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

Was there any preferences between submodels (FW190 A-x and Me-109
E-x, G-xx, K-xx)?


Howdy, Jukka. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

I never tabulated how many flyers preferred specific models, but Galland had a
gorgeous old Bf 109 F as late as October 1944! (He used it to fly from Berlin
to Jüterbog to save Dahl from Göring's wrath the day he got his Eichenlaub to
the KC.) I think it was more a "personal transport" than his actual "war
mount" (although even short relocation hops were highly dangerous by that
time).

I have never heard of any German say they'd pick a Bf 109 G-6/R6 (the
cannon-schiffe with underwing pods), although Gustavs with traditional weaponry
seemed popular. The Erla haube made a huge difference, as did the addition of
cockpit armor. Never heard anyone mentioning a preference for any model prior
to the Emil. As Art pointed out, the Emil, particularly with the centerline
cannon, was very popular with the pilots. By the time the K-4 came out, pilots
didn't even care what model they had, the 'kites' were judged on an individual
basis: some G-6s were preferred over G-10s and Ks, if the former were
considered to be of better manufacture.

"My" guys, the Mosquito hunters stationed at Jüterbog, had access to any Bf 109
available and they tested each new acquisition for their speed - didn't matter
how new or which model it was, if it couldn't catch a Mosquito. All of their
109s were AS-engined, and although no one believes this, several pilots in the
unit claim they tested a "3-stage blower".

The fastest machine in the unit was an overall blue G-6 with cockpit armor and
wing guns pulled. It beat every other machine and the pilot had a shooting
star painted on the beule (similar to how other units had). Late in the war,
when 10./JG 300 went over to NJG 11 as its 5th and 6th Staffel, they still had
a mix of G-6, G-10, and G-14s; no one in the entire Gruppe cared one bit about
which model they were riding, as long as it got them home.

Of the very few FW 190 pilots I've talked to, the FW "could beat anything"
(cof) up to medium altitudes and they were easy to bail out of - which all of
them (5 or 6?) had done; mention 190 Ds, they just smiled. In the 190
D-series, the pilots felt they could handle any individual Allied fighter - but
the problem was, our guys never "...fought you fair, one on one - it was always
our Schwarm against 800 Indians!" Perception, I guess.

v/r
Gordon
Stormbirds.com/recon

nt (Krztalizer) writes:

Howdy, Jukka. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Howdy, but you probably mix me with Jukka O. Kauppinen?

I have never heard of any German say they'd pick a Bf 109 G-6/R6 (the
cannon-schiffe with underwing pods), although Gustavs with traditional weaponry
seemed popular. The Erla haube made a huge difference, as did the addition of
cockpit armor. Never heard anyone mentioning a preference for any model prior
to the Emil. As Art pointed out, the Emil, particularly with the centerline
cannon, was very popular with the pilots. By the time the K-4 came out, pilots
didn't even care what model they had, the 'kites' were judged on an individual
basis: some G-6s were preferred over G-10s and Ks, if the former were
considered to be of better manufacture.

As an dogfighter most powerful, lightest and reliable engine would be preferred
option if flight characteristics otherwise doesn't decline.

Did engine upgrades happen in field also in E-, G- and K-series Me-109's and
was there a preferred engine/blower combo?

I have read that DB's (and alla others) engines quality diminish all the time,
estimated work hours dropped hundreds of hours to some dozen hours.
Thats why aces wanted to stay "old" models and engines?

Jukka

Howdy, Jukka. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Howdy, but you probably mix me with Jukka O. Kauppinen?

Undoubtably Sorry about that. If its any help, I confused you with a great
guy.

some G-6s were preferred over G-10s and Ks, if the former were
considered to be of better manufacture.

As an dogfighter most powerful, lightest and reliable engine would be
preferred
option if flight characteristics otherwise doesn't decline.

