FutureFlash2034 Yes for sure but the narrow landing gear was always a issue as well.
@@corporalpunishment1133 Very True. But a redesign for a wider landing gear would most likely have increased weight and caused issues with ram-air cooling radiator positioning
Appreciate your videos for the balanced look on the matter.
What I am getting from this comparison: These planes are so similar, factors that have nothing to do with the planes themselves like positioning and accumulated energy advantage before the engagement are much more decisive in battle than having a tiny edge on a chart.
I think more than "the planes where so similar", in many cases it doesn't matter how similar the aircraft are because their energy states are so different when they meet, if your lining up to land in anything short of a modern fighter jet you have less maneuverability than the dude in a Sopwith Camel that's just buzzing the tower.
Good radios, effective ground control, radar direction or at the very least ground spotter network were all undervalued things. Russians and Japanese paid a heavy toll for lacking in those departments. Of course good radios and radars were a thing for more developed countries, which also had the capability to build better planes.
Because so many external variables judged who would be on top at the start of the fight, some air services split their combat instructions strictly into two parts. This would make it simpler for pilot to judge the situation and take the initiative:
a) What you should do in offense while flying X against Z.
b) What you should do in defense while flying X against Z.
In many cases different performance aspects might not help one get on top, but if you survive an enemy who got the jump on you, then it's almost more of a win for you.
Situational awareness is also a thing which should become self-evident for well trained, but not for undertrained German, Soviet and Japanese pilots. "He just flew straight and got shot" is quite a common thing in reports and interviews.
On pilot course we referred to the manoeuvre speed as 'monoeuvring on the buffet', because you could feel the pre-stall buffet of the tailplane through the stick.
There was an article on the P-38L which said that it could out turn a P-51D as well. The pilot had to slow the engine inside the turn and speed up the outside engine. This could be done by a very experienced P-38 pilot understanding and using some complicated engine management.
@@michaeltelson9798 asymetric thrust for the purpose of achieving a better rate. In a word, No.
Greg, as always, you are insanely informative and entertaining.
No shit!
I recall once reading a spitfire pilot also complaining of being outturned by a 190. The 190 had a 10 degree flap setting for takeoff, any pilot daring enough to use that in a turning fight might well be able to pull a tighter radius without damaging the flaps.
Only briefly, and only to get an instantaneous rate of turn benefit - and assumes equal pilot skill. The increase in CL is accompanied by higher drag, reducing sustain(able) turn rate at constant altitude.
Taking the time to be greatful is something we should all do. Glad to hear you did!
All these well researched and produced videos. Greg, when do you find time to fly?
I was off this month, hence extra videos.
It’s a very well matched aircraft…in the right hands more than capable of dominating an airspace
One thing to also consider. Stalls don't happen at particular speed, it is angles of attack. The speeds are given as references as there were no specific AOA indicators....
With that said.... Even though the P-51D was a North American airfoil, it is similar to the 66 series airfoil as used in the P-51H. The second 6 in that airfoil dictates that laminar flow is ensured throughout 6/10ths of the chord. And so happens that the max thickness is about 6/10ths back from the leading edge, making it a fairly radical airfoil for it's day...
So, beyond stall speeds.... The P51 wing is more like a steak knife and the Dora like a butter knife. The sharp edge of the leading edge on the P51 makes it much more sensitive to angle of attack, and for the air to remain attached it has to make it past 6/10ths of the airfoil to get over the" hump". Also I should mention a bunch of civilian, airshow related, history of accelerated stall/spin crashes in Mustangs....
It's true with a lot of airfoils like this too.... The A-26 Invader has a 65-215.... Laminar through 5/10ths of the chord. The training videos state that the plane is to be flown off the runway, and that normal landings are a 3 point (tricycle) with no flare out.
A stall is from an excessive angle of attack, no question about that. This isn't a video on stalls, it's a video on turn performance. Turn rate and radius are calculated at a speed and G load, not at an angle of attack. Now you could calculate these things via speed and angle of attack, but you would need a different chart for every airplane.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I guess my point was, beyond the published stall speeds, there are "quirks" or unique characteristics of certain airfoils.
I am not a pilot, but an old Flightsim junkie dating back to MSFS95. Unlike, proper pilots, I learned to fly from a different perspective... I wasn't loaded with instruction/safety/rules and then put in a real airplane with the consequence of death. I didn't have that consequence looming over me or any kind of instruction. I learned to do everything wrong....crash and die, in a simulation until I no longer crashed.
One thing however is, I learned about certain airplane's flight characteristics.... And as flight dynamics got more realistic over the last 30 years, you'd learn how not to "die". I learned that AOA lesson for real in a P40 simulation, in a high G turn 20 years ago. That even at 200kt, with enough elevator pulling through the turn, you could snap roll, spin and die if you weren't careful. Later on, I would realize that's not something a Mustang liked either. Died many times in a Mustang until I got that right. I confirmed what the wartime training videos said about the A-26 were correct. In fact, there is a TH-cam crash video of an A-26 with an engine failure on takeoff, in which they attempt to "rotate" the plane and resulted in a crash... If they would have kept the nose down, they may have succeeded.
But other planes, like the Naval wing with the Naca 23012 variants, including Corsair, Hellcat, Bearcat, i found to be much more tolerant of higher AOA, and generally those airplanes had lower stall speeds and better turn performance.
In the case of this video, I am not surprised, at all, that a Dora could out turn a Mustang. That airfoil is more forgiving.
The TH-camr, Scott Purdue, an ex F-15 pilot, said in a high G turn, they would use stall buffeting as an indicator, not airspeed, not an AOA indicator. If was something he described as "elephants trampling on your wings", to know that you are at your max turn performance.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The thing is, pulling high G makes the wing resulting AOA stall much faster if it is that as thin as the P51 has..
If the AOA is yanked on too hard, the wing stops being a wing and just instantly stalls, which made the P51 snap roll..
That wing was not designed for best ACM but for long range at high altitude. It is a compromise design.
And yes, you definately need a different chart for every plane.
Heater explains that in his interview, he's the adversary top gun pilot that flew migs in Area 51, he was one of the best dogfighters of his era.. he explains how he predict his opponent because he had flow all the planes and he knew for every plane what its rate and radius at any speed would be. He could predict the energy and all that for any plane he encountered..
th-cam.com/video/9OStff1JnwA/w-d-xo.html
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles What about acceleration?? Thrust to weight ratio will have impact in turn performance. This comparison is not like compare gliders? Also deploy flaps don't reduce maximum AoA? and significantly lower Drag coefficient ?? Usually flaps dont improve your turning performance except radius?
