PDA

View Full Version : Soviet report Fw 190 Vs La-5



Wildnoob
07-28-2010, 03:02 PM
In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean. The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."

The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality. The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s. One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon. The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us. The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided. If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail. When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver. Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length. The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down." When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy. In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft). A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected. Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Source: http://www.battle-fields.com/c...dex.php/t-17442.html (http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/archive/index.php/t-17442.html)

Wildnoob
07-28-2010, 03:02 PM
In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean. The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."

The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality. The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s. One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon. The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us. The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided. If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail. When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver. Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length. The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down." When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy. In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft). A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected. Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Source: http://www.battle-fields.com/c...dex.php/t-17442.html (http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/archive/index.php/t-17442.html)

M_Gunz
07-28-2010, 03:09 PM
Again?

berg417448
07-28-2010, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"...because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No propaganda here...LOL.

Wildnoob
07-28-2010, 03:26 PM
Interesting report.

The russians seems to be more interested in kill the 190 in the vertical were their Lavochkins have more advantage.

In a certain sim this great advantage seems to be extended to the horizontal as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

DKoor
07-28-2010, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"...because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No propaganda here...LOL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps they meant intentional ramming or something of similar nature...?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Wildnoob
07-28-2010, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Again? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again what?

Wildnoob
07-28-2010, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"...because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe constant combat operations?

DKoor
07-28-2010, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Interesting report.

The russians seems to be more interested in kill the 190 in the vertical were their Lavochkins have more advantage.

In a certain sim this great advantage seems to be extended to the horizontal as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that would probably be the best way to kill such fighter.... not horizontal but vertical. That almost as a rule favors lighter and more maneuverable fighters, unlike popular thought much more so that horizontal actually (because these fights tend to get really really slow even more so than horizontal circling, depending on case).
We should notice that "new" Lavochkin 5 fighter is, unlike its predecessor, actually competent in climb on low/mid alts so running away from them in climb with no advantage or actually trying to dogfight them vertically in all possibility wont end well.
Not only for 190 but possibly for 109 too.

I see nothing wrong there... however, again, bnz and similar scenarios of high speed or high speed maneuvers & chases are a whole another case.

Wildnoob
07-28-2010, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Interesting report.

The russians seems to be more interested in kill the 190 in the vertical were their Lavochkins have more advantage.

In a certain sim this great advantage seems to be extended to the horizontal as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that would probably be the best way to kill such fighter.... not horizontal but vertical. That almost as a rule favors lighter and more maneuverable fighters, unlike popular thought much more so that horizontal actually (because these fights tend to get really really slow even more so than horizontal circling, depending on case).
We should notice that "new" Lavochkin 5 fighter is, unlike its predecessor, actually competent in climb on low/mid alts so running away from them in climb with no advantage or actually trying to dogfight them vertically in all possibility wont end well.
Not only for 190 but possibly for 109 too.

I see nothing wrong there... however, again, bnz and similar scenarios of high speed or high speed maneuvers & chases are a whole another case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

And there are a lot of factors that existed in RL and we don't have in the sim that could change things interely.

Like the capability from holding high structural g loads of the Fw 190 due to being a more sturdy plane (to be implemented in 4.10) and the plane have light stick forces.

Because we don't have such limits, at least not the structural yet and the pilots don't have a stamina limit the t&b planes have the advantage in keep maneuvering all the time without consequences.

I think this is what can make indirectly planes like the La become uber.

Here is a German pilot comparison report between the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 from wik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history):

"I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well"

M_Gunz
07-28-2010, 06:39 PM
Again the same report as more than once before with of course none of the previous discussions points considered. Gee, fighters vs JABOS but let's just say 190's. Discuss as if never before multiple pages before truths are revealed and the discussion stops for lack of controversy. Rinse and repeat.

That AGAIN.

mortoma
07-28-2010, 08:03 PM
The Soviet test and comparison of that captured 190 against the LA was invalid in key ways because the Soviets had to put a prop from a captured Stuka on it. Because it's prop had been damaged and they had nothing else to install.

I'm sure the performance of that 190 was adversely affected without the proper prop installed! If I remember correctly, they even had to trim down the diameter of the Stuka prop a bit as it's blades were too long for the FW, further affecting performance negatively.

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2010, 08:13 PM
The "Stuka prop" story is just that, a story.

The Fw-190 and Stuka props have different hub sizes. They simply aren't interchangable. The FW-190 prop blades are 30 cm longer as well.

Bremspropeller
07-29-2010, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw-190 and Stuka props have different hub sizes. They simply aren't interchangable. The FW-190 prop blades are 30 cm longer as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Facts like these have never really bothered Yuri and his friend, the hammer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DKoor
07-29-2010, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw-190 and Stuka props have different hub sizes. They simply aren't interchangable. The FW-190 prop blades are 30 cm longer as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Facts like these have never really bothered Yuri and his friend, the hammer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sometimes I need to be reminded what the term "fact" means here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif .

At certain point HMG killing heavy tanks being one fact here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
A story/fact (all the same) advertised probably by the same people who don't think that it is possible to regularly down a bomber with .303s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Jumoschwanz
07-29-2010, 07:04 PM
Well the aircraft types did not make much difference to the German pilots in WWII. They pretty much walked right through the Russians as they pleased with far superior kill to death ratios. The only thing that defeated Germany in WWII was being outnumbered ten to one in the air on the western front, and ten to one on the ground in the eastern front.

AndyJWest
07-29-2010, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Well the aircraft types did not make much difference to the German pilots in WWII. They pretty much walked right through the Russians as they pleased with far superior kill to death ratios. The only thing that defeated Germany in WWII was being outnumbered ten to one in the air on the western front, and ten to one on the ground in the eastern front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you for that in-depth historical insight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

baronWastelan
07-29-2010, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Well the aircraft types did not make much difference to the German pilots in WWII. They pretty much walked right through the Russians as they pleased with far superior kill to death ratios. The only thing that defeated Germany in WWII was being outnumbered ten to one in the air on the western front, and ten to one on the ground in the eastern front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This, plus a bit of over-confidence about the capabilities of the Wehrmacht over the Red Army.

AndyJWest
07-29-2010, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by baronWastelan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Well the aircraft types did not make much difference to the German pilots in WWII. They pretty much walked right through the Russians as they pleased with far superior kill to death ratios. The only thing that defeated Germany in WWII was being outnumbered ten to one in the air on the western front, and ten to one on the ground in the eastern front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This, plus a bit of over-confidence about the capabilities of the Wehrmacht over the Red Army. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And come to think of it, over-confidence about the capabilities of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. That, and having a bunch of fruitcakes in charge. And insufficient industrial infrastructure to fight a sustained war. And...

M_Gunz
07-29-2010, 08:10 PM
It pleased the Germans to lose so many pilots and planes in the East while being outnumbered in the West?
They must have felt bad for the Russian pilots not having any Aces so they decided to help them out.

BillSwagger
07-29-2010, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"...because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe constant combat operations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm thinking fuel and range but i'm not sure how that differed in comparison to Russian fighters only that maybe when the Germans were on the offensive attacking over Russian territory where longer flights were involved. There is other literature to suggest that the Germans only attacked with a far superior advantage, otherwise they fled and climbed to a point of advantage. It was rare to see two or three planes attacking even from an altitude advantage. They usually would wait and coordinate attacks with several other flights so that 5 or 10 109s would be descending on two or three enemy planes. Remember that these pilots were also hailed as superstars much like a hollywood actor or sports player. It was important that they couldn't lose.

I see this report as a way to help pilots in determining what to expect out of the German planes and how to approach them tactically. Its hard to compare this to in game tactics because most people don't fly above 10000ft, and most fights end up slower than what these tactics are referring to.

Bill

csThor
07-30-2010, 01:47 AM
German fighter pilots in the East had total freedom to choose whether they accept combat or not. Given the disparity in numbers it would have been most unwise to enter all potential combats even if at a gross disadvantage. To a soviet fighter pilot who was bound closely to the mission object and therefore had to accept combat regardless of tactical position it must have seemed that they were reluctant to engage but in reality they were just smart enough not to get drawn into a fight from a disadvantage.

Secondly the far majority of Fw 190s on the EF were ground-attack versions.

M_Gunz
07-30-2010, 02:02 AM
Accept combat or not on the instant or move to a better position and then attack but that was when Russia was on the defense of Russian skies. How about towards the end when Germany played as home team in their own skies?

BillSwagger
07-30-2010, 04:55 AM
The 109 and Fw190 had several different configurations that one model could be used in a variety of rolls which included ground attack. Lets not forget the ground attack version of the plane was one that carried bomb racks and more fuel, but other than that they were essentially the same plane.

I think what's likely to make a bigger difference with model to model is the types of missions they flew. Obviously ground attack and strafing runs are going to be more dangerous than escort or point defense.

There are interviews with Russian pilots that mention being circled by 109s for 20 minutes until more 109s showed up making it a 2 or 3 to one advantage in favor of the Germans. One guy even mentions that Germans had a habit of chasing down fighters abandoning their bombers which often lead to lopsided victories on both sides.

M_Gunz
07-30-2010, 07:16 AM
We have as used in Russia for some time FW 190A-4 Jabo with less boost than the fighter model. Were the props even the same? Was there any other difference that a casual search through less than extensive documents would miss? I know that I don't know and wouldn't know what I have learned except for being here and seeing such details posted by guess who?

Bremspropeller
07-30-2010, 09:28 AM
Thor wouldn't you say that many Schlachtflieger-pilots weren't either trained to do air-air stuff in the fist place and/ or were overtaken from former Stuka and Bomber units?

That would certainly make a lot more sense than telling that the 190s were "Jabo Variants".

August Lambert and Hermann Buchner didn't seem to have that many problems of getting kills with their Jabos - albeit at least Buchner was a fighter-pilot (among other traits...) by training.

csThor
07-31-2010, 12:04 AM
That still doesn't make my statement less true. At the peak of their presence on the EF (just before Kursk) the pure fighter Fw 190s topped just above 200 planes.

And, as you said, most of the ground-attack Fw 190s were flown by pilots who came from flying a Stuka and while the Fw 190 F offered them a chance to go up against soviet fighters most were not in the same category as Lambert or Buchner. This shouldn't surprise anyone as german basic flight training was pretty good at filtering pilots for their specific strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone had what it took to be a fighter pilot, after all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
07-31-2010, 02:45 AM
Thanks, another urban myth disproven http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
07-31-2010, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
That still doesn't make my statement less true. At the peak of their presence on the EF (just before Kursk) the pure fighter Fw 190s topped just above 200 planes.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would ask what the difference is between a pure fighter 190 and one that is designated for other rolls.
It seems that load outs are the primary distinction, although later variants it is more obvious that developments catered to improving performance at higher altitudes.
I guess the only thing i could point out is that the bomber models tended to have more undercarriage armor making them heavier while fighter configurations had less armor making them more vulnerable.

Also isn't a Jabo 190A-4 the same as a 190G-3?
I guess what i'm asking is what makes it a Jabo? the hard points for bombs? It seems they would be identical aircraft from that sense. I ask cause i'm not sure.

Bill

Bremspropeller
07-31-2010, 04:03 AM
Hardpoints for bombs and increased armor.

But as agreed upon above, the pilots mostly weren't trained for air/air work and thus were the decisive factor.

csThor
07-31-2010, 05:59 AM
It's essentially a question of pilots, just like Brems said. If you stick someone used to driving a Toyota combi with maybe 100hp into a Lamborghini you shouldn't expect him to try and bring the Lamborghini to its limits (which would most probably beyond the limits of the driver). This is what happened to most ex-Stuka or bomber pilots and you find some hints to their problems in other pilots' memories (i.e. Hartmann's despair over the ex-bomber pilots who didn't fly "fighter-style" but clung to their bomber training and concentrated on smooth wide movements). It should not surprise anyone that such pilots weren't particularly inclined to seek combat with soviet fighters.

Kwiatos
07-31-2010, 10:04 AM
It is important to know that many Fw 190 jabo version expecially in Eeastern Front had older ( worse) engines that standar fighter version.

So initialy in Eastern Front there were many even Fw 190 A-4 Jabo version with BMW 801 C engines with 1560 PS instead better 801 D-2 engines ( 1700PS). Such planes had clearly worse peformacne than standart version with BMW 801 D-2.

Bremspropeller
07-31-2010, 10:11 AM
Source?

csThor
07-31-2010, 10:47 AM
What Brems said. SchG 1 and SchG 2 were both totally reequipped with factory-fresh Fw 190s A-5/U3 and U8 in early 1943 (coming straight from Bf 109 E-7s) and so the claim that the ground-attack arm was given old and derated crates is highly doubtful.

JtD
07-31-2010, 12:06 PM
1.65 ata boost were introduced on fighter bombers, meaning they'd have a more powerful engine available then fighters.

Kwiatos
07-31-2010, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
What Brems said. SchG 1 and SchG 2 were both totally reequipped with factory-fresh Fw 190s A-5/U3 and U8 in early 1943 (coming straight from Bf 109 E-7s) and so the claim that the ground-attack arm was given old and derated crates is highly doubtful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suorce is AJ PRess Aircraft Monogrpaph nr. 17 part.1.

