Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: agent 009 on November 21, 2005, 07:47:18 PM
-
Germans were not so impressed with P-39, P-40, & P-38. 47 a bit more perhaps. But what if Corsair & Hellcat had appeared in med 43 instead of P-38 & P-39?
-
p-47 was the best american fighter of the war IMHO.
-
Man is that a loaded question.
It didn't happen so it's tough to speculate too far. I'm guessing those Germans that fell to 38s, 39s, 40s and Jugs probably were a bit more impressed then the propaganda machine.
Last I checked the 38 groups operating in the MTO scored well, on par with any other groups operating in the MTO or ETO.
-
Buhligen said 47 weighed too much & there were certain maneuvers it just couldn't do, ( source The Aces Talk by Ed Simms ).
Blakselee was very exited about switching from 47 to Mustang as it flew so much better said he.
Buhligen also mentioned when a 47 got on his tail, he would shoot straight up into a loop, & 47 couldn't follow & he would get on 47's tail.
Bar said an encounter with a P-38 was pretty much a sure kill.
Buhligen said 38 was easy to burn. he had 13 in his total.
Eric Brown said; I have no doubt whatsoever, a Corsair could not beat a 190 in combat. He had lesser opinion of 109.
I think that German respect for US planes would go up. Sakai said Hellcat was only plane that could follow Zero through "any" maneuver.
Hellcat & Corsair certainly better than P-40 & P-39.
-
The Aces talk.
That's the key. The message the first post implied was the Germans thought. Now we're to the aces Robert Johnson, Gabreski, etc didn't do too bad in Jugs.
Blakeslee started out in Spits then went to early Jugs then 51s. The 51 felt more like a Spit. The transition from Spit V to Jug was a big one and the Merlin guys didn't like it. Guys trained on Jugs didn't mind it at all.
38 drivers, trained on 38s didn't want Mustangs. They didn't want to do the transition to "spam cans" as it was put.
Bottom line is the Germans and the LW were driven from North Africa, Sicily, up the boot of Italy and lost. And it was done with the planes that were available.
A few of us old AW types count as a friend an old MTO 39 and Jug driver who flew 39s in the MTO until August 44 and then finished out in Jugs. Silver Star, DFC etc. He liked 39s and Jugs. They also had some 38Gs early on for chasing high alt recce birds. He liked those too. Earl flew AW with us for a time and was always willing to share is stories. Still does as a matter of fact. And a few of us have had the pleasure of meeting him too.
-
This the same Blakeslee that was supposedly quoting as dissing the P-51 in the other post?
As for the P-38 it was a far more effective fighter in general, than the P-40 or the P-39, the performance stats and FG records clearly show that. There is a reason it flew with the 8th and 9th AF and neither the P-40 nor P-39 ever did.
Fine manuever vs the P-47 (Buhligen) assuming you see it in time, otherwise your ashes, which is how most combats were fought, quick and over within a few minutes, or seconds:
The Corsair downed more than its share of Ki-84s and N1K2s in WW2, so I dont see why a less manueverable Fw190 would be such a tough nut? What makes the P-47D say, be able to shoot one down but not a Corsair?
WW2 air combat was not about 1 vs 1 duels. It was about ambush and killing quickly, using team tactics and the advantage of position, most times. Flying a fighter with high performance was by no means a guarantee of never being bounced, or hit by an opposing fighter you didnt see untill it was too late, which is the kind of circumstance that felled most of those who were shot down. Evasive manuevers only work if you saw him in time
Anecdotal quotes are interesting, but they say very little about the daily realities of the campaigns average airmen fought in, and too many people quote top aces (on both sides) as hard "proof" of something.
As for the original question, I agree, there is no question both the F6F and the Corsair in particular, would have been better fighters than the P-40 or the P-39, as they were in the Pacific. How much better I guess we will never know.
-
The Corsair downed more than its share of Ki-84s and N1K2s in WW2, so I dont see why a less manueverable Fw190 would be such a tough nut?
And what do you base that opinion on?
The USN test of a crashed FW-190 with badly out of adjustment ailerons and a knocking motor that could not even reach rated altitude or be brought to idle without stalling?
Here is what the RAE had to say about that test's conclusions the Corsair rolled as well as the Focke Wulf:
(http://img43.potato.com/loc267/th_fef_FW190_roll_rate_vs_Corsair.JPG) (http://img43.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc267&image=fef_FW190_roll_rate_vs_Corsair.JPG)
Facts are it would depend very much on which Focke Wulf and which Corsair we are discussing.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The Aces talk.
That's the key. The message the first post implied was the Germans thought. Now we're to the aces Robert Johnson, Gabreski, etc didn't do too bad in Jugs.
Blakeslee started out in Spits then went to early Jugs then 51s. The 51 felt more like a Spit. The transition from Spit V to Jug was a big one and the Merlin guys didn't like it. Guys trained on Jugs didn't mind it at all.
38 drivers, trained on 38s didn't want Mustangs. They didn't want to do the transition to "spam cans" as it was put.
Bottom line is the Germans and the LW were driven from North Africa, Sicily, up the boot of Italy and lost. And it was done with the planes that were available.
A few of us old AW types count as a friend an old MTO 39 and Jug driver who flew 39s in the MTO until August 44 and then finished out in Jugs. Silver Star, DFC etc. He liked 39s and Jugs. They also had some 38Gs early on for chasing high alt recce birds. He liked those too. Earl flew AW with us for a time and was always willing to share is stories. Still does as a matter of fact. And a few of us have had the pleasure of meeting him too.
How good was the real combat pilot in the virtual air combat world?
...Didn't the RN Fleet Air Arm use some Corsairs & Hellcats in Europe?
-
So what, that makes the Fw190 bulletproof, even if I buy into your claim it was a porked model they tested?
Spit IX couldnt out roll a Fw190 either, I do recall they shot a few down though.
Some reason a Corsair couldnt do it? was it the blue paint?
-
Originally posted by Debonair
How good was the real combat pilot in the virtual air combat world?
...Didn't the RN Fleet Air Arm use some Corsairs & Hellcats in Europe?
Hellcats had a winning record in Europe. What most people don't realize is that USN and RN Hellcats were primary over-the-beach fighter cover for Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France. They managed to shoot down eight Luftwaffe aircraft. They also pounded German forces behind the beaches inland as far as 75 miles. Along with the USS Tulagi and the USS Kasaan Bay, the Royal Navy's HMS Emperor operated its Hellcats. During the 13 days the F6Fs operated over France, 11 USN and 3 RN Hellcats were lost, all to triple A. However, they did tremendous damage. 825 vehicles, including tanks, assault guns, personnel carriers, and trucks were destroyed. 334 more suffered damage. 84 locomotives were destroyed, along with over 450 railroad cars. Five bridges were knocked down and most land-line communications were cut. An estimated 3,300 German troops were killed.
A total of 71 Hellcats operated During Dragoon, flying a total of 697 sorties over 13 days. They were supported by 52 Wildcats and 97 Seafires.
In addition, operating off of Norway, Hellcat pilots of 800 squadron engaged a large gaggle of German fighters, killing 2 Bf 109s and one Fw 190 for two losses. Two He 115s were destroyed by 804 squadron.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Squire
The Corsair downed more than its share of Ki-84s and N1K2s in WW2, so I dont see why a less manueverable Fw190 would be such a tough nut? What makes the P-47D say, be able to shoot one down but not a Corsair?
You realize only 415 N1K2-J production examples were produced right?
BTW, the Hellcat shot more planes down than the Corsair.
Corsair - 2,139 kills
Hellcat - 5,216 kills (as well as a documented 95% maintenance free rate).
Karaya
-
Thank you, Widewing
-
It was mainly a case of #s used, more F6Fs saw more action than Corsairs did, and the two types remain hotly debated, just as the P-47, P-38 and P-51 are.
As I posted in another thread, the F6F was the top ace-maker of the USA in WW2.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
How good was the real combat pilot in the virtual air combat world?
