P-51 Mustang Out-Turned by Fw 190 D-9? Yes, This Happened But...

Please Support This Channel: www.patreon.com/GregsAirplane... Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com/

My German books on Dora units point out there were few experienced pilots that could fly Dora to its max.

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.

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.

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 ❤❤❤

Pilot and engineer here. We like it when you do the math.

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.

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....

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.

All these well researched and produced videos. Greg, when do you find time to fly?

Greg, as always, you are insanely informative and entertaining.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.