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

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 ❤❤❤

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.

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

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

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's a story about how Kurt Tank, the designer of the FW-190 took a high altitude version of this airplane called a TA-152 to a factory. En route, he was "jumped" by a couple of P-51's; He simply turned on the water-methanol injection system on his Junkers Jumo engine and pushed the throttle to the end of its travel. He left the Mustangs in the dust....

I 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

There was an article on the P-38L which said that it could out turn a P-51D as well. The pilot had to slow the engine inside the turn and speed up the outside engine. This could be done by a very experienced P-38 pilot understanding and using some complicated engine management.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Some thoughts: Most of the time the P-51 tank behind the pilot was used to climb to altitude because it made the P-51 close to unstable. One thing you left out is stick force. If you don't have the strength to pull max g, you will be out turned if the enemy can pull max g at higher speed. This is why the Escape Maneuver worked against the Zero. And also to a lesser extent with a Hurricane vs Bf-109 (109's had a short stick so it didn't have the leverage to deflect the elevator at high speed). Another factor is weight distribution. The Dora was stretched to accommodate the longer engine. They then added a Radiator with it water in front of that. To compensate, they added weight to the tail. This causes a inertia issue. My old brain can't remember what this is called (inertial roll decoupling???). I think of the Dora as a pure Boom and Zoom fighter and the Anton as the Dogfighter.

Greg, Did you know that the FW190 including the D used NACA airfoil 23015.3 root 23009 at tip. All Beechcrafts used the 23000 series airfoil, Bonanza used 23016.5 and 23012. If you research NACA 23000 series appears to be the most popular air foil ever. I could go on, but this is most interesting, Douglas, NAA, Lockheed even RV's used this airfoil series extensively.

Taking the time to be greatful is something we should all do. Glad to hear you did!

I think that quite a few fighters from that period qualify as hotrods, and infact the Spitfire is probably the most deserving of the title, as it did so in 2 different forms: 1)In it Merlin evolutionary path, it went from ~1000hp to ~1700hp in a relatively short period of time, by using improved fuels/ increased boost, newer tech Superchargers etc. Shame these Spits never got the 2000hp Merlin 130 series, that would have been quite a thing in the mkviii airframe. 2) replacing the Merlin with the Griffon on the mkxii, xiv and later marks. 'No replacement for displacement'. Massive power from an additional 10l capacity. The coolings on these aircraft, shaped to fit the rocker covers of the Griffon, are pure hotrod.

The instance that I read that really highlights that encounters need to be taken with a big pinch of salt, Was of a German wing commander (?) who was ordered to use every available aircraft, even the 2 that barely flew, He took one, and his next most experienced pilot took the other crate, The other pilot barely managed to take-off before stalling and crashing His plane wouldn't climb above a certain altitude (I can't remember if it was 10,000 feet or 20,000 feet) due to a supercharger issue, He was promptly shot out of the sky, though he still managed to shoot down that aircraft that didn't manage it's closure (and so overshot and ended right in front of him) So whilst THIS example may be an extreme example of the factors that come into play, it does highlight the fact that there are so many things at play, That pilots individual accounts need to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

Greg, you remind me of a story I heard, as a youngster. It struck me at the time as odd. I was maybe 12 years old. By the time I grew up and thought about it again, I realised the person re-telling that story, simply drew completely the wrong conclusion about it. I should also add, I don't know that this story is true. I have heard slightly different versions of it, but no exact names, no exact dates, no exact locations ~ Stranger tells me a Mustang is not even close to the agility and turn ability of a Zero. He has anecdotal 'PROOF'. Most Japanese combat pilots with any experience, didn't survive the war. A few 'pilots' were captured, taken prisoner, but mostly they were very young and had 50 hours or less in a Zero. Story goes, they captured one who had hundreds of hours, and I think a few combat victories. He also spoke English, albeit not very well. So some time about December 1945, some months after VP day, they bring this guy to a base that has Mustangs. They know who he is. He asks to have a close look at one, and after inspecting it, he asks if he can fly it. They agree to unload the guns, give him about a half hour of fuel, and let him fly it ~ with an armed escort. He flew around for perhaps ten ~ fifteen minutes, then from about 5,ooo ft, rolled inverted, and pulled through. He didn't make it. The conclusion drawn by the story teller, was that a P51 can't roll and pull through from 5,ooo ft. Our Zero pilot was used to doing that from less than 3,ooo, and simply got caught out. The conclusion I drew (later) was he wanted to end his life with honor, by destroying one more American combat aircraft, from the cockpit. I don't know what the minimum height is you could half-roll a Mustang, but I doubt it's very much more than 2,ooo ft. It would depend somewhat on the speed at which you started, but ~ I think even at 400+ mph, a P51 should be able to pull through pretty easily from 4k or less. The point I'm trying to make, is people have a tendency to draw conclusions from things, like stories told around the camp-fire, that are completely incorrect. Even at 11 ~ 12 years old, something about that story didn't seem right to me, but by the time I was a grown-up, I realised how wrong the 'Moral of the Story' I'd been told, was. People (at least the one who told me) had heard the tale and drawn completely the wrong conclusion from it.