...Didn't the RN Fleet Air Arm use some Corsairs & Hellcats in Europe?
I asked him one time and he just sort of laughed. He never took it too seriously and didn't see it as much more then the game it was. He had the most fun taking TBFs out and torpedoing carriers.
We designed a scenario in Airwarrior with him in mind and had his squadron in it. As you can imagine there were lots of guys wanting to fly with him. He's in his 80s now but still gets up in a Cessna 152 now and then.
He was a career guy and flew a bunch of A1 Skyraider missions in Vietnam advising the South Vietnamese early in that war. He had over 200 combat missions in WW2. All ground attack stuff.
-
The RN had F4F's then later Corsairs and they were used in combat.
Hellcats clashed with 109's twice I belive both times mauling them. Guess it was a good bounce. Well, Widewing knows more here ;)
-
Eric Brown indeed stated that he would take the Fw-190 over the Corsair any day. There might be some debate over what types of Corsair he actually flew though.
Still, the man served for many, many years as a test pilot (where obtaining accurate and reproducible data is key) and has the world record for aircraft types flown and number of deck landings, ranging from pre WWII bi-planes to the F4 Phantom II. He also has combat experience.
So I value his opinion highly, more so than aces who flew only one or two types in combat. That having said, I'd take the Corsair over the FW-190 in AH2 any day and the later Spitfires over either.
Flame away.
-
So what, that makes the Fw190 bulletproof, even if I buy into your claim it was a porked model they tested?
It's not my claim, Squire. It's documented.
Spit IX couldnt out roll a Fw190 either, I do recall they shot a few down though.
True and the FW190 could not outturn the Spitifire in a sustained level turn. Yet I do recall FW-190's shot down a few Spits.
Some reason a Corsair couldnt do it?
No not at all. The FW-190 would hardly be easy prey for the Corsair, however. It would be a tough fight from either cockpit with equal piloting skills.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You don't live just by rolling.
The 190 was fast, well controllable at high speeds, and packed a punch. That counts more basically.
Agility has been mentioned - entering rolls. Well, the Spitfire packed that one as well, on the vertical axis. Actually so much of it that it had to be tuned down!
Anyway, mentioning Eric Brown brings Gunther Rall to my mind. After all, he flew allied types in mock combats with LW students flying 109's......
-
Angus,
Pick up a copy of Shaw's Book:
http://www.f-16.net/aviation_books_book3120.html
I think you will enjoy and learn a lot from it. Ask any fighter pilot about the connection between roll rate, agility, and it's link to manuverability.
The FW190 was the most agile fighter in WWII.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Read my whole post. The gist being, The F4U-1 vs 44-45 IJAAF and IJN fighters, in relation to a comparison to the Fw190.
As for the Fw190 being the most manueverable fighter of the war, that holds up if you only concern yourself with one axis. It certainly didnt out turn every other fighter, and it certainly didnt loop faster than every other fighter, it also didnt handle at low speeds as good as some did. So, no, it wasnt the wars most manueverable fighter, and im not about to get into it here over that.
The term "manuerverbility" is too generic I suppose, because somebody always comes out with a specific in response to the term, but im not about to go into a 15 page technical diatribe every time I want to make a general comment, so I will labour on with it, as time is precious.
In any event, there was no "bylaw" passed in WW2 that would have prevented a 400+mph F4U-1 from shooting down a Fw190, which was my point, in response to the pilot caliming he "had no doubt he could shoot one down", which is just empty rhetoric, they could all be shot down, and they all were. < I labour it the point of being painfull as it still seems to allude.
Regards.
-
As for the Fw190 being the most manueverable fighter of the war, that holds up if you only concern yourself with one axis.
Read up on aircraft agility.
certainly didnt loop faster than every other fighter,
This comes from what? One RAE report on an FW-190A3 that was experiencing heavy knocking due to the use of allied aviation fuels flown by a British pilot with how much experience in the type?? Less power = Less performance.
Check out the CG location on the FW-190A3/A4 compared to other FW190A's.
The light stick forces of the FW-190 made it easy to overcontrol. Many transitioning 109's pilots had trouble looping it for this reason. Once they learned not to input too much elevator, the FW 190 looped nicely.
it also didnt handle at low speeds as good as some did.
Sure, allied test pilots could not handle it well at low speeds nor can any aircraft with a rearward CG be handled well at low speeds. Read the P51 POH warnings.
Besides having a different engine, the FW-190G series CG is to rear when compared with a fighter variant. This lowers the stall speed and the power production is different. Both effect turn radius.
Facts are the FW-190G series turned as well as the P51B/C according to RAE tactical trials. It easily outturned both the Mustang IIa and the P47D-4 at speeds below 250IAS. In both aircraft, the inexperienced in the type allied pilot had to reduce throttle to keep from overrunning them.
With that said, it was never designed to be a turn fighter. I could outclimb the F4U1, was faster until 15,000 feet and could reverse very quickly.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
once you pass a certain roll rate ability it doesn't matter any more. If one plane could complete a full 360 in 1 sec and the other two full rolls 720 degrees in one second then the latter rolls twice as good as the 1st - the practical advantage will be zero though. A fighter needs to roll "well enough".
I remember asking an F-16 pilot, after a dogfight with a pair of A-4s, about the great roll rate of the A-4 skyhawk. His answer was that the little bugger can roll as much as he likes in his gunsight :)
Bozon
-
The best plane of the war was the one that survived contacts with the enemy and brought you home safe. Everything else is just BLah bu Blah bu Blah.
-
A fighter needs to roll "well enough".
Study up on Geometry.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You all listen to Crumpp for he is the expert on everything.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Study up on Geometry.
Crumpp, it is not just studying Geometry - you also need to understand it.
Bozon
-
(http://img105.potato.com/loc279/th_177_airplane_roll.jpg) (http://img105.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc279&image=177_airplane_roll.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
That is true Crump, however that page neglects to qualify that with the mention that the larger winged aircraft can pull into turns that the shorter winged aircraft cannot match without suffering a flight departure.
Also the diagram presents a rather exagerated difference in roll rate.
-
Karnak,
You are correct and so is the diagram. The diagram's conditions are the same angle of bank and the same speed.
Some aircraft can pull a tighter angle of bank and some wings can still fly at a slower speed.
Remember the slower the speed, the smaller the radius.
Minimum radius of turn is dependant upon Pa vs Pr at CLmax.
(http://img19.potato.com/loc27/th_351_PaequalsPr.jpg) (http://img19.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc27&image=351_PaequalsPr.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Yes, I saw that, I was mainly clarifying it for people who might miss it.
-
Yes, I saw that, I was mainly clarifying it for people who might miss it.
No Problem! Your input is always welcome.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Also the diagram presents a rather exagerated difference in roll rate.
Exactly!
It displays the delay in starting the turn due to the time it takes to roll - the difference is absolute and not relative. The only thing that matter is the time difference in achieving the needed bank.
Lets say both planes want to roll 90 degrees and pull hard. The FW190, according to the table Crumpp has posted, has a roll rate of 160 dps at 250 mph (best rate) while the F4u, has roll rate of 88 dps. The time difference in entering the turn will be 90/160 - 90/88 = 0.46 sec.
Pilot reflexes are not much better than this so this is almost negligible. For a 180 roll and split S the advantage will grow to 1 sec which starts to be significant.
The point I was trying to make with "suficient roll" was that if the 190 had roll rate of 1000 dps or 1,000,000,000 dps, it doesn't matter any more as the advantage will never be more than 1 sec per 90 degrees. Any advantage which is of the time scale of pilot's response or less is meaningless.
Bozon
-
btw just for a comparison, I think HT or Skuzzy said that the net update time in AH is about 300ms. So every plane you are chasing in AH has initial 0.3 sec roll advantage over you due to net lag.
Bozon
-
Roll is paramount. Have to agree with Crump here. read Bob Johnsons book. He vector rolled inside a Spifires turn with ease in his 47.
