How many power the AH FW190D9 have??

[HoHun]

Hi Guppy,

>I don't know that this would be a huge surprise.  The RAF was learning the ropes over France, still using Hurris and early mark Spits without DTs etc.  Numbers would still have been similar I would think, and the experience factor of some of those JG pilots also a factor as the RAF built up its fighter force and introduced lots of new pilots into the game.

You're right, that's a plausible explanation.

Additionally, I'd say that over the older aircraft you mentioned, the Me 109E/N and Me 109F-2 of the JG26 even held a performance advantage, which probably was a contributing factor.

>Don't misunderstand me.  I'm not claiming the 190 v Spit V was the only reason for the JGs success at that time in the war.  

Neither am I, even if it might have seemed like it for a moment! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

I seem to recall that the time frame was referred to as the "happy time" for the Luftwaffe, much the same as the U-Boat guys had theirs. As you say, the RAF was leaning in, with a few bombers covered by swarms of Spits. The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.

True.  Although numerically on paper the Luftwaffe was smaller, they like the RAF, used radar and the "home turf" advantage to create numerical parity in the air.

Individual plane performance is almost impossible to judge from strategic views.  However, the Jagdwaffe had a clear advantage in both pilot experience and tactics at this time.

So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!

I would certainly agree with that.  The FW-190 had it's strengths and maintained them pretty well throughout the war when compared to it's contemprary opponent in some degree.  While the "performance gap" narrowed and widenend depending on the time frame/variant, it remained.  Other fighters had similar experiences.  The vast majority of WWII fighters were pre-war designs and continually upgraded throughout the conflict to remain competative.

The FW-190 was "overrated" IMHO due to the shock effect of a completely unknown fighter with some definate advantages suddenly appearing on the front.  Once the RAF became familiar with the design and it's capabilities that mystique diminishes.  Like the Spitfire and 109, it remains a foe to be respected but not unbeatable.

And it wasn't until late 42-early 43 that the Allies were back on something of an equal level of aircraft quality with the advent of the Spit IXs.

That is my favourite time period as well!
 
I would love to see HTC model the FW-190G3 or FW-190F3  IIRC, the Spitfire XII drivers were specifically assigned to stopping these raids.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Sable]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,

>The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.  

I recently found some victory to pilot loss ratio figures quoted from Butler/Caldwell for the JG26, broken down by year. To my surprise, the best ratio was achieved in 1941, with 1942 being second-best only - by a considerable margin.  

(Interestingly, the 1940 figure was quite good, too, if you take into account that the other years look better because pilots bailed out over France would not be lost, while pilots bailed on during the Battle of Britain would.)

So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!

(Of course, this would have to be crosschecked with RAF figures before drawing conclusions, I'm just describing my spontaneous thoughts here :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

There are some cicumstances to consider in comparing JG26's record between 1941 and 1942.  If we take these into account, I think it's clear that the FW190 was generally more sucessful.

First, Adolf Galland left the Geschwader on Dec 5 1941.  He had scored 37 victories over the course of the year.  If we look at the difference between the Geschwader Stab scores from 1941 to 1942 it drops by about 40 victories!  On top of this, it's hard to estimate what effect the loss of a leader the caliber of Galland had.

Second, Hans-Joachim Muncheberg's 7th staffel spent around 6 months of 1941 in the Mediterranean fighting Hurricanes over Malta.  Their score alone for this period was 52 victories for 0 losses!

Also if we look at the losses between 1941 and 1942, the older part of the geschwader to show a signifcant difference were the losses of the Jabo staffel (formed in 1942, they were sent on many low level bombing raids over england in small numbers - their losses alone almost account for the difference in losses between '41 and '42) and the Hoehen staffel (equipped with 109Gs) in '42.  The Hoehen staffel was transfered to Tunisia at the end of 1942, where half of the pilots were killed on the ground in a bombing attack and the unit had to be disbanded!

One should keep in mind that the RAF used a lot of older Spitfire Mk. IIs and Hurricanes during their early 1941 circuses, while in 1942 they faced Spitfire Mk V and the newer Mk IXs almost exclusively.  Also, the second gruppe transitioned to the FW190 in Sept of 1941, so a substantial number of the 1941 kills were actually scored by FW's.  All of JG26 had converted to the 190 by spring of 1942.  Keep in mind that the 8th Air Force's B-17s replaced the RAF's Bostons and Bleheims midway through 1942 so the bombers that they faced were much more difficult to destroy.

Finally we should consider that throughout 1941 the luftwaffe forces had the luxury of engaging the RAF circuses on their own terms, largely due to the lack of effect from the few bombers sent out in these missions.  The German pilots could climb up above the escorting Spits and Hurricanes, make what attacks they could that had the best chance for sucess, and if they didn't manage to get to the bombers or didn't make contact it wasn't a big problem.  In 1942 they were tied up in big low altitude air battles against much larger  RAF fighter forces on two occasions (the channel dash, and the dieppe raid) but the 190's aquited themselves quite well in these circumstances.  Also the larger B-17s packed a lot more punch and made it more critical for the Luftwaffe to try and intercept every raid and put a stop to the bombing.

