Lt. Franz Stigler compares Fw-190 to M3-109

[H. Godwineson]

The following excerpt comes from the September, 1975 edition of Airpower magazine.


By the spring of 1944 all our 109s and 190s were heavily armored.  With the introduction of wing cannon in the 109, our old fighter became a truck.  I refused to fly it with the additional 20mm cannon slung in pods under the wing.  The extra guns were good against bombers, but grreatly hampered lateral control, cut speed significantly and because of the high loads encountered, often jammed.  Worst of all, when we met escorting fighters of any kind, and P-51 Mustangs in particular, we were at a mortal disadvantage.  It was worth your life to be caught flying a 109 with wing cannon against a Mustang and most of the pilots in my squadron elected to stick with the 109G-6 with its two 13mm cowl guns and a single MG 151 20mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.

In mid 1944, we were offered the FW-190.  It was a good aircraft and they had beefed it up with a great deal of armor plate.  Some carried their 20mm cannon (four of them) in underwing trays, while others were fitted with larger 30mm types in big gondolas, outboard of their 20mm weapons.  Because of their armament, these aircraft were to be used to attack the bombers while we took on the escorts.

Personally, I preferred the older 109.  The FW-190 was easy to fly.  Visibility was good and the wide gear made taking off and landing far more pleasant than in the 109.  The cockpit was roomy and comfortable.  Control layout was better than in the 109 and the whole aircraft was less cramped.  The 190 also had little sophisticated touches, such as electric trim tabs.  It was light on the controls, and it could really turn, much better than the 109.  This was one quality which the 190 was not given proper credit for.  It could also flip over very quickly and dive, and its top speed was faster than that of the 109.  Although later variants were much improved, at altitude, above 25,000 ft. the 190's performance fell off sharply and the 109 was the superior fighter.



Enjoy the read.  More to come later.


Regards, Shuckins

[Urchin]

It was light on the controls, and it could really turn, much better than the 109. This was one quality which the 190 was not given proper credit for.

This guy isn't on crack, is he?  I'm no super real life war-time ace with 800 kills.... but this doesn't make sense to me even with my limited knowledge of aerodynamics.  

I was under the impression that turning was primarily impacted by two factors, wing-loading and power to weight ratio (and drag, but I'm not quite sure how that comes in.. told you I had LIMITED knowledge).  All of the 190s had much, much higher wingloading than any 109, and I believe their power to weight ratio was inferior as well.

I guess they could have lower drag... but I don't see any 190 outturning any 109 at all.

[ra]

Perhaps by 'turn' he meant 'change directions'?

[akak]

He also could have meant roll rate.  In the hands of a good pilot, the FW190's fantastic roll rate could be used to get inside a better turn fighter's turn.


Ack-Ack

[wulfie]

1. He could have meant instantaneous turn at 1944+ NWE air combat speeds.

Put a Bf 109G-6 and a Fw 190A at 300+ MPH. Put a P-51 or P-47 diving onto them at roughly the same speed from the Bf 109/Fw 190 rear 180.

The Fw 190A can escape the enemy gun envelope very quickly on the first turn. Not so for the Bf 109...(read #2 below):

2. Wing loading and power/weight matter, but one thing which matters a great deal in real life that we don't have (*yet*) is stick forces. I'd be very willing to bet he's talking about stick forces.

Due to the cramped cockpit of the Bf 109, and the poor control harmonization at higher speeds and power settings (at max power at high alt late war Bf 109s needed almost constant full rudder deflection against P factor to 'skid' in a straight line), there was not enough 'room' to exert enough force to maneuver a Bf 109 like a P-51, Fw 190, or P-47 could maneuver at higher speeds.

You couldn't trim Bf 109s in real life like you can in AH (clarification: they could be trimmed in some ways in real life, but in some crucial ways they couldn't be trimmed in flight like they can in AH). So in AH try this - get a Bf 109 and trim it for level flight at 275 MPH. Now go engage a Fw 190, P-51, or P-47 in a diving/zooming/etc. fight at 250-450 MPH at 25,000' down to the deck. Those other 3 aircraft are going to be able to outmaneuver you most of the time. And at 325 MPH, because you are out of trim in a bad way a Fw 190 is going to easily out turn you - because your aircraft isn't going to be doing *anything* 'clean' at that speed.

There was a great writeup by a U.S.A.A.F. test pilot dealing with the P-47, P-51, Fw 190, and Bf 109. He specifically talked about (in numerical terms) how much more force a P-47 pilot could exert thru the stick to his controls than a Bf 109 pilot could, mainly due to cockpit design.

The Bf 109 was a great design - but when you take a pre '40 design and put an engine in it that is far beyond what was ever planned for in terms of power and torque, it's going to have some disadvantages when fighting vs. later designs at combat speeds (and carrying combat weights) that were not considered when the Bf 109 was initially designed.

Mike/wulfie

[brendo]

Urchin,

Put on your flame proof suit.

This guy has over 200 kills in REAL LIFE. He flew daily against the Allies horde of overwhelming numbers.

He saw his countrymen have their bellybutton handed to them and killed  on a daily basis by their enemy.

Yet he is alive. Therefore he knows what he is talking about.

He flew 109s... 190s and 262 JETS ! ! !

He flew with Galland in '45, with the rest of the best of the best in Jagdverband 44 until the end of the war.

To suggest that this man doesnt know what he is talking about is the height of ignorance.

You probably dont know that most 109 pilots could not pull maximum G's  in a 109 over 400mph, due to massive stick forces.

[Urchin]

Yes, that I understand.  I know he was a real life pilot, I've heard the name before.  

I also understand that at high speed the Fw-190 was more manueverable.  However, that part wasn't qualified in the original statement, which was "the 190 could turn better than the 109".  

There is simply no way the 190 can hold a candle to the 109 in a sustained turn.  That is all I'm saying.

[Tuborg]

Lt. Franz Stigler, just to get it right, did not achieve 200+ kills.

Franz Stigler was a Luftwaffe pilot who served with the 4th Gruppe, Jagdgeschwader 27 in North Africa, where he flew the Bf109F. As the tides of war changed in the North African theatre, he served in Sicily and Italy as the Allies advanced into Axis territory. During this period, Stigler claimed 15 Allied planes, all of them fighters.

During the later part of the war, he was transferred to Germany, Bulgaria and Austria, where he was pitted against the growing formations of American bombers, among them the B-17. Stigler was among the defending fighters in the legendary Schweinfurt raid, where he shot down 2 Fortresses before being forced to the silk by the tail gunner of a 3rd.

Stigler's most famous encounter was with a badly shot up, defenseless B-17 that he could not bring himself to finish off. Instead, in direct violation of orders, he escorted the B-17 to safety. Years later, he would meet the pilot of the stricken B-17, Charles Brown.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0197valor.html

Franz Stigler ended the war at the rank of Oberleutnant with Galland's famous JV44, flying the Me262 jet bomber,with which he claimed a final pair of B-17s. He was awarded the Iron Cross 2nd Class, the Iron Cross 1st Class, and was nominated for the Knight's Cross, but the war came to its end before the award was conferred

Cheers

[wulfie]

Urchin,

Actually, if you took a Bf 109G-2 or Bf 109G-6, and a Fw 190A-4, and did NACA simulations of them I think you'd be surprised at the difference in sustained turning capability.

There's a myth that has come from many sources that the Fw 190 had an absolutely horrible sustained turn.

First off, there's 2 different values to watch - minimum turning radius and turn rate.

If you check the sustained turn rate of any of the Fw 190s vs. any contemporary Allied fighters I think you'd be surprised at how small the difference is.

The minimum radius of the Fw 190A is disproportionately large compared to it's rate of turn...but rate mattered a great deal more than radius in combat. To use an advantage in radius you had to basically be at stall speed...which means you were probably a sitting duck vs. the next enemy who showed up.

But sustained turn rate was applicable much more often (5-7 second tracking shots, etc.). And in that category the Fw 190 was alot better off comparitively than most flight sim 'experts' would have you believe.

Get a basic aero engineering text and the NACA data and run the #s yourself...very educational and I think you'd be surprised by what you find.

After you do that the quotes from Spitfire pilots about being unnerved to see 'Fw 190s committing to turning engagements in an aggressive manner' makes a little more sense.

Mike/wulfie

[Urchin]

Where could I find such materials?  I've never done anything like that before.  Does sound interesting though.

[funkedup]

Tuborg is right.  Brendo you should know better, hell we both met the guy.  

[wulfie]

Urchin,

I'll dig up a couple of text names. Funkedup or his buddy Wells should have some good NACA links (they put the whole archive on the WWW some time ago) and most aero eng texts have some good NACA data in them.

Give me a couple of weeks I need to get back to the States first...

Mike/wulfie

[GRUNHERZ]

So is that why I could often outurn Spitfires in a 190A5 when I flew more often way back when?

[Wilbus]

Personally, I preferred the older 109.

kind of funny, he says that then he says 20 things that the 190 was better at an one thing that the 109 was better at

He was a great pilot for sure, read some about him before, his encounter with the B17 with his on words for instance. Guess he prefered the 109 because most fights took part up high.

Wulfie, when you find links to NACA and such, would you please post it in a new thread so that I can see it too?

[wulfie]

Wilbus, Urchin:

Speedy response time courtesy of FunkedUp:

http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/NTRS

Get ready for some reading... 8)

Mike/wulfie