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

Peter Stickney wrote:

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.

I tend to agree, although I've also talked to a navy pilot who had considerable time
in both who said that the Hellcat was superior. But like the pilot ratings at the
fighter meets, subjectivity does creep in, which allows the same a/c's features to
be rated both best of and worst of, with numerous pilots in each group. Still,
Brown was a test pilot, and presumably a bit more objective than a line pilot, at
least as far as flight characteristics went.

Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair much at all, in any
version.

I agree, although I don't remember if he ever flew the ones with water injection
etc. He certainly must have flown the ones with the improved oleos, raised seat,
and stall strip.

Reading his reports, I get the feeling that the Spitfire fit
him just right, and that's what he was measuring against.

He is a little guy, whereas Boone Guyton (Vought Corsair project pilot) was 6'4".

(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.

Defintely not, when you consider his appreciation for Grumman products. And when he
puts the Spit XIV and Mustang IV head to head, he rates them essentially equal in
the air, with the Spit having a slight advantage if he was forced to chose. I do
think he underrates the Mustang's affect on the European air war compared to the
Hellcat's effect on the Pacific air war, in arriving at his final ranking.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:
Peter Stickney wrote:

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.

I tend to agree, although I've also talked to
a navy pilot who had considerable time
in both who said that the Hellcat was superior.
But like the pilot ratings at the
fighter meets, subjectivity does creep in, which
allows the same a/c's features to
be rated both best of and worst of, with numerous
pilots in each group. Still,
Brown was a test pilot, and presumably a bit
more objective than a line pilot, at
least as far as flight characteristics went.

Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair
much at all, in any
version.

I agree, although I don't remember if he ever
flew the ones with water injection
etc. He certainly must have flown the ones
with the improved oleos, raised seat,
and stall strip.

Reading his reports, I get the feeling that
the Spitfire fit
him just right, and that's what he was measuring
against.

He is a little guy, whereas Boone Guyton (Vought
Corsair project pilot) was 6'4".

(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.

Defintely not, when you consider his appreciation
for Grumman products. And when he
puts the Spit XIV and Mustang IV head to head,
he rates them essentially equal in
the air, with the Spit having a slight advantage
if he was forced to chose. I do
think he underrates the Mustang's affect on
the European air war compared to the
Hellcat's effect on the Pacific air war, in
arriving at his final ranking.

Guy

Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190
had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter
them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the
Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat
Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

In article 40b4d9c9$1@bg2.,
"Matt Wiser" writes:
Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190
had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter
them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the
Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat
Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe.

No, not partiularly. Remember that at teh time that teh tests took
place, we still hadn't invaded Normandy, or Southern France, and
things were still cooking along in the Med. Since one of the salient
traits of the Navy is the mobility of their airbases, it would be
foolish to ignore the possibily of meeting 190s.

As to the 190 being a good carrier fighter. No, I don't think so at
all. It's behavior in the pattern was, for a carrier fighter, dismal
at best, (High stall speed, no stall warning, and a nasty tendency to
snap inverted when stalled in anythi8ng but straight & level flight)
with no visibility of the deck from about halfway down the base leg.
(Big engine, little canopy, with the pilot seated low down in the
fuselage. While the gear was somewhat better laid out than the 109,
it most likely wasn't strong enough to stand up to real carrier
operations.
Let's not forget that the rather small size of the German single
engined fighters means that there's no volume available for fuel, so
range/radius is dismal, and there isn't enough space to hang a lot of
stuff on the outside of the airplane. This turns out to be a real
problem with a Carrier Air Group. You've only got so much space to
carry and move airplanes around on, so you need teh most flexibility
that you can get out of an airplane.
As for the Graf Zeppelin (Seagoing version) - if the Germans had
completed her, it would have had as much effect on the War as it did
as a hulk tied up to the pier. Carriers don't operate in isolation -
they need a lot of support - Escorts for the carrier itself, a big
train of Replenishment Ships, Oilers, and other such ships following
it around and requiring excort themselves, and reliable, timely
intelligence about what's going on around them. The Kreigsmarine was
never, ever able to supply this, even if they were able to get their
heads wrapped around it. (Which is rather doubtful - look at the way
they used the few ships they had, ****ing them away in ones and twos
on solo missions that, while they produced a bit of a flap as they
were hunted down & sunk, did nothing to further German War Aims.)
After the April 1940 Norway Campaign, the Germans ended up with no
useful surface Navy at all. (Norway was nasty to the German Navy.
They came out of the Norway Campaign with 3 ships that weren't in the
yards for extensive repairs that put them out of action for the rest
of the year.
They also had some very real problems with basic technology. Their
high pressure/high temperature machinery was supposed to produce a
more compact, lighter, adn more economical power plant. They never
got them to work properly, and what they achieved as a temendous
amount of skill at rigging towlines. Their Light Cruisers, which was
the basis for the Graf Zeppelin's hull, were so structurally weak that
they couldn't be allowed out of the Baltic. Graf Zeppelin herself was
the product of a flawed concept - she combined the airgroup of an
Escort Carrier (even worse than that, since the range/radius of
the airplanes was so limited) with the armament of a small light
cruiser. Just what was it supposed to do?