The greater speed of the later, more powerful models was often gained at the
expense of a piston rod flying out the hood at bad moments. Apparently,
blowing an engine in the Emil took real effort - by the time you got to a G-14
or K, the engine was likely to blow up after even a few moments at boost.
Heard that from several different pilots - two of them blew up their motors
under identical circumstances; one made a deadstick landing from 9,000 m (at
night!), the other dumped his into a lake outside Berlin. The screws were so
eager to hang him for the loss of a brand new G-14 that they went to the
trouble of fishing the 109 out of the lake - when the damage was obviously due
to defects in the blower, they let the pilot off the hook.

Did engine upgrades happen in field also in E-, G- and K-series Me-109's and
was there a preferred engine/blower combo?

Field upgrades - Usually not, as far as I know. Everyone preferred the
AS motors once they became available.

I have read that DB's (and alla others) engines quality diminish all the
time,
estimated work hours dropped hundreds of hours to some dozen hours.

Absolutely. I have a complaint letter from an NJG 11 Staffelkapitan to the
wing, gritching about engine life being ~15 hours before replacement (dated
March 45) - granted, by that time, the pilots were running scared and boost was
being selected a lot more often than the manufacturer intended.

Thats why aces wanted to stay "old" models and engines?

That probably had a hand in it, plus wing loading got so bad the later models
were becoming real pigs. A good G-2 or G-5, sent back to the factory and
returned as a later model was almost guaranteed to come back as a handling
nightmare.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

Subject: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 5/21/04 1:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time

Of the very few FW 190 pilots I've talked to, the FW "could beat anything"
(cof) up to medium altitudes and they were easy to bail out of - which all of
them (5 or 6?) had done; mention 190 Ds, they just smiled. In the 190
D-series, the pilots felt they could handle any individual Allied fighter -
but
the problem was, our guys never "...fought you fair, one on one - it was
always
our Schwarm against 800 Indians!" Perception, I guess.

v/r
Gordon
Stormbirds.com/recon

Also almost all Lufttwaffe pilots I spoke to in those mid-1945 conversations
hated the "K: model. Said they were unreliable.And one even said it was
designed to beat the P-51, which it could never do. But only one guy ever said
that. Unfortunately I never persued the point and asked any of the others about
that.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Also almost all Lufttwaffe pilots I spoke to in those mid-1945 conversations
hated the "K: model. Said they were unreliable.

Although its aethetically one of the more attractive of the 109s, I haven't
heard of anyone being a fan of them. You'd think with that big tail and all
the other "end-time" improvements that they'd be good ships, but by then
quality was down quite a bit.

And one even said it was
designed to beat the P-51, which it could never do. But only one guy ever
said
that.

I'm sure that was Willi's intent, but it never worked out that way - the P-51
was simply superb in a fight; add in the quality of our pilots and the K-4 was
never going to be good enough. The 109 was inadequate after 1943 and should
not have remained in production.

But, Speer didn't ask my opinion.

v/r
Gordon

====(A+C====
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

Subject: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 5/21/04 11:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Also almost all Lufttwaffe pilots I spoke to in those mid-1945 conversations
hated the "K: model. Said they were unreliable.

Although its aethetically one of the more attractive of the 109s, I haven't
heard of anyone being a fan of them. You'd think with that big tail and all
the other "end-time" improvements that they'd be good ships, but by then
quality was down quite a bit.

And one even said it was
designed to beat the P-51, which it could never do. But only one guy ever
said
that.

I'm sure that was Willi's intent, but it never worked out that way - the P-51
was simply superb in a fight; add in the quality of our pilots and the K-4
was
never going to be good enough. The 109 was inadequate after 1943 and should
not have remained in production.

But, Speer didn't ask my opinion.

v/r
Gordon

====(A+C====
USN SAR


It was clear to me just to hear these guystalk that as the war raged on they
developed a sense of hopelessness. That is a tragic way to fight a war. We were
gung ho and they were fighting but without conviction or hope of any success.
And I think it was the beer that made them relax and talk frankly about how
they felt. And they sure could hold their beer. I still remember those days in
the Hofbrau Haus in Munich 60 long years ago. Like it was yesterday. BTW, that
same Hofbrau Haus just opened a branch here in Las Vegas. Be funny if I walked
in and found those same Luftwaffe guys in there waiting for me swinging their
steins as I came in.. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer