P-51 Mustang Vs. Fw 190-Which was Better?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang is an American long-range, single-seat fighter and fighter-bomber used during World War II, the Korean War and other conflicts. The Mustang was designed in 1940 by North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a requirement of the British Purchasing Commission for license-built Curtiss P-40 fighters. The prototype NA-73X airframe was rolled out on 9 September 1940, 102 days after the contract was signed and first flew on 26 October.
The Mustang was originally designed to use the Allison V-1710 engine, which, in its earlier variants, had limited high-altitude performance. It was first flown operationally by the Royal Air Force (RAF) as a tactical-reconnaissance aircraft and fighter-bomber (Mustang Mk I). The addition of the Rolls-Royce Merlin to the P-51B/C model transformed the Mustang's performance at altitudes above 15,000 ft, matching or bettering that of the Luftwaffe's fighters.[7][nb 1] The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650-7, a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 two-stage two-speed supercharged engine, and was armed with six .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2/AN Browning machine guns.From late 1943, P-51Bs (supplemented by P-51Ds from mid-1944) were used by the USAAF's Eighth Air Force to escort bombers in raids over Germany, while the RAF's 2 TAF and the USAAF's Ninth Air Force used the Merlin-powered Mustangs as fighter-bombers, roles in which the Mustang helped ensure Allied air superiority in 1944.The P-51 was also used by Allied air forces in the North African, Mediterranean and Italian theaters, and also served against the Japanese in the Pacific War. During World War II, Mustang pilots claimed 4,950 enemy aircraft shot down.At the start of the Korean War, the Mustang was the main fighter of the United Nations until jet fighters such as the F-86 took over this role; the Mustang then became a specialized fighter-bomber. Despite the advent of jet fighters, the Mustang remained in service with some air forces until the early 1980s. After World War II and the Korean War, many Mustangs were converted for civilian use, especially air racing, and increasingly, preserved and flown as historic warbird aircraft at airshows.
The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (English: Shrike) is a German single-seat, single-engine fighter aircraft designed by Kurt Tank in the late 1930s and widely used during World War II. Along with its well-known counterpart, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Fw 190 became the backbone of the Luftwaffe's Jagdwaffe (Fighter Force). The twin-row BMW 801 radial engine that powered most operational versions enabled the Fw 190 to lift larger loads than the Bf 109, allowing its use as a day fighter, fighter-bomber, ground-attack aircraft and, to a lesser degree, night fighter.
The Fw 190A started flying operationally over France in August 1941, and quickly proved superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force's main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V,especially at low and medium altitudes. The 190 maintained superiority over Allied fighters until the introduction of the improved Spitfire Mk. IX.[4] In November/December 1942, the Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front, finding much success in fighter wings and specialised ground attack units called Schlachtgeschwader (Battle Wings or Strike Wings) from October 1943 onwards. In the opinion of German pilots who flew both the Bf 109 and the Fw 190, the latter provided increased firepower and, at low to medium altitude, manoeuvrability.
The Fw 190A series' performance decreased at high altitudes (usually 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and above), which reduced its effectiveness as a high-altitude interceptor. From the Fw 190's inception, there had been ongoing efforts to address this with a turbosupercharged BMW 801 in the B model, the C model with the Daimler-Benz DB 603, and the D model with the Junkers Jumo 213. Problems with the turbos meant only the D model would see service, entering service in September 1944. While these "long nose" versions gave them parity with Allied opponents, it arrived far too late in the war to have any real effect.
The Fw 190 was well-liked by its pilots. Some of the Luftwaffe's most successful fighter aces claimed a great many of their kills while flying it, including Otto Kittel, Walter Nowotny and Erich Rudorffer.
I just like the look of the 190. It just lives up to its nickname of Butcherbird and looks really aggressive even before it leaves the ground.
I agree with this 4 year old comment
Chuck Yeager said they were equally impressive, so that's good enough for me. I like both, but I prefer the FW-190.
He may have said they were equally impressive, but he never said they were equal in terms of performance, the Mustang was clearly better...
@@jamesbottger5894 nope a fw190 D13 or a ta152 h1 would eat the mustang P51 D for breakfast with mw50 and gw1 and still have an slight edge on the P51 H model
even without having the luxury of 150 octane fuel
But it cant overcome the fact having one crazy idiot up ther that gases his own workers, 3 fronts and additionaly joining an far away enemy that can outproduce you because he is sitting in his bakyard where he doesnt have permanently 24/7 bombardments going on
The US was back then already the Amazon for the war machinery
@@tobiaszistler Eat the Mustang for breakfast is a bit of an exaggeration, but yes, they were better, however, the D13 and TA-152 were produced in such small numbers that Mustang pilots encountering them in combat was extremely rare. The 190 variants Mustang pilots encountered the most were the A model and the D9, and the Mustang was superior to both...
@@tobiaszistler who won the war dumbass idiot
@@Wanous-hv7zo easy do the math
6 nations big nations and 4 fronts vs 1 nations or at least 2 (italy was useless)
And 3 of them have the luxury to not have to fear any bombing threats and can play the amazon for the rest of the alies
It seems that your fiew is very limitided on that poeriod. Lel
FW190 looks and sounds more brutal
It's radial, of course it sounds brutal.
It sounds like an old VW bug, but in any case this 190 probably doesn't have the original BMW engine, I think there is only one of those still flying.
@@j.buggyman7867 like an old VW bug? I guess you should asap visit an ear doctor! 😂
The allies didn't nickname it "butcher bird" for no reason. It earned that nickname one 20mm cannon round at a time.
@@buttzkrieg3919 yeah let’s put 4 20 mm flak cannon on that aircraft
At the end of the day, it comes down to the pilot flying it.
P51 is a high altitude bomber escort fighter, 190 is an all around low altitude fighter bomber. Each would be better in its respective role.
Both beautiful machines, but my Love is for the 190
both great planes but i personally prefer the 190
I love the FW-190’s deadly looking design, but I also love the sleek and smooth design of the P-51... I think I’m voting the biplane. 2:53
They're still both seriously sexy fighter planes, I'm a huge Mustang fan since I was a first-grader, but the 190 was a true badass.
Im austrian, so i of course take the Fw 190.
The 190 was armed with 20mm cannons,much more potent than 50s.
They called em "Butcher Birds" for a reason. Still... Stunningly beautiful aircraft.
I agree... not much to look at on the ground, rather like the Sea Fury, which was undoubtedly based on it. It’s when they take to the air do they transform into beauties 🤭
From a survival standpoint, the 190 would fair better because of it's radial engine vs the inline v12 liquid cooled Merlin in the 51. And the 190 was more heavily armed with 2 cannon besides 2-4 machine guns, depending upon the variant.
By all accounts Kurt Tanks Ta's were awesome. Though I love all the great WWII fighters, the FW 190's and the Ta series are my favourite WWII fighters......Up the Butcher Bird!!
well this clip did not answer the question..................
right. This clip is asking the question. The answer is obsolete. It is over since more than 70 years ago. Today we love them both.
@DevilsNachoz WHO won the war ????? Which side was the Mustang on ????
Wilbut.
The allies won, the Mustang was poor performing and did very little until it had the British Rolls Royce engine and then was better but not that great, just like the US, wait to see who is going to win then join just in time to claim the credit.
@@barrierodliffe4155 You stupid son of a Bitch !!! YOUR EUROPEAN war was NOT "our" war !!!!!!!!!! DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! "WE..." are not in EUROPE !!!!!!!! YOU jumped into a war you could NOT afford, Could not win on your own, nor could you fiance on your own and then the Begging began !!!! Yes "WE....." saved your useless asses and all you can do is run your arrogant BULLSHIT mouth about how great you fukers were !!! At Begging !!!! DUUUUHHHH !!!!!!! IF you fukers were so great you would have needed no help. Obviously you were not that great and the UNITED SATATES of AMERICA dropped what "WE..." were doing, and went to war production and come running and saved your ungrateful asses !!! WHY ?????? To be abused verbally....."WE..." have to ask that question. You sons a Bitches cannot even acknowledge the help you you received !!!! Go rot in HELL you useless pile of green stinking hot BULLSHIT !!!!!
Willy Buthead.
Our war was not your war and we beat the Germans in 1940 without you or any of your second rate aircraft, maybe you forget how Japan and Germany made it your war. Since you cowards were more than happy to profiteer out of the war and everything we got, even when much of it was useless, we paid for.
One thing we never did and never will do is beg.
Since before the end of 1941 USA was doing nothing and it took a year for the USA to start doing anything much. You never did anything like the cowardly moron you are.
We do accept that USA helped but that help came at a high price. and how often we had to save US ass is rather telling.
190 even though the thumbnail was awesome 👏 I’d like that 190 in my garage!!!
The title of this video implies a certain amount of analysis - which is disappointingly lacking. Poor effort.
Agree
yep
soaringtractor said "And they did not even use a real Fw190 for the flight Video !!!"