Excellent as always! On a side note, I love to fly the Anton in DCS, and can have quite good results with it. I came to the conclusion, people who fly allied types believe the 190 is an absolute piece of poop! Which then gives them the impression they are invulnerable and cannot be touched.......This is the 190 driver's foot in the door.

Nice analysis. A couple possible factors in a combat encounter between these aircraft; you did mention that these charts apply to a coordinated level turn, which could very likely not have been what either aircraft, particularly the attacking aircraft, was flying- the Dora pilot may have had some amount of altitude advantage at the time, and allowed some of that to bleed off to help out the maneuver temporarily. Also, did you mention the weather prevailing at that encounter? I recall some aircraft with laminar flow airfoil wings can lose more lift in rain than one with a more conventional airfoil might. That's maybe a red herring here, just something I remember.

I'm not quite sure how angle of attack affects prop efficiency or thrust vector, but at its stall angle of attack, the aircraft will have some thrust pointed down. The Il2 aircraft stats page claims that the stall angle of attack for both aircraft are around 20 degrees. If you do some trigonometry, you'll get around 35 percent. This approach to calculating thrust vector components is mentioned in the Glenn Research Centre's Beginners Guide to Aeronautics website (Thrust * sin(angle)), and other publications. I wonder if it's applicable to thrust generated by the propeller, or if there's other things to consider (like the propeller thrust vector getting all weird at high aoa). Anyway, any such effects would benefit the Dora the most in this comparison, because of its higher power and lower weight, assuming this interpretation is correct.

Well, I would ride a FW-190D if I had a choice. But, I'm crazy like that. I still like P-38s over 51 and 47's.🤪🛩️

Two German designed fighters dueling. You certainly know your stuff.

Excellent Greg! I also enjoyed the P47 drop tank content. I hope you're doing well, sir.

Great vid Greg. Love these kinds of vids, crunching numbers from the manuals.

Best channel on this subject matter on RU-vid

What Dora is on thumb nail of video ? This gun configuration is not something you see on "common" Dora aka D-9, D-12, D-13. 4 guns in the wings, two per wing is something new to me. And off curse thanks for another great video ♥

I learn so much from these videos. Love how you are able to explain these complex things.

As it says in the Dicta Boelke, secure any and all advantages you can before starting a fight. Altitude, speed, positioning, etc.

Thanks for posting this and sharing Bill's episode Greg! As always, very informative.

Great information as always!

Another interesting off-shoot of the Fw 190 airframe was the development of the Fw 190 C with the DB 603 engine - a story of competing interests and lost opportunity within the RLM and the fighter arm of the Lufwaffe who wanted it. On top of the latter FW went down a blind alley with a 190 C coupled to a Hirth TKL turbocharger.

For what it's worth with the comment about people no longer watching when you get into that type of math. I have a pretty severe learning disability regarding math and large amounts of text. I don't know if it's the ADHD or something that's never been diagnosed but it's a serious struggle to read a paragraph or do anything other than entry level addition...but there are only two people I have ever watched on youtube who can get into complex math and I can just sort of "Follow" and get the gist of it instead of my brain just automatically either tuning it out or starting to "shut down" like it always does whenever I try ti do math. You and Issac Arthur are those two people. I may not always understand and sometimes I might "tune out" to do other things while I listen but it's very rare I stop watching entirely...and even then I almost always pick up the video later. So at least from me? Thank you.

