PDA

View Full Version : Focke-Wulf Fw 190 (Jane`s Encyclopedia of Aviation)



MrOblongo
08-06-2004, 11:28 PM
Focke-Wulf Fw190(Germany) Although to the end of World War II it was made in smaller numbers than the Bf 109, the type it was intended to replace, the Fw190 was by far the better all around aircraft and in many ways the most advanced combat machine to go into action in quantity in the war. It was extremely small and compact, yet it had a large and powerful radial engine installed in an extremely attractive way to give lower drag than earlier radial installations. The all-metal structure was of outstanding strengh, and with little difficulty was locally reinforced to clear the aircraft for use with extremely heavy loads of guns, ammunition and bombs - including the SC1800 bomb of 3,968lbs and the large LTF 5b torpedo. Though its original mision had been air combat, by 1943 the Fw190 had largely replaced the Ju87 and other types as Luftwaffe`s standard tactical attack and close support aircraft, with large numbers also deployed in such roles as reconnaissance and misions against heavy bombers.

There is little doubt that Kurt Tank, who led the project staff in the spring of 1938, was influenced by the Hughes racer which had set a speed record in America. He followed the same layout with slim fuselage, extremely small wing and tall landing gear with very wide track.The first prototype (powered by the BMW 139 engine in an advanced totally enclosed cowl with cooling airflow admitted through the large ducted propeller spinner) began taxi trials in May 1939 and flew on 1 June, although it remained completely unknown to British Intelligence. Considerable changes followed with various further prototypes, including discarding of the ducted spinner, addition of a cooling fan, change to the slightly larger but more powerful 1,192kW (1,600 Hp) BMW 801C engine, repositioning of the beautifully enclosed cockpit further back (for centre of gravity reasons, despite the poorer foward view on the ground, but reducing temperature around the pilotāĀ“s feet and making room for guns in the top decking), and the late summer of 1940, a larger wing and tailplane.

Early Fw190A-1 fighters were delivered from June 1941, with four 7,92mm MG 17 machineguns. The A-2 replaced the inner-wing guns with two new high-velocity MG151/20 cannon, and the A-3 added two 20mm MG FF cannon outboard to make it the most heavily armed single-engined fighter of its day. In 1942 the A-3 was met in the force by the RAF, which at first thought the Luftwaffe was using captured Curtiss H.75 Hawks, but the newmachine outperformed the Spitfire VB and for more than a year dominated the sky over north-west Europe.

Fantastic profusion of Fw190 sub-types followed with numerous schemes of armament and other devices including air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, 21cm mortars, upward or downward tubes for rockets for destroying bombers or tanks, various anti-ship weapons, and equipment for night landing. There were long-range variants with large overwing tanks, a tandem dual trainer and a ramming model with armoured leading edges.

The most important tactical versions were the Fw190F, a heavily armed and armoured battlefield version with more than 20 sub-versions, and the G-series of long-range attack aircraft with autopilot and extra fuel. After two years of developing via the 190B and C series, most fitted with the DB 603 liquid-cooled inverted-V engine, delivery began in the autumn of 1944 of the first of the "long-nose" 190s, the D-9 (called Dora 9 by its pilots). Despite the fact that, for reasons of availability, this had the Jumo 213A-1 bomber engine, of 1,323.5kW (1,776 Hp), it could out-perform the previous models and was often judged superior to the P-51D or late-model Spitfires. By this time almost all Fw190 versions had changed the rifle-calibre guns in the top decking for 13mm MG131s, and the D-9 usually also carried just two MG 151s inboard plus heavy bomb loads. Some D models had a 30mm MK108 firing trough the spinner, and the heaviest armament comprised five 30mm guns, a firepower unmatched by any other fighter of the day. From this outstanding machine was derived the Ta-152, described separately. Total Fw190 production was 20,001 and in 1945-6 the French SNCAC group built 64 with the designation of NC900

Data: (Fw190A-8); Engineas above; Wing span 10.5m (34ft 5 1/2in); Length 8.96m (29ft 4 3/4in); Max T-O weight 4,900kg (10,802lb); Max Level Speed (clean) 657km/h (408mph); Range 800Km (497miles)

MrOblongo
08-06-2004, 11:28 PM
Focke-Wulf Fw190(Germany) Although to the end of World War II it was made in smaller numbers than the Bf 109, the type it was intended to replace, the Fw190 was by far the better all around aircraft and in many ways the most advanced combat machine to go into action in quantity in the war. It was extremely small and compact, yet it had a large and powerful radial engine installed in an extremely attractive way to give lower drag than earlier radial installations. The all-metal structure was of outstanding strengh, and with little difficulty was locally reinforced to clear the aircraft for use with extremely heavy loads of guns, ammunition and bombs - including the SC1800 bomb of 3,968lbs and the large LTF 5b torpedo. Though its original mision had been air combat, by 1943 the Fw190 had largely replaced the Ju87 and other types as Luftwaffe`s standard tactical attack and close support aircraft, with large numbers also deployed in such roles as reconnaissance and misions against heavy bombers.

There is little doubt that Kurt Tank, who led the project staff in the spring of 1938, was influenced by the Hughes racer which had set a speed record in America. He followed the same layout with slim fuselage, extremely small wing and tall landing gear with very wide track.The first prototype (powered by the BMW 139 engine in an advanced totally enclosed cowl with cooling airflow admitted through the large ducted propeller spinner) began taxi trials in May 1939 and flew on 1 June, although it remained completely unknown to British Intelligence. Considerable changes followed with various further prototypes, including discarding of the ducted spinner, addition of a cooling fan, change to the slightly larger but more powerful 1,192kW (1,600 Hp) BMW 801C engine, repositioning of the beautifully enclosed cockpit further back (for centre of gravity reasons, despite the poorer foward view on the ground, but reducing temperature around the pilotāĀ“s feet and making room for guns in the top decking), and the late summer of 1940, a larger wing and tailplane.

Early Fw190A-1 fighters were delivered from June 1941, with four 7,92mm MG 17 machineguns. The A-2 replaced the inner-wing guns with two new high-velocity MG151/20 cannon, and the A-3 added two 20mm MG FF cannon outboard to make it the most heavily armed single-engined fighter of its day. In 1942 the A-3 was met in the force by the RAF, which at first thought the Luftwaffe was using captured Curtiss H.75 Hawks, but the newmachine outperformed the Spitfire VB and for more than a year dominated the sky over north-west Europe.

Fantastic profusion of Fw190 sub-types followed with numerous schemes of armament and other devices including air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, 21cm mortars, upward or downward tubes for rockets for destroying bombers or tanks, various anti-ship weapons, and equipment for night landing. There were long-range variants with large overwing tanks, a tandem dual trainer and a ramming model with armoured leading edges.

The most important tactical versions were the Fw190F, a heavily armed and armoured battlefield version with more than 20 sub-versions, and the G-series of long-range attack aircraft with autopilot and extra fuel. After two years of developing via the 190B and C series, most fitted with the DB 603 liquid-cooled inverted-V engine, delivery began in the autumn of 1944 of the first of the "long-nose" 190s, the D-9 (called Dora 9 by its pilots). Despite the fact that, for reasons of availability, this had the Jumo 213A-1 bomber engine, of 1,323.5kW (1,776 Hp), it could out-perform the previous models and was often judged superior to the P-51D or late-model Spitfires. By this time almost all Fw190 versions had changed the rifle-calibre guns in the top decking for 13mm MG131s, and the D-9 usually also carried just two MG 151s inboard plus heavy bomb loads. Some D models had a 30mm MK108 firing trough the spinner, and the heaviest armament comprised five 30mm guns, a firepower unmatched by any other fighter of the day. From this outstanding machine was derived the Ta-152, described separately. Total Fw190 production was 20,001 and in 1945-6 the French SNCAC group built 64 with the designation of NC900

Data: (Fw190A-8); Engineas above; Wing span 10.5m (34ft 5 1/2in); Length 8.96m (29ft 4 3/4in); Max T-O weight 4,900kg (10,802lb); Max Level Speed (clean) 657km/h (408mph); Range 800Km (497miles)

AirBot
08-07-2004, 01:26 AM
Great! Thanks for posting this.

Hunde_3.JG51
08-07-2004, 01:52 AM
Nice, thanks.

One possible error, the A-1 had 4x 7.62mm mg's (as it says), but also had 2 outboard MG-FF 20mm cannon. The A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5 all had MG-FF 20mm outboard cannons.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

robban75
08-07-2004, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrOblongo:
the D-9 usually also carried just two MG 151s inboard plus heavy bomb loads<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting! I'd like to have this option in FB/AEP! The idea of having an even lighter D-9 speakes to me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

IL2-chuter
08-07-2004, 10:03 AM
" . . .the Fw190 was by far the better all around aircraft. . ."

But do to its poor high altitude performance the 109 was used to fly top-cover for it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

MrOblongo
08-07-2004, 10:13 AM
Hey, i just posted what is in the book http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, and i can say JaneāĀ“s is not a bad publication.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-07-2004, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
" . . .the Fw190 was by far the better all around aircraft. . ."

But do to its poor high altitude performance the 109 was used to fly top-cover for it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i remember a german 109 Pilot which was flying cover for those 190's (jabo-Version).
He said he once callanged a JaBo-Pilot for a race (home).
Well both firewalled the Throttle and the 109 pilot was a bit suprised becasue the 190 begun walk away from it's escort, he couldn't keep up.

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

carguy_
08-07-2004, 12:02 PM
"..Outperformed the Spitfire".....while having at least 1000m advantage LOLhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
08-07-2004, 12:16 PM
LOL carguy.

IL2-chuter, the 109's also flew top cover for the 190's because the 109 lacked the firepower to effectively deal with bombers. The 190's would engage the bombers while the 109's would engage the fighters and I think it is more a result of the 190's firepower than of altitude performance. But it was likely for both reasons.

I've never read about 109's flying cover for 190's that were not engaging bombers.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

MrOblongo
08-07-2004, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
"..Outperformed the Spitfire".....while having at least 1000m advantage LOLhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or a decent modelling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Franzen
08-07-2004, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
"..Outperformed the Spitfire".....while having at least 1000m advantage LOLhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 2 options, you either have advantage or take advantage. I like the second. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

Abbuzze
08-08-2004, 04:45 AM
190 A with the radial engine had a real problem after passing 6000m above this alt the BMW real suffered. Thats the cause why the FW never replaced the 109. Allies bomber came in at 7000m or even higher, At this altitude the 190 were in troubles, and the 109 with all it faults, was the only LW fighter alternative...
Of course this changed with the 190 Dora, which was a real good fighter...

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

nicli
08-08-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
i remember a german 109 Pilot which was flying cover for those 190's (jabo-Version).
He said he once callanged a JaBo-Pilot for a race (home).
Well both firewalled the Throttle and the 109 pilot was a bit suprised becasue the 190 begun walk away from it's escort, he couldn't keep up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember well this pilot was JG52's Helmut Lipfert (203 kills - all Eastern Front but including three US aircrafts over Romania) one of the best LW fighter pilots in the last years of the war.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-08-2004, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
190 A with the radial engine had a real problem after passing 6000m above this alt the BMW real suffered. Thats the cause why the FW never replaced the 109. Allies bomber came in at 7000m or even higher, At this altitude the 190 were in troubles, and the 109 with all it faults, was the only LW fighter alternative...
Of course this changed with the 190 Dora, which was a real good fighter...

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the FW190A3-6 reach their top-speed at 6.500m.
the A8 does at 6000. (if i remember correct).

and yes it's a shame that they didn't manage to give them GM1 or somthing for high-altitude (this would rock in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif )

[imagine an A6 with GM1, that's like doping for that plane]

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

Gershy
08-08-2004, 05:52 AM
One thing I always wondered about:

I read in an article about the first fights between Spits and FW something like that:

The 109 pilots usually boomed and zoomed and went away after a few runs. They were really surprised to see that the FW190 pilots stayed and fought even in close dogfights with them.

Now in the game this seems to be the other way around. The FW can only fly straight BnZ while the 109 is more able of dogfighting a Spit. The FW is often referret to as a quite decent dogfighter in several texts, at least better than the 109. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

-----------------------------

So long.We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.

Hunde_3.JG51
08-08-2004, 12:33 PM
Gershy, I have read that comment as well which surprised me. I think that may have happened IRL because this comment was made by an RAF pilot when the FW-190 started showing up in battle. At that time the FW-190 was superior to the Spitifre V in almost all aspects of combat performance except turning circle. I assume the pilots were more aggresive becuase they could dictate the engagement much easier than they could previously in Bf-109F.

However, when you look at the 190's design everything about it says BnZ or hit and run. It's wing was designed for high speed which also gave it excellent acceleration in dive, zoom climb, and level flight. These characteristics are great for a BnZ plane. The 190 was however out-turned by most planes at low speed and bled energy quickly in harsh turning maneuvers. This made it a poor close in dogfighter.

In short, I think that comment was made due to the superiority of the 190 at the time (which lasted for almost a year) and the confidence it gave its pilots. Just my thoughts.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Korolov
08-08-2004, 12:40 PM
Wouldn't it also have a bit to do with the fact the Fw-190 rolled a great deal faster than the Spitfire?

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Abbuzze
08-08-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:

the FW190A3-6 reach their top-speed at 6.500m.
the A8 does at 6000. (if i remember correct).

and yes it's a shame that they didn't manage to give them GM1 or somthing for high-altitude (this would rock in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif )

[imagine an A6 with GM1, that's like doping for that plane]

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, 190 had a similar rated alt as the 109 but radial engines sufferd more at high alt than inline engines... over the rated altitude the powerloss is much more noteable...

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

BuzzardHead
08-08-2004, 05:51 PM
You don't drive a '57 Chevy because it's the fastest or best handling car on the block.You dive it because it's the "coolest" car on the block.