Please explain.
c jackmond ignore him he's a bellend of the highest order and staggeringly anti British. He thinks the yanks won the war single handedly and the USA built all the Merlin engines. Just ignore him, he's quite rude. Typical obese yank imho
Raymonf Castagnaro - "And, while not single-handed, the Americans won the war with manufacturing, supply, materiel, and manpower. The Brits would have lost by themselves. Accept it." Ahhh, no. First, the British WON the Battle of Britian, and no German fleet was going to cross the Channel alive. About the same time we entered, the Russians stopped the Germans in front of Moscow, and threw them back (well, far enough). Long before we entered the war on the European continent, Russia trapped and forced the surrender of over 250,000 Germans in Stalingrad. The heavy lifting of land warfare in Europe happened in the east. If we had not invaded in the spring/summer of 1944 we would have met the Russians on the banks of the Rhein, not the Elbe. The British alone did not have the manpower to invade France, with us they did. We and the Brits helped a lot, but winning the war alone, nobody did that.
Thank you for posting this great video. Both the FW-190 and P-51 Mustang are great aircraft and just seeing them fly is worth the price of admission!
The P51 had a major flaw. It used a water cooled engine. One tiny piece of shrapnel and goodbye. The Germans largely stayed away from liquid cooled engines. The Spitfire also had a major flaw and that was the carburetor. It got fixed eventually. The Me and others used fuel injection.
It's crazy because the P-51s distinct sound comes from the wind blowing over the recessed gun ports. The FW-190 will always be my favorite
Without any hesitation, the Focke Wulf 190
Ahhh this Fw's engine sound :))))
There is only one operational DB601.... It's a museum piece.....
It's sounds like P&W 2800 DW
Well that depends of variants of both aircraft. The P-51A is with out a doubt inferior the the FW 190A series with the FW having most of the advantages. As for the Packard Roll Royce mustangs the P-51B, C, and D variants, these p-51s have the advantage in speed and performed best at mid to high altitude were the FW A series was 15-25 mph slower and performed best at mid to low altitude. Both have good climb rate and great drive rate, but the rolls royce p-51s were considered to be more agile the FW A series especially at high speeds and higher altitudes. The FW 190 F series were heavier fighter bomber versions of the A series and were easy prey for Mustang pilots. Where things get even is the introduction of the FW 190 D or Dora series. Depending on the Dora variant, the D series was either slightly slower to evenly to faster the the P-51 D series. The Fw 190 D was considered to be superior to the P-51 B&C models and a even match for the D models. It is considered the winner between the FW 190D and the P- 51D was based on the skill of the pilot flying the aircraft.
190 IMO... especially the D "Dora" variant.
Except for the part about the P-51 wiping them from the sky - Dora and Ta variants included - along with all of the Luftwaffe's vaunted Experten. 4,950 aerial, 4,131 ground kills. Other than that yeah, the Würger
rocks. ;)
Would have liked to see the Dora variant to go up against the H variant of the P-51 in 1945.
The "H" model P-51 was vastly superior to the Dora...hell, the P-51D was superior above 20K feet...
James Bottger
Yeah, damn that H variant could clock up to 490 mph
ua-cam.com/video/74nsR6zjXPY/v-deo.html
Definitely two of the prettiest planes to come out of WWII. Along with the Me262 and Spitfire.
Had the privilege and the honor to meet both Chuck Yeager and Gunther Raul. Most of you know Yeager. Raul was a WWll German ace with over 300 kills. After the war he went on to head of the new German Air Force. Both told me if the aircraft were similar in performance it was always the pilot that made the difference.
Who is Yeager? I have heard of Gunter Rall, he had a long career in the luftwaffe during the war and later after the war.
Oleg Molot you met Raul "... absolute legend... ".. tell me some of his insights if you would be so kind... Galland as well would have been a great privellege to have met him also i would think.. I saw a interview were yeager spoke about catching 262's on take off before they got any altitude and shooting them down in his P51 .. A golden age of knights in the Air .. never to come again im sure ... Its is a shame so many a brave man died in flames for the privellege. Rip no matter the Nation brave men one and all.
Günther Rall
Sorry seems like you met no body as you do not even know their names. Show a record of a German Pilot called "Gunther Raul" if you had met him as you brag about you would know his name is Günther Rall, but who cares as long as you are in the lime light hand have something to say. I don´t like barggarts.
I love both these planes but I do have a soft spot for a 109G-14, G-10, or K-4... a comparison using a K-4 vs. Fw-190D-9 or vs. P-51D would be interesting
From the information provided, I think it is comparing a Mustang D with the A series of Focke Wulf - where it should be either a P51 B or C against a FW 190 A5 or A6, or the Mustang D to the FW D9 (the Dora Nine). The later marks of the Dora were possibly the best single engined fighter flown on active service in WWII... providing they had the water boost fitted. Britains best single seat piston engined RAF plane (the Tempest II post war fighter bomber) only beat it in the climbing turn, and was as good or a little worse othewise, but only when water boost was used.. Britain also had the Fury lightweight fighter available, potentially a better dogfighter, but handed it over post war to the Navy to create the Sea Fury. The US development of the later marks of Mustang were more to with range for bomber escort than air superiority, except for the J lightweight version. US philosophy was anything lacking in quality was made up in quantity.... and the base D model was very good indeed. I think a fully equipped Dora with an expert pilot would get the better of any allied aircraft (even the Meteor III) which saw service in WWII, but there was not enough of either for the allies to need to improve what they had in quantity. The 1946 scenario beloved of Luftwaffe fan boys disregards that the P-80 Shooting Star, Meteor IV/V, De Havilland Vampire, Hawker Tempest II, Hawker Fury and the twin engined de Havilland Hornet (another plane that was later navalised) as well as later marks of Spitfire and improved Mustangs would have been their opponents. Although I think the FW ta190 D-12 was the best fighter at war end (the Messchersmit 262 included) allied technology and industrial power would have meant it would have quickly been matched and overtaken had the war continued for even a few months longer.
I clicked on this video for shits and giggles. While I have the utmost respect for the FW190, It's not even close to the beauty and precision of the P51 Mustang! The American air frame with the English Rolls Royce Merlin engine is a match made in heaven! I believe it was Reich Marshal Hermann Göring that looked up in the sky to see P51 Mustangs, and his response was, "We've just lost the war" and he was right! The thing that most people forget about the P51 Mustang was its range, it could fly to Germany and back and dominate the skies doing it! The P51 Mustang is not only one of the best fighters of all time, it's a flying piece of art! All hail the P51 Mustang!
Yes he did say that.!!!!!
Great demonstration videos and thanks especially for not adding any music over the wonderful sounds of these two exceptional engines.
Great footage, thanks for uploading. Both the Cadillac and the Butcher bird were huge technological shocks for the enemy when they arrived on the battlefront: Reclined seat for greater G tolerance/Meredith flow radiator for positive thrust/ammunition counter/laminar flow wings/automatic engine management system/ compensating gunsight...
Playing 'top trumps' with amazing fighters like these doesn't take into account the pilots' inputs. By the time the two aircraft met in the skies over Europe the war was in the latter stages; both sides knew, by then, to avoid getting involved in turning fights. The tactic of boom and zoom reaped the best results so spotting your target first was usually the primary, deciding factor in the duel between axis/allied fighters. My thoughts go out to the pilots who had to go to war in these killing-machines so that my generation didn't have to.
"..The tactic of boom and zoom reaped the best results.."
The Germans already got this at the spanish civil war, thats why no german fighter was designed as "dogfighter"
Thomas Alexander mj
Thomas Alexander mi
Imagine if either side had had the ability to design better pilots, rather than being at the mercy of the genetic crapshoot to produce ability.
Both of them are an excellent examples of great aircraft. The real difference relies in the pilot. Maybe if you put Douglas Bader, Adolf Galland, Egon Mayer, Don Blakeslee or another great ace behind of these cockpit and put them to talk about aircraft performance, maybe they will not be agree but surely find the strengths and weakness of each one. We can't talk about p51 and fw190 because we only know them from games, media or books. We are too young to understand how important were this aircraft and which are really the best.
WOOOWW. If i was a German pilot, I woulg feel confidence by the sound of that engine.
FW 190’s sound is much more badass
I was always told what made the p51 with the rr merlin engine great was because while it was not great at any one thing above all other ww2 fighters but that it was good at alot of things...and that made it so deadly and in the hands of a capable pilot, unbeatable.
Nothing like that whistle of a supercharged Merlin. Beautiful aircraft.
About 20 years ago I had an interesting discussion with a former Luftwaffe mechanic. He pointed out that aircraft had to be customized to their intended roles and the appearance of the mustang left the luftwaffe with a dilemma. Quite simply the luftwaffe fighters were being been built to attack bombers which meant they have maximized firepower and armour which was traded off against slower speed and manouverability and fuel capacity, which was not a problem when attacking heavy, slow bombers. When the mustangs showed up these heavily laden anti-bomber fighters did not have the speed or manouverability to take on the mustang which was configured for the anti-fighter role. The german fighters could be re-configured for anti-mustang role but this left them with a much diminished shooting capability against bombers, which was their main job. I guess the Tank FW190D was built to the anti-fighter role and did not have to be loaded with fuel like the mustang. (Tank was the designer of the 190D).