@@keithfisher7333The reason Greg doesn't have to consider the air foil when calculating stall speeds or turn performance is because the effect the airfoil has on performance is already baked into the chart. The chart is specific to that aircraft. I think some folks overthink that.
The reason the F-15 pilot was using buffeting to determine when he was near a stall is because he is in a fight with many things on his mind he has no time to check his altitude and speed and then pull out a chart to see if he is close to the stall. The aircraft is already telling him he is near stall with the buffet. Some aircraft give almost no warning when they are near a stall. Many do.
This does not change the fact that the stall or turn performance for that given moment in time for that particular altitude and speed could not be calcualted based on the F-15's chart. It could. It's just not necessary unless you are doing post-action analysis as Greg is doing
Have a great day!
Remember that in the fall of 1944 G-suits began to be issued to American fighter pilots.
I have not read anything about the combat use of flaps by Mustang pilots as well.
Dropping 10 Deg of flaps with a G suit, the 51 can just turn so well. In IL-2, I love just pulling a 5g diving turn with 10deg of flaps and just totally out turning any 109 or 190.
The complexity with G-suit is in real world terms it only mostly offset disadvantages of pilot G-limit based on seating position of the P51 vs BF109 and FW190, rather than being a big advantage over them, but also this gets GREATLY over empathized in many current simulators as a (IMO bad) way to try balance both sides aircraft, and I suspect behind the scenes is the majority reason why Greg had so much more success.
Likewise while the P51 had very usable structural speed limits for its flaps (10degree increments, 400mph IAS on first, 275mph on second) this only actually improves turn radius at speeds you couldn't reach the G-limit without them (5g at 240mph without flaps), and actually decreases your IAS for high speed stall (although it might be more graceful, to to further bias towards middle of wing first, rather than impacting control surfaces).
People bench-top race the aircraft far too often though, in real life the majority of aircraft shot down had not seen the aircraft that shot them was making a pass (let alone identified exactly what model it was as to leverage a comparative difference), and the average airman of ALL sides had little seat time, so duels between pilots able to fully exploit both aircraft exceedingly rare, and almost entirely required a mistake by both of them to end up in such a situation.
I just remembered watching a old recording of Bud Anderson talking about dropping 10° of flaps and being able to out turn 109s.
@@rring44 No experienced 190 or especially 109 pilot will turn fight a P51 horizontally. The 109 will dominate the P51 in a vertical fight and especially energy fight where the 109 outaccelerates and outclimbs the P51 by a high margin. It just needs a skilled pilot to avoid getting pulled to a horizontal fight...
I flew the P-51 in HRL when with the CAF 1981-1983 and it is not what hollywood makes it out to be. It was fast, and had long legs but I flew against JL in his P-47 Bluenose on 3 occasions and he could easily out turn the Mustang at 15,000-20,000. I have no doubts that the Dora was even better and with a vastly superior roll rate.
It was a solid gun platform and could get you out of trouble almost as fast as you go into it but it was not a dogfighter, you slash with it any time your opponent can out rate you. The spitfire would outturn it easily, the P-38 could go into maneuver flaps and outturn it. It had a nice roll rate but was not the fastest roll rate certainly. The best feature was that you could aim with it easily, it pointed where you put it.
Germans Pilot said that the Focke Wulf Dora was as good as the Mustang. They did not belittle the Mustang.
For what it's worth with the comment about people no longer watching when you get into that type of math. I have a pretty severe learning disability regarding math and large amounts of text. I don't know if it's the ADHD or something that's never been diagnosed but it's a serious struggle to read a paragraph or do anything other than entry level addition...but there are only two people I have ever watched on youtube who can get into complex math and I can just sort of "Follow" and get the gist of it instead of my brain just automatically either tuning it out or starting to "shut down" like it always does whenever I try ti do math. You and Issac Arthur are those two people.
I may not always understand and sometimes I might "tune out" to do other things while I listen but it's very rare I stop watching entirely...and even then I almost always pick up the video later. So at least from me? Thank you.
My dad was a P51D Fighter Pilot in WW2 he would have been very interested in this video. Shame he’s not around to see it
I learn so much from these videos. Love how you are able to explain these complex things.
The instance that I read that really highlights that encounters need to be taken with a big pinch of salt,
Was of a German wing commander (?) who was ordered to use every available aircraft, even the 2 that barely flew,
He took one, and his next most experienced pilot took the other crate,
The other pilot barely managed to take-off before stalling and crashing
His plane wouldn't climb above a certain altitude (I can't remember if it was 10,000 feet or 20,000 feet) due to a supercharger issue,
He was promptly shot out of the sky, though he still managed to shoot down that aircraft that didn't manage it's closure (and so overshot and ended right in front of him)
So whilst THIS example may be an extreme example of the factors that come into play, it does highlight the fact that there are so many things at play,
That pilots individual accounts need to be taken with a big pinch of salt.
Nothing is ever clear in the fog of war. One thing that people often fail to realize is that the 190 was technologically way superior to the P51 or any other allied plane in that it had automated flight controls. A 190 pilot didn't need to start adjusting mixtures and 10 different doo-dabs at the beginning of the fight. A combat situation gets a lot more complicated if and when you have to do 4-5 extra jobs inside the cockpit just to avoid seizing or stalling your engine.
Not sure about the Dora, but the P51 with its laminar-flow wing had a pretty sudden & vicious stall. I think early wind-tunnel tests showed reduced low-speed lift on the then new laminar-flow aerofoil section? Apparently, official instruction was that it shouldn't be flown low and slow - a sudden wing-drop loses 1000 - 2000 feet very quickly. I believe twice as many P51’s were lost in accidents than to enemy action? Pilot's accounts refer to a 'violent snap roll' in a stall compared to say, a P-40 Tomahawk that 'never failed to shake the stick' as the stall approached.
I’ve also read about the FW190 suddenly flicking away out of control in a high-speed stall during combat, so perhaps both aircraft might be rather difficult to manage in the heat of battle as they approached critical stall speed?
Nicely done, as usual, and thorough, also as usual. I'm not a pilot. My dad flew F6F-5s in combat, and after his tour, trained for most of 1945 in the F4U-4. I lack the expertise to figure out if either of those planes would fit into the calculations for Greg's video scenario, so I just enjoy the bits that I understand and wait for the next one.