You can run but...You'll only die out of breath.

WTE_Galway
08-08-2004, 06:48 PM
well .. "dominated the skies" is a slight exagerations .. but its certianly true that at low level the spits and hurricanes had no hope of catching the fw190's which were making annoying scud-running low level ground attacks all over southern england in summer 41

the problem was eventually solved by recalling about to be cancelled Typhoon which was a monster of a plane but excelled at low levels Th etyphoons promptly took out a large number of jabo fw190 .. something the Spitfire and Hurricanes simply could not manage .. and nuetralised the threat

Franzen
08-08-2004, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Wouldn't it also have a bit to do with the fact the Fw-190 rolled a great deal faster than the Spitfire?

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the key to effectively flying the 190 in a TnB situation. But no one listens http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Frotz Franzen

Bremspropeller
08-09-2004, 02:40 AM
I guess the RAF pilot (AFAIK it was either Deere or Johnson) meant that the Huns were more aggressive and made use out of their speed-advantages (superrior turning ability at high speeds for the 190 over the Spitfire).
They didn't just come out of the sun, make one pass and then disappeared, but they kept the fight up, trusting in their a/c's abilities.


The Typhoon could deal with the 190 JaBos, but was rather useless at alts above 6000m, where most dogfights between the Spits and the true 190As (in clean fighter configurations) took place. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.wildlife-art-paintings.co.uk/picture-pictures/peregrine-falcon/peregrine-falcon_detail.jpg

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Huckebein_UK
08-09-2004, 06:16 AM
None of the Fw 190As or Ds flew with a centrally-mounted 30mm; only the Ta 152H did. Oh, and no '190 ever flew operationally with 5 x 30mms. That would mean a '152H with four wing mounted MK 108s/ 103s, which didn't happen. They might be referring to one of the projected Ta 152C subvariants, but these never reached service.

--------------
Huckebein_UK
http://www.il2skins.com:8080/skins/screenshots/8384.jpg
Il2skins.com for skins http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mortoma
08-09-2004, 09:32 AM
I think that stuff is copyrighted. Did you get permission to post it??

BBB_Hyperion
08-09-2004, 10:23 AM
Huckebein_UK you are so sure about ?

Here is a example for performance test on FWs you see the Gun Mk108 as Motor (Engine) Gun on D12.

D12 did see service.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW_DATA.jpg

Here is a performance test of ta152 with nice loadout.

Check top right.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Speechartta152.jpg

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Huckebein_UK
08-09-2004, 04:54 PM
Thanks Hyperion. It appears I stand corrected regarding centrally-mounted weapons, but I stand by my secoond statement. That second link is impressive though: 3 x MK 108 and 4 x MG 151! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Now that's heavy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Any volunteers for flying a Fort against that? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

--------------
Huckebein_UK

"I saw the men; I just couldn't do it!" -- Franz Stiegler after escorting Charles Brown's crippled B-17 across the North Sea.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/Huck/13937.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=13937)

BBB_Hyperion
08-10-2004, 08:51 AM
Mk108 i think would be useless to mount on wingroots cause of low rpm it would loose from sync to prop. 3 Mk103 Loadout you can find on the first chart for Ta152c . If its was technical possible to mount mk103 on inner wingroot then a 3 x mk103 and 2x 108 outer wing would be possible. But who would need such loadout.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Huckebein_UK
08-10-2004, 09:23 AM
The MK 103 had a higher muzzle velocity, which might have simplified synchronisation. I thought the '103s carried on the Ta 152C were in the outer wing panels though?

--------------
Huckebein_UK

"I saw the men; I just couldn't do it!" -- Franz Stiegler after escorting Charles Brown's crippled B-17 across the North Sea.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/Huck/Sigs/13937.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=13937)
Click pic to download. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
08-10-2004, 02:52 PM
On the subject of Dog Fighting capabilities of the 190 compared to the 109 it may help to consider quotes from books.

Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
The Jagdflieger and their Combat Tactics and Techniques
by
Mike Spick

page 121

"With the Advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The Aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before."

Mike Spicks version of history is supported with the following:

Focke Wulf
Fw190 in combat
by Alfred Price

Chapter 5
Uncolicited Testimonials
page 38

Most Secret
Headquarters, Fighter Command
Royal Air Force
Stanmore
Middlesex
FC/S.2947
17th July, 1942

Sir,
...At the beginning of the war our fighters possessed technical superiority over those of the enemy. We have gradually lost this lead and we are now in a position of inferiority. ..

...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...

W.S.Douglas
Air Chief Marshal

The obvious question then is what made the FW190 the "best all-round fighter"?

The following answers that question quite directly.

Wings of the Luftwaffe
by Captain Eric Brown
CBE,DSC,AFC,RN.

Focke-Wulf FW 190

page 80

"It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot tyring to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking"."

If Captain Eric Brown is correct in his evaluation of the situation at that time then the somewhat "odd" style of dogfighting that evolved with the introduction of the FW190 could have been what later did appear in "The book" and this new dogfighting style later became known as energy fighting.

Fighter Combat
Tactics and Maneuvering
by
Robert L. Shaw

One-versus-One Maneuvering, Similar Aircraft

page 99

"In deriving tactics for use against a similar aircraft, two basic approaches are available: the "angles" fight and the "energy" fight. These labels refer to the first objective of the engagement. In the angles fight the tactician first seeks to gain a position advantage (angles), even at the expense of relative energy, and then he attempts to maintain or improve on this advantage until he achieves his required firing parameters. The purpose of the energy fight is to gain an energy advantage over the opponent while not yielding a decisive position advantage. Once a sufficient energy advantage has been attained, it must be converted to a lethal possition advantage, usually without surrendering the entire energy margin.."

Shaw's description sounds a whole lot like Eric Brown's.

What makes a plane better at energy fighting?

Back to Shaw:

Low Wing Loading versus High Thrust to Weight

page 141-142

"Encounters between a low-wing-loaded fighter and an enemy fighter with greater T/W are quite common. In this case each fighter has performance advantages and disadvantages relative to its opponent. The engagement strategy is for the pilot to exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths.

...the pilot of the high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent."

Why doesn't the FW dog fight well in the game?

The FW doesn't have energy fighting capabilities.

Back to Shaw:

page 141

A fighters T/W is a fiarly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.
Obviously figthter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, was well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information."

And so we can go back to Alfred Prices book or even Ring's web page to view just such an example of comparison testing to see what made the FW190 a good dog fighter.

The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal possition, is about half ring better than that from a Spitfire (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_a_1.jpg)
The climb of the FW.190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg)

The FW. 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the intial stage. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_5.jpg)

If the real FW190 had a climb and acceleration advatage then it would have what Shaw describes as a T/W advantage and could employ what Eric Brown describes as zooms and dives to advantage in dog fighting.

In the game we have a hit and run fighter in the FW190.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Tue August 10 2004 at 10:46 PM.]

