Strengths and weaknesses Dora/Mustang

[USARStarkey]

Starkey, I have refrained from saying anything about your last couple of posts but you seem to be on a highly biased anti axis aircraft charge at present. I really hope this is not the case!

 

Just because I disagree with you does not put me on a "highly biased anti-axis charge" do me the favor of not reducing my opinion to a bias, simply because it is consistently at odds with your views. I could easily reduce your opinion on this forum via the same logic, as you have made it evident you are a 190 Fan. Perhaps I should just assume this is entirely unfounded and make sweeping judgments about your character and intelligence based on this. I think not. Instead, I will do your the courtesy of arguing with you on fact for fact level, and not try to reduce your arguments by implying you have ulterior motives. I like a good debate, but once we start making suggestions about each others character and motives, we preclude any meaningful debate because we are already assuming the other is a fool. This is a bias by definition. I am sure you know plenty about the 190D and other planes, so do I.

 

P.S: Note, I am not saying the 190 is inferior or noncompetitive. They exchange advantages at different altitudes, and will be good opponents. A great deal rides on how ED modeled the Dora's engine. I will be very upset if that thing puts out more than 2100bhp.

 

Regardless of performance however, it has to be noted that the Dora entered the war so late that it really wasn't all that important.

 

"Dietmar Hermann summarized FW 190 D-9 performance as follows:

 

I haven’t read or heard that the D-9 was tested with the Jumo 213 and C3 fuel. I know that at the beginning of development Focke-Wulf made a distinction between the normal Jumo 213 and the Jumo 213 with 100 octane fuel. I think that there was not a problem with the engine; rather there was a problem of the fuel’s availability. In my book I have published one chart from 3.1.45 (page 154) showing FW 190 D-9 performance with B4 fuel with MW 50 injection operating at 2,02 ata (Sondernotleistung ). However, I have no evidence showing that 2,02 ata was enabled by the end of the war. I think that the D-9 was flown either with the 1900 PS update or with MW50 injection (2100 PS).

The development announcement of the D-9 said that all D-9 were delivered with the ETC 504 and the 170 l or 300 l drop tank (Entwicklungsmitteilung Fw 190 D-9, Blatt XV b2 and b3 from 31 May 44 and renewed at 20 June 44). The first test report of FW 190 D-9 serial number 210002 states that the D-9 lost 8..10 km/h. with the ETC 504 and the fixed wheel flaps (delivery condition).

 

From Fw 190 “ Long Nose” , pg 103: “Focke-Wulf conducted experiments with a Fw 190 D-9 (WNr. 210 002, TR+SB) in an attempt to further increase the performance of production aircraft. Gaps in the engine cowling fore and aft were sealed with rubber. In the course of these experiments an increase in speed of 17 km/h was achieved at combat power. Focke-Wulf subsequently advised the manufacturing plants to pay special attention to proper sealing of the engine compartment pending approval by E-Stelle Rechlin. Rechlin rejected the idea of rubber seals for the engine compartment, however.”

 

D-9 production aircraft did not have the slit sealing (engine gap seal). I have the information from a document named "Lfd. Entwicklungsarbeiten Fw 190/Ta152" from 8.1.45 updated 20.3.45 with the handwritten statement "24.3. Rechlin lehnt ab!". So I think that this was the expected answer about the previous troubles during the Focke-Wulf testing. (Test report No. 3 of Fw 190 D-9 210002 dated 24.10.44 shows a 13 km/h difference at SL operating at 1.8 ata between aircraft with sealed and unsealed engine gaps (595-608) - Ed.).

 

Flight Report Nr. 4 of Fw 190 D-9/210002 presented the following results: Operating at 1,75 ata, a maximum speed of 606 km/h (376 mph) at ground level was obtained. The maximum speed in the first gear was 650 km/h (404 mph) at 2,7 km (8858 ft.). The condition of the aircraft was as follows: D-9 production condition with methanol installation, surface smoothed/primed and polished, seams & cracks sealed, operable wheel flaps, gap at engine sealed (D-9 Serienzustand mit Methanolanlage, Oberfläche gespachtelt und poliert, Spalte abgedichtet, bewegliche Radklappen, Spalte am Triebwerk abgedichtet.) These values did not quite reach the characteristic curve from the comparison dated 15.12.44.

 

So we can state: D-9 without engine sealing - 15 km/h; with ETC 504 + fixed wheel covering about -10 km/h. This indicates that the D-9 reached the following speeds - minimum:

 

606 km/h (377 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection and engine sealing; without ETC 504 and variable wheel covering.

591 km/h (367 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection; without engine sealing, ETC 504 and variable wheel covering.

581 km/h (361 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection, ETC 504 and fixed wheel covering; without engine sealing.

With 1900 PS engine set up:

 

578 km/h (359 mph) at sea level without engine sealing and variable wheel covering.

568 km/h (353 mph) at sea level with ETC 504 and fixed wheel covering.

Hermann wrote of testing the Fw 190 D-9 in his book Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose":

 

In the beginning only the Fw 190 V17/U1 and Fw 190 V53 prototypes were available for extensive flight testing. The V53 was used for performance trials at Lanenhagen. For the most part these confirmed the estimated performance figures. The V53's armament initially consisted of two MG 131 machine-guns in the fuselage, two MG 151 cannon in the wing roots and two MG 151s in the outer wings. This was the armament originally planned for the production D-9s. The outer wing cannon were later removed. The V53 was painted in a standard camouflage finish. At a gross weight of 4070 kg with ETC 503 external stored rack, the V53 achieved 555 km/h at ground level at 3,250 rpm (emergency power). During flight trials the V53 was involved in a heavy forced landing. It was subsequently repaired, but for safety reasons it was limited to low-level flights.

When production began, aircraft from the production line joined the test program. The first and second aircraft from the Sorau production line were flown to Langenhagen to participate in series testing. Werknummer 210 001, manufacture's code TR+SA, made its first flight on 31 August with chief test pilot Hans Sander at the controls. On 7 September 1944, just a few days after the D-9 arrived at Langenhagen, the first case of engine trouble was encountered after just four hours flying time. This aircraft underwent four engine changes by 9 January 1945. Even the Jumo 213 A had teething troubles. The second aircraft, Werknummer 210 002, TR+SB, followed on 15 September 1944. The aircraft was piloted by Hauptmann Schmitz on its initial flight. These two production aircraft were used by Focke-Wulf at Langenhagen for long term testing until March 1945. While 210 001 was to have been made ready for delivery to the Luftwaffe in March 1945, 210 002 was scheduled to take part in further performance trials.

 

The fourth production machine, Werknummer 210 004, TR+SD, was assigned to the E-Steel Rechlin, but crashed there on 25 September 1944. The exact cause of the crash remains a mystery. Another Fw 190 D-9, Werknummer 210 007, TR+SG, which had been used for static and air gunnery trials at Tarnewitz, was assigned to Rechlin as a replacement. On its arrival at Rechlin, however, 210 007 made a crash landing (10% damage) and subsequently had to be repaired. Rechlin was subsequently assigned the sixth production aircraft for further testing.

 

The ninth production aircraft, Werknummer 210 009, TR+SI, was flown from Sorau to Langenhagen on 18 September 1944. After just a few test flights, on 26 September this D-9 was transferred to Jumo in Dessau to serve as an engne test-bed. Flight tests were still being carried out there in March 1945, including some with four-blade VS 19 propeller that was to be used on the Ta 152 H.

 

It was originally intented that two aircraft should be converted to test the Fw 190 D-9 with the MW 50 system. The company planned to convert Werknummer 210 002 at Langenhagen and Werknummer 210 048 was equipped with the system in Sorau. The machine was supposed to go to Rechlin for testing of the MW 50 system, however, it crashed at Sorau while on the third flight. Pilot Finke was killed. In spite of this, testing of the MW 50 system continued on the ground. Interestingly, the special tank was filled with water only, as no methanol was available. Estimated maximum speed at ground level without methanol-water was 540 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.5 atm of boost. With methanol-water, maximum speed at ground level was 585 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.76 atm boost. In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Oldenburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944.

 

Hermann noted the following points regarding the Fw 190D-9's operational history:

 

The first thirty production aircraft were delivered to the unit (III./JG 54) at the beginning of October 1944.

[...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction.

 

The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.

 

[...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers.

 

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *"

Edited August 5, 2014 by USARStarkey

[*Rage*]

D9 pilot here....

[NineLine]

Just because I disagree with you does not put me on a "highly biased anti-axis charge" do me the favor of not reducing my opinion to a bias, simply because it is consistently at odds with your views. I could easily reduce your opinion on this forum via the same logic, as you have made it evident you are a 190 Fan. Perhaps I should just assume this is entirely unfounded and make sweeping judgments about your character and intelligence based on this. I think not. Instead, I will do your the courtesy of arguing with you on fact for fact level, and not try to reduce your arguments by implying you have ulterior motives.