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

Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat in the invasion of Southern
France, in 1944?

DEP

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article 40b4d9c9$1@bg2.,
"Matt Wiser" writes:
Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190
had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter
them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the
Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat
Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe.

No, not partiularly. Remember that at teh time that teh tests took
place, we still hadn't invaded Normandy, or Southern France, and
things were still cooking along in the Med. Since one of the salient
traits of the Navy is the mobility of their airbases, it would be
foolish to ignore the possibily of meeting 190s.

As to the 190 being a good carrier fighter. No, I don't think so at
all. It's behavior in the pattern was, for a carrier fighter, dismal
at best, (High stall speed, no stall warning, and a nasty tendency to
snap inverted when stalled in anythi8ng but straight & level flight)
with no visibility of the deck from about halfway down the base leg.

Pete, they would have needed to reduce the stall speed (probably by increasing
the wingspan/area, and maybe a change in flaps), but unlike its clean stall its
dirty stall behavior was good, according to Brown:

"The stall in landing configuration was quite different, there being intense
pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 120
mph [Guy: vs. 127 mph clean].

"Approach speed for the terminal phase of landing was 125mph. View on the
approach was decidely poor, because the attitude with power on was rather flat
[Guy: definitely needed more flap to steepen the approach and/or lower the nose]
and, to avoid the risk of exhaust fumes entering the cockpit, the canopy had to
remain closed. Anything less than a perfect three-pointer produced a reaction
from the nonresilient landing gear. The landing run was short and the brakes
could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over."

Clearly something would have to be done about the exhaust fumes, because lacking
an ejection seat you've got to be able to approach with the canopy open. As for
the rest, it seems no worse than a Seafire except for the approach/stall speeds,
and those would be relatively easy to decrease (with a commensurate decrease in
top speed at lower altitudes owing to drag of the larger wing, say something like
the Ta-152H, but a better ceiling). Roll rate would also decrease, but the 190's
got a lot of that to spare. The landing gear rebound ratios would also need
improvement ala' the Corsair (and Sea Hurricane, and Seafire).

(Big engine, little canopy, with the pilot seated low down in the
fuselage. While the gear was somewhat better laid out than the 109,
it most likely wasn't strong enough to stand up to real carrier
operations.

It's unlikely to be weaker than the Seafire's.




Let's not forget that the rather small size of the German single
engined fighters means that there's no volume available for fuel, so
range/radius is dismal, and there isn't enough space to hang a lot of
stuff on the outside of the airplane. This turns out to be a real
problem with a Carrier Air Group. You've only got so much space to
carry and move airplanes around on, so you need teh most flexibility
that you can get out of an airplane.

The FW-190 had considerably more internal fuel than the Seafire II/III, 140.8
imp. gallons vs. 85, and seems to have had slightly better range. Even the
Seafire, with 85 Imp. gal. internal plus a 90 gallon drop tank, is credited with
an escort radius (initial climb, combat and landing reserves) of 265nm @ 182 kts
(81nm radius without the drop tank). In addition to all the fighter bomber
versions, the Germans were looking to hang a torp on the carrier version of the
190, turning it into the strike fighter par excellence.