Enofinu
08-10-2004, 04:17 PM
well said mate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG7_Rall
08-10-2004, 08:49 PM
Awesome post, Josf. Thank you for saying what many others, including I, have not been able to fully convey.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/fw190sig.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

Jetbuff
08-10-2004, 11:44 PM
Well said Josf.

And now, a blast from the past:

Note: italicized text no longer applies...

"The 190, in my hands at least, turns like a brick with a parachute behind it, but I don't mind; elevator gets stuck in cement at speeds as low as 550kph, but I don't mind; I can't see for **** out the pit, but I don't mind; touchy as hell and hard to aim with, but I don't mind; no, none of these things p!ss me off. What really gets me is that the zoom climb it was supposedly famous for, the same climb it supposedly exploited to be able to 'stay and fight' with the much tighter turning spitfires, just doesn't exist. It's not like it's zoom climb doesn't make it one of the best in FB as it should be, it's that the way it's currently modelled it's one of the WORST!

Flying with proper tactics and energy is a BS argument. Even an IL-2 with 1000m altitude advantage is deadly, in fact, it's probably deadlier than a 190 with the same advantage! Remind me again which one was the fighter?!"

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

JG14_Josf
08-10-2004, 11:58 PM
Thanks guys,

Hey, I just got back from vacation and it's been awhile since flying on-line. The new patch is new to me. I flew tonight and found the G2 vs SpitV whatever version to be an odd match. The SpitV could climb like a rocket. Is this new?

Then I tried a match-up with a G6 late vs the P-40. That thing followed me up to 8,000 meters. In a straight climb I couldn't get over it. Only in a turning climb above 8km did I gain a decisive advantage. All flight on greatergreen server.

Let me know if I am simply rusty or has the new patch been ajdusted for gameplay.

I could not find a new version of IL2compare. That program tended to, at least, identify the planes that were off the charts.

WTE_Galway
08-11-2004, 12:05 AM
latest "IL2 Compare" is 2.4

JG14_Josf
08-11-2004, 12:35 PM
As far as I know the latest version of IL2compare does not represent the latest version of IL2/FB/AEP.
2.4 is the IL2compare version numbers no?


If anyone is interested there is a quote in the new book by Christer Bergstrom (A Pair of Aces) that may link Shaw's tactical analysis to that of the German WWII fighter pilots.

Where Shaw uses the terms "Angles" and "Energy" fighting the Germans may use different terminology to describe the same thing.

Judge for yourself:

From Graf and Grislawski
by Christer Bergstrom

Page 141

"You see, here in the first line, ranks and such privileges don't couint, only experience. On combat missions, the most experienced pilot is the commander, and we all have to obey his instructions, including myself, as you just have seen. Oberfeldwebel Grislawski, whom you met, is one of my best men. Usually, the pilots utilize either mainly their skills, or simply their physical strength to exhaust their enemy in the air. But Grislawski is one of the few who carries out air combat with both his head and his muscles. He also seems to have a 'nose' to find Russian aircraft in the air, and that's why I asked to accompany him on this mission. Unfortunately, I made a mess out of myself, and Grislawski was right to tear me up like that."

Note in the above quote that the speaker is Major Von Bonin talking to Leutnant Hartmann.
Von Bonin is not the best fighter pilot and he may not quite know the meaning of flying with the head and or the muscles. My quess is that Grislawski knows and my hyposthesis is that flying with the head is "Energy" fighting while flying with the muscles is "Angles" fighting.

Hartmann later defined a description of tactics that resembles Boyd's OODA loop. This analogy further suggest to me that the most successful German fighter pilots did in fact figure out what was later written down in tactical manuals such as Shaw's Fighter Combat and Boyd's Aerial Attack Study.

Von Bonin was not the pilot Grislawski was nor the pilot Hartmann would become at the time the quote above was recorded. Even so the general notion of separating combat tactics into 2 separate and distict methods does suggest similarities with Shaw's example.

Missing is detailed tactical writings from the WWII pilots who did manage to figure out how best to shoot down enemy planes.

Notice too that amoung the descriptions of fighter tactics, in history, there are no references to Boom and Zoom, otherwise know as hit and run.

That option was clearly not employed by the Aces on the Eatern Front, the Aces, that flew with reckless abandon toward ever higher kill scores.

I am nearly convinced that the term Boom and Zoom is a game term that has been generated by the gaming community to describe what inferior modeled planes are left to employ as a combat tactic.

The term Boom and Zoom is difficult to understand because many of the people using this term do not communicate the same meaning. Some are describing energy tactics with the same word as others are describing hit and run tactics. When someone is trying to communicate energy tactics they could simply use the "real" tactical term instead of the "game" term. When someone is trying to communicate hit and run tactics they could simply use the real term instead of the game term. When the game term "Boom and Zoom" is used by anyone it is left to the reader to imagine which real term is being described.

The following is a quote from Shaw that describes hit and run tactics. This quote is the closest "Real" description I've found so far that resembles the "Game" term "Boom and Zoom" (The game term usage that does not describe energy tactics).

Shaw
One-versus-one Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft
Page 183

"In the steril, one-versus-one engagement, the pilot of the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the sameas, or slightly below, that of his opponent.
The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems. He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged. These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good or very lucky."

The above quote is followed by this quote from Colonel Erich "Bubi" Hartmann, GAF

"If he is superior then I would go home, for another day that is better."

When a game such as IL2/FB does not model actual differences in dive acceleration, momentum, or whatever to a point where the game planes performances do not resemble the reported real plane relative performances (See rings web page or Alfred Prices book) then the planes that were able to stay and fight with an 'odd' style of dogfighting are not able to do so, instead the planes that did have energy maneuverability advantages in reality that do not have energy maneuverability advantages in the game are left with no real combat option, instead they are left only with the option to hit and run. The game community then learns to describe this condition in an acceptable manner known now as "Boom and Zoom" as if hit and run was actaully some form of usefull combat tactic.

Shaw doesn't seem to think 'hit and run' is a usefull combat tactic. I see know reason why Shaw would come up with a term such as "Boom and Zoom" either.

In order to use 'Energy Tactics' an ability to gain an energy advantage must exist such as was reported in the form of initial acceleration advantages, climb advantages, etc.

Plane matchups like the SpitV vs FW190 and P-47 vs FW190 are constructed in the game in such a way that the historically able energy fighters are incapable of gaining any energy avantage (unless the other pilot makes mistakes) and as such those non able energy fighters are relegated to the 'hit and run' or 'boom and zoom' barn.

Perhaps the next best flight sim will be more accurate in this respect.

Jetbuff
08-11-2004, 01:18 PM
Hmmm... I may not agree with every detail you've mentioned, (I believe hit and run/hit and climb were indeed Hartmann's way of doing things) but it's food for thought nonetheless. But you are right, FB's 190 is nothing like the 190 described in the excerpts you provided earlier.

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

JG14_Josf
08-11-2004, 01:52 PM
Jetbuff,

Yes, this is the reply that I expected. Thanks.


Shaw
page 256

"See, decide, attack, reverse."
Major Erich "Bubi" Hartmann, Luftwaffe

Boyd
The Fighter Pilot who changed the Art of War
by Robert Coram
page 344

Observe Orient Decide Act

If combat is something in between a full on aggresive all or nothing attack and a hit at full advantage and run before any advantage is lost mode: then what is it?

Could it be a balance between offense and defense based upon relative possition and energy?



page 252

"The best approach to a battle...is suprise, make your attack and disappear and start a new attack. Don't get engaged and make it a dogfight"
Lt. General Adolph Galland, Luftwaffe



page 100


"Fly with the head and not with the muscles. That is the way to long life for a fighter pilot. The fighter pilot who is all muscle and no head will never live long enough for a pension."
Colonel Willie Batz. GAF 237 Victories, WW-II

Jetbuff
08-11-2004, 06:39 PM
You know what's interesting? Galland, Hartmann, most of the "slashing attack" pilots of the BoB, they were all 109 pilots. Yet in FB it is the 190 that is the hit and run plane rather than the 109.

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

JG7_Rall
08-11-2004, 06:48 PM
Exactly, Jetbuff. And as stated before, the 190 is the "hit and run" plane in game instead of the 109, when in reality, it would "stay in the fight" with the spits for much longer (also said previously)

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/fw190sig.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

JG14_Josf
08-11-2004, 07:21 PM
Somewhere between "slashing attack" and "Stay and Fight" pilots, between Boom and Zoom and turn and burn pilots, between those who fly with their heads and those who fly with their muscles lies the area of energy fighting.

Note the seeming contradiction between these statements:

"A good fighter pilot must have on outstanding trait - aggressiveness."
Major John T. Godfrey, USAAF

"Aggressiveness was fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."
Captain David McCampbell, USN
Leading U.S. Navy Ace, WW-II
34 Victories (9 on One Mission)

"Every time your opponent attempts to dive at you or attack you in any way, the best thing to do is to turn on him, pull the nose of your machine up, and fire. "
Lt. Colonel W.A. "Billy Bishop, RAF

"On individual combat tactics, aggressiveness is the keynote of success. ...The enemy on the defensive gives you the advantage, as he is trying to evade you, and not shoot you down."
Major Thomas B. "Tommy" McGuire. USAAF

"Any angles you give the bogey on the first pass will haunt you for the rest of the fight."
Lieutenant Jim "Huck" Harris, USN


and these statments: (all quotes from Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw)

"Defense against [Japanese] fighters is resolved around the superior speed of our fighters...Offensive measures go according to the number of the enemy, but they are alwasy hit-and-run because the [Zeros] can outmaneuver us about two to one."
Major Richard I. "****" Bong, USAAF
Leading U.S. Ace, WW-II
40 Victories

"Don't let the [enemy] trick you into pulling up or turning until you lose your speed."
Major Thomas B. "Tommy" McGuire, USAAF

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Wed August 11 2004 at 07:22 PM.]

charshep
09-06-2004, 05:59 PM
Excellent posts Josf. I generally agree with your statements but I do have one question. How would you explain the Russian take on the relative merits of the 190 vs the 109 (considering the 109 superior)? Is comparing the opinions of the Western allied pilots to that of the Russian pilots comparing apples to oranges since they operated different aircraft?

VW-IceFire
09-06-2004, 07:49 PM
Comment about the Spitfire V climb rate...was it a LF or a F? There's a fairly significant difference.

Interesting comments about the zoom climb of the FW190. I do tend to agree that its somewhat weakly modeled or at least seems to be. Although you can generate a nice zoom climb, it seems to disintegrate fairly rapidly unless you are deadly careful on the controls. Its like the climb is being hindered by a lack of lift or drag. May be something in the FM that just doesn't account for this.

Are there any ways of testing this to prove one way or the other?

I'd like to know why the 109 was considered a slash and run fighter. Its controls were noted for being heavier at higher speeds (although I'm told its something of a myth and they probably shouldn't lock as much as they do) so why would you want to slash with this fighter?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-07-2004, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by charshep:
Excellent posts Josf. I generally agree with your statements but I do have one question. How would you explain the Russian take on the relative merits of the 190 vs the 109 (considering the 109 superior)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

1) There were far fewer FW190s for the eastern front than for the western front.
2) When they reached the frontline they made their impact especially around the Leningrad area
3) during the late stages of the war the 190 was used more and more in the Fighter-Bomber ground attack role, thus it was less often seen in a fighter role (add to the fact that is was far less in numbers there and you can easily see why it made such an impression).
At the final stages they even converted StuKa pilots for the FW190. You can guess how they performed.

on the western front the situation was quite reversed. Here was an enemy who had excellent pilots (R.A.F) and was adding new and good planes which at some stage were able to break the superiority of the 109(spit).
It was a logical move to exploit the disadvantage and their loss in morale when germany found out that the 190 was quite a ride for taking on the spitfire which so far have proven superior to the 109s. It was for regaining the balance. Therefore again the 190s had priority to the west.
I think JG54 converted to FW190A4 in the winter of 1942/43. A4 !!
By this time the channel-attrition-war was already going on for quite a time and the 190 mad it's impact there already. For russian conditionas the 109 was more than enough until the yaks and Las appeared in bigger numbers...
In addition the soviets approached a direct style of combat (less experienced pilots in the beginning) and combat was often down low TnB style where the 109 wasn't that bad and would mix it up more often especially the F-Series.

I remember a friend from the ukraine flying yak-3(UFO-time... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) mostly and he had more respect of the 109 than the 190 because they stayed and fought his style whereas he called the 190 the "weasel". Coincedence ? (thanks for modelling 1c... *irony)

On a sidenote:
I've got a book which is not that good but (FW190 in detail etc.) which quotes a BMW technician who was threatened for his ideas to add high-altitude modifications for the A series by Ernst Udet. The same engineer later cynically commented that "When the brits and americans arrived with high altitude bombers over france he shot himself"...
Now this could be a smarta$$ argument in stlye of "I knew this would happen.." but it can't be denied that it "would" fit and besides the FW-Company spent some time and money in such modifications...

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

[This message was edited by JaBo_HH--Gotcha on Mon September 06 2004 at 11:54 PM.]

WTE_Galway
09-07-2004, 01:21 AM
"yet it had a large and powerful radial engine installed in an extremely attractive way "


hehe ... ooh i like the curve of your cylinder heads when you take your cowl off baby http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

csThor
09-07-2004, 04:17 AM
How would you explain the Russian take on the relative merits of the 190 vs the 109 (considering the 109 superior)? Is comparing the opinions of the Western allied pilots to that of the Russian pilots comparing apples to oranges since they operated different aircraft?