 

OMG guys... stop... just stop...

[SimFreak]

I think you guys will find that Dora pilots wont take long to catch up to their Mustang counterparts, she is a dream to fly ;)

 

Yeah, Pretty much what AI does now, humans will do better. Climb and come from above.

[beaupower32]

Im looking forward to it, should be a blast shooting pony's out the sky.

[Merlin-27]

There is only one place to settle this argument... I need to log into the DoW server now :)

 

Sith, sounds like a splendid plan. :thumbup: I concur, the Dora is a blast to fly & fight with. There is no doubt in my mind that some will love her and some will hate her. Either way, I'm happy to end my run of shooting down Mustangs while flying a Mustang.

[ericoh]

Lets settle this in the sky. In 2 days at this time. See you in the air! :D

[shagrat]

Sorry, you misunderstood. ME was trolling here, and I absolutely agree the Spit was by way the best dogfighter in terms of maneuverability, handling and balance... apart from teasing with my first statement I still believe that it is not so much about "superiority" of plane characteristics, as it is about using these characteristics to your advantage.

And I would not go the way to compare DCS AI with a human pilot.

We will see how the Dora handles in DCS and if it is a match for the Mustang and the Spit sooner or later.

Just because some people give negative comments just doesn't mean others won't love the plane and write positive.

If you would ask me about game controllers and how they perform I would have pretty bad comments about an Xbox controller or other Gamepad... others may find my personal opinion totally useless and will praise the same controller? So what does either statement say about the ability to fly a plane in DCS with an Xbox controller? Bottomline some people will fly better with an Xbox Gamepad, others will be better with a HOTAS. You can't generalize any parties statement.

[USARStarkey]

I hope this doesn't take 2 days

[SAM77]

It won't just keep crapping on and disregard what Eric Brown said.

 

Jingo

[Krupi]

When I get home I will post pilots accounts with references that say the polar opposite.

 

Pilot accounts from The Fw190 Dora Volume 1 by Jerry Crandall...

 

Firstly Gerhard Kroll reviewing the american Dora test...

 

 

 

Hans Dortenmann's Diray Extract:

 

 

Various Pilots: (Mixed opinion vs Anton)

 

 

 

Otto Klienert: (Thought the Anton turned better)

 

 

 

Werner Molge: (Thought the Dora and Anton had similar manoeuvrability)

 

 

 

Ossenkop's Opinion Vs Allied Fighters:

 

[cliffy229]

Thank you for sharing those accounts Krupi, really enjoyed reading those.

[Krupi]

No problem, I just hope I don't annoy anyone by posting photos from the book ;)

[NineLine]

You annoy me because I want that book :P

[Narushima]

Ty Krupi. Good read.

[Krupi]

You annoy me because I want that book :P

 

That was only extracts from one of them :smartass:

 

Tell you what, I will give it to you if you give me access to the Dora Test Module :devil_2:

[NineLine]

That was only extracts from one of them :smartass:

 

Tell you what, I will give it to you if you give me access to the Dora Test Module :devil_2:

 

If I had that kinda power I might... but I am sure you will have yours before the books get out your door :P

[DB 605]

You annoy me because I want that book :P

 

Go for it, it's MUST have for all Dora fans. No cheap but definitely worth of.

[NineLine]

Go for it, it's MUST have for all Dora fans. No cheap but definitely worth of.

 

Yes from what I have seen from Krupi they look really good... although I need to start focusing my thoughts on the Kurfurst now ;)

[Grim_Smiles]

Sith, sounds like a splendid plan. :thumbup: I concur, the Dora is a blast to fly & fight with. There is no doubt in my mind that some will love her and some will hate her. Either way, I'm happy to end my run of shooting down Mustangs while flying a Mustang.

 

Hey Merlin, do you guys have missions setup with 190 slots on the DoW server in advance of the Dora release? Or will it take time to change things to make those playable slots?

[USARStarkey]

Pilot accounts from The Fw190 Dora Volume 1 by Jerry Crandall...

 

Firstly Gerhard Kroll reviewing the american Dora test...

 

 

 

Hans Dortenmann's Diray Extract:

 

 

Various Pilots: (Mixed opinion vs Anton)

 

 

 

Otto Klienert: (Thought the Anton turned better)

 

 

 

Werner Molge: (Thought the Dora and Anton had similar manoeuvrability)

 

 

 

Ossenkop's Opinion Vs Allied Fighters:

 

 

Gerhard Knolls Comments:

 

First paragraph: purely speculation, it could have been a lemon. It might have also have been the best 190D ever built.