190 pilots could shake a Spit by reversing direction as well with ease. Also Mike Spicks books are good regarding this. He has diagrams showing how this trick is done.
'Luftwaffe fighter Aces' is one & 'The Ace Factor' another I believe that show these diagrams.
Regarding 47 shooting down 190, a Gloster Gladiator could shoot down a 190 if he caught the pilot napping. The question-point I was raising with this thread was if german attitudes regarding US planes would change if Corsair & Hellcat were sent to med 43.
Not much argument re 39 & P-40, but 47 cut above these. I will forward the idea that Corsair & Cat a bit better than 47 as well. Weighed a bit less. I very seriously doubt Sakai would say same thing about 47 that he said about Hellcat.
47 maneuver with Zero? Me thinks probably not.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
And what do you base that opinion on?
The USN test of a crashed FW-190 with badly out of adjustment ailerons and a knocking motor that could not even reach rated altitude or be brought to idle without stalling?
Here is what the RAE had to say about that test's conclusions the Corsair rolled as well as the Focke Wulf:
(http://img43.potato.com/loc267/th_fef_FW190_roll_rate_vs_Corsair.JPG) (http://img43.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc267&image=fef_FW190_roll_rate_vs_Corsair.JPG)
Facts are it would depend very much on which Focke Wulf and which Corsair we are discussing.
All the best,
Crumpp
I'm amazed the Germans were able to wrest defeat from the jaws
of victory with all this untouchable uber iron they were apparently
flying. After all, it was only sheer numbers that enabled the Allies to
stagger to a hard fought win..right?
Same old same old.
-
I'm amazed the Germans were able to wrest defeat from the jaws
of victory with all this untouchable uber iron they were apparently
flying.
What a silly, mindless post, and useless contribution to the thread. Do you have any facts to add or are you just not comfortable with reality?
All the statements I make are backed up with documentation and facts. They have previously been posted in other threads so feel free to search the BBS.
Please find where anyone claims anything about the outcome of the war?
it doesn't matter any more as the advantage will never be more than 1 sec per 90 degrees
Check out some speeds in feet per second. It is was in reality a significant advantage as noted in the tactical trials:
(http://img127.potato.com/loc24/th_a93_SpitVb.jpg) (http://img127.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a93_SpitVb.jpg)(http://img106.potato.com/loc24/th_d1c_SpitIX.jpg) (http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=d1c_SpitIX.jpg)(http://img127.potato.com/loc24/th_57c_P38manuver.jpg) (http://img127.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=57c_P38manuver.jpg)(http://img15.potato.com/loc24/th_456_P51.jpg) (http://img15.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=456_P51.jpg)
(http://img107.potato.com/loc24/th_b4a_FW190conclusions.jpg) (http://img107.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=b4a_FW190conclusions.jpg)
And of course at lower speeds it's excess power allowed it to pull a decent radius of turn:
(http://img103.potato.com/loc141/th_990_Spitpilots_opinion.jpg) (http://img103.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc141&image=990_Spitpilots_opinion.jpg)
With the exception of the fact the Mustangs were outturned easily, we know little else.
The P47D-4 report is much better for defining the conditions:
(http://img44.potato.com/loc60/th_52f_p47_fw190_2.jpg) (http://img44.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc60&image=52f_p47_fw190_2.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
snip
I'm amazed the Germans were able to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory
snip
TEH 190 is the best fighter plane evar ! lol
-
Those were early Allison engined Mustangs Crumpp for what it's worth.
-
Those were early Allison engined Mustangs Crumpp for what it's worth.
Yes they were and about 1000lbs lighter than the P51B/C series. According to AHT, they were a much better sustained turner than the P51B/C series as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
TEH 190 is the best fighter plane evar ! lol
Air Chief Marshal Sir William Sholto Douglas sure thought so...
There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today [author's italics).
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/letter_from_the_chief.htm
Nobody is claiming the FW190 should fly rings around everything else or have any strengths outside those tied to the design characteristics.
However, the modeling we have now is nothing representative of the type nor historic.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Air Chief Marshal Sir William Sholto Douglas sure thought so...
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/letter_from_the_chief.htm
Nobody is claiming the FW190 should fly rings around everything else or have any strengths outside those tied to the design characteristics.
However, the modeling we have now is nothing representative of the type nor historic.
All the best,
Crumpp
He said it in 1942 prior to the IX showing up. IT was essentially his light a fire under the Supermarine folks and others words.
I don't think he said it in 43, 44 or 45 :)
-
He said it in 1942 prior to the IX showing up.
He said it at the conclusions of the tactical trials with Fabers aircraft. The Spitfire Mk IX was tested in those trials.
I don't think he said it in 43, 44 or 45
No he did not and I agree.
However, in the FW190 equipped Jagdgeschwaders a Spitfire remained a Spitfire from '42 until the end. The appearence of the Spit IX was not noticed nor did the pilots loose confidence in their machine over it or any other Spitfire.
Now Morale did take a dump when they could look up in 1944 at allied formations stretching across the horizon from end to end.
It's a common Luftwaffe anecdote of the young pilot, full of propaganda, who on his first mission looks up at the contrails of the bomber stream above and tells his crew chief, "See our victory is certain, look at all our planes heading to stop the bombardments!" The crew chief shakes his head and as he seals the young pilot in remarks, "Those are not ours, good luck."
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Check out some speeds in feet per second. It is was in reality a significant advantage as noted in the tactical trials:
Those that I can read are comparisons with spitfires, not F4U. P47s also rolled fast enough (or to be exact, spitfires rolled slow enough) for it to be an advantage as R. Johnson describes in his book. Still, 190s rolled better than jugs but as the roll rates get high enough this advantage becomes meaningless. The time advantage that a fast roll buys you really depends more on the slower roller, not the faster one.
"Manuverability" is an ill defined term that describes a pilot's feel more than anything. One must remember that mass air combat involved very little manuvering and a lot of flying around at full speed, trying to ID an enemy plane and bounce it, while trying to avoid being bounced yourself. The most important and common ACM was split-S and dive for the clouds - not very glorified but effective. This involves a 180 deg roll and so 190s could perform it so well against slow rollers like spits and P38, and get 2-3 seconds advantage from the faster roll. When P51, P47 and boosted P38 showed up, the time gained through the roll was much shorter and the manuver was much less effective. Robert Johnson describes it as a death manuver if they tried it vs. a P47 (and enough did to pad up his score).
Super uber roll rate will gain you nothing if the other plane can roll half decently. 190s had also other thing going for them (firpower, speed, zoom) when roll-rate became insignificant. They were not that one dimentional.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Rino
I'm amazed the Germans were able to wrest defeat from the jaws
of victory with all this untouchable uber iron they were apparently
flying. After all, it was only sheer numbers that enabled the Allies to
stagger to a hard fought win..right?
Same old same old.
The allieds won due to the great industrial might of the United States. Had the United States remained neutral the outcome of WWII would have been different, namely the english and the french would be speaking german and the russians would be eating bugs in siberia. The axis leadership were they're own worst enemy and needed to have their heads placed in nooses.
-
Those that I can read are comparisons with spitfires, not F4U. P47s also rolled fast enough (or to be exact, spitfires rolled slow enough) for it to be an advantage as R. Johnson describes in his book. Still, 190s rolled better than jugs but as the roll rates get high enough this advantage becomes meaningless. The time advantage that a fast roll buys you really depends more on the slower roller, not the faster one.
Honestly,
Sounds like a bunch of excuses why the FW-190 does not have it's historical place in AH.
They certainly were better at dogfighting than "master of the Split S"! All the FW190 pilots say pretty much the same thing. They got in close and fought. They had no aversion to tangling with any allied fighter because of the performance of their machine.
Nothing you have written is quantifiable.
What is credible are the experiences of the RAE/USN?USAAF pilots in a captured FW190 as "at least" performance. What is quantifiable are the original documentation on the design.