I am not Josf, but I have my own impressions on that.

a) The air war over France and over Russia was tactically a completely different thing. When Adolf Galland attempted to exchange JG 26 with JG 54 it proofed to be impossible since the pilots of the Eastern Front were used to a totally different style of fighting than their West Front colleagues - small formations, low altitude engagements, lack of Ground Control etc. In the West the Fw 190's were placed in tactically advantageous positions by radar before they even saw the british formations but there was no such thing as radar control in the east (apart from a few exceptions).

b) The total number of Fw 190's used in the fighter role never exceeded 250 planes in total on the Eastern Front. After that climax (Operation Citadel) it declined steadily but at the same time the number of Fw 190 fighter bombers grew. Many soviet fighter pilots met such GA Fw 190's - often flown by ex-Stuka pilots which had not much training in Air to Air combat (if any training at all) - and so they clearly "misjudged" the possibilities of the Fw 190 as fighter.

In the west there was no such "strict" distinction between fighters and fighter-bombers as the latter were a very small minority and the RAF did distinguish between these two types of roles.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

JG14_Josf
09-07-2004, 09:55 AM
Charshep,

I do not know why the Russians considered the 109 superior to the 190.

To offer some evidence supporting the idea that some Russians did not consider the 109 better in dog fighting than the 109 note the following:

"Despite the apparent lack of official appreciation, Nowotny went from strength to strength. He had around him three inseparable companions: his Katschmarek, Karl 'Quax' Schnorrer (whose unusual nickname derived from a popular film of the period chronicling the misadventures of an accident-prone pilot), Anton 'Toni' Dobele and Rudolf Rademacher. This team, the Nowoty-Scwarm, became justly famous - between them the accounted for 524 enemy aircraft destroyed!" (page 68 Focke Wulf FW190 Aces of the Russian Front by John Weal)

and this:

"The Russians consisted of a group of around nine Yaks, diving out of the clouds towards the FW 190s parked on the runway. To my luck, most of the Yaks shot at the machines on the left side. They made only a single attack then disappeared as they had come. As it later turned out, one remained and made a second attack on my FW 190. With a great deal of effort, I had managed to leave the ground and just managed to clear the hangar with difficulty, my undercarriage still down, when the Yak shot at me. I was lucky in that the Russian was far too fast and was himself surprised at his opportunity. He missed me entirely, shooting away past me with his machine. I had been warned and was now aware of what the Russians would do in this situation. With the undercarriage and flaps in, the 190 was making up ground, the weapons ready, my 250 kg bombs jettisoned in preparation to take up the aerial battle. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time, the Yak 9 was already behind me and shooting, but the pilot must have been a beginner, for again his aim wasn't very good. At this stage, I still did not know whether he was alone or whether there were still other Yaks in the area. Meanwhile, I had reached sufficient speed to do battle. I could observe my opponent, now the chances were even and it boiled down to flying ability." (Stormbird by Hermann Buchner)

Note: "I had reached sufficient speed to do battle"

In slow speed turn fights the lighter planes with lower wingloading have an advantage with the employment of angles tactics, turn and burn, flying with the muscles, whatever you want to call a fight were aggression is full on and the pilot pulls on the stick for possition gaining angles.

In energy fighting described by Robert Shaw there are many references made to the requirement of maintaining 'sufficient speed' for example:

"Armed with this knowledge, the pilot of the high-wing-loaded energy fighter can assess his opponent's energy management by observing the bogey's angular gains. The energy fighter pilot should set up a nose-to-tail turn at maximum sustained-turn-rate speed (or vertical-maneuvering speed, if that is higher), either level or slightly nose-high."

Note: In the game IL2; vertical maneuvering speed for the FW190 is around it's corner speed 350 to 400kph)

Going back to Stormbirds by Hermann Buchner:

"...I succeeded in getting behind him, but my shots were also not successful, I was a bit nervous. The furious turning battle was played out about 300-400 metres over the airfield. In addition , my colleagues on the ground were on the radio playing along. I told them to shut their mouths and turn off the radio. A savage battle now began, the pilot was better than I had reckoned him to be at the beginning. Each of us tried to get behind the other and get into a good position. While turning, each of us managed to fire, but neither of us made any successful hits. We had been circling now for over five minutes when he made the decisive error by trying to leave the turning circle and leave the area, heading off to the right. He set his machine on the horizontal and , at this moment, I sat about 50-80 meters behind him and had him full in my sights. I pressed the trigger on the cannon and something flared up in his cockpit, the Yak tipped over on its right wing and fell to the ground."

Why Russians considered the 109 superior to the 190 may have more to do with which Russians are expressing their opinions and less to do with the actual comparative fighting capabilities between the two planes.

Check here:
Golodnikov (http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part2.htm)

For this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.

As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.

When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The introduction of the FW190 in the west coincided with the Germans use of the 109F version fighter. This time period from the summer of 1942 until the proliferation of the more powerful engined Spitfires is a time when much of the FW190s reputation as a 'Superb' dog fighter was earned.

Note: Golodnikov's quote can be interpreted as meaning the 190 was superior to the 109F.

What is the differences between the 109F and the 190 and 109Gs?

What is the difference between the SpitVs and the later Spit IXs?

Could it be that dog fighting capabilities include something more than the ability to turn in reality?

Could it be that in reality a good dogfighter included a very heavy plane with a hugh powerfull double wasp Pratt and Whitney engine like the P-47 as long as the pilot knew how to use energy tactics?

Note: The current version of the game may have changed something (undocumented) in the flight model to afford the P-47 a more accurate dog fighting capability than previous versions of the game.

The game may not model some of the subtle advantages the planes actually had in history, the very same performance capabilities that allowed pilots to dominate their opponents in history like dive acceleration advantages, and drag advantages due to higher mass that adds the higher weight/higher thrust planes ability to zoom climb, or the advantages Robert Shaw terms as a high speed energy addition rate?

I think the games flight model is not able, or the game producer is not willing, to adjust the flight models in such a way as to allow the FW190 to be a good dog fighter.

Instead of modeling an advantage in energy performance due to the factors attributable to increases in thrust even at the expense of weight the game simply models a lower v max or break up speed for the lower thrust and lighter planes.

Instead of having a wide portion of the flight envelope (from combat speeds near corner velocity 350kph on up) where these higher thrust (greater acceleration) and heavier weight (more capable of overcoming drag force) planes actually did have an energy maneuverability advantage, instead, the game simply allows those higher thrust and higher weight planes an energy maneuverability advantage over the top speed of it's rivals that have been modeled with a lower Vmax speed.

Golodnikov's example illustrates this:

"the Tomohawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better"

"With the later types of Bf-109G and the Fw-190 appeared, the P-40 became somewhat dated, but not by much"

What is different between the 109F and the 109G and FW-190?

Thrust and weight for greater energy maneuverability (dives and zooms) at the expense of slow speed turn performance and higher corner velocities.

What is the difference between the Spitfire VB (the real one in history) and the Spitfire IXs and FW190s?

Higher thrust and higher weight again.

History suggestst that turn fighting, angles, and full on aggressive muscle tactics are made less valuable in dog fights while vertical maneuvering, energy, using the head tactics are made more viable in dog fights, even those close in staked out one on one battle to the death dog fights because planes became heavier with higher thrust.