 

Second: Makes no reference to any specific characteristic, namely turn. The 190 was a good plane no doubt. Doesnt mean it turned better than the 51.

 

Third: This doesn’t even make sense. The test pilots having more time to play with the plane would have made their test more accurate than tests with random pilots without much experience in a near endless list of tactical situations. If anything, having more than 6 hours of flight time would have allowed the test pilots to push the plane to its limits.

 

 

Pilot Impression pic:

 

1. Pilot claims 109 less agile, not a 51. And before you start talking about how the 109 was so much more agile than the 51 due to conventional wisdom, there are people who will have your head for claiming the 190 was more agile than the 109. However, you and I actually agree here

 

4. Pilot claims the previous 109 and 190 were more agile. This is in line with my assertion regarding the A series and D series, so I have no issue here.

 

 

Next Pic: As you noted, this pilot thought the Anton turned better.

 

 

Next: Stated they had similar agility. I never said the difference was large.

 

Last: Comparison to mustang says A-8 was similar in “combat maneuvers” and that D-9 had slight advantage. Combat maneuvers could mean anything. It does not specifically mention turn rate or radius, or any metric for that matter.

[NineLine]

A lot of these reports because purely based on the individual pilot and their skill level, it all has to be take with a grain of salt.

 

A pilot not as comfortable with pushing his aircraft to the limits wont get the same results as one that is. You will see this in the sim as well, some sim pilots are better than others getting the most out of their aircraft.

 

There will be P-51 pilots that absolutely destroy the 190 and vise versa...

 

Gerhard Knolls Comments:

 

First paragraph: purely speculation, it could have been a lemon. It might have also have been the best 190D ever built.

 

Second: Makes no reference to any specific characteristic, namely turn. The 190 was a good plane no doubt. Doesnt mean it turned better than the 51.

 

Third: This doesn’t even make sense. The test pilots having more time to play with the plane would have made their test more accurate than tests with random pilots without much experience in a near endless list of tactical situations. If anything, having more than 6 hours of flight time would have allowed the test pilots to push the plane to its limits.

 

 

Pilot Impression pic:

 

1. Pilot claims 109 less agile, not a 51. And before you start talking about how the 109 was so much more agile than the 51 due to conventional wisdom, there are people who will have your head for claiming the 190 was more agile than the 109. However, you and I actually agree here

 

4. Pilot claims the previous 109 and 190 were more agile. This is in line with my assertion regarding the A series and D series, so I have no issue here.

 

 

Next Pic: As you noted, this pilot thought the Anton turned better.

 

 

Next: Stated they had similar agility. I never said the difference was large.

 

Last: Comparison to mustang says A-8 was similar in “combat maneuvers” and that D-9 had slight advantage. Combat maneuvers could mean anything. It does not specifically mention turn rate or radius, or any metric for that matter.

[shagrat]

As I said, everything pure personal experience/oppinion from lots of different pilots. That applies to your sources as well...

So rather claiming superiority for one or the other we could agree that each had its unique characteristics but in the end they were quite a match for one another, if the pilot did know his aircraft?

It is like asking what plane would win a guns only dogfight in a SU-27 vs. F-15C scenario... ?

[fjacobsen]

Ask two people to evaluate the exact same car, and they will tell different stories. Some prefer Ford Mondeos others rather like Volkswagen Passat and none of these cars, objectivly seen are more bad than the other in any regime.

 

It´s the pilot more than the aircraft that makes the difference, allthough they need to be approximately in the same league (Don´t compare a Ford Galaxy with a VW UP !).

 

 

FinnJ

[Krupi]

I agree with what has been said here.

 

It was very much down to the pilots experience and willingness to throw his crate around so yes a grain of salt is indeed needed.

 

That said I find Gerhard Kroll's review of the Americans report quite interesting... obviously some things like vibration and braking performance etc... depend entirely upon what the pilot was used to and therefore deemed acceptable but Kroll does raise some good points on the potential state of the test aircraft.

 

I am not claiming that the Dora was superior to the P-51, in fact before read through these books and accounts I thought the P-51 held the advantage, now I believe them to be a very close match.

 

Still at the end of the day the biggest factor is luck and who spots who first and then takes advantage of the situation... fight or flee :)