None of this adds up to the FW190 being a clumsy, too heavy to fight design, which could only ambush and Split S away.
They were not that one dimentional.
No one is claiming they were one dimensional. Roll rate is however very important to agility and makes up the second major portion of an aircrafts "manuverability".
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Im not going to say anything bad about the Fw190 because there isnt much to say bad about it, quite frankly, it has to be in any serious "top WW2 fighter list" I have no doubt. but I will make a few observations about how they all stack up to each other.
There is a place where all the WW2 fighter do battle with each other. Its called the Main Arena.
In reading BBS and "Ch.100 complaints" about this place I have noticed some trends regarding the # of complaint-whines-requests-whatever about some fighters.
Seems to me that between the LW, RAF, VVS, Japanese and US types that fly, the the RAF fighters get the most "heat" Spitfire V, Spitfire IX, Spitfire XIV, Tempest. Followed closely by the LA-7, N1K2, Ki-84 and F4U-4, or at least, somewhere in there...
"Perk the 190A-5", "Perk the 109A-8", "Perk the 190D-9", well, we dont ever hear that very often, at least I don't.
So for it to be undoubtably the "most manueverable" fighter of WW2, as some have clalimed, well, I find that curious.
...and the Spit series, as always, generates easily the most complaints. :)
Don't come apart at the seams, im only 1/2 serious (oh hell maybe 3/4), but I find it interesting none the less, in a non scientific way sort of "muahahaha" way.
Ltr. :D
-
Your absolutely right Squire.
Many of the LW flyers have more success dogfighting a Bf-110 than they do the FW-190 in Ace High.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"Perk the Bf 110!".
"The Bf 110 doesnt bleed E!"
Hmm, nope, dont recall that one either come to think of it...
Let me know when you get to the 109s. ;)
-
From Bozon...
"Super uber roll rate will gain you nothing if the other plane can roll half decently. 190s had also other thing going for them (firpower, speed, zoom) when roll-rate became insignificant. They were not that one dimentional."
Well, Eric Brown felt differently. He said if not for the superb roll rate of the Dora, He would give the Spit 14 the nod without hesitation as best prop job of ww2. But as it is, it is almost equal.
-
I didn't read the whole thread but I have researched F6Fs / F4Us (F4Fs and FM2s) in Europe for another game. Here's some quick information from my old notes, (This may not be complete but I don't feel like digging through my old disks to find the stuff):
The only action USN F6Fs saw over 'Europe' was during the invasion of southern France in Aug '44.
USS Tulagi - VOF-1 (Lieut. Comdr. WF Bringle, USN)
USS Kasaan Bay embarking VF-74 (Lieut. Comdr. HB Bass, USN)
Both squadrons flew F6F-5s and provided cover for the landings.
VF-74 also operated a 7-plane F6F-3N night fighter detachment from Ajaccio on the island of Corsica. On 15 Aug VF-74 flew 60 sorties, VOF-1, 40 sorties, all ground support missions.
On the morning of 19 Aug three He-111's were spotted by a four-plane division of VOF-1 pilots. The Amis were too short on fuel and could not attack. Two of the Amis were forced to land on HMS Emperor due to their lack of fuel.
Later that day two He-111's were claimed by VOF-1 near the village of Vienne. Lieut. Poucel and Ens. Wood teamed up to claim one. Ens. Robinson claimed the second. Some time later in the same area a third He-111 was claimed by Ens. Wood. That same morning VF-74 led by Lieut. Comdr. Bass claimed a Ju-88 and in the afternoon 2 other pilots (ieut. (j.g.) Castanedo and Ens. Hullard) claimed a Do-217 (shared).
On 21 August, VOF-1 claimed three Ju-52 transports north of Marseille. Two were credited to Lieut. (j.g.) Olszewski; one went to Ens. Yenter. Operating for two weeks in support of the invasion, these two squadrons claimed and were credited with destroying 825 trucks and vehicles, damaging 334 more and destroying or otherwise immobilizing 84 locomotives.
Both USN squadrons lost some 17 aircraft, all were to ground fire or operational accidents. None were claimed by German aircraft. Among the 7 pilots lost (2 from VOF-1 and 5 from VF-74) was the CO of VF-74, Lieut. Comdr. H. Brinkley Bass, awarded 2 Navy Crosses from early actions in the Pacific, killed by antiaircraft fire while strafing near Chamelet on 20 August.
The only fighter-to-fighter FAA F6F action took place in May 1944. On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's:
No. 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SJ Hall, DSC, RN),
off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was attacked by a mixed group of Me-109's and FW-190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, reportedly, to anti-aircraft fire. The F6F pilots claimed 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. The FW-190 was claimed by Sub-Lieut. Ritchie. The LW show no 190s lost on this day, in this area.
On 14 May, 800 Squadron's leading scorer, Sub-Lieut. Ritchie (now with 4.5 victories) claimed a He-115 to his tally and claimed a share of another He-115 with the CO of 804 Squadron, Lieut. Comdr. Orr, giving him a total of 6 'victories' for the war.
Prior to these actions, FAA F6F's were used for anti-aircraft suppression on raids against Tirpitz on 3 April 44 (Operation Tungsten). These included - from Emperor -
800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. Hall)
804 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SG Orr, DSC, RNVR).
FAA F4U's also participated in Operation Tungsten.
1834 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. PN Charlton, DFC, RN)
1836 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. CC Tomkinson, RNVR)
Both off HMS Victorious flying top cover
Flying top cover for Operation Mascot:
1841 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. RL Bigg-Wither, DCS & bar, RN)
off HMS Formidable
1841 Squadron was joined by 1842 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. AMcD Garland, RN) in Operation Goodwood in late August. No contact was made with any German aircraft and no FAA F4Us ever made contact with German aircraft.
By summer of 1944, FAA F4U's were largely operating in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
USN F6F pilots's claimed and were credited with bringing down 8 enemy aircraft, 3 He-111; 3 Ju-52; and 1 each Ju-88 and Do-217 with no air combat losses. (11 losses to all causes).
The FAA F6F pilots were credited with bringing down 5 aircraft to 1 air combat loss (2 to all causes) 2 He-115; 2 Me-109G; and 1 FW-190.
-
The RAF tactical trail between a captured Fw-190A (I don't know which one, presumably Faber's) and a Spit IX explicitly states: 'The Fw-190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire, except for turning circles'. Especially the reversal turn is noted as very hard for the Spit to follow.
The report is in one of my books but I have seen it here many times. It is no secret. Crumpp probably has the link.
Historical data suggests that the 190 is a good matchup for a Spit IX, in this game this is simply not so. The 190's are dogs. I think that's a pity. Flying 109's is a challenge, but you can have at least some succes. 190's I haven't flown for ages, I'm just not good enough for them. But then again, the Spit XVI makes me feel an ace again ;)
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
The RAF tactical trail between a captured Fw-190A (I don't know which one, presumably Faber's) and a Spit IX explicitly states: 'The Fw-190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire, except for turning circles'. Especially the reversal turn is noted as very hard for the Spit to follow.
The report is in one of my books but I have seen it here many times. It is no secret. Crumpp probably has the link.
Historical data suggests that the 190 is a good matchup for a Spit IX, in this game this is simply not so. The 190's are dogs. I think that's a pity. Flying 109's is a challenge, but you can have at least some succes. 190's I haven't flown for ages, I'm just not good enough for them. But then again, the Spit XVI makes me feel an ace again ;)
Seems like we're missing something here. What type of fight are we talking about the 190 and Spit IX fighting? If it's a turn fight, then it's going to be the Spits fight.
If the 190 driver flies the 190s fight, the 190 can control it.
Are the AH 190 flyers saying there is no fight they can win against a Spit IX? I don't buy it. Big guns, high speed, hit and run, using the vertical, without making the mistake of getting into a slower turning fight with the better turning Spit.
Flying an XVI down low yesterday I was chasing a 190A5 flat out and I wasn't gaining. He made the mistake of weaving side to side which let me close the gap. Had he just kept it going straight ahead, he'd have been fine.