Greg did a video on the Hellcat and Corsair vs.ph the FW190D. If I remember correctly, the Corsair was at least a match for the FW190 and the Hellcat wasn't that far behind - the biggest issue with the Hellcat was it's top speed of about 390 mph, which was much less then the FW190 or the Corsair. The problem with making the comparison between these three planes is the altitudes (due to their primary theatre of operation) at which they had their best performance. In the Pacific, the maximum altitude for combat was around 20,000 ft. and in Europe, about 30,000 ft.. At 20,000 ft., a Hellcat would be a match for a FW190 and a Corsair would pretty much eat an FW190 alive. At 30,000 ft., the FW190 would have a distinct advantage due to a higher top speed at that altitude.
The one thing I'd love to know is how well a Hellcat or Corsair would do against German fighters at 30,000 ft. if their P&W R2800s used the same turbosupercharger setup as the P47.
I interviewed several pilots that flew both of these planes. In early 1943 the Navy had serious trouble getting the Corsair to land safely on a carrier. This made the Marines delighted because they got what they believed was the superior fighter which they flew off land bases - so did some Navy squadrons and they did very well. The Hellcat was, in general, the better plane for the job. It had excellent performance, was extremely tough and - for a fighter - was very forgiving. The perfect plane for the hundreds of "junior birdmen" joining carrier air groups starting in 1943. That relegated an improved Wildcat (FM-2) to escort carriers where it was at least a match against a Zero. The other recipient of Corsairs was the Fleet Air Arm (they got some Hellcats too). The RAF saw how good the Corsair was and developed some specialized landing techniques to use it on CVs. That proved very good news because when the USN ran into the Kamikaze blitz, the healthy speed superiority of the Corsair looked good and quick as jiffy the Navy had them on carriers using RAF techniques. Might note that the Corsair, like the P-51, was kept in service and performed very well in Korea, especially for ground attack.
Thanks for posting this and sharing Bill's episode Greg! As always, very informative.
FWIIW - the narrative I got from Bill (in 2007) is that the encounter started with a pair of FW 190s attacking both himself and flight leader Moroney. Lyons broke into the first 190D but turned too tightly and stalled out. His narrative in the video was about the 190 not being able to quite pull lead on Bill Lyons before he (lyons) departed and spun out. The 190D then got on Moroney's tail, who couldn't shake him, but gave Lyons enough time to recover and get back in the fight to chase the 190 off Moroney's tail and shoot him down. This was near Kothren. on page 250 of Our Might Always. Flight leader Ludeke shot the second one down.
Point - this wasn't a turning fight, it was a high G turn into the approaching FW 190D-9s (there were 2)
The quote "he's out-turning me" is literally in the video. Here it is: th-cam.com/video/jWn4zIu91Xk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ILI7KH5qLNGUlIbq&t=1542
I come across this eternal discussion of turn fighters often, and though a valid inquiry, for me my response is 'who the hell turn fights?' Did no one take note of the F4f Wildcats' disadvantages, seemingly hopeless odds against japanese massively superior turn fighters, yet still manage to reasonalble well using tactics, teamwork, and most importantly not accepting a turn fight. And so on throughout the war, you fight your fight, not the enemy aircrafts fight, avoid disadvantaged combats, run like hell if things turn, or only use hit and run tactics [aka Eric Hartmann]. However, for the hugely outnumbered German fighters, they had no choice but to engage the bomber formations, facing seemingly endless supplies of well trained and well rested [tours of duty? You fought till you died] allied fighter pilots descending upon them in droves.
In flight simms, with P-51s, I try to keep the fight vertical; I find most times they can't follow a climbing spiral turn due to their weight. I avoid high speed combat as best as possible, and try to draw them into a slower manuevering combat, where the excellent roll of the 190 really shines, as well as the increased weight of fire when hitting them at close range with the concentrated cannon fire. Though technically the P-51 is the better aircraft, I always prefer the Dora or 109s. It's the intangelbes that you can't put into words.
The Dora was Eric Browns' top choice as his favorite WW2 fighter, and he would be one to sit up and take note of his opinion on this. Again, it's sometimes the intangibles that are often hard to quantify that give an aircraft an advantage, though of course this varies in alternate situations. Both US and Soviet pilots who flew the Dora after the war gave it rather poor marks, and yet many German pilots knew how to take advantage of its' strengths to overcome and prevail against the odds.
Maybe that's the draw, the challenge of overcoming against the odds, that explains my preference. The story of my life I suppose.
Turn performance is an important factor, but it's not everything. This is a video specifically about turn performance, I have another one that compares other specs of these planes.
that and that USN pilots were (at the time of the war's breakout) well trained in deflection and snap shooting; Many of the early victories against the IJN Zero came after a Zero 'overshot' the Wildcat and ended up right in the pilot's sights. Otherwise, if John Lundstrom's numbers were correct, the ratio of losses to victories was just about 'even'.
@@nickmitsialis It also helped that an F4F could take a hell of a lot more punishment and still fly as compared to a Zero.
@@blackenedmagic888 Indeed=probably why the Zero would overshoot; it figured the target had been fatally ventilated.
The Wildcat was a very nimble aircraft - it just didn't stack up to the Zero - although an improved version (FM2) put on escort carriers was a little more powerful and lighter and stacked up very well against Zeros if they ever came into contact. The big plus for the Wildcat, beyond its ruggedness, was that it could out dive a Zero - that was something easy to learn and saved the life of many a US pilot. By the end of 1942 both Wildcats and P-40s were establishing tactical superiority over Zeros and Oscars (Army planes rarely saw Zeros, although they often referred to Oscars as Zeros - generic for Japanese fighter. The KI-61 Tony did get their attention though - US intelligence thought that somehow Japan was getting BF-109s. It was based on the plans of the BF109E and the Germans did give them an engine. The IJAAF probably should have simply copied the 109 but they decided to improve it and that kept it out of service for nearly a year. As it was, like all IJ second generation planes, it was a hangar queen - Japanese industry simply didn't have the skills to build to extremely fine tolerances and their groundcrew often didn't really understand how their planes worked. That was a problem they never solved. And whenever we captured a large IJ airfield we always found several planes grounded for the lack of some small part or a leaky gasket. Pity we didn't keep more of them - Zeros are rare and Oscars and Tonys even more so.
I'm a 61 year old professional paragliding pilot and can handle 6g for 90 seconds (maybe more & longer but that's as high and long as they let me 🙂) on the G-Force trainer... Many of the young pilots would pass out at much lower Gs and times.
So much of flying a WWII fighter has to go down to each individual pilot - both their flying skills, but also their specific physiology. There must have been *huge* differences just in this single aspect.
Love this channel ❤❤❤
Yes absolutely.