As always, what a well-reasoned and researched commentary. Thank you again Greg. Fascinating. 😊👍

That has been my exact understanding of manoeuvre speed my entire life.

I wish sometimes we'll see a video about sustained turn performance, Cx, Cx/Cy, AoA, specific power etc.

The hot rod analogy is great.

In the book "Fighter" by Len Deighton essentially covering the period of the Battle of France/Britain, in an absolute vertical bank the Bf-109 E/D had the tightest turning circle and the one with the largest turning circle was the Spitfire. The Hurricane was in-between the two. That was quite a surprise.

Hey Greg, how about the J2M series. Havent flown warthunder sim for almost 5yrs now but did very well with it. Along with the F4U4 against 109 & 190s. As you stated the late model 51s & Spits are almost unfair. As with the FWs if used correctly the later 38s were very good at bouncing. Retired pilot here and had the old USAF subsonic and supersonic fundamentals books. Very good stuff and thoroughly enjoy your channel.

I come across this eternal discussion of turn fighters often, and though a valid inquiry, for me my response is 'who the hell turn fights?' Did no one take note of the F4f Wildcats' disadvantages, seemingly hopeless odds against japanese massively superior turn fighters, yet still manage to reasonalble well using tactics, teamwork, and most importantly not accepting a turn fight. And so on throughout the war, you fight your fight, not the enemy aircrafts fight, avoid disadvantaged combats, run like hell if things turn, or only use hit and run tactics [aka Eric Hartmann]. However, for the hugely outnumbered German fighters, they had no choice but to engage the bomber formations, facing seemingly endless supplies of well trained and well rested [tours of duty? You fought till you died] allied fighter pilots descending upon them in droves. In flight simms, with P-51s, I try to keep the fight vertical; I find most times they can't follow a climbing spiral turn due to their weight. I avoid high speed combat as best as possible, and try to draw them into a slower manuevering combat, where the excellent roll of the 190 really shines, as well as the increased weight of fire when hitting them at close range with the concentrated cannon fire. Though technically the P-51 is the better aircraft, I always prefer the Dora or 109s. It's the intangelbes that you can't put into words. The Dora was Eric Browns' top choice as his favorite WW2 fighter, and he would be one to sit up and take note of his opinion on this. Again, it's sometimes the intangibles that are often hard to quantify that give an aircraft an advantage, though of course this varies in alternate situations. Both US and Soviet pilots who flew the Dora after the war gave it rather poor marks, and yet many German pilots knew how to take advantage of its' strengths to overcome and prevail against the odds. Maybe that's the draw, the challenge of overcoming against the odds, that explains my preference. The story of my life I suppose.

Thanks Greg, another great video, I wish I could make the Dora work for me in warthunder, but I guess that's down to my lack of skill!😎

Thanks. Your videos are interesting and informative.

Starting conditions make a big difference with roughly similar fighters, so the "bounce" comment is important. An inferior fighter can do a lot if it starts off with a significant energy advantage. Bank angle is also important for a turning fight and I doubt that many pilots were even within 10° of the optimum in. a rapidly evolving fight.

Thank you for another excellent video. I got to see a real FW 190-D at the Flying Heritage Collection at Paine Field in Everett, WA. The nod to Two Lane Blacktop is extremely cool. Keep the shiny side up and the greasy side down!

Figures our guy Greg would come up with a "hot rod" metaphor to characterize the Dora's development!

Thanks Greg. Love it.

Hi Greg, if we’re talking radials into v12s, I think the P40 is the comparison. The airspeed calibrations shown don’t seem to show high angle of attack speed error, which would seem to be relevant in a turning fight. What I have heard is that the P36 was a much better turner than the 40 and nicer to fly, so imagine similar for the 190. Same solution the AVG found- zoom and boom. I believe NACA and Brits found the Mach limit for fw190A was about 0.8, very similar to the P51

The Dora is an outstanding "guerilla" fighter when you exploit its strengths and avoid letting your ego suck you into fights you can't win. You quickly adopt a Viet Cong mindset when you fly that thing.

The P51 is like a ballet dancer. Able to do incredible things. The FW190 was like a pit bull. Let it latch on to you and it won't let go. Looks like a hot rod also.