Golodikov states this concerning why the P-40 was equal or better than the 109F:

"It's speed and vertical or horizontal maneuver were good."

and this:

"As for acceleration. the P-40 was a bit heavy"

Now, anyone can argue their point of view and take appart my perspective on this subject, but what remains is that things make sense when considering these factors of relative performance and the importance of acceleration in the use of energy tactics.

If the game models an FW190 that has equal or less acceleration where it historically had more, less relative climb where it historically had more, and less ability to overcome drag due to higher weight where it historically had more than what does the game model for the FW190's ability to dog fight?

And how does that temper our opinions of the FW190 both in the game and in history?

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Tue September 07 2004 at 10:28 AM.]

Ankanor
09-07-2004, 02:15 PM
I once posted this. What the russians thought of the FW-190. But first, how did the Russians get their FW190?

"Leningrad front. On the 13.01.1943 two FW190 from JG54 engaged 2 Yak-7 over the Ladoga lake in a dogfight. One FW190 was shot down in the first turns, the second got a damaged sinchroniser, shot its prop and crashlanded on the ice." I bet the men from TsAGI did not have a spare propeller.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also, crashlanding on the ice...
So, the conclusions of the russian researchers: "In comparioson to Me-109, the new fighter is considerably heavier, has exceptionally strong armament and high mass of the loading(fuel, ammo, bombs, etc). At the Eastern Front appeared its 4th modification- FW190 A-4. The armamnet consists of 4 20mm cannons and 2 7.92mm machineguns. It's duration of shooting and mass of the firepower- 4.93 kg/s are unequaled.
Having a significant advantage to Me109G in firepower, FW190 is heavier and because of its weaker power ratiois inferior to Me109 in both horisontal and vertical maneuverability, speed and climb rate. FW190 has a long takeoff and landing distance and high glide speed, which complicates the landing and takeoff. In comparison to Me109 it is less stable and worse on the controls. In other words, in the common qualities that influence the aerial fighting, FW190 is inferior to Me109. Despite that fact, production of the FW190 is growing and its proportion in the Jagdwaffe is increasing every day. The reason is in the fact that all around FW190 can fight better the soviet Sturmoviks that appear in ever growing numbers on the front and deliver ever greater losses in live force and equipment to the enemy.
Using FW190 as a close support aircraft, Luftwaffe tries to compensate for the lack of a Sturmovik. In order to increase the duarbility, the constructors have placed armor at the most vulnerable parts. the armor of A-4 ammounts to 110 kg.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif But combat record showed that the aircraft is vulnerable from below and on A-5 the mass of the armor was increased significantly. but the armor of FW190 is "dead mass" it is not a part of the construction of the aicraft, unlike IL-2. A-4 and A-5 appear in mixed groups with Me109 beacause they are inferior to the new soviet fighters..."

source: "aircraft building in USSR 1917-1945", Book 2, TsAGI, 1994.

My comment: This can be used much as the conclusions of Lerche about the La-5F(N) fighter. Also, does anybody know the mass armor of the fighter A-4? my guess is they had a Jabo in their hands, not a pure fighter like Farber's.

I would like to hear your comment on this

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53

JG14_Josf
09-07-2004, 04:12 PM
Ankanor,

Does the evaluation report mention which Me109G is better than which FW190 in horizontal and vertical maneuverability and does it describe what they mean by vertical maneuverability?

My quess is that Golodnikov's version of vertical maneuverability would describe something similar to Robert Shaw's energy fighting if for no other reason then Golodnikov was an experienced fighter pilot.

Here is how Shaw describes it:

"Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions. Ps at a given airspeed is a function of the ratio of excess thrust to aircraft weight, as shown by Equation 4 in the Appendix, and is a measure of the aircraft's ability to climb or accelerate under those conditions. A fighter's T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance."

The 109's were known to have better climb rates than the FW190s but what about acceleration?

Does the TsAGI test compare the FW190 against a 109 in comparison tests or are the conclusions based upon separate tests done with a captured Messerschmitt tested at another time?

The good thing about the Farber tests conducted in the summer of 1942 with the captured FW190A-3 is that the tests were conducted side by side with Spitfires and the FW190A-3 was in at least good enough condition to have just shot down a Spitfire before safely landing at the wrong base.

"Four Spitfires hasd been hurriedly scrambled by the Exeter Wing, two crashing on take-off, one returning to base with R T trouble and the other being summarily despatched by the lone Fw 190...appeared barrel-rolling across RAF Pembrey" (Wings of the Luftwaffe, Captain Eric Brown)

If the FW190 is worse in horizontal maneuverability than a 109G and if the Farber tests are also correct then the 109G should be able to maneuver vertical circles around the Spitfire VB's in the summer of 1942 if those planes were modeled according to these sources.

Something certainly doesn't make sense with either the Farber tests or the TsAGI report.

At least the Farber tests do contain specific information concerning the condition of the FW190 such as:

"Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly...[later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs" (Focke-Wulf Fw190 in combat, Alfred Price)

Just in case anyone is interested there is quote on Golodnikov's interview web page that indicates what happens when Rolls Royce Merlin engines are ran to hard:

"The Rolls-Royce engine was good, but could not stand up to prolonged operation at maximum output. It broke down."

CTO88
09-07-2004, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by charshep:
Excellent posts Josf. I generally agree with your statements but I do have one question. How would you explain the Russian take on the relative merits of the 190 vs the 109 (considering the 109 superior)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

1) There were far fewer FW190s for the eastern front than for the western front.
2) When they reached the frontline they made their impact especially around the Leningrad area
3) during the late stages of the war the 190 was used more and more in the Fighter-Bomber ground attack role, thus it was less often seen in a fighter role (add to the fact that is was far less in numbers there and you can easily see why it made such an impression).
At the final stages they even converted StuKa pilots for the FW190. You can guess how they performed.

on the western front the situation was quite reversed. Here was an enemy who had excellent pilots (R.A.F) and was adding new and good planes which at some stage were able to break the superiority of the 109(spit).
It was a logical move to exploit the disadvantage and their loss in morale when germany found out that the 190 was quite a ride for taking on the spitfire which so far have proven superior to the 109s. It was for regaining the balance. Therefore again the 190s had priority to the west.
I think JG54 converted to FW190A4 in the winter of 1942/43. A4 !!
By this time the channel-attrition-war was already going on for quite a time and the 190 mad it's impact there already. For russian conditionas the 109 was more than enough until the yaks and Las appeared in bigger numbers...
In addition the soviets approached a direct style of combat (less experienced pilots in the beginning) and combat was often down low TnB style where the 109 wasn't that bad and would mix it up more often especially the F-Series.