.@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles no there was intense screening as to physically suitability for the glamours fighter pilot officers wings only best of the best. Germany late war another story. Do u think doras armament trumped p51s
As always, what a well-reasoned and researched commentary. Thank you again Greg. Fascinating. 😊👍
They are also complicated mechanical machines. Sometimes, a perfectly built plane will fly against a plane with problems. Pilots are also important. A good pilot can deliver better performance than one caught half asleep or new.
I'm not quite sure how angle of attack affects prop efficiency or thrust vector, but at its stall angle of attack, the aircraft will have some thrust pointed down. The Il2 aircraft stats page claims that the stall angle of attack for both aircraft are around 20 degrees. If you do some trigonometry, you'll get around 35 percent. This approach to calculating thrust vector components is mentioned in the Glenn Research Centre's Beginners Guide to Aeronautics website (Thrust * sin(angle)), and other publications. I wonder if it's applicable to thrust generated by the propeller, or if there's other things to consider (like the propeller thrust vector getting all weird at high aoa). Anyway, any such effects would benefit the Dora the most in this comparison, because of its higher power and lower weight, assuming this interpretation is correct.
Yes, thrust is a factor.
Excellent as always! On a side note, I love to fly the Anton in DCS, and can have quite good results with it. I came to the conclusion, people who fly allied types believe the 190 is an absolute piece of poop! Which then gives them the impression they are invulnerable and cannot be touched.......This is the 190 driver's foot in the door.
I agree. I have a lot of fun in the Anton and I'm able to push the map so to speak. Destroy objectives, capture airfields and such. It's also the best anti-bomber plane in the sim. As a general rule, in DCS if I'm trying to win the war, Anton or P-47. If I'm trying to Dogfight, 109 or 51. Hunting enemy planes, the Dora all day long. The Mossie is great for ground attack in bad weather or night time when it's nav systems allow you to reach the target. That's not useful on multi-player servers, but it is an ability unique to the Mossie in DCS WW2. The Spit and I-16 are fun but both require cooperative opponents to an extent.
Great vid Greg. Love these kinds of vids, crunching numbers from the manuals.
Greg, Did you know that the FW190 including the D used NACA airfoil 23015.3 root 23009 at tip. All Beechcrafts used the 23000 series airfoil, Bonanza used 23016.5 and 23012. If you research NACA 23000 series appears to be the most popular air foil ever. I could go on, but this is most interesting, Douglas, NAA, Lockheed even RV's used this airfoil series extensively.
Two German designed fighters dueling. You certainly know your stuff.
One of those Geman designed fighters was equipped with an English engine and gun sight.
Yes indeed, built for the British, with an English engine.
@@drstrangelove4998 British engine made in America by the thousands.
Great information as always!
I had a thought when I first saw this video come up in my feed "Why is the concept of this WW2 fighter better than this WW2 fighter from 80 years ago important and relevant?". To answer my own question, it is to understand the engineering and physics of air combat. How this then relates to the simulation models used in computer games, how it teaches pilots and engineers as to why decisions were made, explaining a systems engineering approach to aircraft design. Also, it's fun. what are your thoughts? Thanks, Greg for teaching me and explaining things so well.
Hi Paul. That's exactly right. It's about understanding principles, and it's about evaluating claims. It's not so much about the importance of comparative turn performance of planes 80 years ago. I want people to understand how these things work. For some it's entertainment, which is of value by itself. For others it's about learning.
Just a note, the designer of the Mustang was the German engineer "Edgar Schmued" born in Hornbach in Saarland in Germany.
He was a U.S. citizen at the time he designed the P-51.
Well, I would ride a FW-190D if I had a choice. But, I'm crazy like that. I still like P-38s over 51 and 47's.🤪🛩️
I interviewed James Morehead who was a double ace flying in both the PTO and ETO. His account of the early days in the PTO was fascinating. He claimed the P-38 he flew in Europe was the best allied fighter - I think he was the only one arguing that. Although I'll grant that the L model had "power steering" to help with roll and dive flaps to prevent compression. The 38 was an excellent gun platform and its range was very good. It certainly did good work in the Pacific. The USAAF stopped production of the 38 just before the war ended - it was beastly expensive to build and maintain - almost two airplanes. But it served it's purpose in both theaters. The Allies were piling it on at the end of the war - rookie LW and IJ pilots engaging three times their number of veteran US fighter pilots in better planes. A downward spiral. Not even the 262 was safe toward the end - they required a big airfield so there was often a standing patrol of RAF or USAAF fighters waiting for a 262 to take off or land. Tough to feel sorry for the guys fighting for Hitler or Tojo.
@@Ebergerud I kind of wish the F7F Tigercat from Grumman could have mixed it up against the competition. It probably would have been even better than the 38.
Thanks Greg. Love it.
Thanks. Your videos are interesting and informative.
Starting conditions make a big difference with roughly similar fighters, so the "bounce" comment is important. An inferior fighter can do a lot if it starts off with a significant energy advantage. Bank angle is also important for a turning fight and I doubt that many pilots were even within 10° of the optimum in. a rapidly evolving fight.
Thanks Greg
Excellent Greg! I also enjoyed the P47 drop tank content. I hope you're doing well, sir.
Like you said. Just a tiny bit of altitude overhead would explain this report. The Dora could use that bit of energy to pull in.
Exactly, this concept is clear to people like you, Central and others, but some use statements like what we had in the interview to argue that one plane could out turn another, which just isn't so.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles yes. As you might know we often face this perception problem in the flight sim community quite often.
"Plane A outlimbed, outturned, outwhatevered me, and it should not"
But often these can be explained by circumstances people have difficulties to understand or to consider. For examble Initial speed or alititude differences. Many simmers also forget that they - maybe can out climb or out pace a slower opponent, but not their bullets.
Another favorite of mine are often shared interviews where maybe even a show pilot describes how a plane behaves. And simmers project this to the sim. But often the planes of these pilots aren't equipped anymore like the historical planes were. or are limited in the performance they can deliver. So also there the circumstances might impact the interviews.
All very true, although I have seen clear and blatant cheating in IL2 and DCS, more clearly in IL2. Last I played there was a Spitfire guy who was always faster than a Dora, no matter what. More often than not it's just positioning as you pointed out, but not always.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles maybe on berloga. I have only seen blatent cheats a handful of times. in 8 years.
Thank you for another excellent video. I got to see a real FW 190-D at the Flying Heritage Collection at Paine Field in Everett, WA. The nod to Two Lane Blacktop is extremely cool. Keep the shiny side up and the greasy side down!