In IL-2, 190s can out turn Spitfires at high speeds/g's because of the g tolerance difference. I really hate how the devs don't tell you anywhere in the pilot notes because it is a huge deal. I also hate when people say in the game that Spitfires out turn 190s because it is just not true. Spits only out turn them at very specific speeds.

I'm amazed this even needs to be said, the 190 series are my favorite warbirds (just look at how much I fly it ffs) but like, they're not the most well rounded machines ever made. They have a niche, its up to the pilot to put it in that niche as much as possible.

Very well explained! But that's your 'specialty'....

I love the design of the FW family of fighters, I wonder if they were designed from the start to be able to update the front end for an inline engine, or was it just a happy coincidence? Seems like a very smart design choice if it was.

Love your videos, Greg. I think my favourite videos of yours are still your hour-long essays on queer lesbian feminist theory, especially the ones where you dyed your hair blue and used “they/them” pronouns. White Guys Rock.

You mentioned propellers. I'm not sure I've seen anything from you on the disadvantage/advantage a single engine fighter would have vs. a twin engine fighter with counter rotating props when rolling/turning against/with the prop. Is that quantifiable? I would think so, but you'd probably need to know things like the roll rate of the fighters (which you probably have), but also the weight and moment of inertia of the prop, which you probably don't. I would expect it's probably significant in transient, but probably minimal in sustained.

Hi Greg, nice analysis as allways! But you forgot to compare the wing profiles and their different behaviour at different Reynolds-Numbers. The laminar wing profile of the Mustang is optimised for low drag and does not allow the AoAs like the Dora´s! You even cited the very forgiving stall behaviour or should I say post stall behaviour of the Focke Wulfs NACA 23015 (to 23010) wing. In a dogfight you win if you are the first to point your nose at the adversary. Even if you exceedingly bleed your energy by doing that. So for a short time - not sustained (here the Mustang is better) - a Dora will always be able to outturn a Mustang at higher speeds because it can reach significantly more AoA and CL here. The Mustangs wing was analysed in German wind tunnels and deemed to be used for bigger internal fuel capacity at same Cd for the mustangs role as a long range fighter. Even after that German fighters never used the laminar approach because it was found not suitable for a fighter because of critical stall behaviour, lower achievable AoA and deterioration of performance by insects, battle damage and lack of long term sustainability in the field.

German pilots eating too much nachwurst and saurbrote was a deciding factor in many encounters and their demise as this combination caused uncontrolable gaz and blackouts.

Thanks Greg

Looking up some additional information, I never realized how different a P-51 and 190s wing area was! 235 sq ft vs 197. Thats a significant difference! I always imagined the 190 to be “the big one” of front line German fighters but suppose they only built slim ones

Nice comparison. However a bloke in a Mustang wouldn't always drain his fus. tank to say 50pc before combat. If it was me, I'd be thinking 'I wanna get home'. I'd keep as much fuel as possible. It'd be easy to switch tanks around on the way home and show that you followed SOP. So maybe the Dora, with minimum fuel because it was scarce, out-turned the Mustang because fuel. No graphs required.

Extremely good video. I learned a lot.

The 190 was an excellent design but many have noted its somewhat harsh stall characteristics. If the wing had been just a bit bigger...?

The FW-190D-9 needed some 150 avgas, re-engineer and run a battle.

Thanks for another great video! If you're looking for ideas for potential future videos, I've been wondering about the benefits and disadvantages of the clipped wings on Spitfires and didn't see a dedicated video about it on your channel though I do think you've mentioned it in passing in the past at points. I've watched conflicting videos on various channels about the effects but not a comprehensive analysis at various altitudes like your channel specializes in just in case you're looking for a future topic. Just an idea! :)

Did Luftwaffe flight crew utilize G-suits at this time? Because I know late in the war American escort crew were issued with them. I’d imagine the Dora pilot would be at another disadvantage in that they would be going after the bombers and trying to ignore the escorts and or fighter sweeps, were as the Mustang pilots can concentrate on hunting the interceptors.

Thanks!

Dora. Dora. Dora, I won't let you go... 🐿

Man I wish there was a Dora still flying.

"Maneuver speed" is different than "maneuvering speed"

Like you said. Just a tiny bit of altitude overhead would explain this report. The Dora could use that bit of energy to pull in.

Not at all surprised, depending on the many, many variables of plane combat what is often well understood about an aircrafts flight characteristics as compared to its contemporaries can become a non-factor...

William Green has books that might give you what you need. I would look it up, but they are boxed up right now.

Every plane has a peak corner speed, where it turns best. Outside that speed, it doesn't turn as well. They're not all the same.

Maneuverability and speed. Many planes in WW2 could out maneuver a faster plane. Case in point, I out maneuvered a F4 Phantom on the range at China Lake. It was an experiment! It could fly way faster , higher and farther then my aircraft. I carried a J model Sidewinder missile configured for telemetry recording. I was in a HH 1k Huey Helicopter. The Phantom was unable to acquire a firing solution after many passes. However, he came within my Sidewinder envelope many times. The J model was advanced for the time. There are many considerations regarding altitude, speed, maneuverability, armament, etc. And even luck.

One thing to remember about American WW2 fighters is that they were designed to operate at very long ranges, due to their theatre of operations. Apart from some early naval fighters, there was no concept of pure interceptor. So, a P51, halfway through its escort mission, with the drop tanks empty but the main tanks still full would probably have a hard time in a dogfight with a light German fighter that might have even taken off with a reduced fuel load, both for low availability and to get the best possible climb rate. Boom and zoom tactics work better in these cases.

P-51D is the bonus overpowered character that you get when you finished the game .

Greg is the ultimate Reply Guy. Never hesitates to give it both barrels to actual WW2 combat pilots. 😂😂😂😂 , he has the PDFs and he is gonna use them: 😅

There is a big difference between the knock resistance of 150 octane and 87 octane. That says it all!

they added the TA-152H to IL-2 great battles.. have you had a chance to test it out? maybe a topic for a future video? i do know you've already made one but there can never be too much 152h content..

do a video on why the f4 was so much more preferred over the f5 when it came to air to air threats.

The Dora is what made the Americans scratch their heads in late war. Cause with a good pilot it was very dangerous. Truly a engineers fighter plane. Def my fav fighter of ww2

The Dora had a higher wing loading which gave an edge to the P51. However the Dora had better roll rate. The short span TA fighters were externally identical to the D9. In simulators the P51 is usually way better except for the firepower of the German plane.

Dude 70KG Thats the funniest thing Ive heard all day

The Dora 9 was as you mentioned a beefed-up 190A and on paper no match for the P-51D but… top German aces like Rall, Barkhorn or Nowotny made the Dora do things the average Luftwaffe pilot only dreamt of… even the famous Stuka ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel flew a 190D later in the war (and regretted his beloved Stuka…). I think this is an apple compared to a banana kinda... Only the arrival of the ultra rare Ta-152H gave the Luftwaffe a technological leap over the P51D (still no laminar wing though, anyway…). Thanks for this interesting video Greg. Always good stuff on your channel and thoroughly researched. Great 👍

What was the litre capacity of that junkers V12 powerplant? I am asking because it still has only 3 props and you may expect with the teaks it could field 4 perhaps 5.

Greg, I was watching Enigmas review of the information on Combat Pilot and I was wondering what you would think of their assertion that they can generate the flight characteristics of Japanese aircraft that they have no charts for. I know you have mentioned this lack of data on your KI 84 videos.

Haha, butt. (But now, off to actually pay attention)

Tosh ; - the P51D didn't simply 'appear' - fully developed. Just like the '190D - it was the product of development of several years.

In the USSR, there were tests of the captured D-9 and air battles between the D-9 and La-7, which showed the total superiority of the La-7. The Yak-3 and Yak-9U were also significantly superior to the D-9

I always win. When I YO-YO a FW190. I have always "Out Turned " anything when I have an energy advantage!

Hey Greg, Amateur fan. So, This question is amateur. It only has basis in 'intuitive geometry'. Isn't turn radius also a function of the length of the fuselage between the main wing and the stabilizer? Thinking in terms of circles and leverage. (Together with the stabilizer "flaps" maximum angle?) . . . (Something like wheelbase on a car). . . . Thanks for your videos!

What is this aircraft at 7:57? It has overlapping radiator flaps and 4 20mm cannons in the wings and some kind of additional cannon firing through the propeller hub? Some variant of Ta-152?