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
The RAF tactical trail between a captured Fw-190A (I don't know which one, presumably Faber's) and a Spit IX explicitly states: 'The Fw-190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire, except for turning circles'. Especially the reversal turn is noted as very hard for the Spit to follow.
The report is in one of my books but I have seen it here many times. It is no secret. Crumpp probably has the link.
Historical data suggests that the 190 is a good matchup for a Spit IX, in this game this is simply not so. The 190's are dogs. I think that's a pity. Flying 109's is a challenge, but you can have at least some succes. 190's I haven't flown for ages, I'm just not good enough for them. But then again, the Spit XVI makes me feel an ace again ;)
That was an A-3 vs. Spit Vb @ 12lbs / Spit F.IX @ 15 lbs / Mustang 1a
Farber's A-3 was derated from 1.42 to 1.3 ata. However, the RAF tested it 1.35 ata.
In reference to the VB the Farber test states the FW 'maneuvers better'.
Define 'better' by degree in this context.
In reference to the Spit IX the Farber test states the FW was 'more maneuverable'.
Define 'more' by degree in the context.
In AH the A-5 can easily out roll the Spit V. It out climbs it, dives it. it accelerates better and is faster at all altitudes.
Do you think an A-5 in AH can beat the Spit Vb at 12lbs boost?
That fight isn't even close if the A-5 pilot has half a brain.
In AH the A-5 can easily out roll the Spit F.IX.
However, the Farber report says that there was 'little difference in climb with a slight advantage to F.IX' and 'above 22k ft the FWs climb rate falls off sharply while the F.IX climb rate increases'. In reference to speed the Farber report shows no more the 8 mph speed advantage to the FW at one altitude band. At all other altitude bands the test show speed virtually equal until 25k where the Spit F.IX gains the advantage.
Any advantage between to the FW/F.IX would have been quickly made up by the pilot, just like in AH. In fact the Spitfire pilot who took part in the Farber tests said he 'greatly preferred the Spit IX over the 190'.
Using the Farber test as anything other general information is foolish.
You can read the report here (http://prodocs.netfirms.com/).
Goto - Axis Aircraft Tests and look under:
VARIOUS FW190 TEST REPORTS (AIR 16/658)
C
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
-
That was an A-3 vs. Spit Vb @ 12lbs / Spit F.IX @ 15 lbs / Mustang 1a
Correct. Faber’s Tactical trials are a great example of "at least" performance. It is not top performance but we can say there were some things the FW-190 was capable of at least doing.
However Faber’s FW-190A3 was not developing full power due to the use of allied natural petroleum avgas. This is an issue for us in our rebuild as well. If you contact Motobende, they will tell you the same thing.
You cannot set up a German engine using printed specifications designed for coal-tar derivative synthetic fuels and expect it to perform to full boost on natural petroleum.
The RAE recognized this and immediately set forth trying to fix the knock limited power production. Unfortunately, while they did figure it out by changing plugs and settings, they did not flight-test the motor. This was the only BMW801 they got to run smoothly and the only fighter variant they ever flew. The FW-190F and G series have different motor set ups and different drag profiles.
(http://img41.potato.com/loc20/th_9d9_RAE_Bench_Test.jpg) (http://img41.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc20&image=9d9_RAE_Bench_Test.jpg)
1.35ata is well within specification for the FW-190. The Kommandogerät adjusted within tolerances (+/- .3ata and +/- 50U/min) based on real time conditions. The pilot does not select 1.32ata on the gauge; the Kommandogerät does IAW the engine control lever position. So it is not uncommon to see 1.45ata, 1.6ata, or "non-standard" manifold pressures. This is normal operation.
In reference to speed the Farber report shows no more the 8 mph speed advantage to the FW at one altitude band.
See above, if you use Rechlin or Focke Wulf data the difference is much greater. This is due to the greater power production of the motor.
In AH the A-5 can easily out roll the Spit F.IX.
What the AH FW-190 cannot do is flick out of the turn circle, dive, and zoom above the Merlin Spits. This was the traditional Focke Wulf engagement against the Spitifire. In AH the Spitfire will catch you in the zoom everytime.
said he 'greatly preferred the Spit IX over the 190'.
Right and that was his opinion. It has been adopted as "fact". I have point blank asked several FW190 pilots if they would have preferred the Spitfire or the performance of any allied plane to their FW190. They all said no.
One put it this way, as long as I wanted to fight, I could. That Spitfire was there until I decided to go home or I killed him.
That is not just the Spit IX vs. FW-190A3. Just like any fighter design, the Focke Wulf gained power and design improvements over it's lifecycle. So while the variants changed performance stays relative between the two.
HTC can claim placebo and no one is claiming conspiracy. However I noticed a glaring difference 2 patches ago in the maneuverability of the Focke Wulf in AH. When AH2 first appeared, I felt they were modeled very well and only needed minor tweaking due to the fact they are modeled on allied data from captured aircraft testing. That is not my imagination.
Some background on my "AH flying". I only fly the CT and I almost always fly the FW190. When AH2 came out, in the Finn-Russ for example, I had to work at it but could dogfight an La 5 or a Yak. Gentle control input, using roll rate to cut the angle, good throttle control, and keeping my speed up were the key. Now it has gone back to making clumsy passes and extending for half the map is the only way to survive. Tangling with a La5 or Yak at even E state is not a very smart thing for a 190 driver. I wonder if it is not tied to the trim? I seem to constantly be trimming lately.
Maybe there are corrupted server files or data has been altered in the transfer. I know many online games do suffer from this. HTC might not have gone in and changed the FM but something has changed for sure.
Oh here is an encounter Willi Reschke had in an FW-190A8 with late war P47's and P-51's in January 1945:
(http://img127.potato.com/loc151/th_3d0_190vs51.47.jpg) (http://img127.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc151&image=3d0_190vs51.47.jpg)
(http://img12.potato.com/loc136/th_7ba_fw190vs51.472.jpg) (http://img12.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc136&image=7ba_fw190vs51.472.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Right and that was his opinion. It has been adopted as "fact". I have point blank asked several FW190 pilots if they would have preferred the Spitfire or the performance of any allied plane to their FW190. They all said no.
One put it this way, as long as I wanted to fight, I could. That Spitfire was there until I decided to go home or I killed him.
Crumpp
Not sure what we're arguing about here. Who adopted as fact that the Spit was superior to the 190? A pilot expressed an opinion. You speak of asking 190 pilots point blank and they prefer the 190. Good. It speaks to their confidence in their machine, which is important.
I can say the same about the Spit drivers I've asked. Neither opinion is fact, but a confidence in their machines.
Crumpp, I know what it's like to live and breath a particular airplane and you are clearly living and breathing 190s :)
Folks will argue til the end of time about which was the best fighter of WW2. I think it's pointless. You can speak to the best designs of the war and the 190 is clearly one of them, along with the Spit, 109, Mustang etc. They did their jobs and did them well.
They all found their way to the very limit and edge of piston engined fighter development. You can't do any better then that.
-
The Focke Wulfe series in the MAJORITY of the books I have read, are named the Best Overall fighter of WWII.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Focke Wulfe series in the MAJORITY of the books I have read, are named the Best Overall fighter of WWII.
Karaya
Titles please?
I've never seen any book declare any one fighter the best and believe me I've read and have a ton of em :)
-
Well, ask the Spit drivers and they will say Spitfire!
Ask the Pony drivers and they say Mustang!
Ask Izzy and he sais 109!
Ask Ack-Ack and he sais P38!
Like Broadhurst, - nothing like A Merlin Spitfire on 25 boost he said.
Try it in Aces high. The killer is the Spit XVI at the moment, frigging awesome aircraft. And it's not even the ultimate performer.
But that's just Aces High.......
-
"Not sure what we're arguing about here."