Thanks for noticing Two Lane Blacktop. You're the first one who did.
In IL-2, 190s can out turn Spitfires at high speeds/g's because of the g tolerance difference. I really hate how the devs don't tell you anywhere in the pilot notes because it is a huge deal. I also hate when people say in the game that Spitfires out turn 190s because it is just not true. Spits only out turn them at very specific speeds.
The best game ever
Love that screenshot from 2 lane Blacktop at 1:50 +/-. One of my favorite movies.
“Make it three yards, motherfuckerr, and we’ll have an automobile race.”
Take that back, my favorite movie ever
My thoughts as well. Greg had thousands of Model A hot rod photos to choose from. 👍
Thanks, that's exactly right. I love that movie and chose that picture for that reason. It wasn't random.
Best channel on this subject matter on TH-cam
Another interesting off-shoot of the Fw 190 airframe was the development of the Fw 190 C with the DB 603 engine - a story of competing interests and lost opportunity within the RLM and the fighter arm of the Lufwaffe who wanted it. On top of the latter FW went down a blind alley with a 190 C coupled to a Hirth TKL turbocharger.
I know WT is not the most accurate thing to take data from but... The 190C has a soft spot for me, the gigantic turbocharger and intercoolers change the center of mass further back, improving it's turn rate, I've even out-turned Spitfires with it, problem is having a weight balance closer to an F-16 than a wwii fighter, it's extremely prone to tip stalls and flat spins, especially in Sim battles where the plane constantly tries to kill you with a tip stall, but once you control it's tip-stall and use the flaps, it's an amazing aircraft. plus, you can do aerobatics mid-flight like it was ace combat in sim battles lmao.
Extremely good video. I learned a lot.
Dude 70KG
Thats the funniest thing Ive heard all day
The P51 is like a ballet dancer. Able to do incredible things. The FW190 was like a pit bull. Let it latch on to you and it won't let go. Looks like a hot rod also.
Or as Kurt Tank said when comparing the 190 vs the 109 "The rugged plow horse vs the pampered thoroughbred".
P-47 like an angry bull elephant!
The Fw 190's nickname was the Butcher Bird. That seems like a good fit.
As Kurt said the 109 was a cavalry horse rather than a race horse.
@@strayling1 Yes; A 'butcher bird' is a colloquial name for a bird called the Shrike-a small predatory bird related to cuckoos; it actually hunts insects, rodents, small reptiles and other birds. The nickname comes from it's habit of impaling it's prey on thorns, twigs or barbed wire for 'future use', the hanging meat is why the nickname exists.
AND IT IS a good nickname for the FW: a fierce deadly flying in a compact package.
There's an interview with a gerkan pilot with 18 credited kills that said the 190d was beautiful in turnfighting, now i don't think he was outturning spitfires but he probably was outturning mistangs. He gave the speach on the Dora to developers of DCS.
Well they didn't listen because in DCS the Mustang easily out turns the Dora.
As it says in the Dicta Boelke, secure any and all advantages you can before starting a fight. Altitude, speed, positioning, etc.
Looking up some additional information, I never realized how different a P-51 and 190s wing area was! 235 sq ft vs 197. Thats a significant difference! I always imagined the 190 to be “the big one” of front line German fighters but suppose they only built slim ones
Almost all of the European fighters were pretty small. I think midgets flew in 109s. For an American plane the Mustang was petite - you can see those British specifications. I interviewed an Australian mechanic who served at the big base at Townsville (northern Australia - next stop Moresby). When a P-47 came in the pilot got out. The Aussie kept waiting to see how many more of the crew would leave the plane. A LW pilot, captured at war's end, was allowed to sit in a Jug and claimed you could play table tennis inside the cockpit. The Hellcat was just as large - a little bigger in some of the specs, smaller than others. At an airshow I saw a Hellcat parked next to a Wildcat - the Hellcat, despite a certainly similarity courtesy of Grumann Ironworks, dwarfed it's predecessor. The Hellcat was the only US aircraft commissioned after Pearl Harbor - and in service within a year plus a months or two. The US once knew how to make things.
Thanks!
Thank you very much.
The 190 was an excellent design but many have noted its somewhat harsh stall characteristics. If the wing had been just a bit bigger...?
Thanks Greg, another great video, I wish I could make the Dora work for me in warthunder, but I guess that's down to my lack of skill!😎
Yep
I love the design of the FW family of fighters, I wonder if they were designed from the start to be able to update the front end for an inline engine, or was it just a happy coincidence? Seems like a very smart design choice if it was.
Greg, you remind me of a story I heard, as a youngster.
It struck me at the time as odd. I was maybe 12 years old. By the time I grew up and thought about it again, I realised the person re-telling that story, simply drew completely the wrong conclusion about it.
I should also add, I don't know that this story is true. I have heard slightly different versions of it, but no exact names, no exact dates, no exact locations ~
Stranger tells me a Mustang is not even close to the agility and turn ability of a Zero. He has anecdotal 'PROOF'.
Most Japanese combat pilots with any experience, didn't survive the war. A few 'pilots' were captured, taken prisoner, but mostly they were very young and had 50 hours or less in a Zero.
Story goes, they captured one who had hundreds of hours, and I think a few combat victories. He also spoke English, albeit not very well.
So some time about December 1945, some months after VP day, they bring this guy to a base that has Mustangs. They know who he is. He asks to have a close look at one, and after inspecting it, he asks if he can fly it. They agree to unload the guns, give him about a half hour of fuel, and let him fly it ~ with an armed escort. He flew around for perhaps ten ~ fifteen minutes, then from about 5,ooo ft, rolled inverted, and pulled through. He didn't make it.
The conclusion drawn by the story teller, was that a P51 can't roll and pull through from 5,ooo ft. Our Zero pilot was used to doing that from less than 3,ooo, and simply got caught out.
The conclusion I drew (later) was he wanted to end his life with honor, by destroying one more American combat aircraft, from the cockpit.
I don't know what the minimum height is you could half-roll a Mustang, but I doubt it's very much more than 2,ooo ft. It would depend somewhat on the speed at which you started, but ~ I think even at 400+ mph, a P51 should be able to pull through pretty easily from 4k or less.
The point I'm trying to make, is people have a tendency to draw conclusions from things, like stories told around the camp-fire, that are completely incorrect.
Even at 11 ~ 12 years old, something about that story didn't seem right to me, but by the time I was a grown-up, I realised how wrong the 'Moral of the Story' I'd been told, was. People (at least the one who told me) had heard the tale and drawn completely the wrong conclusion from it.