Taking all this into consideration, I think Caldwell's figure speak quite well for the effectiveness of the FW190.  

1941 Kills vs. Casualties: 446 - 66
1942 Kills vs. Casualties: 399 - 79

[1K3]

btw the Soviets actually captured and used the 190D in very late war.  I wonder what's their impression about the 190D

[HoHun]

Hi Sable,

>There are some cicumstances to consider in comparing JG26's record between 1941 and 1942.  If we take these into account, I think it's clear that the FW190 was generally more sucessful.

Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis! :-)

You provided interesting background information, confirmed and reinforced Guppy's analysis and showed that the development of the loss ratios was not just random fluctuation but corresponds closely with the complex unit history. Damn good post! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Sable]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Sable,

Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis! :-)

You provided interesting background information, confirmed and reinforced Guppy's analysis and showed that the development of the loss ratios was not just random fluctuation but corresponds closely with the complex unit history. Damn good post! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Thanks for the kind words - I think most of the credit has to be given to Donald Caldwell in this case.  His work is just an incredible resource for us amatuer historians - and somehow he managed to write it so that it reads like a novel!

[Wilbus]

OH Get a room you two!

[Knegel]

Hi,

Fork,  the WEP power increasement only was possible with higher rpm(engine)!

Which rpm is most effective with the available propeller, depends to the propeller and the speed and altitude of the plane(presure around the blades).  As faster a plane fly, as less air presure is in front of the blades(into moving direction), as more AoA the blades need to keep same rpm.
Since a propeller work somehwat like a wing, it have only one most effective AoA(at the speed of smalest drag).

So the most effective rpm(propeller) vary with the speed(IAS) of the plane. Since most planes(maybe all??) only had one gear between engine and propeller and cause its difficult to define the currently most effective propeller rpm, its of course more important to let the engine run in its best rpm, to produce as most HP as possible.

They used constant speed propellers to get most HP out of it, that this dont bring always the the best results, we can see, if we compare the Spit1a with old propeller, with the constand speed propeller Spit1a.
While the Spit1a with constant speed propeller did climb and accelerate much better, the old propeller brought a better Vmax in altitude.
Probably at Vmax (high alt) the constant speed prop did rotate with to much rpm,  above its most effective rpm(maybe the balde tips got  supersonic problems), therfor it did produce to much drag and so the thrust wasnt optimal.
Somewhere i did read that experienced german pilots did dissable the constant speed thingi, to gain a better climb ratio.

Regarding the FW190 in comparison to the SpitfireV and IXc, i believe that the FW had a better vertical behaviour, while the Spit had a better horizontal behaviour.  The FW had a outstanding initial dive acceleration and much inertia and power to keep this advantage in a upzoom, while the SpitV only had a better liftload, therfor it could turn more tight and slow. The SpitIXc got a better powerload and dragload, therfor it got a better all over performence in relation to the SpitV, but british tests show that the FW190 still did outdive and outzoom it by easy, but now the different wasnt that extreme anymore and the SpitIXc was able to disengage. Actually this was the biggest problem of the SpitV, they could evade by turning, but it was to slow to disengage and to slow to follow.
The tests at Rechlin show that the 109F had, next to the roll ratio, a better flight performence than the 190A3, but the 190 simply had a much better firepower(at least 1 more 20mm), therfor the 190 pilots had a much better hit and kill probability. What  the 190 would have been with only 1 x 20mm or the SpitIX with only 8 x .30cal?


Greetings, Knegel

[Crumpp]

The tests at Rechlin show that the 109F had, next to the roll ratio, a better flight performence than the 190A3,

That is a BF-109F4 and a an FW-190A2 with a BMW801C motor.  Not an FW-190A3.

All the best,


Crumpp

[HoHun]

Hi Knegel,

>Since most planes(maybe all??) only had one gear between engine and propeller ...

The Dornier Do 14 flying boat had two engines in the fuselage, driving one large fixed-pitch propeller mounted on struts high above the fuselage. The Do 14 had two gears to drive the propeller in order to get satisfactory take-off performance.

>The SpitIXc got a better powerload and dragload, therfor it got a better all over performence in relation to the SpitV

Well, the Spitfire mark directly following the V was the Spitfire IX with Merlin 61, and this was actually a dedicated high-altitude aircraft that would be outperformed by a contemporary Spitfire V at low to medium altitude. However, as the fights at that time took place at medium to high altitude, it obviously was a great advance for the RAF.

>but the 190 simply had a much better firepower(at least 1 more 20mm), therfor the 190 pilots had a much better hit and kill probability.

Roger on that - JAB made a similar point in the "LW" thread, and I agree that firepower definitely creates respect with your enemies ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Knegel]

Hi,

even vs the 190A3 with BMW801D the F4 show a better climb and a better Vmax in almost all atitudes and the A3 still had problems with the WEP(overheating), while the 109 was a well known good working plane.