I think the question is that if they were evenly matched IRL, so how close their performance is in AH. I think the AH 190A8 is not competitive with SpitIX or even less with later models. Or is it?
What has this to do with Corsairs ans Hellcats in Mediterranean, anyway?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Angus,
Pick up a copy of Shaw's Book:
http://www.f-16.net/aviation_books_book3120.html
I think you will enjoy and learn a lot from it. Ask any fighter pilot about the connection between roll rate, agility, and it's link to manuverability.
This point was put directly to Shaw at an AH con. It was put in context of the best way to utilise the 190 roll rate in acm.
The question initially floored him............ I think because his book mainly approaches stuff from the perspective of e management and wing loadings and their effects on angles capability.
His answer was basically "to use it alot" however it was clear he did not value it highly compared to turn and zoom rates.
I think therefore that there may be other "exponents of roll" to argue how advantagious superior roll rate is.
Superior roll rate obviously allows you to enter and exit a manouvre more quickly than your opponent and when you can use a counter manouvre that includes a large roll component (eg barrel turn) it may allow you to make up for deficiencies in other areas.
-
I think the question is that if they were evenly matched IRL, so how close their performance is in AH. I think the AH 190A8 is not competitive with SpitIX or even less with later models. Or is it?
Exactly. Your right in that should be in another thread.
What has this to do with Corsairs ans Hellcats in Mediterranean, anyway?
The discussion was about Corsair/Hellcat vs. FW-190. This has to do with competitiveness of the fighters in the MTO. Using the Navy test, the pilot’s opinion was taken as fact over recorded performance. The same with the RAE tactical trials as I pointed out in answer to such comments as:
So for it to be undoubtably the "most manueverable" fighter of WW2, as some have clalimed, well, I find that curious.
What I actually said was:
The FW190 was the most agile fighter in WWII.
(http://img21.potato.com/loc288/th_02b_agility.jpg) (http://img21.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc288&image=02b_agility.jpg)
The RAE combined the other characteristics to make their statements on the FW-190's maneuverability in comparison to other aircraft.
As Guppy points out all pilot had confidence in his machines. Foreign tests of captured aircraft during wartime have to have fact separated from opinion in order to be useful. Not that the opinion is not valid for that individual either.
Pilot confidence does speak volumes about the competitiveness of the aircraft. Pilots would not be confident in aircraft that could not fulfill its mission and get them home.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I never claimed the Fw-190 should be able to beat the Spit IX easily. It only strikes me as odd that the RAF would call the Fw-190 more maneuverable than the Spitfire IX.
The same report also states that the Spit IX and Fw-190 are well matched, the performance figures suggest this as well. Yes, I know this particular Fw-190 was a captured aircraft and the issues with the engine are well documented. Still, the difference between them would not be dramatic.
But coming back to 'our' GAME (let's not forget it is), I would take any Spit over its historical Fw-190 counterpart. Granted, I'm an occasional player and not an ace, but I'm also not an idiot. The Fw-190 is plainly inferior here.
I have no axis or allied bias in this game and if the guys at HTC state that they haven't either I believe them. Still, the Fw-190 is a dog to fly compared to everything else. A shame really as pilots commented on its easy handling and good fighter abilities. Sadly I cannot quantify any of the stuff I've read in countless books, and I can imagine the nightmare it must be for the programmers. I just wish for a FW-190 that is a good match for a Spitfire.
-
"Superior roll rate obviously allows you to enter and exit a manouvre more quickly than your opponent and when you can use a counter manouvre that includes a large roll component (eg barrel turn) it may allow you to make up for deficiencies in other areas."
Of course that is correct, but in addition to good roll rate the a/c needs at least moderate elevator control and ability to change vector without draining huge amount of E while doing it.
-C+
-
Of course that is correct, but in addition to good roll rate the a/c needs at least moderate elevator control and ability to change vector without draining huge amount of E while doing it.
Sure. Qualities the FW190 did posses. Unfortunately, the entire series elevator control seems to be modeled after the results of the allied test pilots on the FW-190A3. No notice is taken of the CG adjustments made in later variants or the individual characteristics of the aircraft itself according to Focke Wulf, Gmbh and the Luftwaffe.
The RAE's assesment in the trials was that the FW-190 was at least more manuverable than the Spitfire Mk IX. It did not turn as tightly, however.
Facts are the elevator was sensitive in a properly trimmed FW-190 and it was easy to over control. An inexperienced in the type pilot could easily mush the speed and chaulk it up to a "non-effective" elevator. Heinrich Beauvais, Rechlin test pilot comments:
(http://img111.potato.com/loc265/th_d12_loop.jpg) (http://img111.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc265&image=d12_loop.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
So the 190 was very crisp in agressive vertical movements as well?
The Spitfire was the boss in that region, - the elevator authority was too much. So, you can't pass that can you?
Anyway be it an error of HTC or not, a Spit XVI meeting a 190A, co alt and speed will have it for lunch :D
-
So the 190 was very crisp in agressive vertical movements as well?
According to the measurements, yes.
The Spitfire was the boss in that region, - the elevator authority was too much. So, you can't pass that can you?
Do you have a report on the Spitfires elevator authority? Do you understand it?
I can send you one. The Spitfire is far from being the "lone ranger" in the "too much elevator" authority department. Many aircraft suffered from the same problem. Including the P 51 and the FW 190.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Titles please?
I've never seen any book declare any one fighter the best and believe me I've read and have a ton of em :)
Me too, I'm 32 and have been reading WWII books since the second grade. My brother works at a Book Distributor and I get to read Advanced Reader Copies (Pre-Pubs). I have read more than 20 books that have named the 190 series an Overcall choice of best plane in WWII.
You're gonna have to Google. The last book that made the claim was read back in 1994 or 95. I've read too many books in that span and cannot recall the title or author. I get roughly 10 books a month through my brother. For example: I read Flyboys 8 months before it was released, and still have the pre-pub to Flags of our Fathers, among 100's of other in the basement. The wants them gone, I told her to stick it.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
If the 190 driver flies the 190s fight, the 190 can control it.
Do you mean to keep alive?
Initial Co-Alt, Co-Speed AH Spit vs AH 190 starting at any alt would have a quick evolution, 190 will build up more speed if keeps level or dives, meanwhile Spit will gain altitude much faster. In few seconds we'll have an untouchable hi spit and a lower fast running 190. Who is controlling the fight now?
-
Basically the FW190 can make HO after HO.
Unless the spit pilot is just plain stupid it is pretty easy to avoid getting roped. Every solution becomes a 50/50 shot in the FW190 vs Spitfire Vb.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Do you mean to keep alive?
Initial Co-Alt, Co-Speed AH Spit vs AH 190 starting at any alt would have a quick evolution, 190 will build up more speed if keeps level or dives, meanwhile Spit will gain altitude much faster. In few seconds we'll have an untouchable hi spit and a lower fast running 190. Who is controlling the fight now?
And in a real world scenario that may be the case. Last I checked most kills were of planes where the victim never saw the plane that shot him.
A 190 pilot would have been operating under his own ground control and more then likely in position for the bounce on the Spits. If you read the combat reports it was often just that. The 190s come down fast take their shot. If the tail end Spits don't see em, those tail end Spits go down to the cannons of the 190s.
If the Spit drivers see them, the Spits turn into them and climb, while the 190s are more then likely going to use their superior roll rate and dive speed to get away and the Spits couldn't follow, either to reform for another bounce or to call it a day. When it was life and death that was how it worked.
Not many Snoopy and Red Baron turnfights going on in those circumstances, which is obviously different from AH where no one is dying.
I seem to recall Johnny Johnson talking about a fight with a 190 when he was in a Spit V. The only thing keeping him alive was the superior turn rate of the Spit. At the same time he's lamenting the fact that the turning is defensive not an offensive move.
Bottom line the wise 190 pilot isn't going to give in to the urge to turn fight with a Spit. He'll fight it to the strengths of the 190, not the strengths of the Spit.
And again, as the Spit got closer to 190 performance, this became tougher.
When I speak of Spit pilots with confidence against the 190, it's the IX, XII, VIII drivers, not the Spit V drivers. They knew they were in for it if they encountered 190s. You can argue forever about whether the 190 or any of those Spits had the overall edge, but I think it misses the point. THe pilots in those planes, whether it be Spit or 190 had confidence in the machine they were in when they encountered the bad guys. That makes a huge differnce I think.
-
Hehe, from masherbrum:
"For example: I read Flyboys 8 months before it was released, and still have the pre-pub to Flags of our Fathers"
Maybe you saw the film? I did, from the scene, nener nener :D
look here http://www.flagsofourfathers.net
-
A 190 pilot would have been operating under his own ground control and more then likely in position for the bounce on the Spits. If you read the combat reports it was often just that. The 190s come down fast take their shot. If the tail end Spits don't see em, those tail end Spits go down to the cannons of the 190
That is the ideal case with any interception.
I would have to disagree on this being the case the majority of the time. Maybe the RAF pilots felt that way but from the Luftwaffe reports it took some time for the Ground Controllers to gain experience. Additionally the radar itself was just not that accurate to give precise information on altitude and formation composition. Often as not they put the intercepting FW-190's co-alt or out of position. Many times they even put the FW-190's below the aircraft they were sent to intercept or launched them outnumbered.
I have quite a few reports of intercepting FW-190's climbing, searching for the targets, only to see them screaming down on top of them.
Key difference between the German early warning and the English system in use was the use of the Observer Corp. While radar could give early warning and an approximate altitude, it was the Observer Corp who gave the specific and accurate details. Linked by landline to Fighter Command and equipped with insturmentation to determine altitude and exact position/heading, they were a key component provider of timely accurate information to the pilot necessary for an advantaged interception.
http://www.combinedops.com/ROC.htm
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is the ideal case with any interception.
I would have to disagree on this being the case the majority of the time. Maybe the RAF pilots felt that way but from the Luftwaffe reports it took some time for the Ground Controllers to gain experience. Additionally the radar itself was just not that accurate to give precise information on altitude and formation composition. Often as not they put the intercepting FW-190's co-alt or out of position. Many times they even put the FW-190's below the aircraft they were sent to intercept or launched them outnumbered.
I have quite a few reports of intercepting FW-190's climbing, searching for the targets, only to see them screaming down on top of them.
Key difference between the German early warning and the English system in use was the use of the Observer Corp. While radar could give early warning and an approximate altitude, it was the Observer Corp who gave the specific and accurate details. Linked by landline to Fighter Command and equipped with insturmentation to determine altitude and exact position/heading, they were a key component provider of timely accurate information to the pilot necessary for an advantaged interception.
http://www.combinedops.com/ROC.htm
All the best,
Crumpp
Would you agree that the 190's tactics were not to turn fight with the Spits?
I agree that the bounces didn't always happen that way. Reading through the Spit XII combat reports, I did note that often when they got kills, the 190s were climbing up to intercept bombers, and that when there were losses to the XIIs it was from high 190s coming down. The guy with the height advantage controlled the fight.
No real turn fighting though. Hit and run, dive away stuff on both sides. Turning for defense not offense.
-
Would you agree that the 190's tactics were not to turn fight with the Spits?
Definately! The FW190's stayed in the verticle were they had the advantage. They might yo-yo or turn for a short period to gain gun solution but the moment the Spitfire gained in the turn or their speed dropped too much, classic FW-190 tactic was to flick out of the turn, shallow dive, and regain the high ground. The Spitifire Mk XIV was a real bear because it had the best chance of following the FW190 using this tactic.
Sustained turning with a Spitfire was sure way to lose the fight.
In AH this kind of fight becomes HO after HO as all Spitfires can follow the flick and dive which is not an option for the FW190 driver.
The guy with the height advantage controlled the fight.
Absolutely. Plane type does not make much different. Positional advantage makes a huge difference in the outcome of fight.
Turning for defense not offense.
YES. Everyone avoided turning if it all possible. Many fights did though break down into "dogfighting" as the group with positional advantage gained confidence there targets were alone. They would then press their advantage on those not shot down in the initial bounce.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Thats the fun of scenarios and other events, where most want to make it home and you have real missions to run, the WW2 tactics immediately come into play. At least thats what I like about them. It gives the a/c a chance to shine in the roles they flew in, and the armament and flying characteristics make more sense than how they are perceived in the MA.
Ex. Having a P-47D-11 at 30k is utterly pointless in the MA, but not in a setup where they are escorting B-17s that are themselves at 22k.
Im hoping ToD will bring that.
-
It gives me a warm feeling that a Spit and a Fw-190 expert can have a constructive discussion in ths thread... Thank heavens this is not of the 109 flamefests.
Anyway, Crumpp, you compare the Flugwerk birds to a Volkswagen with a fiberglass Lamborghini body, are they really that much different to real Fw-190's? I'd expect them to be different yes, 60 years later, due to all sorts of legislation and also different manufacturing processes, but are they that bad? I had the distinct impression (naive as I might be) that they are as close to real Fw-190's as reasonably possible at this point in time...
-
Flugwerk have not yet installed the Myth Generator in their reconstructed bird. After they do it will perform like the real thing 60 years ago.
oh, yes. They also need to erase the colors. I have pictures prooving that 190s were painted in black and white.
Bozon
-
Interesting.
What is it that makes the Flugwerk bird that different?
If anything, I'd think it would be a tad lighter due to more modern materials.
BTW there is a scaled down Spitfire on the market. Runs on some 200 hp, does some 170 knots if I remember right, needs a very short runway and climbs some odd 2500 fpm!
-
What is it that makes the Flugwerk bird that different?
http://www.flugwerk.com/new/fw190/fw190.shtm
Flugwerk have not yet installed the Myth Generator in their reconstructed bird.
You a little bitter, bozon?
Anyway, Crumpp, you compare the Flugwerk birds to a Volkswagen with a fiberglass Lamborghini body, are they really that much different to real Fw-190's?
Yes it is a different aircraft with different performance. That does not make it bad, just different. In fact the Flugwerk birds should be pretty hot as they are much lighter than an FW-190. The VVS motor does not develop as much power as the BMW801 did in the FW-190A8 however. They have to add some cooling drag to get that motor to properly cool. Funny that they are having the same problem the BMW801 had after the exhaust reroute too. It will be interesting to see where the number lie.
I just offered my opinion. After working on the real thing it kind of diminishes the enjoyment of a substitute, like other things in life.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Any plans for the Flugwerk plane to go to Reno?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, from masherbrum:
"For example: I read Flyboys 8 months before it was released, and still have the pre-pub to Flags of our Fathers"
Maybe you saw the film? I did, from the scene, nener nener :D
look here http://www.flagsofourfathers.net
I am in email correspondance to James Bradley. He is a good person, and a masterful writer. One of these days, we'll catch in Rye, NY.
Karaya
-
relax Crumpp, I was just poking you a little. :aok
Bozon
-
Hey Karaya, I met Bradley and his kids on the film scene! Nice guy.
I was wearing makeup at the time - seems the japs wounded me with a grenade so I had a scarred face (closeup camera). The Bradley kids had some on the too just for fun!
Anyway walked from the scene with him and had a chat.
As a sidenote he expressed the opinion that the film will look very much like the real thing. He's now been 4 times to Iwo.
And Crumpp:
"Do you have a report on the Spitfires elevator authority? Do you understand it?"
I know enough to say that it was as well as the c O g, enough to disintergrate the aircraft. So, they added bob weights on the elevators untill they were satisfied. That's from Quill as well as test pilot Tony Bartley.
Anyway TY for the flugwerk link. Had lost it. Now, the question is, how much does this new bird suffer in performance? It has a wee less power but is lighter, so?
-
just a note about the rolling agility of AH 190 vs AH Spits.