Thanks, but there is just no way that's a true story.
Nice analysis. A couple possible factors in a combat encounter between these aircraft; you did mention that these charts apply to a coordinated level turn, which could very likely not have been what either aircraft, particularly the attacking aircraft, was flying- the Dora pilot may have had some amount of altitude advantage at the time, and allowed some of that to bleed off to help out the maneuver temporarily.
Also, did you mention the weather prevailing at that encounter? I recall some aircraft with laminar flow airfoil wings can lose more lift in rain than one with a more conventional airfoil might. That's maybe a red herring here, just something I remember.
Hi Greg, if we’re talking radials into v12s, I think the P40 is the comparison.
The airspeed calibrations shown don’t seem to show high angle of attack speed error, which would seem to be relevant in a turning fight.
What I have heard is that the P36 was a much better turner than the 40 and nicer to fly, so imagine similar for the 190. Same solution the AVG found- zoom and boom. I believe NACA and Brits found the Mach limit for fw190A was about 0.8, very similar to the P51
P-36 would have been a fair bit lighter, at its heaviest it was a relatively small radial engine with two .50cals and four .30cals. So not entirely comparable, though you could chalk up _some_ of that lower weight by choosing a radial engine.
The FW-190D-9 needed some 150 avgas, re-engineer and run a battle.
I doubt there would be a real world difference with the MW50 system on, methanol itself having a higher octane rating than the avgas, and the FW190's injection system being designed as part of the concept from day one so being quite advanced/complex in its per cylinder multi-point injection and mixture control as it interoperates with regular fuel injection, boost and altitude, rather than the afterthought or field installable systems that tended to spray a near constant rate at a single point without regard to the regular fuel injection rates. Without the MW50 running on the "rich" performance would increase quite a lot, but wouldn't otherwise need any re-engineering to utilize it, and "lean" performance (like cruise speed or fuel economy) is barely affected unless design choices are made to that compromise the power increase of the new fuel (like using a higher compression, rather than more boost).
@@SheepInACartMW50 was some kind of emergency power , that wasn't on since you start your plane . Better fuel would have helped a lot , in terms of power output .
I wish sometimes we'll see a video about sustained turn performance, Cx, Cx/Cy, AoA, specific power etc.
That has been my exact understanding of manoeuvre speed my entire life.
do a video on why the f4 was so much more preferred over the f5 when it came to air to air threats.
There is a big difference between the knock resistance of 150 octane and 87 octane. That says it all!
100/150 octane US fuel gave an enormous advantage of the German 87. This was a huge advantage in the BoB.
@@drstrangelove4998 Yes it is. You couldn't conquer the world like that. American high finance is happy.
@@isarwasser5271The Germans had no oil or not much , they made their fuel out of coal .
@@5co756 Yes, it is the Coal to Liquid CtL process. You couldn't conquer the Western world with that. Without America, yes.
Nice comparison.
However a bloke in a Mustang wouldn't always drain his fus. tank to say 50pc before combat.
If it was me, I'd be thinking 'I wanna get home'. I'd keep as much fuel as possible. It'd be easy to switch tanks around on the way home and show that you followed SOP.
So maybe the Dora, with minimum fuel because it was scarce, out-turned the Mustang because fuel.
No graphs required.
Hey Greg, how about the J2M series. Havent flown warthunder sim for almost 5yrs now but did very well with it. Along with the F4U4 against 109 & 190s. As you stated the late model 51s & Spits are almost unfair. As with the FWs if used correctly the later 38s were very good at bouncing. Retired pilot here and had the old USAF subsonic and supersonic fundamentals books. Very good stuff and thoroughly enjoy your channel.
"Maneuver speed" is different than "maneuvering speed"
Hi Greg, nice analysis as allways!
But you forgot to compare the wing profiles and their different behaviour at different Reynolds-Numbers.
The laminar wing profile of the Mustang is optimised for low drag and does not allow the AoAs like the Dora´s!
You even cited the very forgiving stall behaviour or should I say post stall behaviour of the Focke Wulfs NACA 23015 (to 23010) wing.
In a dogfight you win if you are the first to point your nose at the adversary. Even if you exceedingly bleed your energy by doing that. So for a short time - not sustained (here the Mustang is better) - a Dora will always be able to outturn a Mustang at higher speeds because it can reach significantly more AoA and CL here.
The Mustangs wing was analysed in German wind tunnels and deemed to be used for bigger internal fuel capacity at same Cd for the mustangs role as a long range fighter.
Even after that German fighters never used the laminar approach because it was found not suitable for a fighter because of critical stall behaviour, lower achievable AoA and deterioration of performance by insects, battle damage and lack of long term sustainability in the field.
The video talks ONLY about non-sustained turn performance, and while there is certainly some advantage to being able to point the nose more during any given turn (higher AOA and or skidding, spinning a little), this will reduce the rate of turn and increase the distance of turn compared to the ideal numbers cited. Since a known stall speed was used for both aircraft, both the wing loading and wing profile are already factored in, and discussed in the video, these are NOT additional values greg forgot.
@@SheepInACart Hi, Greg uses a tool to estimate the performance that will only be accurate for very, very similar shaped aircraft. The extrapolation from stall speed was a commonly used procedure in the first half of the 20th century to predict aircraft behaviour. Stall speed was easy to predict and test in the low speed wind tunnels of the time! The Mustang had no secret sauce wing, nobody else was able to copy. In fact it was even the other way round and many American fighter aircraft of the time used the same or similar wing profiles like the FW-190 did. E.g. F8F Bearcat (1944) This is because you can achieve the same lift with a smaller wing especially at high Reynolds-Numbers (speeds). (better for weight, for roll rate, target area, structural rigidity, size especially for carrier operations etc)
Love your videos, Greg. I think my favourite videos of yours are still your hour-long essays on queer lesbian feminist theory, especially the ones where you dyed your hair blue and used “they/them” pronouns. White Guys Rock.
One thing to remember about American WW2 fighters is that they were designed to operate at very long ranges, due to their theatre of operations. Apart from some early naval fighters, there was no concept of pure interceptor. So, a P51, halfway through its escort mission, with the drop tanks empty but the main tanks still full would probably have a hard time in a dogfight with a light German fighter that might have even taken off with a reduced fuel load, both for low availability and to get the best possible climb rate. Boom and zoom tactics work better in these cases.
The Dora is what made the Americans scratch their heads in late war. Cause with a good pilot it was very dangerous. Truly a engineers fighter plane. Def my fav fighter of ww2
Did the Dora pilot have the speed advantage? And was there even a lick of red paint on dat Dorrra???