They mentioned that some Jabo version of A-4 but also A-5 had older engines BMW 801 C-2 due to some problem with 801 D-2 engines delivery from fabric.

Im sure that i read about it also in other suorces.

BTW performance of Olegs A-4 looks more like version with 801 C-2 engine than with standart 801 D-2

M_Gunz
07-31-2010, 02:06 PM
SchG 1 and SchG 2 were upgraded in early 1943. Before then, 109E-7's. Were those the only Jabo units in the East?

How to characterize the action without saying when and whom? Clearly the when must be said.

Kwiatos
07-31-2010, 04:08 PM
The same information about some A-4 Jabo version with older BMW 801 C-2 engines i found in " Planes and Pilots. Fw 190 from 1939 to 1945.

It is hard to find numbers of such planes and where exacly they were used.

At least also i found in the same book confirmation that there was BMW 801D engine upgrade from D-1 to D-2. There were some changes and also D-2 have little more horsepower. Such engines were used also in Fw 190 A-4 version not only from A-5. Such information about using new motor (from late 1942) i see in most german charts for Fw 190 A-5. These is one of the reasons why there were such speed difference in low alts ( at sea level) between some A-3, A-4, A-5 version at the same power setting 1.42 Ata 2700 RPM.

BillSwagger
07-31-2010, 04:35 PM
My understanding is that an A-4 Jabo configuration is really a misnomer for an FW190G-1, or at least it inspired the design but they aren't the same planes. Unless you are saying the game represnets the A-4/U8 which is what would be the closest to a Jabo configuration if that load out is selected.
The primary difference seems to be that the G offered the ability to carry both extra fuel and bombs extending flight time an additional two hours. It also had the capacity to carry more armor but rarely did so because weight was already an issue.


Bill

Bremspropeller
08-01-2010, 03:41 AM
There are different cowling-designs for the 190.

Two of them feature extra inlet-scoops.
One of them is the "clean" scoop used for an increase of full-pressure altitude by around 300-500m.

The other one seems to be a some kind of "dust filter" (Thor?) used by Jabos mostly.

They'd cost some performance down low because of increased drag.

The use of 25 different major engine-types seems rather fishy to me in the context of the standardization-paranoia of RLM.

Kettenhunde
08-01-2010, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The use of 25 different major engine-types seems rather fishy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were only 6 different engine types of BMW801D2 for use in the different FW-190 series variants.

Kettenhunde
08-01-2010, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It also had the capacity to carry more armor but rarely did so because weight was already an issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There was never any provision for extra armor on the bombenflugzeugen.

JtD
08-01-2010, 05:45 AM
Nominally, Fw 190 F series Schlachtflugzeuge were equipped with external "Tropenschächten" (tropical intakes), and sometimes also a widened gap for the oil cooler, which made them slower. The external intakes cost about 15-20 km/h and the extra oil cooling capacity another 15-20 km/h. Then they'd lose another 15 km/h due to the ETC-50 rack for the small bombs under the wings and another 10 km/h for the ETC 501 under the fuselage and the missing wheel doors. So, if you take a fighter in top condition and modify it into a fighter bomber, you'll be losing 50+ km/h in top speed.

Bremspropeller
08-01-2010, 06:54 AM
What were the Tropenschächte actually feeding?
The fan-intake was still unfiltered, so the filtering of the rear cylinder-air seems pretty moot to me. A drawing of the intake-scoops (and what they actually do feed) would certainly help...

Any clarification on this?

badatflyski
08-01-2010, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
It is important to know that many Fw 190 jabo version expecially in Eeastern Front had older ( worse) engines that standar fighter version.

So initialy in Eastern Front there were many even Fw 190 A-4 Jabo version with BMW 801 C engines with 1560 PS instead better 801 D-2 engines ( 1700PS). Such planes had clearly worse peformacne than standart version with BMW 801 D-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:Suorce is AJ PRess Aircraft Monogrpaph nr. 17 part.1.

They mentioned that some Jabo version of A-4 but also A-5 had older engines BMW 801 C-2 due to some problem with 801 D-2 engines delivery from fabric.

Im sure that i read about it also in other suorces.

BTW performance of Olegs A-4 looks more like version with 801 C-2 engine than with standart 801 D-2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Funny, as the A4 jabos were mostly used by the JG54 and they tested and adopted the low altitude high pressure injection....that could be only used on the D2

No A4 or later received a "C" engine as they were delivered with the D2 and the spares needed.The first batch of A3 received the C2 engine but were rapidly retroffited with the D2 (France42-JG26)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:The same information about some A-4 Jabo version with older BMW 801 C-2 engines i found in " Planes and Pilots. Fw 190 from 1939 to 1945.

It is hard to find numbers of such planes and where exacly they were used.

At least also i found in the same book confirmation that there was BMW 801D engine upgrade from D-1 to D-2. There were some changes and also D-2 have little more horsepower. Such engines were used also in Fw 190 A-4 version not only from A-5. Such information about using new motor (from late 1942) i see in most german charts for Fw 190 A-5. These is one of the reasons why there were such speed difference in low alts ( at sea level) between some A-3, A-4, A-5 version at the same power setting 1.42 Ata 2700 RPM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No D1 were mounted on any planes(except 1 prototype), it was a test engine from BMW.
The D2 became the standard version from begin42 and when keeping the same denomination through the war, the D2 has an evolution till the end of the war, beeing pushed till 1.80ata from mid 44.
Tha external (tropical) air intakes , even if having a higher drag , did produce a better Ram effect, allowing a higher input compensating the drag.

There are big differencies between an A4/5/6 with racks and a dedicated F version.
The latter having ventral armor, but not having the external guns, the weight "empty" being the same as a standard fighter version.

Kettenhunde
08-01-2010, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw 190 F series Schlachtflugzeuge were equipped with external "Tropenschächten" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, any FW-190 could be equipped with the tropical engine and equipment. It is a separate kit and power egg that turns any FW-190 variant into a tropical variant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What were the Tropenschächte actually feeding? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The supercharger intake....

JtD
08-01-2010, 09:08 AM
The air intakes fed the supercharger which fed the engine.

The internal intakes had a grate that protected the supercharger against larger objects.

The external intakes came with and without a filter.

Without, they were intended for fighters, had the same protection as the internal intakes and would allow the engine to reach higher FTH's at higher speeds due to the ram effect.

With filter, if I understand it correctly, there were two ways into the intake - one through the front of the intake, one through the side. This was controlled through a gate, which I suppose was controlled by the pilot. The side intake was filtered. The tropicalized intake can be recognized by ripples on the side of the intake, though they are tough to spot on photographs.

Most detailed description I found were in the spare parts lists for the engine cowling, so I can tell you which nut went where, but I don't know how it was operated.

Below a sketch of the external intakes from Squadron Signal publications, Fw 190 in action. Some photographs in there, too.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fotos/external.jpg

Xiolablu3
08-01-2010, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nominally, Fw 190 F series Schlachtflugzeuge were equipped with external "Tropenschächten" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, any FW-190 could be equipped with the tropical engine and equipment. It is a separate kit and power egg that turns any FW-190 variant into a tropical variant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


JTD said 'nominally' which I take to mean now and again they were equipped with it. Making his statement correct.

From anyone else I would expect 'Oops sorry I missed that' but this time I will not hold my breath....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
08-01-2010, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw 190 F series Schlachtflugzeuge were equipped with external "Tropenschächten" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, any FW-190 could be equipped with the tropical engine and equipment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said "nominally", which you omitted, and that info was taken straight from Focke Wulf factory information. Feel free to go back in time and argue with them.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

p.s. "Nominal" as in "according to plan". Fw 190 specs list the differences of the F and the A series, and one point is the tropical air intake. Of course, in the field, not each and every F model used it (and not every plane that used it was an F series).

Xiolablu3
08-01-2010, 09:19 AM
Apologies, I thought you meant 'nominally' as it 'seldomly' or 'rarely'.

Bremspropeller
08-01-2010, 09:33 AM
Thx JtD.

So the operation was pretty much similar to the 109's sandfilter; with a switch between the modes "no filtering/ open frontal intake" and "filtering/ closed frontal intake".

Another way of controlling the gate you mentioned could be a two-position gear (up/ down) sensor.

I'm not sure how the pilot could control it - in the 109 it was controlled by a pulley IIRC.

JtD
08-01-2010, 09:43 AM
It's a pulley installation in there, too, but I don't know where the other end goes. I'd guess the cockpit...

Kettenhunde
08-01-2010, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crumpp says:
No, any FW-190 could be equipped with the tropical engine and equipment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> JtD says:
I said "nominally", which you omitted, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez, you have some silly crap. English is your second language, right?!

Grow up please.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The external intakes came with and without a filter.

Without, they were intended for fighters, had the same protection as the internal intakes and would allow the engine to reach higher FTH's at higher speeds due to the ram effe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FIGHTERS could use the tropical engine and kit. ANY Focke Wulf FW-190 series could use the tropical kit until the kit ceased production in early 1944.

THAT was the point I made to you.

JtD
08-01-2010, 10:57 AM
Look, you disagreed with me. What I said was correct. You can look it up in Fw documents if you really have access to only 10% of what you claim you have.

It might have been better to say "on the paper" or "in theory" or something instead of "nominally", but then, as you figured, English is not my first language. Also not my second, so you're wrong with your assumption. However, I do understand the difference between "F series has" and "only the F series has", which you don't.

Eventually, you know nothing about this subject I don't already know. So leave me alone.

http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/wchand.gif

M_Gunz
08-01-2010, 08:43 PM
I can understand the sand filter being used in North Africa and the Mideast. Where else? Italy, Balkans, Greece or Crimea?

Kettenhunde
08-01-2010, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Where else? Italy, Balkans, Greece or Crimea? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russia, Italy AFAIK.

Gaston444
08-06-2010, 10:51 PM
I think "tense battles of any duration" refers to the fact that sustained vertical fighting over a series of loops was seen as more stressful than other fighting styles...

They obviously felt the Germans lacked patience in such vertical encounters, since the companion piece to this Soviet evaluation says:


http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

"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."

Also of interest here: "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."
-----------------------------------------

-The points about 190 jabo PILOTS as opposed to the differences in their mounts is interesting, and would explain the generally low Soviet pilot opinion of the FW-190 vs the Me-109G...

This quote is very interesting and demonstrates once more how wary one should be of generalisations based on simplistic math:

"I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well"

-This would have been the Me-109F, I re-iterate: The F(!), against the earlier FW-190A-2, in line with Gunther Rall's quote: "They (Rechlin) told us the new FW-190A could out-turn our Me-109(F), however I could out-turn it..."

Both these comparative quotes agree that they were very close... This on its face shows the "basic" math to be an inadequate predictive tool... The Me-109F was 900 lbs LIGHTER than the G, or about 2500-3000 lbs lighter(!) than the FW-190A-2...

What is forgotten here is how much worse the Me-109G was compared to the "F": Again a quote from Rall: "I personally felt the "Gustav" went too far in reducing the handling qualities [referring to: They added too much weight]".

On the other hand, FW-190A evolution went in the other direction: "Because of the changed center of gravity, the FW-190A-5 equipped for ground attack reduced the turn times by one second over the fighter version of the FW-190A-4." Russian test quote.

Closterman also noted an improvement in turning ability in later FW-190As (In "Le Grand Cirque", in the footnotes that compare the two fighters in the French edition, probably in most others versions as well), which he attributed to the use of flaps: -"Ils commencerent plus tard a utiliser un volet qui leur permettait de virer un peu plus serre":

"They started later to use a flap which allowed them to turn a little tighter"

He also said of the Me-109G IN COMPARISON to the FW: "Sa principale CHARACTERISTIQUE etait la vitesse" :

"The principal characteristic of the Me-109 was speed..."

Some turn fighter that thing was!

And you have to love this excerpt from the text posted by the original poster, who still clings to the absolute significance of maths as a predictive tool:

"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

'nuf said...

Gaston

JtD
08-07-2010, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

'nuf said...

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely! And please remember that before you write down that stuff yet another time.

BillSwagger
08-07-2010, 05:24 AM
i only say that calculated performance can be quite contradictory unless you also factor in propeller efficiency and control forces.
That is to say, the 109 may have been an excellent high speed turner if the pilot was strong enough to do so, or if consideration was taking for the shorter elevator throw of the stick, meaning the pilot had the time and wherewithal to wheel out trim as he attempted to turn or recover from a dive at high speeds.
I've found descriptions of 109s flown by allied pilots, and aside from the speed or climb data, the one thing that seems to be a commonality is the weight of control forces at higher speeds. One such case actually refers to the superior stability of the plane at high speeds, however the complaint was also that it was too stable because once it got going it became increasingly difficult to deviate its course on all three axis. This could be viewed as less maneuverable but at lower speeds this was not a factor.
Bill

Bremspropeller
08-07-2010, 06:08 AM
It's a matter of being used to it or not.
A pilot that hasn't flown any other fighter than the 109 won't think that way.

Of course, you could always use the trim-wheel.