The mustang was almost identical to the spitfire in dimensions and weight but had been built for low level operations where there was an abundance of lift and air resistance. These were overcome by using thinner wings and the thickest part of the wing was moved back a bit which resulted in much less air resistance but also less lift and manouverability. A mustang was inferior in dog fighting and climb to a spitfire. Another unique feature was that its radiator underneath was designed to create thrust through an adjustable exhaust vent. It was realised that these features gave the aircraft a significantly longer range and speed capability. Swap in a merlin and you have a fighter with exceptionally long legs. The main strategic advantage of the mustang was its numbers and its range.. there were so many of them, they overwhelmed the luftwaffe opposition on their home turf.
that's kinda clear and well-documented.
the Luftwaffe simply did not have an AIR_SUPERIORITY fighter
or enough pilots
or good-enough strategy
or enough material support
to deal with the escorted daylight bombers successfully
But they would have lost the war eventually anyway.
Even if the British and Americans hadn't invaded from the west, the Russians would have crushed them from the East. The simple fact that we *were* bombing their factories (at night) was good enough.
It's still pretty clear that the Allied fighters would have held sway over Europe short of a significantly more advanced jet than the Me-262. It simply had too many combat-deficiencies. It wasn't until the MiG-15 that the Mustang effectively became obsolete and even that is obscured to a degree by the fact that it was Twin Mustangs that flew in the escort role over Korea not the single-seat Mustangs. Whatever they were, the MiGs ate their lunch and forced the USAF to introduce the Sabre...even then the Migs still had a slight performance advantage until the later-model Sabres reached Korea.
Even THEN the B-29 pilots still had to face rudimentary Soviet-made SAMs.
Very little the Sabre pilots could do against that.
World War II[edit]
During World War II, efforts were started to develop surface-to-air missiles as it was generally considered that flak was of little use against bombers of ever-increasing performance. The lethal radius of a flak shell is fairly small, and the chance of delivering a "hit" is essentially a fixed percentage per round. In order to attack a target, guns fire continually while the aircraft are in range in order to launch as many shells as possible, increasing the chance that one of these will end up within the lethal range. Against the Boeing B-17, which operated just within the range of the numerous German eighty-eights flak guns, an average of 2,805 rounds had to be fired per bomber destroyed.[3]
Bombers flying at higher altitudes require larger guns and shells to reach them. This greatly increases the cost of the system, and (generally) slows the rate of fire. Faster aircraft fly out of range more quickly, reducing the number of rounds fired against them. Against late-war designs like the Boeing B-29 Superfortress or jet-powered designs like the Arado Ar 234, flak would be essentially useless.[4] This potential was already obvious by 1942, when Walther von Axthelm outlined the growing problems with flak defences that he predicted would soon be dealing with "aircraft speeds and flight altitudes [that] will gradually reach 1,000 km/h (620 mph) and between 10,000-15,000 m (33,000-49,000 ft)."[4][nb 1]
German efforts[edit]
A Wasserfall missile lifts off during a test flight.
The first serious consideration of a SAM development project was a series of conversations that took place in Germany during 1941. In February, Friederich Halder proposed a "flak rocket" concept, which led Walter Dornberger to ask Wernher von Braun to prepare a study on a guided missile able to reach between 15,000 and 18,000 m (49,000 and 59,000 ft) altitude. Von Braun became convinced a better solution was a manned rocket interceptor, and said as much to the director of the T-Amt, Roluf Lucht, in July. The directors of the Luftwaffe flak arm were not interested in manned aircraft, and the resulting disagreements between the teams delayed serious consideration of a SAM for two years.[5]
Von Axthelm published his concerns in 1942, and the subject saw serious consideration for the first time; initial development programs for liquid- and solid-fuel rockets became part of the Flak Development Program of 1942.[6] By this point serious studies by the Peenemünde team had been prepared, and several rocket designs had been proposed, including 1940's Feuerlilie, and 1941's Wasserfall and Henschel Hs 117 Schmetterling. None of these projects saw any real development until 1943, when the first large-scale raids by the Allied air forces started. As the urgency of the problem grew, new designs were added, including Enzian and Rheintochter, as well as the unguided Taifun which was designed to be launched in waves.[7]
In general, these designs could be split into two groups. One set of designs would be boosted to altitude in front of the bombers and then flown towards them on a head-on approach at low speeds comparable to manned aircraft. These designs included the Feuerlilie, Schmetterling and Enzian. The second group were high-speed missiles, typically supersonic, that flew directly towards their targets from below. These included Wasserfall and Rheintochter. Both types used radio control for guidance, either by eye, or by comparing the returns of the missile and target on a single radar screen. Development of all these systems was carried out at the same time, and the war ended before any of them was ready for combat use. The infighting between various groups in the military also delayed development. Some extreme fighter designs, like the Komet and Natter, also overlapped with SAMs in their intended uses.
Albert Speer was especially supportive of missile development. In his opinion, had they been consistently developed from the start, the large scale bomber raids of 1944 would have been impossible.[8]
...the daylight bombing campaign really wasn't necessary, simple air-superiority over Europe would have accomplished the same thing, though it would have been somewhat more messy. Instead of destroying the factories and killing-off the civilian population with firebombing raids, we would have had to actually destroy more war-material after it left the factories. But that was easy enough to do since the Germans had a tendency to ship it all in an organized manner. We were able to stop Rommel in Africa by taking-out a single bridge. It would have been more of the same. We really need not have invaded Europe at all, just let the pilots and surface vessels have a field-day destroying any ground-targets they could find. Pretty hard to fight someone that you can't even shoot.
The Germans simply did not have the forces to stop either the Russian Army or the American Army Air Force.
Partially due to over-diversification and partially due to political and military in-fighting.
But if they *HAD* gotten their crap together soon enough, the war could have turned out quite differently.
The one thing that all sides learned from this war.
You cannot spend all of your time fighting about what to build and then try to build everything that comes to mind.
And what you do build has to at least be reliable, so it does not require constant maintenance; or expensive and complicated and thus can only be built in small, ineffective numbers. In terms of simple strategy this is where Hitler lost the war.
Mick the Geek.
26 squadrons in total while they had 143 squadrons of Spitfires, If the P 51 was so good why did the RAF not take more of them ad why did they use the Spitfire for many more missions right through to the end of the war, including things the P 51 could not do.
Even the USAAF had 9 squadrons of Spitfire fighters and 4 squadrons of PR Spitfires .
In North Africa though Italy, In France and through into Belgium, Holland and on into Germany the Spitfire was the air superiority fighter for the RAF and USAAF. Spitfires were the plane for attacking V 1 bases which were in France idiot, and also the V 1`s in flight along with the Tempest and Mosquito, the P 51 was not so good at it.
The Mustang was good once it got the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, in other words by early 1944, the Spitfire was good from before the war and still better right through the war.
Spitfires were used for everything, many things the P 47 was hopeless at and the P 51 ok but not in the same class.
Just face it, the P 51 was the best fighter for escorting USAAF bombers into Germany. The Spitfire was the best fighter for everything else.
The P 47 was the biggest, heaviest, most expensive single piston engine fighter ever.
Mick the Geek or Wilbur or is it baracuda. All the same ignorant lying troll.
Poor ignorant Mick the Geek.
The Mosquito did a lot too, after all the USAAF took all they could get along with Bristol Beaufighters and Spitfires.
Poor USAAF pilots having to change from the Spitfire to the biggest heaviest and most expensive single piston engine fighter ever made, it did not accelerate, climb or maneuver like a Spitfire, several planes and pilots found that out the hard way.
The Spitfire often used for dive bombing and hitting small targets deliberately located close to French towns so the USAAF could not bomb them. The V 1 sites in Northern France were well inside the range of Spitfires that were able to fly on long sweeps over France from Somerset to the Swiss border and back or more than 1,000 miles.
Spitfire mk V`s were flying sweeps over France in 1941 and 1942 and the Spitfire mk IX came along in mid 1942, not late 1943 ignorant fool.
The Spitfire MK XIV was there in late 1943.
The Luftwafe stopped the USAAF in 1943, the losses were such that the USAAF stopped all bombing out of range of Spitfire escorts, the P 38 could not go much further and it was not much of a fighter, even the P 47 lacked range and performance until later, the P 51 could not escort anything until 1944.
The reason the Luftwaffe could do nothing much over Normandy was the Spitfires giving air superiority. just like Salerno and Sicily ( well Sicily was Seafires first then Spitfires).
Strange how you try to make up that I hate Americans, as for American relatives, I do have some, quite a few of my relatives moved to USA a long time ago, I just spent a month in the States, I loved it and met some very nice people.