Everyone knows that wit a lick of red paint will make it go fasta and that's all that he needed.
That Richthofen guy had a whole airplane dipped innit!
What Dora is on thumb nail of video ?
This gun configuration is not something you see on "common" Dora aka D-9, D-12, D-13.
4 guns in the wings, two per wing is something new to me.
And off curse thanks for another great video ♥
I don't know. I thought it might be a Ta152 but it has cowl guns so I think it's some type of Dora. The photo was labeled Dora 9 but it's clearly something else.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles it look it is Dora D-11 , well according to what I can find on internet.
2 x 20 mm + 2 x 30 mm all in the wing's, nothing in the cowling most lightly because of extra wheit.
Not at all surprised, depending on the many, many variables of plane combat what is often well understood about an aircrafts flight characteristics as compared to its contemporaries can become a non-factor...
You mentioned propellers. I'm not sure I've seen anything from you on the disadvantage/advantage a single engine fighter would have vs. a twin engine fighter with counter rotating props when rolling/turning against/with the prop. Is that quantifiable? I would think so, but you'd probably need to know things like the roll rate of the fighters (which you probably have), but also the weight and moment of inertia of the prop, which you probably don't. I would expect it's probably significant in transient, but probably minimal in sustained.
We do have roll rate data for most WW2 fighters. At high speeds the P-38 with hydraulically boosted aileron controls was very good.
Thanks for another great video! If you're looking for ideas for potential future videos, I've been wondering about the benefits and disadvantages of the clipped wings on Spitfires and didn't see a dedicated video about it on your channel though I do think you've mentioned it in passing in the past at points. I've watched conflicting videos on various channels about the effects but not a comprehensive analysis at various altitudes like your channel specializes in just in case you're looking for a future topic. Just an idea! :)
Even the F4U Corsair in British and Australian service had “clipped” wings so the wings could be folded when in the hangar deck of a British aircraft carrier. So, I second the Spitfire Mk Vb and British Australian F4U review.
Great job on showing and explaining what you are reviewing
I don't know. I have thought about a video on clipped vs standard wing Spitfires. However I haven't even made a specific video on the Spitfire yet.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I'll take another look again then and thanks. When I searched Spitfire and Gregs Airplanes, the only video that came up was about Spitfire engine exhausts.
'Of course, when they wrote this manual, they were not intending for it to be used 80 years later by someone comparing turn performance in a TH-cam video '
Seems pretty shortsighted if you ask me.
Yes, they should have been thinking more about my needs.
Dora. Dora. Dora, I won't let you go... 🐿
I'm amazed this even needs to be said, the 190 series are my favorite warbirds (just look at how much I fly it ffs) but like, they're not the most well rounded machines ever made. They have a niche, its up to the pilot to put it in that niche as much as possible.
Maneuverability and speed. Many planes in WW2 could out maneuver a faster plane. Case in point, I out maneuvered a F4 Phantom on the range at China Lake. It was an experiment! It could fly way faster , higher and farther then my aircraft. I carried a J model Sidewinder missile configured for telemetry recording. I was in a HH 1k Huey Helicopter. The Phantom was unable to acquire a firing solution after many passes. However, he came within my Sidewinder envelope many times. The J model was advanced for the time. There are many considerations regarding altitude, speed, maneuverability, armament, etc. And even luck.
The Dora is an outstanding "guerilla" fighter when you exploit its strengths and avoid letting your ego suck you into fights you can't win. You quickly adopt a Viet Cong mindset when you fly that thing.
Boom zoom
William Green has books that might give you what you need. I would look it up, but they are boxed up right now.
P-51D is the bonus overpowered character that you get when you finished the game .
Unless you get a hawker fury
@@user-pb7ig4sv2l Hawker Fury is a 1930s biplane....
I know you meant the Other Fury, but lets be real, how many combat missions did a Fury see in WW2 or Korea?
The Dora had a higher wing loading which gave an edge to the P51. However the Dora had better roll rate. The short span TA fighters were externally identical to the D9. In simulators the P51 is usually way better except for the firepower of the German plane.
I find fighting the Dora in a 1v1 fight in a 51 is usually pretty easy. The only way you lose is if you snap stall.
Figures our guy Greg would come up with a "hot rod" metaphor to characterize the Dora's development!
I gota be me.
In the USSR, there were tests of the captured D-9 and air battles between the D-9 and La-7, which showed the total superiority of the La-7. The Yak-3 and Yak-9U were also significantly superior to the D-9
😂 I don’t think so…
@@drstrangelove4998 These are the test results. Problems with reading comprehension?
Fw 190 D achieved really good performance considering the engine was not the best for a German engine, and pretty damn horrible compared to 150 octane fueled allied monsters.
Compared to latest variants of DB605 available, Jumo was heavier, bigger and less powerfull.
Compared to DB603 - DB603 was 40cm longer and slightly heavier, but so much more powerfull.
Too bad the only DB603 Fw/Ta was massively overweight design which, thus, has never achieved top-notch performance. And DB603 was also way behind allied engines when it comes to power to weight ratio.
They never really got a fighter version of the DB603 optimized.
Before watching the video: Mustang internal fuel - 1080 liters. Dora 9 internal fuel - 524 liters. No $#!t the Dora 9 and any 109 (400 liters) can outturn the P-51 in many typical combat situations.
Dim
@@alangordon3283 Hey, can you explain what you mean by your comment? If it's negative you may explain to me what is wrong in my post.
The Mustang isn't going to be fighting over britain, but over mainland europe after having burned a good chunk of fuel. Might be the Dora carrying more, not less fuel.
Obviously, A P51 with full tanks and the CG far rearwards isn't going to out turn a Dora flown by an expert. Greg is too smart to make that assumption.
@@espenevo Maybe, but typically the Mustang will need to burn the rear tank, then the external drop tanks, have at least some... 15, 20, 30 minutes of combat, then make the return trip to England- 500? 700? 850 kilometers or more?
So, typically it will still have more fuel in a typical encounter or even for the return trip than a typical 190 or 109 will have after climbing and navigating for interception. That's not even accounting that the german pilots might underfuel if they know the bomber stream will be close to them.
After watching video, no a near empty Fw190 still needed more speed than the P51 to meaningfully out turn it.
Did Luftwaffe flight crew utilize G-suits at this time? Because I know late in the war American escort crew were issued with them. I’d imagine the Dora pilot would be at another disadvantage in that they would be going after the bombers and trying to ignore the escorts and or fighter sweeps, were as the Mustang pilots can concentrate on hunting the interceptors.