Interesting information regarding the Do 14!!

The SpitIXc had 400kg more inertia and a more powerfull engine in almost all altitudes. It maybe couldnt turn as tight anymore, but still good enough in comparison to the 190 and the more inertia and power did decrease the vertical advantage of the 190īs.

As far as i know the SpitIXc Merlin61 had a advantage above 1000m alt to 5000m and then above 6500m, no?

Greetings, Knegel

[Crumpp]

even vs the 190A3 with BMW801D the F4 show a better climb and a better Vmax in almost all atitudes and the A3 still had problems with the WEP(overheating), while the 109 was a well known good working plane.

No it does not.  The FW-190A3 has definate performance advantages at low to medium altitudes over the Bf-109F4.  The sustained climb was always better in the 109 except at very low altitude but the manuverabiliy and speed of the FW-190 was superior at low to med altitudes.  The handling was always better in the Focke Wulf.  Oscar Boesch flew both.  He greatly preferred the FW-190 as it was a true one handed aircraft for dogfighting.

The FW-190A2 with around 100 PS less power at the same settings equalled the Bf-109F4 in most performance aspects.  It developed much less at 1.27ata Steig u Kampfleistung than the FW-190A3.  The BMW801C's Start u Notleistung was the BMW801D2's Steig u Kampfleistung.

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=24&L=1

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=25&L=1

That test is also very early in FW-190A development.  The aircraft was still in the very problematic and the major reliablity issue of the exhaust reroute had not been incorporated into production machines.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[HoHun]

Hi Knegel,

>As far as i know the SpitIXc Merlin61 had a advantage above 1000m alt to 5000m and then above 6500m, no?

Depending on the data sets one quotes, it's a bit more complex.

Here is a three-way comparison between:

- Spitfire V (+16 lbs/sqin)
- Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +15 lbs/sqin)
- Fw 190A (Notleistung)

Top Speed:
0 to 3 km: Fw 190A, Spitfire V, Spitfire IX
3 to 4 km: Spitfire V, Fw 190A, Spitfire IX (Spitfire V's Triumph :-)
4 to 8.4 km: Fw 190A, Spitfire IX, Spitfire V
8.4 km up: Spitfire X, Fw 190A, Spitfire V

Except for its gear change altitude, the Fw 190A holds a substantial speed advantage at low to medium altitude. (It's barely slower than the Spitfire V even there.)

The Spitfire IX is faster than the Spitfire V from 4.5 km up, but substantially faster only from 6.8 km up.

With regard to climb rate, I have compared data for the 30 min power setting:

- Spitfire V (+9 lbs/sqin)
- Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +12 lbs/sqin)
- Fw 190A (Steig- und Kampfleistung)

0 to 1.3 km: Fw 190A, Spitfire V, Spitfire IX
1.3 km to 6 km: Spitfire V, Spitfire IX, Fw 190A
6 km up: Spitfire IX, Spitfire V, Fw 190A

So except for s small band near sea level, the Fw 190A has the worst climb rate of the three fighters. Above 5.5 km, the superiority of the Spitfire V is just 1 - 2 m/s, though, which is not much considering that meeting co-alt, the Fw 190A would be able to gain as much as 400 m in a zoom before being co-speed.

(I picked the most favourable altitude for the Fw 190A to illustrate the Spitfire pilot's problem - it will take him about 4 min of climbing to get from co-altitude to co-energy.)

The Spitfire IX on the other hand has a climb rate advantage of 5 - 6 m/s above 6 km, which makes it much more competetive than the Spitfire V.

To make the strengths of the Spitfire IX tell, you'd want to be above 7 km against the Fw 190A, and if possible above 8.4 km because you'll be holding all the advantages up there :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

The FW-190A3 has definate performance advantages at low to medium altitudes over the Bf-109F4.

The BF-109 series in general maintains sustained climb rate, sustained, and High altitude performance over the FW-190A.  These two maintain a very similar relationship to the late marque Spitfire and the Tempest.  They very well compliment one another.

The Bf-109 series was IMHO every bit the equal of the Spitfires as well.  I have no doubt the RAF loss rates in the Summer of 1942 would have been similar with or without the FW190.  The loss rates have much more to do with tactics, pilot training, and good ground control than with individual aircraft performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Knegel]

Hi,

this calculated comparison show a very similar fast 109F4 in low/med alt.



That the 190 had better controlls(more easy usable, smal need of trimm) is well known and as long as the fight was fast the inertia + power  advantage was probably not smal, but same i would say regarding thwe SpitIXc vs SpitV.
Althought the SpitV maybe was a bit faster in low alt and had a bit better climb, the IXc had 400kg and some HP energy advantage, if they did meet up at same speed and alt. Therfor i guess the SpitIX had a much better divespeed(acceleration) and upzoom than the SpitV and was the better fighter in all altitudes and therfor more dangerus in all altitudes.

Greetings, Knegel