QUOTE]

there is no indication that fw-190 had any impact at eastern front for aircombat, but some german claim figures.
especially at kursk, where fw190 was used first time in larger numbers, russians claimed that fw190 didn't make a well perfomance.
at kursk jg-51/54 in the north seems to have more than average losses. jg-51 chronicle states that la-5fn was nearly 50km/h faster than own planes (jg-51 had only 190 at this time). e.h. sims even states that jg-1(fw190) was at eastern front and lost all the aircrafts in 3 weeks.

additionaly fw190f + g fought quite much airbattles. i have talked to an veteran who flew fw190f8, he claimed 3-5 airkills.
at eastern front most dogfight were below 4200m. il2 normally didnt climb above 1500m. in these heights 190 wasn't a well fighter.

as soviet ace woroshejkin stated in 6000m fw190 was superior to yak. in his case an yak7b with 105pf2 (similar yak9). but this height wasn't used not often at eastern front.

Ankanor
09-07-2004, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Ankanor,

Does the evaluation report mention which Me109G is better than which FW190 in horizontal and vertical maneuverability and does it describe what they mean by vertical maneuverability?

My quess is that Golodnikov's version of vertical maneuverability would describe something similar to Robert Shaw's energy fighting if for no other reason then Golodnikov was an experienced fighter pilot.

Here is how Shaw describes it:

"Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions. Ps at a given airspeed is a function of the ratio of excess thrust to aircraft weight, as shown by Equation 4 in the Appendix, and is a measure of the aircraft's ability to climb or accelerate under those conditions. A fighter's T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance."

The 109's were known to have better climb rates than the FW190s but what about acceleration?

Does the TsAGI test compare the FW190 against a 109 in comparison tests or are the conclusions based upon separate tests done with a captured Messerschmitt tested at another time?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't have the complete source, just this translation. But I do not think that it can be used at all. First, it states 110kg armor, this looks more like a jabo. Second, that aircraft was damaged, shot its prop and then crashlanded on the ice... even the crashlanding will reduce the flight characteristics by much. Adding a shot and bent prop. Of course it was repaired, but the efficiency of such a prop is far from normal.
And if you look more carefully, this report is more of a moral booster - all that talking about the mighty IL-2s...

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53

robban75
09-07-2004, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ankanor:
shot its prop and then crashlanded on the ice... even the crashlanding will reduce the flight characteristics by much. Adding a shot and bent prop. Of course it was repaired, but the efficiency of such a prop is far from normal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read somewhere that the Russians replaced it with a Stuka prop! However don't quote me on it, I'm trying to find more info on the subject!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

falco_cz
09-08-2004, 03:18 AM
One thing that strike me about Fw190:empty weight was 2890 kg, empty weight of La5F was 2800 kg, if you try Fw190A4 with 50% fuel (cca 300kg) and La5F with 100% fuel, they have almost identical power loading/wing loading. But that La5F just feel much "lighter" and definitely like fighter in comparison with Fw190A4. So what is wrong with it?

csThor
09-08-2004, 03:45 AM
Disclaimer: I do believe that a lot of FM oddities come from the helplessly overloaded code which either makes planes better in certain areas than they were (Spitfire coming to my mind) or worse (Fw 190).

The major problem is the strange wobbling of the controls in the Fw 190 - something that is quite a contradiction to any test I ever read. The second thing is the general problem with heavy planes in FB (see disclaimer for reason), meaning planes that mostly rely on dive acceleration and zoomclimb.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

clint-ruin
09-08-2004, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
The major problem is the strange wobbling of the controls in the Fw 190 - something that is quite a contradiction to any test I ever read. The second thing is the general problem with heavy planes in FB (see disclaimer for reason), meaning planes that mostly rely on dive acceleration and zoomclimb.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that a lot of "wobble" complaints about the 190, and other complaints like the "wing snap" on the P-51, are almost solely the result of people asking for ever more control authority on a stick with very short travel. Don't hamfist those planes, or if you plan to, use a stiff stick like the Cougar or tone down the sensitivity settings. There is just not a lot of space on a joysticks travel to properly represent control effectiveness on a PC without toning it down towards the edges. There was a very good article from the Warbirds community someone posted on this issue a while back, if anyone knows the article I mean [about stick scaling] it would be good to link it.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BlackStar2000
09-08-2004, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


I'd like to know why the 109 was considered a slash and run fighter. Its controls were noted for being heavier at higher speeds (although I'm told its something of a myth and they probably shouldn't lock as much as they do) so why would you want to slash with this fighter?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-----------------------------------
"109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control. 109 G series were also much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
Please see sections diving and stick forces for pilot comments on the subject.
----------------------------------------------



Check here

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/#dives

[This message was edited by BlackStar2000 on Wed September 08 2004 at 06:30 AM.]

Jaws2002
09-08-2004, 12:52 PM
Here's a quote from Luther's soviet fighter tactics that gives us a general idea about the way the fw's were used compares to the 109's:


"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:



FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.



FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement.



FW-190 will dive, sometimes inverted, when threatened by our fighters getting on his six. There has never been occasions of FW-190 attempting to climb away in such situations."


It is easy to understand which fighter (109 or fw) is more dangerous in this type of arrangement.
And about the poor high altitude performance of the FW's, you forgot that Kurt Tank always wanted DB engines for his fighter, but the high Command would rather give them to the BF-110's or 210's then to FW's.
The D9 was made with DB-603 in mind, and for the serial production it got a bomber Jumo engine.
By the time it got it (Ta-152C) it was too late.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/Uber2sm.jpg

hop2002
09-08-2004, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One thing that strike me about Fw190:empty weight was 2890 kg, empty weight of La5F was 2800 kg, if you try Fw190A4 with 50% fuel (cca 300kg) and La5F with 100% fuel, they have almost identical power loading/wing loading. But that La5F just feel much "lighter" and definitely like fighter in comparison with Fw190A4. So what is wrong with it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "empty" weight of 2800 kg for the La5 is empty equipped, ie it includes everything but fuel, oil, ammunition and pilot.

The 190A3 weighed 2970 kg empty, but without weapons, radio etc. You've got to add 200 kg of equipment to get the same level of equipment as the La5 empty weight.

So the 190 weighs close to 400 kg more in a comparable empty condition to the La 5.

p1ngu666
09-08-2004, 09:10 PM
wasnt the jumo better than some of the db engines anyways?
190 amusing would need todo manovours tobe better than 109.
109 has better climb and turn (in general)
190 has better dive
so on paper, the 109 is a better offensive fighter.

but if we start divin and climbin, the 190 should bulid up "momentum" and retain it better, if u dont push it too far in turns/climbs/dives and u skid and bleed E.

so you would haveto "fly" the 190 to gain a advantage

roll and dive are really runnin away advantages, help in the attack, but not as much as say turn (imo).

vs spit ix here, uve got roll and highspeed climb, and topspeed(sometimes?)

u need the dive n zoom climb to be modeled/(more?)

still its kinda funny at a 190 hasto manouver (imo) if it meets a spit head on, same speed etc, divin and zoomclimbs to gain a advantage, and thats if the spit driver doesnt shortcut your actions.

as for the yak stories, we have hardly any from russian side. im sure theres similer stories from russian drivers, shooting down bunches of germans. such is life

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Anitchrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB