WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?

wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?



They were excellent fighters, when they first appeared they
provided a nasty surprise for the RAF and outmatched
the Spitfires until the Mk IX came along.

They were certainly superior to the Soviet aircraft
of the period.

Keith

They were excellent fighters, when they first appeared they
provided a nasty surprise for the RAF and outmatched
the Spitfires until the Mk IX came along.


One of the things that makes you wonder a bit is that many of the high scoring
Luftwaffe aces stayed with the 109 right up the end.

I've always thought the FW-190A was a pretty good dogfighter. In the flight
sims I've played, it's not much used though. People will take the FW-190D.

Walt

Keith Willshaw wrote:

wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?



They were excellent fighters, when they first appeared they
provided a nasty surprise for the RAF and outmatched
the Spitfires until the Mk IX came along.

They were certainly superior to the Soviet aircraft
of the period.

The biggest problem with most computer game FW-190s is the gamers flying them,
and the nature of the game environment (assuming the flight model is decent).
The 190 is an energy fighter, and you have to fight it that way. You can't
just tug harder on the pole and tighten up your turn like you can in a Spit,
seeing who will stall/snap out first; the 190 loses that game. The FW-190A's
strengths, as someone wrote, were roll rate, cockpit visibility, good level
and dive acceleration, decent sustained and good zoom climb, good level speeds
for 1942 and still adequate for 1943, heavy armament, an easy to use power
control, good hi-g tolerance seat position, excellent control harmony, good
protection and durability. Disadvantages were poor turn radius, no-warning
clean stall, and an accelerated stall, also no warning, which would snap the
a/c over into the opposite bank and into an incipient spin if you didn't take
quick corrective measures (which didn't do anything for the 'useful' turn
rate/radius, as less experienced pilots were afraid to approach the a/c's
limits), heavy elevator at high (dive) speeds which could limit pull-out
ability, plus poor stability for instrument flying.

Fighting against relatively light Spitfires etc. the 190 could bounce them,
use their superior roll rate to stay with them through the first 90 degrees or
so of turn while shooting, and then dive away, usually rolling 180 in the
opposite direction so that the Spit was unable to follow (assuming it survived
the intial pass). Such advantages tended to disappear when facing P-47s or
P-51s, which had slower initial dive accel but would catch up if the dive were
prolonged, reasonably high roll rates, and would outzoom it as well. I'd
expect the fairly light Soviet fighters to be closer to the Spit than the
heavier American types.

The other main disadvantage for the FW-190 is the game environment itself. In
real life, the majority of fighter kills were made in the first pass, with the
target unaware of its adversary's presence until too late. Pilots could fly
hours and hours and never see an enemy a/c, so sneaking up on someone was
relatively common. But that's rarely the case in a computer game, where you
can _expect_ there to be enemies about in a short period of time, and you can
virtually guarantee that both sides will, if contact is made, initiate
combat. In such circumstances an energy fighter like the 190's advantages are
nullified.

In real life that would often not be the case -- a group of faster fighters
who were in a disadvantageous position would often just use their speed to
disengage, figuring to come back with an advantage next time.

BTW, here's some comparisions done with USN fighters against an FW-190A-5/U4:

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm

There used to be a page with various British test reports including those of a
captured FW-190A-4, but they seem to be gone:

http://web.archive.org/web/200202102...eo/prodocs.htm

only gets you the home page.

Summarizing, the 190A was superior to the Spit V in every performance measure
other than turn rate/radius, essentially equal or slightly ahead of the Spit
IX at low/medium altitudes and inferior at higher altitudes, with each side
having advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation, and inferior
to the Mk.XIV in every performance measure except roll rate and dive
acceleration. Fly the 190 against Soviet fighters like it's a P-40 or F4U
flying against an Oscar/Zero.

Guy

Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
the P-47).

The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.

R / John

John Carrier wrote:

Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
the P-47).

The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.

In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three
extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the
Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote:

"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with
virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c
a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could
not be bested by the Corsair.

"Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World
War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when
rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV
number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D
(Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such
as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."

F6F-3 vs. FW-190A-4:

"This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a
speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both
were very maneuverable* and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the FW-190 was
a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still,
the superb technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not
outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East,
but the FW-190A-4 was a far tougher opponent.

"Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot
would probably be the deciding factor."

*A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman
ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
John Carrier wrote:

Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
the P-47).

The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.

In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three
extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the
Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote:

"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with
virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c
a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could
not be bested by the Corsair.

"Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World
War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when
rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV
number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D
(Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such
as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."

F6F-3 vs. FW-190A-4:

"This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a
speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both
were very maneuverable* and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the FW-190 was
a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still,
the superb technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not
outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East,
but the FW-190A-4 was a far tougher opponent.

"Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot
would probably be the deciding factor."

*A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman
ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190.

Some of that may, repeat _may_ be personal preference sneaking in.
Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair much at all, in any
version. Reading his reports, I get the feeling that the Spitfire fit
him just right, and that's what he was measuring against. (But not
teh Seafire, particularly, he rates it last in "Duels in the Sky" for
carrier-based fighters, due to its poor behavior around the boat.
It would be interesting to see what his opinion was of the P-47,
which was pretty similar to the Corsair in size & performance, albeit
with better control harmony.

While he certainly is Very British, he's not a blind chauvanist.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are
really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other
fighters of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what
their major
weaknesses were?

Their major strength, for the FW190A was in roll rate. They could
roll and thereby execute a faster turn. They could also zoom up and
down in the vertical very well. Turning circle was a little less than
a spitfire but if the roll rate as used properly it didn't matter:
they could stay one step ahead. The BMW701 radial engine while
nearly unbeatable at low altitude suffered at high altitude hence the
FW190D was equiped with a jumo 213 water cooled engine to give the
Luftwaffe a high altitide fighter other than the Me109. It lost some
of its impressive roll rate and because of the unenlarged wing the
wing loading went up, nevertheless its performance was good.

The TA152H was a mdodifed FW190D with bigger wings for high altitude
interceptions. (nearly 50,000 feet at 480mph). The TA152C was as
for the TA152H only with clipped wings for low altitude fights.

Even the FW190A had some interesting features: a standard auto-pilot
and also a fully automatic throttle. No mixiture controls. You just
pushed the throttle forward (not backward as on allied aircraft) and
everything was taken care of.

The aircraft could also carry heavy armament.

In article ,
"The Enlightenment" wrote:


Even the FW190A had some interesting features: a standard auto-pilot
and also a fully automatic throttle. No mixiture controls. You just
pushed the throttle forward (not backward as on allied aircraft) and
everything was taken care of.

The 190 had a single-lever power control that worked the throttle and
prop...not sure about the mixture.

The throttle in "allied" aircraft was pushed forward to increase power.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article ,
Dale writes:
In article ,
"The Enlightenment" wrote:


Even the FW190A had some interesting features: a standard auto-pilot
and also a fully automatic throttle. No mixiture controls. You just
pushed the throttle forward (not backward as on allied aircraft) and
everything was taken care of.

The 190 had a single-lever power control that worked the throttle and
prop...not sure about the mixture.

Mixture, too. and it also managed the blower gear shift. It was a
complicated beast, and prone to getting itself confused.
Unfortumately, there wasn't any otehr way to manipulate the engine.
If the Kommando-Gerate went stupid, you had to limp along as best you
could.

The throttle in "allied" aircraft was pushed forward to increase power.

As was the prop (Full Increae) and Mixture (Full Rich). And, for
those airplane with turbosuperchargers as the first stage of the
supercharging system, the manual wastegate control. (Unless it had the
electronic turboregulators, (Late B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s), in which
case you had a "Volume Control" knob graduated between 1 and 10.

The P-47 had a fairly complicated throttle quadrant, with the
Throttle, Prop, Mixture, and Wastegate controls on it. Republic's
solution to provide "One Lever Control" was a pair of fold-out "ears:
on the throttle lever shaft, which engaged the Prop, Mixture, &
wastegate levers & moved them with the throttle. It worked great,
total cost was about a Quarter, and if you didn't need or want it, you
folded the ears up & worked each lever independantly.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?


Well if you would ask this question at UBI forums in Olegs Ready Room you
would get some realy good answers to this, as this subject has been present
their since IL-2s release.

Best thing to do is forget everything Westren you have read on the Fw 190's
performance, and learn IL-2s Fw 190s strengths & weaknesses.

I fly the Fw 190 in IL-2 and have no problems with killing Soviet fighters
as long as I forget attempting to turn with them, do not try to turn with
La, Yak etc and dont attempt to climb away, unless you have good
seperation. Use your speed to hit & run etc.

Roll rate is the Fw 190s trump card, as well as massive firepower and level
speed, use these advantages wisely, and you will be successful.

Regards, John Waters