In AH, previous to last two patches I didnt test, roll is a minor advantage as roll acceleration is similar between Spits and 190s. Final roll rate (or maximum roll rate) like we saw many times in the NACA graphs is mostly useless in combat without considering time needed to achieve maximum roll rates.
If we look into the spit pilots reports fighting 190s, the most probable conclussion is not that 190 roll rate was superior, but much more important, that time to achieve that roll rate was far superior. That is what explains these ecounters where the spit pilots were simply unable to follow the 190 maneouvers.
In AH, current spits (previous to last two patches) have little or no problem following any 190 chage in direction at gun range unless the speed si too high.
-
I would so love to have one of those Fw190A-8/Ns.
Well, if I win the lottery. ;)
-
Originally posted by MANDO
just a note about the rolling agility of AH 190 vs AH Spits.
In AH, previous to last two patches I didnt test, roll is a minor advantage as roll acceleration is similar between Spits and 190s. Final roll rate (or maximum roll rate) like we saw many times in the NACA graphs is mostly useless in combat without considering time needed to achieve maximum roll rates.
If we look into the spit pilots reports fighting 190s, the most probable conclussion is not that 190 roll rate was superior, but much more important, that time to achieve that roll rate was far superior. That is what explains these ecounters where the spit pilots were simply unable to follow the 190 maneouvers.
In AH, current spits (previous to last two patches) have little or no problem following any 190 chage in direction at gun range unless the speed si too high.
Exactly! How quickly you can complete first 180 degrees of a roll is what counts.
I remember first AH old FM KI-84 version. It was the only AH ac which could utilize the roll successfully against a spitty in a boot fight... And 190 should be even better, or so I've heard...
-
I admire the ability of a good 190 pilot to swing out of my Spitfire's sights untill he has extended.
That applies to the Mk V and IX, but the VIII is faster down low, and the XVI or the XIV.....nope.
-
But of course the 14 & 12 Spits would be also compared to Doras, which is a different story.
The ability to shake off a Spit in a turn is not purely defensive as it also allows 190 to reengage from a vantage position.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
But of course the 14 & 12 Spits would be also compared to Doras, which is a different story.
The ability to shake off a Spit in a turn is not purely defensive as it also allows 190 to reengage from a vantage position.
XII was already out of service before the Dora arrived. Last combat flights in September 44 with 41 Squadron. Dora not until October 44.
XII was introduced in February 43 as a direct result of the low alt 190 fighter bomber raids to the South Coast of England. It's adversary was the 190A variants not the D
-
I imagine that was due to the Griffon powered Spit XIV taking over for it. Needless duplication. That and the Jabo threat in S. England had largely disappeared by that date, the fighting being on the Continent since 6-44. That being said I could have seen the XII soldiering on untill wars end, especially on 150 octane, but I guess they had their reasons.
-
So 12 met 190 A. But remember, there were still more Mk 9 Spits flying round in 45 than there were MK 14 Spits. So Dora & Mk 9 & 14 Spit comparisons very relevant.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
So 12 met 190 A. But remember, there were still more Mk 9 Spits flying round in 45 than there were MK 14 Spits. So Dora & Mk 9 & 14 Spit comparisons very relevant.
How many D9s around from October 44 to the end? How do their numbers compare to 190A and F series birds during that time frame? Is the ratio about the same as Spit 14s to IXs and XVIs?
The relevant comparison for the D9 is the Spit XIV and the Tempest. The Spit LFIX and XVI were being employed much more as ground attack birds at that point.
And if you are going to argue Spit IX to D9 comparison then XIV to 190A would be reasonable too. But thats kinda silly when you think about it as the XIV and D9 really are the contemporaries in that Spit-190 relationship.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I imagine that was due to the Griffon powered Spit XIV taking over for it. Needless duplication. That and the Jabo threat in S. England had largely disappeared by that date, the fighting being on the Continent since 6-44. That being said I could have seen the XII soldiering on untill wars end, especially on 150 octane, but I guess they had their reasons.
Basically because it was purely a stop gap version and the LFVIII, IX and XVI were performing the same role. Essentially the XII was the first of the medium alt to low alt Spits. And as I imagine the production lines for the IX etc were much more up to speed, it was easier to stick with the more proven Merlin 66 and work on developing the Griffon 60 series XIV.
-
How many D9s around from October 44 to the end? How do their numbers compare to 190A and F series birds during that time frame? Is the ratio about the same as Spit 14s to IXs and XVIs?
The Dora's became the predominate FW-190 series fighter variant in the Luftwaffe although it is possible to find FW190A8/A9's serving as fighters until the end.
In December of 1944 we start to see a significant number on the Western Front.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg2.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
So for the most part the D9s were the interceptors like the XIVs, while the A/F/G models were used more in the ground attack role as the IXs and XVIs were? Both being able to defend themselves, but not their primary role.
And the D9, like the XIV never really was there in huge numbers but enough to make it's presence felt
Is that a fair assumption?
-
So for the most part the D9s were the interceptors like the XIVs, while the A/F/G models were used more in the ground attack role as the IXs and XVIs were? Both being able to defend themselves, but not their primary role.
Generally speaking, Yes that is correct. G series production ceased however and was incorporated into FW-190F series.
FW-190A8 production ended in January 1945. The FW-190A9 was produced from Sept. 44 until Feb. 45.
And the D9, like the XIV never really was there in huge numbers but enough to make it's presence felt
A statement which true for the entire Luftwaffe. In comparision with the combined allied airforces there was not enough of the Luftwaffe to make its present felt much less a single type.
I will dig through my documents to give you some facts before I make any exact claims. It was produced in surprisingly large numbers, around 1800.
How does the Spitfire Mk XIV numbers compare with the rest of the Spitfire Squadrons in the RAF?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
There were 957 Spitfire Mk XIV's built in total. I don't know how Spitfire Mk XIV squadrons there were in comparison to the whole of RAF Fighter Command though.
All the numbers I have ever seen for the Fw190D-9 say about 700 were built. An 1100 airframe difference seems odd.
-
All the numbers I have ever seen for the Fw190D-9 say about 700 were built.
That is because the much of the C-Amt's is missing.
Focke Wulf, Cottabus alone produced 720 FW-190D9's. There were 5 other plants producing them.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
So for the most part the D9s were the interceptors
I would say D9 kept as air superiority fighter while A8 and A9 kept as the real bomber interceptors. D9s were also commonly used as top cover over the 262 and Arado airbases. Other Doras (not D9) were really designed as bomber interceptors with heavy armament comparable to that of A8 and A9, but not D9.
-
Would it be safe to characterize the 190D as the Jimmy Durante of second world war aircraft?
-
1700 Dora's built.
& here are a few maneuvers which use airelons, which 190 would be good at me surmises. Crump, your thoughts?
Dang, diagram didn't come through.
What is a Cuban Eight? I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you.
Oh, alright, I give in. Here is a diagram I have drawn for you. At the bottom, I will describe the manoever step, by step.
1) A/C is straight and level
2) A/C is dived to increase speed
3)A/C is leveled off
4)A/C is climbed at 45 degree angle
5)A/C is pulled over onto its back
6)A/C is dived inverted at a 45 degree angle
7-8) A/C is half rolled to upright
9)A/C is pulled back to level
10)A/C is climbed at 45 degree angle
11)A/C is pulled over into inverted flight
12-13) A/C is half rolled upright
14)A/C is brought to straight and level
As you can see, the manoever describes an "8" laying on its side. Done just right, the aircraft will pass through its own wake twice as it recrosses its path in the middle. Nice.There are also variations to this manoever. There is a "Half Cuban 8" which describes just one of the "8" loops (This was basically the manoever Wolfgang Spate was describing as the ME 163 attack profile from a steep climb). Also, there is a fun thing called a "Reverse Cuban 8" where the A/C is initially pulled up to begin the manoever, then half rolled at the top to produce the same figure 8 but with exactly every action reversed.
You're lucky; I normally charge $55.00/hr for aerobatic instruction, but you're getting it for FREE!