Not true, the 190 D models were better than the Mustangs. The D-9 was faster and had a better rate of climb. As mentioned, Germany was short on pilots, had crap fuel and were outnumbered in the skies.
not true.......... other than the lack of gas and pilots.
The D-9 was a great plane, but I don't think it was better than a P-51D. The war winning attribute of the P-51 was it's range and the fact that it could take the fight to the enemy. For our purposes, the P-51D was a FAR superior overall fighter.
In a 1v1 scenario, they each had unique characteristics, but no one characteristic to make one stand much above the other.
Edit: on a related note, met a guy who owned a P-51D and an F4U. They would dogfight them. He said they were very different, and as long as you used the strengths of the one you were in you could avoid getting beat by the other. Great to listen to him talk about those aircraft.
To that I suppose you have to add all the other factors like optimum performance altitude, roll rate, acceleration, ease of handling, maximum diving speed, handling during recovery from a dive and "zoom" rate. IIRC they could all turn hard enough by that time to black out the pilot.
And also perhaps the Ta 152 was the "real" last of the Fw 190's...
Kurt Tank was flying an unarmed Ta 152H in late 1944 to a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus when he was advised by ground controllers of the presence of two P-51 Mustangs, which were on a course heading directly for Langenhagen airfield. The two Mustangs appeared directly behind Tank and would have otherwise caught him, given the planes difference in airspeed, but he escaped by applying full power and engaging the MW 50 boost. As Hermann reports, "[Tank] quickly pulled away from the Mustangs, which had been closing rapidly, until they were no more than two dots on the horizon.
Maximum speed: 472 mph at 41,000 ft Range: 1,240 mi Service ceiling: 49,540 ft Rate of climb: 3,937 ft/min Armament: 1 � 30 mm MK 108 cannon, 2 � 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
Thank you for the post Birdwatcher, if you click on You Tube on the lower right corner of the You Tube window there are some equally outstanding videos of other WWII Aircraft doing their thing!!!!!!
I got lost looking at those Videos as well.
Great post as I never get tired of looking at those aircraft from that era in our history.
Great post as I never get tired of looking at those aircraft from that era in our history.
Me either, and on a related note, I have found that Wikipedia does an outstanding job inside their acticles linking pilot names to units, aircraft, and other pilots. One can spend considerable time just browsing the links to read about the careers of many pilots on both sides.
Anyways.....
Here's some great footage of a guy flying a replica 190, while I know actual Spits, Mustangs and P-47's could provide similar footage, the video does give an idea of the handling qualities of a WWII era warbird. Note the excellent visibility too.
Worth recalling that for a whole year, August '41 to September '42, the allies really didn't have anything to match the Focke Wulf in combat, the Hawker Typhoon (which could outrun it at low altitude) being rushed into service in an attempt to match it. Maybe a whole 'nother year after that before comparable allied fighters had the range to challenge it deep inside Europe.
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
I'm finding some of the best places to find out about warbird performance is on the flight simulator game sites where guys have apparently spent much time researching actual data and accounts.
With regards to "whose plane is better", in this case P-51 vs German fighters this was a particularly pithy comment....
1. Pilot training, skill and experience. 2. Detecting (seeing) the other guy first. 3. Being higher, faster and in a good position 4. Being able to shoot straight 5. Luck
Relative aircraft performance is way down the list.
The bottom line: Most military pilots are egotistical blowhards (I count myself in that category). The ones who get to give accounts of their exploits are the ones who survived them. Their plane out-turned, out-climbed, out-gunned and outran the enemy, because if it hadn't, they wouldn't be around to tell the story.
Their claims concerning aircraft performance don't necessarily make them true, although if you read between the lines in the Bud Anderson interview, you will get a glimpse of the reality.....
The way to shoot down an enemy is to sneak up behind him and do him in with a close-up non-deflection shot. Something like 80% of the kills in WW-2 were from non-deflection shots.
If you want to fly the P-51 in the game more as it was in real life, fly 8:1 numbers against rookie A/I climbing up from 10,000 feet below and set to attack bombers.
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
![[Linked Image]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t1.0-9/s180x540/532227_701629896563809_1743684631_n.jpg)