Unlike the anti British liars on you tube like you Wilbut.
You will notice that climb and turns mean more lift. Faster dives and roll rates come from lower drag so you actually confirm my point. In shooting, which I did not discuss, 0.5 cal beats .303/20mm any day. Too many other factors involved to say one is better than the other. You have to specify the conditions before any conclusion about superior performance can be made. It can be said outright that in range, nothing could touch a P51.
FW 190 The “Butcher Bird”
Better violin does not make you better player. Lots depends from the fiddler.
Not a fair comparison! A novice pilot in a P51 Mustang could shoot down an experienced pilot in a FW190 based on the performance and superiority of the P51 Mustang! It was that great of a plane!
@@stevegant7856
Lucky for the USAAF that they did not have to face experienced pilots in the Fw 190, the P 51 after it got the Rolls Royce Merlin had good range and was fairly fast but not much else. Luftwaffe pilots feared the Spitfire but not so much the P 51.
@@barrierodliffe4155You've got to be kidding me Barrie! The reason there weren't many German Pilots left at the end of the war was because they were all shot down and killed by planes that couldn't even touch the P51 in performance, and that's a fact! Not only was the P51 a dominate air plane, so was the P47 and the P38! The "JUG" and the "FORKED TAIL DEVIL"! " The P-51 was something else. It was an awful antagonist, in the truest sense of that word and we hated it. It could do everything we could do and do it much better. First off, it was hard to recognize. Unless you saw it from the side, it looked like a 109. This caused us trouble from the outset. We would see them, think they were ours and then the damned things shoot us full of hole. We didn't like them at all!" Walter Wolfrum Luftwaffe ace.
@@stevegant7856
First the P 51 could not touch the P 51 performance until 1944. According to USAAF pilots the Spitfire was the best fighter in the air, according to Luftwaffe pilots the Spitfire was the most dangerous fighter they ever faced.
The fork tail devil was a work of fiction by a US author in 1957, Luftwaffe pilots called it useless.
@@stevegant7856 The P51 was a great plane. A very good plane with fatal flaws. Liquid cooled engines do not hack it in combat. Besides, it was obsolete when it got to Europe. by that time the Germans were deploying jet fighters. Lucky for us they did not have enough of them and fuel was scarce. We (the Allies) got lucky on several fronts. That new submarine type 21 was a killer too. Silent running, as fast as a surface ship, able to stay submerged indefinitely.
both are good planes, heavily armored and armed but the one the German pilots had most concern for was the Hawker Typhoon with the 24 cyl napier engine and air-to-air rockets. a P51 pilot once commented that his first encounter with the Fw 190 was like flying into a train wreck and his P 51 was the train. my Dad's first cousin was with General Patton's army in Italy and shot down a Bf 109 with a quad 50 bmg. it and an Fw 190 were diving down on an airstrip they were rebuilding. the Fw 190 left the scene and disappeared before he could drill it with the 50. he received a medal for the engagement. he said the Fw 190 made a drumming sound as it approached and that was a scary sound to hear.
The p51 is just amazing as it flys and that whine it makes AMAZING.
Both are beautiful aircraft , classic lines .
Both planes could pull and sustain more Gs than the average pilot could keep up, both were equally fast in the dive, both carried enough armament to take each other out in a burst, and had similar horsepowers at the most often engagement altitudes. That's basically all we know. Hence I assume it would come down to skill and balls of steel.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that videogames were historically correct. Do not take any "knowledge" of them. It's all just models.
The Mustang was faster and better in a dive, 190 was slightly better in a turn and climb, the P-51 had a 4,000ft advantage in altitude over the 190.
The armament of FW190 was superior to P-51. 4x20mm cannons + 2x 7.92mm machineguns vs. 6x 50 cal.
Fw-190 had cannons, where mustang '' only'' had 50.cals right? As a civilian who never ever saw a 50.cal... i was under the impression that thing who can chew up brick walls would eat aluminium thin airplane like its not even trying...but as Warthunder ( i know its a game) depicted...50.cals seems meh. Could it be that they would simply go trough an airplane with limited dmg compared to a cannon's bigger shell would would rip much more doing the same? Im not trying to win an argument here...im not even arguing tbh im just curious as to how '' historically accurate'' Gaijin's Warthunder really is :/
People were hating what War Thunder had done to the Fw-190 D-13. Well, Gaijin explained that they had made the plane historically accurate. So, they changed it to make it more 'fun'.
There was much experimenting after the war with captured D-9's to see how fast they were. Pretty fast was the answer if a cowling seal could be achieved, something the Gemans never did.
That is wrong, the belts were set up differently and the Hispanos were better than these guns due to higher muzzle velocity and rof. now what you and 3 in 5 replies are quoting is videogame "knowledge", precisely what I have warned about... and .50cals were great at killing fighters - high muzzle velocity, lots of ammo, accurate. Slow Minengeschosse were good for hunting bombers. 600-800m/s only.
Fw 190 is a masterpiece
The later versions of the P-51 had 1,695hp when they switched to the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. U can REALLY hear that supercharger SCREAMIN', music to my ears!! Enjoyed the vid. 😉👍👍
I really miss Duxford. It's a lovely, beautiful village. I used to go to the airshow every summer when I lived back home.
I would have lunch and a pint in the pub, then walk down a small road and set my chair up at the edge of a farmer's field above the runway.
The planes flew so close to me that I used to wave to the pilots and I could see them wave back at me.
I remember the first time I ever saw a Hurricane fly. I had always thought Hurricanes were slow, lumbering, inferior fighters that were unappealing. But when I saw one fly, and how fast and agile they were, they blew my mind and I gained a very favourable impression of Hurricanes. I have not, however, seen a FW 190 fly yet (except on this film).
How can you not love the sound of these planes?
by the way, what is that awsome whistling in the Mustang's sound? I have found a lot of more or less well educated guesses about it, many things like coolant scoop, gunport, gun barrel etc
thanx
Perhaps the turbocharger in the engine, is that sound.
Because one of them is a LA 7 engine. Its heresy essentially.
The Merlin is the best sounding piston engine made by man.
does not matter if its in a P51 or a Lancaster bomber. it still sounds the exact same awesome..
most of the sound comes direct from the engine. as there is no muffler... basically the exhaust just vent straight out the side of the engine block. and engine cowling.
and the p51 has a different supercharger than the spitfire. but sounds exactly the same.
so i would say its all engine sound. not peripherals..
i have a friend with a merlin engine mounted on the back of a truck. he starts it just so you can listen to it :)
although you really need the Doppler effect of it moving past you for the coolest sound.
You can buy an app to your phone,which sends the drone of different planes (jets and like DC3 or B17 ) to headphones. Interesting, and very relaxing actually.
The FW 190 fought in dozens of campaigns in many roles and was magnificent. The Mustang had one unique moment of glory... long range bomber escort, late in the war.
Sand Ass Mustangs showed up in England in 1942 !!! DUUUUHHHH !!!!!!! and used until the end of the war !!! Also used in the CBI theater and South Pacific !!! Geeeese dumb ass do the research !!!!!
The P-51 Mustang was designed for high altitudes. That's why they became great bomber escort planes.
@@randycoursey7230 No, the P-51 was designed for low altitudes ground attack, and the P-47 for high altitudes, which is why the P-47 had a turbocharger the size of a small car.... And ended up doing ground attack, lugging that huge thing around for nothing, while the P-51 ended up doing high altitude escort... Like someone said observing this: "It's a wonder we won the war!"
@@wrathofatlantis2316
No, the P-51 D Mustang was designed for bomber escort in high altitudes. My favorite World War II fighter is the Voight F4U Corsair. It was just as fast as the P-51 but it was mainly used for strafing and bombing although Pappy Boynton May disagree. But it did not have the ceiling height of a P-51. It did have the speed however with that Pratt and Whitney 2200 horsepower engine. I actually love all World War II fighters and bombers from both sides. The Corsair had an 11-1 kill ratio. The Gull Wing design makes it my favorite fighter also.
@@randycoursey7230 The initial P-51A was designed for ground attack, and that was the US Army requirement for the initial design. The Merlin P-51s were indeed designed for escort, because the Merlin engine had a good supercharger. It was a last minute cobbling, as evidenced by the added fuselage tank throwing the whole thing out of balance until it was 2/3 consumed. The intentions of designers had little to do with the service outcomes: The FW-190A was intended as an air superiority fighter designed for hit and run at high speed: It ended being the ultimate low speed turn fighter of the Western Front (vastly out-turning Spitfires at low steady speeds), and had absolutely terrible high speed handling. That did not matter however, since low speed flat turns turned out more useful in combat than high speed hit and run (the P-51 was fair at both). High speed hit and run was a 1930s theory that worked well with jets, but did not pan out so well for props.
This video is pretty onesided 3 mins of the p51 and 2minutes of the 190 sitting before the take of with 30 seconds of flight
Diese He 190 brauchten wir mehrere im Kampf. Ein super schönes Gefühl, diese Maschine. 👍
One German pilot said what made going against the P51 so difficult was by the time you realized it was there, it was too late.
It's a tough call. The FW190A's could outmaneuver the P51D, but lacked the speed to run with them. The FW190D's could definitely outrun the P51D's, but could not turn with them. We lost a lot of P51's to the FW190 at their introduction in 1943; Luftwaffe still had many experienced pilots then and this was a deciding factor. As Mustang pilots gained experience and Luftwaffe's seasoned pilots began dying off, any advantage the FW190 had was offset by numbers.
rocketboy.
The Fw 190 A was introduced in 1941, no P 51 around, the P 51 B or C late 1943 and they were not used for escorting USAAF bombers until 1944, the Fw 190 D entered service about the same time as the P 51 D or mid 1944.
The Fw 190 D could not go as fast as the Spitfire which could turn over 200 feet tighter than the P 51 D.
It was the Spitfire that Luftwaffe pilots were most afraid of.
It was the Spitfire that Luftwaffe pilots were most afraid of.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.. Dude.. you had enough time to count Shitfire kills of the Luftwaffe..Try again..
www.luftwaffe.cz/bob.html
Shitfire is the reason why so many Luftwaffe pilots became legendary aces.. lol you stupid fuck ..
rocketman 63.. P51 was LW's nightmare..
Interview with Gunter Rall , one of the all time greatest ...
www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-ace-gunther-rall.htm
I had a very good impression of the P-51 Mustang, where the big difference was the engine. When we received these aircraft we flew about 300 hours in them. You see, we did not know anything about how they flew, their characteristics or anything before that. In the P-51 there was no oil leak, and that was just fantastic.
The cockpits of all of these enemy aircraft were much more comfortable. You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow. The P-51 (cockpit) was for me a great room, just fantastic. The P-38 with two engines was great, but I think the best airplane was the P-51. Certainly the Spitfire was excellent, but it didn’t have the endurance of the P-51. I think this was the decisive factor.
The case closed .......
barfly.
The Spitfire was the fighter that Luftwaffe pilots feared most. The legendary aces had most of their victories against other than Spitfires, many against the P 40, many against Russian fighters.
The Spitfire had more kills than your the 3 main US fighters put together.
You are the most ignorant of trolls. Wilbur soaring etc.
WOW I ALSO LOVE THE SPITFIRE BUT BROTHER IT DID NOT HAVE THE RANGE OF AMERICAN FIGHTERS IT WAS NOT OVER GERMANY UNTIL THE ALLIES HAD FORWARD BASES IN THE LOW COUNTRYS AND EASTERN FRANCE P-51B C AND D WAS THE THE MAIN AIR SUPERIORITY OF THE WAR I NO AS A BRITT THIS HAS YOU EDGY BUT REMEMBER THE P 51 WAS NOT THE P-51 WITH OUT YOUR MERLIN ENGINE 1 OTHER THING WITH OUT AMERICAS INDUSTRIAL MIGHT AND LEND LEASE WW 2 MAY HAVE ENDED A WHOLE LOT DIFFERANT
Pilot skill takes it as both great WW2 fighters !
To end the discussion: give me the two planes. I will fly them and find the answer to you all. (unfortunatelly it will be difficult to give you back the planes, later)
Luck also plays a critical role. With airplanes flying all around spraying bullets through sky, anyone can blunder into the gunsights of another for a lucky shot. Timing is also an issue when there is no air-to-air refueling. The highest-performing fighter in the world becomes a sitting duck when critically low on fuel on final approach. This is why the Luftwaffe eventually lost most of its most prolific aces - even if they were better most of the time, they only had to be worse one time for the Allied numerical advantage to win. Imagine a game of soccer where you have only five players on your team. Even if they are the best players in the world, the opposing team wins if it has 100 players on the pitch and they are allowed to use billy clubs against your players.
The Fw-190 D models were more than a match for a mustang, perhaps superior. If It was an Fw-190 A model, I would say about equal, depending on skill of pilot.
But which one was *really* better??? Really better at the most important thing ... like, performing aerobatics at an airshow????
Neither are aerobatic aircraft, and over the years plenty of restored WW2 fighters have been destroyed by civilian pilots who flew them like they were.
e james
One of the Flugwerk replica Fw190s does fly at Reno now. The wings on the replicas are not as strong, but it will be interesting if someone really modifies one for the Unlimited class some day. I think a Buchon has also been at Reno in the past. Far more Mustangs survived in post-war air forces so they were the natural choice to race at Reno. There wasn't anything German left around and there still isn't much. One interesting note is the Fw190D-13 now on static display at the Flying Heritage Collection. It had a couple of owners during the 1960s before Doug Champlin bought it. One owner was interested in using it as a Reno racer in the late 60s, and they erased all of the history by stripping the original paint down to the metal to apply chromate paint. (There is a photo from that time.) Racing it or modifying it for racing would have naturally destroyed that rare plane so it is fortunate that they did not succeed with their plan.
because there is like one original 190 left thats flightworthy. and very very few rebuilt ones too. Mustangs are there a lot in comparison.
I'm not sure the D was "definitely better" than the Mustang (pilots said it was less maneuverable than the A or 109 but it was faster in speed and climb), but I find it interesting that some of JG26's pilots called it the "Focke Mustang".
The Mustang looked SO much like the Hurricane!!! Side profile almost identical.
the 190 would win but it's missing that "angels on our shoulders" whistle
Excellent graphics for a game--looks just like Duxford.
i like the mustang is just the the fw190 sound like a musclecar and the looks more war machine then the mustang
Piękny widok Fw-190 i ta piękna swastyka na stateczniku..., miodzio!!!
I cannot answer that, but the FW looks and sounds more badass. greetings from germany.
I'm more of an FW-190 guy myself, and I'd say that the P-51 and D9 190 are within the margin of pilot skill to each other, with perhaps a slight edge to the P-51, but the P-51's range is a truly decisive factor. In an even fight they'd do well against each other, but that range means that an even fight doesn't have to happen. The P-51 can just hang around in the airspace and wait for the 190 to run low on fuel and can engage it on decidedly favorable terms.
The correct comparison to a P51-D was the FW Dora-9, which really fought it, put an earlier P51 version - with american developed v12 engine, not a copyed RR Merlin - with a FW 190-D and you'll see which were the better fighter !
But that wasn't the case. The P51-D had the Merlin. To hell with your fantasies.
Gary.
The point is the P 51 D did not enter service until mid 1944, the Early Fw 190 in 1941 or 3 years earlier.
The Fw 190 D entered service around the same time as the P 51 D. The fighters to compare to the P 51 D would be the Hawker Tempest V, Spitfire Mk XIV and Fw 190 D. The Tempest and Spitfire Mk XIV both entered service in late 1943 or before the P 51 D and both had better performance and maneuverability.
Carlos Teutschbei
I liked them both....especially the “D” models.
This question can best be summed up like this. Both aircraft cross the pond. Both aircraft get shot up. Both aircraft suffer shrapnel damage to the engine. Pilot of 51 notices smoke coming from port side of engine and his temp gage is pegged out. The pilot of the 190 notices some missing in the cylinders of his engine and slight smoke coming out starboard side of cowling.
The 51 pilot is still in France. The 190 pilot is just over Dover.
Ten to one the 51 pilot is taking a bath in the pond while the 190 pilot nurse maids his mount back over the pond.
Point: Air cooled engines are vastly superior vs liquid cooled engines like the Merlin. Generally speaking, performance wise, the 51 vs the A model 190 FW. The mustang D and most of its variants had a huge advantage up in the clouds, but on the deck, the 190 would rip the 51 into tiny bits of shrapnel. In the clouds, a healthy 51 with a great pilot could dispatch with a number of 190's if that pilot followed through with his training regarding dog fighting a 190 at altitude.
Otherwise, both aircraft were top of the food chain in the European theatre of operations.
I say that makes them pretty much equal. However, once we see the FW 190 D "Dora" enter the picture, the 51 was outgunned, out classed and lacking at all altitudes. The D was an amazing achievement considering that the Germans were scrambling to keep the war effort from caving in on them. Which eventually it did.
If I had a choice given what I know about dog fighting today, back in WW2 I'd choose the D model 190 over anything regardless of sides or flags etc. Simply the finest aircraft of the war. Statistics will bare that out. 51's, 47's, 38's, were in trouble with the D model FW.
Having said all that. I love all WW2 aircraft save a few here and there. The big F4U Corsair included. The 51 is one sexy looking aircraft, but in a serious all out life or death struggle, you will want a dog with teeth and a very very powerful bite........I'll go with the FW 190 D Dora.🇩🇪
Very well said I would have gone with the TA152H If more of them was put into service! It was faster Climbed better heavy armed Turned like hell and most of all it could climb to 50000 feet! Read about the TA152 in combat!
Specifications (Fw 190 D-9)
Orthographically projected diagram of the Fw 190 D-9
A side view of the NMUSAF's D-9. One can easily distinguish the D-9 model from earlier variants by the extended nose and tail sections, in addition to the exhaust manifolds located near the base of the engine cowling.
Data from[citation needed]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 10.20 m (33 ft 5½ in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Height: 3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,270 kg (9,413 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,840 kg (10,670 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Junkers Jumo 213A 12-cylinder inverted-Vee piston engine, 1,287 kW (1,750 PS, 1,726 hp) or 1,508 kW (2,050 PS, 2,022 hp) with boost (model 213E)
Performance
Maximum speed: 685 km/h (426 mph) at 6,600 m (21,655 ft), 710 km/h (440 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Range: 835 km (519 mi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,370 ft)
Rate of climb: 17 m/s (3,300 ft/min)
Wing loading: 233 kg/m² (47.7 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.30-0.35 kW/kg (0.18-0.22 hp/lb)
The Butcher Birds cannon could reach out and touch the Mustang long before the 50 cal would be in range. Two of the best planes of WW 2
Don Not true !!!! The 50 cal had a longer lethal range than a cannon !!! ! DUUUUUHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
My vote 190
butcher bird!
I specifically think the 190D had potential.
The D series is beyond comparison with the Mustang.
I go with you
soaringtractor the focke wulf in this video is 4 years older than the p51 wich is a lot of time in war. you should compare the Fw 190 D9 (better engine and guns) and the Messerschmitt bf 109 g10( same speed better guns but not so good turn radius) with it and you will see that the p51 has some angry competitors.
Which one was better? For what tasks? Air superiority on high alititude? Attacking heavy bombers? Dogfights on low altitude (which is 99% what happened in the air in the East)? Bomb load and accuracy? Long range bomber escort?
FW190 was better in some of these, worse in others. That's because these planes were purpose built. And Germans armored their planes and made rucksatz - field modifications as the need arose, to fulfill a specific purpose.
Thanks for the intelligent answer. To many people get into these debates through national pride or something like it, forgetting that aircraft are designed for purposes. Would anyone say that a hammer is a 'better tool' than say, a saw?
When everyone in the comment section is an expert in world-war-2-war-era air combat
Brigante
Arm chair generals and historians. Very little if any real research.
That Merlin engine sings I swear, brilliant engineering!
Okay, my follow up....the designer was Edgar Schmued, German-American aircraft designer..he also designed the North American F-86 Sabre ...God; how cool is that? A German engineer designing the "creme de la creme" aircraft for America! It doesn't really make sense...but we gotta love that Kraut...I mean that in a respectful way....thanks Edgar...Goering purportedly said; after seeing those P-51's flying over the Rhine : "the Jig is up", of course that might just be a fable; nevertheless; true!
German quality above everything!
The P51 was a great airplane,however it had the same fatal flaw all liquid cooled engined aircraft had, any damage to its coolant plumbing and it was a LONG walk home.I've always loved WW2 aircraft, regardless of the nationality or political affiliation. American, British, German Russian, Japanese, loved them all. If I had LIVED back then, and still was born an American, I would have either wanted to fly a P47 if in Europe, or a F6F Hellcat or F4u Corsair if in the Pacific. I just trust the radial engines.
one really great thing about p-47 jug it took a 5 kiloton nuke to bring it down lmao
The F7F Tigercat was too late to see combat in WWII but with two radial engines it would seem to have been twice as trustworthy, although it was also a larger target. Bottom line though, any aircraft of WWII was vulnerable to getting shot down by the weapons of its era. Any aircraft light enough to fly is by definition fragile. Pilots owed more to the inaccuracy of the weapons shooting at them than to the ruggedness of their aircraft. Even the very fragile Japanese aircraft were able to dominate the sky early in the war as long as they could dodge the bullets.
Greasy
Or a single hit by a 20 mm, the P 47 and P 51 could not hit a Spitfire unless it was sitting on the ground.
Barrie Rodliffe if the Bf 109 and the FW 190 both Had positive kill ratios against the spitfire, what makes you think the P51 or P47 wouldn't lay a glove on one?
Anyway, everyone knows the Corsair was the best fighter of WWII.
tingles; cherry picking facts again. typhoon wasn't used for ground attack until 1942. P47 was used by USA, Brazil, RAF, Russia, so a hell of a lot more missions. 15,600 P47's built compared to 3300 typhoon's. Since numbers is all that matters to you here are some--SPEED, P47 433 Typhoon 412--RANGE , P47 800 Typhoon 510 RATE OF CLIMB, P47 3180ft/min Typhoon 2740,SERVICE CEILING, P47 42,000 Typhoon 35,200 PAYLOAD, P47 2500 lbs bombs or 10 rockets Typhoon 2000 lbs bombs or 8 rockets. CONCLUSION-- P47 superior to Typhoon. And you seem to be waffling on your numbers, started out with 2800 now down to 2000. Compensating again???
"Which was better?" Such a pointless question when it comes to these things. Better at what?
better at air combat ofc...
Depends on the version of each plane and at what altitude the combat took place. Above 20K feet the Mustang was superior to any version of the 190 and any version of the 109 except for the K model. Our bombers flew at 25K feet, so most of the aerial combat took place above 20K feet. The Mustang's supercharger system was far superior to that of the German planes and is why it performed better up high...
@@necsoiub what kind of air combat exactly? the primary targets for fw-190 at the western front were b-17, and average b-17 took full ammo of 2 x fw-190 (>1000 x 20mm shells) for guarantied destruction, had 13 x 0.50" machine guns, and flied in tight defensive formations. how about p-51D in the role of b-17 interceptor with light armor, liquid-cooled engine, and 6 x 0.50"? p-51 was not just "better", it was better for certain purpose in appropriate conditions, like fw-190 could be much better in different conditions, particularity p-51 would not got many chances against fw-190 in dogfight at middle altitudes due to extremely quick energy lose. when we compared lend leased p-51 against our Yak's and La's, we found that P-51 was useless piece of shit against them. that does not mean that Yak's/La's were just "better" than p-51, they simply were much better in conditions of the eastern front, where most collisions took place below 7000 fts
@@jamesbottger5894 That´s to easy. The 109 K4 outperformed the P51 in all points, but mostly in the climb rate. Today there are two books whose types of comparisons are recognized as generally valid standard works, they are those of the Authors Konstantin Iwanow and William Green.
Green specifies as max. speed above 6000m for P51 703km/h and for the K4 727km/h.
The superiority becomes much clearer with the rate of climb. Iwanow specifies the max. climb rate with 12,4m/s for the P51 and 25,3m/s(!!), above 6000m 8,04 for the P51 and 23,1m/s for the K4. But the very high climb rate of the 109 was not only known for the K-Version, but also for all Types of the 109.
The main disadvantage of the K4 was the difficulty to fly her in comparison with the P51, which cost the lives of many young and inexperienced pilots.
Also the 190 D Types perform very good in high Altitude, they had same max speed then the P51, but also a much higher climb rate.
The Me-109 was not harder to fly: That is a myth. You had to remember to lock the tail wheel on take off and to land on soft ground/grass due to the wheel toe-in to fit the wing: That’s it! It was similar to the P-51 but where the P-51 snaked at high speed it was more stable, however it needed a left foot load to keep the nose from drifting right above 250 mph, and the foot load got heavier in dives. Better than Turns jamming guns on the P-51! Me-109 crashed safer than any other, never caught fire in crashes, which is why pilots got to 300 kills... The Fw-190A was rougher running but a better slow speed turn fighter, hugely important to keep a target long enough with the usual WWII 1% hit rate: Speed made targets less stable so hit and run was not easy. See my channel for more odd real life details.
The best testimony for which aircraft was better, would come from the pilots that flew them in combat, Ive seen interviews with FW-190 pilots saying the only allied fighter they had any real problems dealing with was the P-51, and Ive seen 51 drivers say the only german fighter they were really scared of was the FW-190.
Marvellous! Both planes in original coloures!
My grandpa shot 14 Airplanes down with the 190 A8.
White 1 nobody cares
No P51 Mustangs! Not with that piece of junk he didn't! It leaked oil everywhere!
Hans Joachim Marseille shot down seventeen allied aircraft in one day, in N. Africa while serving with the Africa Corps.
@@thenevadadesertrat2713
Marseille once claimed to have shot down a Spitfire when there were none in the area, he once claimed to have shot down two hurricanes on a day only one was lost, he also claimed six P 40's out of ten claimed by his squadron, slight problem there were only ten P 40's and 5 got back.
@@stevegant7856 i dont get why u are so salty, to start with, the guy who desinged the mustang was german born in usa, and the engine it had was british.
Both were technically magnificent but deadly devices.....Uhhhhhh
Wrong Focke Wulf! > Should be a FW190D for this exercise!
Yes
Mick Dunn absolutely the D was the evolution of perfection given form. With its UMO V-12 and a good pilot more than a match for the mustang.
Absolutely. Not too many built though. There's this great book called Heaven Next Stop, by Gunter Blumertz which is his WWII story of being in JG26 (Adolf Galland's old unit), and irritatingly he never mentions which planes he's flying, but you can do detective and work out by history and his description of how different it looks from his previous plane etc etc that by late '44 he's in a 190D. His thrilling recounts of anti bomber missions and coming up against mustangs make it clear he's in the best plane in every case. Especially altitude and speed. Shoots down a couple of spitfires without too much difficulty. And blows the whole rear fuselage off a B17 so he could see the pilots in there seats from behind. Just a dozen cannon shells or so. This guy is so modest he doesn't mention his final rank (Major), or his kill total (he was an ace).
Oops. Forgot the most revealing incident. He got into a turning fight with a Mustang on his tail and kept turning and turning. With his head almost between his knees to avoid blacking out, after a little while when he looked up, the tail of the Mustang was two feet above his canopy, which means he'd come right around on it. Both planes were going flat out as you always do in such a situation.
But "flat out" in a turning battle usually means a loss of energy, and therefore speed, I have never read of a turning dogfight that lasted more than a short time ending up high and fast. Altitude would be lost in order to maintain energy, unless you had a monstrous power to weight ratio, like the P-38J/L
wikipedia: The P-51 Mustang was a solution to the need for an effective bomber escort. It used a common, reliable engine and had internal space for a large fuel load. With external fuel tanks, it could accompany the bombers from England to Germany and back.[42]
However, the Allison engine in the P-51A had a single-stage supercharger that caused power to drop off rapidly above 15,000 ft. This made it unsuitable for combat at the altitudes where USAAF bombers planned to fly. Following the RAF's initial disappointing experience with the Mustang I (P-51A) Ronald Harker, a test pilot for Rolls-Royce suggested fitting a Merlin 61, as fitted to the Spitfire Mk IX. The Merlin 61 had a two-speed two-stage intercooled supercharger, designed by Stanley Hooker of Rolls-Royce[43] and this gave an increase in horsepower from the Allison's 1,200 hp (895 kW) to 1,620 hp (1,208 kW) (1,720 hp in War Emergency Power) delivering an increase of top speed from 390 mph (628 kph) to 440 mph (708 kph) as well as raising the service ceiling to almost 42,000 ft (12,800 metres).
P-51D on the Inglewood assembly line
Initial flights of what was known to Rolls-Royce as the Mustang Mk X were completed at Rolls-Royce's airfield at Hucknall in October 1942 and after urging from the US assistant air attaché in the UK, Thomas Hitchcock Jr., a similar conversion then took place in the US, leading to production of the P-51B beginning at North American's Inglewood California plant in June 1943[44] and P-51s started to become available to the 8th and 9th Air Forces in the winter of 1943-1944. During the conversion to the two-stage supercharged Merlin engine, which was slightly heavier than the single-stage Allison and so moved the aircraft's centre-of-gravity forward, North American's engineers took the opportunity to add a large additional fuselage fuel tank behind the pilot, greatly increasing the aircraft's range over that of the earlier P-51A.[citation needed]
the later mks of the 190 had a top speed of 465mph and was a hard kill for most allied fighters
it all depends on who is on the stick and rudder really...the TA 152 was one heck of a plane too
The FW 190 fought in dozens of campaigns in many roles and was magnificent. The Mustang had one unique moment of glory... long range bomber escort, from early 1944 to late 1944..
The Fw 190 had cannons and guns P 51 only had machine guns.
Wiilly Buthead.
Sure, the Mustang did a bit in the Pacific, the Spitfire and Seafire certainly gave the Japanese a bad time just like the Spitfire gave the Luftwaffe a bad time, us scarce Limey bastards saved your pathetic asses very often. Duhboy.
The FW 190 only surpassed the Mustang in one thing....the Mustang had the finest engine design in the world at the time...the Rolls Royce Merlin. However, the Mustang was fitted with Merlins built by the US firm Packard. RAF engineers will affirm that "Packard-Built" engines were totally unreliable and sometimes had to be rebuilt to be used in front line aircraft. The Focke-Wulf 190 had absolutely devastating firepower. For example, the famous Douglas Bader insisted that, when he was shot down, he had "collided" with an ME109. In actual fact Bader was shot out of the sky by an FW190. The full blast of a 190 felt like a collision! Check out the testimony of Bader's post war friend, Adolf Galland!
Totally wrong-the Packard built Merlins were much better (the RR built ones leaked oil like a sieve).
The Brits sometimes complained that Packard built Merlins didn't perform as well as RRs, but facts seem to indicate otherwise. Many Packard improvements and innovations were adopted by RR in later production.
Bf 109 you mean.
Actually, while the engine was great in the P-51, it was the superb aerodynamics that made it the legend it became. Remember, the Spitfire MkIX, with the same engine, was much slower and had much shorter range.
Taking delivery of the drawings of the Merlin from Rolls Royce, engineers at Packard discovered that Rolls-Royce did not design the Merlin for mass-production. The manufacturing tolerances were much looser than Packard’s standards and did not meet their reliability standards. The Packard version of the Merlin was so superior in build tolerances, it infuriated old geezer Rolls Royce engineers when they took one apart and examined it - made worse when they found out the majority of the Packard work force were women). Contributions made by Packard engineers actually were specifically designed to improve engine reliability. Packard modifications to this engine included a major redesign of the main crankshaft bearing alloy from a copper lead alloy to a silver lead combination and featured indium plating in order to prevent corrosion caused by lubricating oils that were used at that time. The bearing coating also improved break-in and load-carrying ability of the bearing surface. There were some problems with engine compression blow-by in the beginning however the cooperation between Rolls Royce and Packard soon ironed out all the kinks of the new engine. The P51 and Fw190 were very evenly matched - except for the FW 190's superior roll rate, it far surpassed the Mustang. But the comparison is simply not worth debating. Anybody wishing to debate comparison between "the best" Allied and German WWII fighters should just skip to the Me 262 for which there was no equal.
I have seen countless surveys telling me the FW 190 was the best WWII Fighter Plane! However the P51 was Faster, had a longer range, Climbed faster, and had about the same armament the FW 190 had. Therefore the P51 Mustang was the Best WWII Fighter Plane! Hands Down, no contest and nobody can argue Facts! In Fact it had more Kills and one Squadron, the Black Tuskegee Airman never lost a Bomber to any German Airplane! And they Flew the P51 Mustang!
Very much agreed. Considering the combined characteristics and attributes of speed, range, service ceiling, rate of climb, turn radius, role rate and maneuverability as well as its impacting role in the conflict the P-51 was a better plane than either the FW 190 or the Me 109. Even nut case Hermon Goering was noted as saying that when he saw the P-51's over Berlin accompanying the B-17 bombers, he knew Germany's war gig was on Borrowed Time. If this wasn't so Germany would or could have dragged the war out longer to a more favorable outcome. The P-51 D along with the heavy, rugged P-47 D were knocking Germany's best pilots out of the sky along with the Spitfire Mk IX and later marks. It's also too bad the notorious F4U Corsair didn't see action over Germany. It would have taken on and beat the Fw-190 and Me 109 as well.
@@Anotherway04 I agree with you, especially on the F4 Corsair. In 1979 I was flying a Cessna 310 out of Addison Airport in Texas for the Overhead Garage Door Company. Addison is a Northern suburb of Dallas. There was an old hangar that burned down and destroyed several planes and all of the businesses in that hangar. An instrument shop, Radio Shop and Mechanics Shop. The Corsair Camera plane for the TV series BA BA Black Sheep was in that hangar! All that was left of it were some engine parts and a few nuts and bolts scattered around! It was a huge loss according to the owner of the plane. It was a two-seater. Specially modified to do the job it did for the Series. The guy said the rear gas tank had been taken out and the extra seat and modified canopy installed. I have pics somewhere and you can research that fire and find info on it online. I just looked it up and the plane is shown in a pic with the extra canopy . The plane was GOODYEAR FG-1D CORSAIR Bu.No. 92433.
@@ronmartin3755 A very interesting but unfortunate story. I watched Ba Ba Black Sheep regularly "way back when" and have revisited many episodes on UA-cam and a local retro TV station. I have seen the F4U Corsair fly several times at air shows over the many years along with several other US WW II fighters and airplanes including the B17 Memphis Belle used for the 1990's movie. No Doubt I took and still have many pictures of these great events.
What they did not even mention here was the difference in armament: The P51 only had machine guns (6 of them, cal .50), while the Fw 190 had up to four 20 mm autocannons with exploding ammo, plus two 13 mm (cal. 51) machine guns. While it took the P51 a number of well placed hits to bring down an enemy, due to the greater fire power one or two hits out of a burst did the job for the Germans.