German pilots eating too much nachwurst and saurbrote was a deciding factor in many encounters and their demise as this combination caused uncontrolable gaz and blackouts.
True, the Bratwurst got them victories numbered up to 352 kills…😂
Tosh ; - the P51D didn't simply 'appear' - fully developed. Just like the '190D - it was the product of development of several years.
Some thoughts:
Most of the time the P-51 tank behind the pilot was used to climb to altitude because it made the P-51 close to unstable.
One thing you left out is stick force. If you don't have the strength to pull max g, you will be out turned if the enemy can pull max g at higher speed. This is why the Escape Maneuver worked against the Zero. And also to a lesser extent with a Hurricane vs Bf-109 (109's had a short stick so it didn't have the leverage to deflect the elevator at high speed).
Another factor is weight distribution. The Dora was stretched to accommodate the longer engine. They then added a Radiator with it water in front of that. To compensate, they added weight to the tail. This causes a inertia issue. My old brain can't remember what this is called (inertial roll decoupling???).
I think of the Dora as a pure Boom and Zoom fighter and the Anton as the Dogfighter.
Totally depends on the balancing of the controls. The Bf-109 could and did balance out the control forces. It was quite light on the controls.
@@LoosMoose Are you sure? When I measured the stick it was pretty short. It didn't have the mechanical leverage to deflect the controls at high speed using the NASA 50lbs stick force. Then again the NAZI's used meth so maybe meth muscles allowed then to pull more than 50lbs easily. ;-)
The other thing to consider is a lot of the early aircraft had fabric covered controls which would balloon at high speeds reducing their efficiency and increasing stick force. I remember reading the first thing the Americans did when they got their new Spitfires in North Africa they ripped the fabric off the controls and replaced it with a thin plywood sheet to reduce control forces.
Also in wartime they ran the CG a lot further aft than in peacetime to make the aircraft more nimble.
@@Sarge714 it is not a question of leverage. Manufacturers determine the amount of force required and use a multitude of methods from aerodynamic counter-balance to anti-servo tabs and others. This entire thread has devolved into an accounting of Reynolds numbers and NACA scales which are all great for blueprints but just dont work when it comes to flying the aircraft. Dont believe me, do your OWN research. You cant talk to these guys anymore as they are all gone so go read what they wrote and then decide if you want to believe them or not. Maybe they they had an agenda or reason for viewing things, i can't say but i spent my entire life flying and had the good fortune to meet and spend a lot of time with other fighter pilots and if you look long enough and weed out the BS the same answers usually float to the top. You also learn where the sayings come from, fancy flying never shot anyone down and all the NACA foils and laminar flow and Reynolds numbers sound very impressive but when you get down to it you know what your machine can do and what the other machine can do and it is your job to make it come out right. Furthermore, if you think computer flight sims are correct or fact based you have a big surprise coming because none of them have managed to keep politics out or properly model DRAG and the honest ones admit it. That is an absolute.
@@LoosMoose I know my way around aircraft aerodynamics, stability and control, and have spent a lot of time working with the old NACA archives at the aerospace company I used to work for. The NACA archives are really amazing and fortunately are online now.
Why would you bring up computer flight sims when we were not talking about them?
So let me educate you with an experiment. Drive your car down the road at 10 mph. Stick your arm out the window. Pretty easy right? Now do it at 200mph. A lot more difficult, and you may not be able to do it at all. So now let me add a stick that goes from your outstretched hand to a piviot point on your chest and sticks 1 ft past your chest. Now drive at 200mph. With all your strength and me and me pushing on the 1ft side of the stick we will now be able to hold your arm out into the airflow. Now increase speed to 300mph, we both do not have the strength. If I make the stick 6ft on my side now I have enough leverage to help you hold your arm out in the airflow at 300mph. The Greek Folcrum said it best, if I had a big enough lever I could move the world.
Remember, this is 1940 and we are 5 years into monoplanes and retractable gear so the speeds have taken a big jump. Controls are a cable from the flight control to the aerdynamic surface. Planes are fast, but the pilots are not strong enough to maneuver the place at high speed. They could make the leverarm longer, but the area in the cockpit is just not there to make the level arm long enough to deflect the control through the flight envelop of the aircraft. And that the problem with the 109, its a tiny cockpit.
As you brought up the solution was to use aerodynamic aids. All is good now right? Nope. Now you have a new very dangerous problem, control lock. With large control deflections, and the right aircraft orientation the aileron/elevator/rudder will lock at full deflection. In this condition the pilot may not have the strength to unlock it. I'm not trying to put you down just educate you, ok?
Now let me give you a fun story from someone I worked with that flew the F4F for the Catus Airforce during WW2. He said the oxygen system was shit. And if you were at altitude and it failed, which it did a lot, you'd pass out not knowing it had failed. The plane would nose dive into the water. He said one time around 20,000ft a plane in their formation started climbing and then descending doing these roller coasters getting lower and lower and then it leveled out. When they got back to base that asked him what happened. He said he didn't trust the Oxygen system after seeing several other pilots die. So he always trimmed the aircraft so he aways had to push forward on the stick. When he passed out instead of diving into the ocean it instead did these roller coasters until he woke up at a lower altitude. From that day forward all Wildcat pilots flew with forward stick pressure.
Have a nice day. :-)
@@Sarge714 i always have a nice day. Now let me teach you something
If you knew *anything* about aerodynamics and didnt just cut and paste AI or other people articles you would know the primary and most basic principles of control force balance. Tell you what, you go get 25,000 hours in anything you can find then throw in years of BCM/ACM add a large amount of warbird experience then work with commercial aircraft designers developing prototypes for new airframes and mods to existing and then come back and we will see what you have learned. The first thing iearned about people that cite NACA and Reynolds numbers right off the bat are 99% bull. I saw it in yacht racing, i saw it in auto racing and heaven kmows i see it in aviation. Why mention computer flight sims?? Because that usually follows on with the BULL as well as spouting stats and numbers that are smoke and mirrors. Go fly a P-51 against something else and then lets hear what you say. 😀
P51 only had a 2 to 1 kill ratio, not great, going against a plane that was designed in the mid thirty. This should have been a higher kill ratio for super plane 2500 to 5000. The most kills were on the ground. Great record for parked planes. The Germans had very poor fuel quality if had same good
Quality fuel would have done poorly.
You have to account for the lack of targets for P-51s. Germany certainly didn't have as many pilots as the US did.