I think both fighter planes were excellent. I think it just came down to the pilot. I would give the edge a little to the Mustang but again the pilots made the difference.
yes exactly. because no matter what anyone says.. P47 Thunderbolts were a deadly aircraft and shot down MANY Fw190s, so did P38 Lightnings and so on, all German fighters show down allied aircraft and visa versa . Mainly the pilots ability, and of course luck. I knew a Thunderbolt pilot. I actually met Paul Tibbets the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, not that that has to do with this topic, but he talked about fighter escort, and the Mustang. the range of the Mustang really was a game changer .
Yup. Depends a lot on the situation as well. These planes rarely fought one on one in isolation in the sky.
Yeah but they were all mustangs .
Gunther rall was not the 2nd highest scoring ace' BARKHORN ' was 'and had he not been laid up for 6 months with a broken back he would have beaten hartmann ' he had 301 kills at wars end.
***** Oh not at all' rall was one of the best
Ironically, both aircraft were designed by Germans...Kurt Tank designed the FW-190 and Edgar Schmued the P-51. Schmued was a German born and educated aero engineer who worked for North American Aviation. He was also behind the design of the Sabre jet.
+Erik Hertzer
He alone didn't design them. He was head of the design team for the P-51, though I am unsure if he managed the F-86's design team.
Nathan Peterson : certainly no aircraft engineer designs alone. He was the lead engineer. He also was the lead manager behind the design of the long-lived Northrop F-5 Talon/T-38 series.
And the Germans selected Hitler to lead, and he declared war on the U.S. and favored Messerschmidts over FWs 'ause Willy was a good Nazi.
Fw190 had better arment than the P51 so I guess Fw190. But really it all depends on the pilot
It was heavily armed so it could attack bombers. the P-51 never needed to attack bombers so the Fw-s heavy armament would just be excess weight. 6 x .50BMG firing API proved to be more than adequate to bring down any Axis fighter.
Unfortunately, The FW 190 is outclassed by the P 51. The performance of the P 51 is superior to that of the FW 190. The jet came too late to save Germany.
Also, whoever is flying Crazy Horse is doing a masterful job.
20 p51 were always better then 1 fw190 (just to reflect the combat situation)
numbers build P 51 15.871 .....FW 190 19.500... German fuel shortage safed P 51 asses
Diving characteristics and superior training (due to fuel to be honest) saved P-51 asses.
Joe Freeman The Ta-152 didn't have an intercooler which meant knocking/pre-detonation and overheating (an issue with all FW-190s excluding the D-9).
The german planes were also optimization for lower speeds, and at 400+ mph all they could do is lock their controls fly in a straight line and only a straight line. There's a reason the Reno Unlimited Gold class racers prefers to modify either Mustangs or Bearcats.
Quite frankly there was absolutely nothing Germany could have done to change the tide of war. They lost most of their men and equipment on the eastern front on battles like Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk.
80% of german loses in WWII in both men and equipment were on the eastern front, and the only thing that the western allies destroyed was the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine.
AMVM that's not true everything the Americans invented in 1986 fancy fly by wire assists etc was already on German planes except 109 etc
Burnt Dog No, there was no fly by wire in the '40s. There were electric engines used in the control of control surfaces, but there were no computers to give them input.
It doesn't really matter which was better. The German's made hundreds, and we made 10's of thousands. Same with tanks. Tigers were great, but they only made 1500. We made 48,000 Shermans. It's like ants on an elephant. The elephant will kill thousands, but eventually will die.
And not just weapons, but also mundane stuff like food, fuel, and supplies. The Allies had every advantage of production and logistics. Both sides could have traded all their weapons and designers at the outset, and the result would have been the same. Perhaps the only thing that could have won it for the Germans would have been a visitor from the future to go back in time and somehow convince Hitler not to make all his mistakes.
Over 30,000 Bf 109, the most produced US fighter was about 15,000, far behind the Germans and British
The Me-109 surpassed all US numbers in aircraft built. Hundreds? Are you joking? They built over 30,000
R u stupid they doesnt make 100s of
Bf109 but thousands. Learn history more
Seumas o'Hairt you know the Tiger wasn't germany's only (not even main) tank right? They had 10000 stug 3s, 1300 Stuh 42s, 6000 panzerkampfwagen 3s, 9000 panzerkampfwagen 4s, 6000 panthers, 500 tiger 2's and ofcourse those tigers you were talking about. Then the US only had about 20000 of those shermans in service in the second world war, and a lot of those were used in the pacific, and another part of them were only used for supporting convoys with troops and supplies or were used for vehicle recovery.
..in assessing which fighters he thought were the best (after 1943) in WWII, Captain Eric Brown commented that there was little to separate the P-51D, FW190D and Griffon engine Spitfire!
Mick Dunn yes someone who had actually flown all three hard enough to know...
captain brown certainly knew a thing or two about it. my opinion was that if you had the better pilot you had the winner. i think the senior german pilots were better flyers, simply based on experience in combat. the major problem they faced, other than overwhelming allied aircraft, was the poor fuel quality they had to deal with. bad fuel limited the full potential of what were great designs.
But doesn't history tell that the Germans were losing pilots at such a rate that they were reduced to sending very inexperienced pilots into battle?
Yes because german pilots weren't after other fighters. They were after the bombers. This made for lopsided kills numbers.
Terry Byford well Germans lost 40,000 Pilots allieds close to 400,000 plus
the p 51 was more nimble. But it's liquid cooled engine was still more vulnerable compared to an air cooled radial one which obviously won't leak coolant when shot. IMO FW 190 was the best balance of armament, drag/maneuverability and armor. While people could say that the dora may be more maneuverable than the p 51, but the A5 did have a better rate of roll. The dora was built more for high altitude bomber intercepting at high speed. Spitfire was still was probably the best pure dogfighter. But the FW 190 was basically a flying tiger tank. So best interceptor=190 Dora. Best dogfighter=spitfire. Best escort figher=p 51
My father was in WWII the was on a B-17 but he loved these little birds.
Both are lovely machines🙏🏻 but not as nice as the spitfire!!😁👌🏻👌🏻
P-40 is even nicer there!
FW 190 ist besser !! ;-)
GWENALLT BOWEN Really the only drawbacks of the Spitfire were its limited range and in early models, weak armament.
GWENALLT BOWEN I like the spitfire to ,german pilots said the same .
Notice how much faster the 190 rolls. It's the superior fighter. Large kill numbers by US pilots had more to do with the fact that german fighters weren't hunting fighters. They were after the bombers. So US fighters escorting bombers weren't the target for german pilots, and were avoided in favor of bombers.
Verified. The FW 190 could out turn anything. A snap turn and hard-over was a favourite tactic
They where bad at turning just using their elevator but they had a fantastic roll rate.
Yeah, but Spitfire pilots had a rude awakening when they went up against Zeros.
Danny boy.
I seem to have trouble finding when the RAF had all this trouble, the Spitfire certainly gave the Japanese a headache in Burma and everywhere else they met.
Barrie Rodliffe I believe it was RAF No. 54 Sqdn that were deployed to
Darwin, Australia to defend against the I.J.N forces in early 1943. Also
to note of interest. In 1942, that was the first time that Spitfires were
deployed outside the U.K. In Sicily, the LW was dug in deep, with the goal
of bombing Malta off the map. Spitfires were to be sent in however the
closest base was in Gibraltar. The distance to Malta was 1,200 miles.
To get the much needed Spitfires that distance, required the Spits be
fitted with a 176 Imp. Gal. fuel tank in the ventral position and were
non - jettisonable. They were then loaded on an aircraft carrier, and were
sailed to the Algerian Coast. The Spitfires then flew a distance of 660 miles. A total of 367 Spitfires were delivered in that fashion. Later during
that period, Spitfires were fitted with 176 gal. aux. drop tanks and flew
the 1,200 miles from Malta to Gibraltar non stop with nary so much as a
scratch. These were Spitfire MK V. The lads did a bang up job. Canadian
Ace " Buzz " Beurling raised Holy Hell while he was there.
There very several variants of the Fw 190 and the latter were vastly superior to the P-51s (that I personally love). The had way stronger engines and could outrun P-51s at all altitudes. Plus better climb and dive speed. Way better armorment, way better roll rate, only a bit worse in turn time. Overall, the late Fws were much better.
Sir I love both planes. I also like history though and not even a year ago I thought the FW 190 was no match for the P51. I do hope though that we wont lose our western world because that is what will happen when we don't start working together more..... :(
You are right, there is a sinister war going on right now against the white peoples. Time to unite!
Yes, we can work together, but we don't have to be forced into one big superstate without the consent of the people! I think both planes are great, by the way!
They might have been a little better at the end of the war... but you also have to consider that the Germans were pretty much out of experienced pilots at that point so they really didn't mean much. Too a certain extent... a plane is only as good as the pilot.
The outcome of the air war over Europe was determined by MANY factors, and the very small qualitative differences between the P-51 and the Luftwaffe fighters was an infinitesimally small component of that.
Corrected title: P-51 and Fw 190 at Airshow
Proper Title: Air show maneuvers of P51 & FW190 plus a few statistics.