Of course, if the Graf Zeppelin would have entered service earlier the attack a/c
would have been the Stuka, which not only outperformed the Skua and Barracuda and
had comparable performance with the SBD and Val, but carried a far heavier
payload (with torps planned for the Ju-87C). In 1940/41, even the Stuka, used as
a fighter, would run rings around a Swordfish or Albacore, and outgunned and
out-armored them both. Fulmars could catch them and the Skua could just do so
(if the Stuka was loaded; clean, it was faster). It's prowess as a dive bomber
against ships was demonstrated from Norway on, and the presence of the GZ with
the Bismarck/PE might have saved the Bismarck (not to mention sinking damaging
other British capital ships/carriers/cruisers that were chasing/shadowing her).
If they'd had ME-109Ts on board, then the Fulmars/Skuas are toast, at least until
the last 109s are lost in landing accidents (judging by the Seafire's problems,
this would only take a few days of intensive ops, although the Graf would have
been a lot bigger and faster than the CVEs that suffered the worst Seafire crash
rates).

As for the Graf Zeppelin (Seagoing version) - if the Germans had
completed her, it would have had as much effect on the War as it did
as a hulk tied up to the pier. Carriers don't operate in isolation -
they need a lot of support - Escorts for the carrier itself,

Bismarck and Prince Eugen would have been adequate in 1941.

a big
train of Replenishment Ships, Oilers, and other such ships following
it around and requiring excort themselves,

Not on a raiding mission. B and PE as well as the earlier raiders managed with
replenishment ships that hid out and operated solo. Most were eventually tracked
down due to ULTRA, but an American level fleet train wasn't a necessity.

and reliable, timely
intelligence about what's going on around them.

Sure would help if the surface raiders had a carrier that could do all-around
searches out 100-300nm (never mind attacks) in most weather, instead of a few
floatplanes that couldn't be used in moderately heavy seas. And the German
B-dienst was quite effective up until 1943 or so.

The Kreigsmarine was
never, ever able to supply this, even if they were able to get their
heads wrapped around it.

And having a carrier would have helped their tactical intelligence considerably.

(Which is rather doubtful - look at the way
they used the few ships they had, ****ing them away in ones and twos
on solo missions that, while they produced a bit of a flap as they
were hunted down & sunk, did nothing to further German War Aims.)

Many of these missions due to Hitler's restrictions, especially the one that
imposed restrictions on the Tirpitz if a british carrier were thought to be in
the anywhere near the area (this after a failed attack on Tirpitz by a dozen
Albacores from Victorious).

After the April 1940 Norway Campaign, the Germans ended up with no
useful surface Navy at all. (Norway was nasty to the German Navy.
They came out of the Norway Campaign with 3 ships that weren't in the
yards for extensive repairs that put them out of action for the rest
of the year.

Sure did. Of course, having a carrier would have limited their losses and
increased those of the British, who only had Furious, Glorious and Ark Royal, not
all available simultaneously.

They also had some very real problems with basic technology. Their
high pressure/high temperature machinery was supposed to produce a
more compact, lighter, adn more economical power plant. They never
got them to work properly, and what they achieved as a temendous
amount of skill at rigging towlines. Their Light Cruisers, which was
the basis for the Graf Zeppelin's hull, were so structurally weak that
they couldn't be allowed out of the Baltic. Graf Zeppelin herself was
the product of a flawed concept - she combined the airgroup of an
Escort Carrier (even worse than that, since the range/radius of
the airplanes was so limited) with the armament of a small light
cruiser. Just what was it supposed to do?

Pete, I'll have to disagree. GZ would have had at least as much to do as the
British fleet carriers did. Graf Zeppelin's proposed operational air group (40
IIRR) was larger than Furious, Glorious, or the Illustrious class, and her flight
deck would have been larger than any of them. Only Ark Royal would have been
noticeably better in designed capacity, but GZ could have deck-parked more a/c,
assuming she had the necessary barriers. And her a/c would have been
equal/superior to the British ones, at least up until 1943 or so.

As to the separate surface/AA armament, it was quite common in the first
generation carriers, especially those of the Europeans (cf. Hermes and Eagle),
and for good reason pre-radar. They were far more likely to run into surface
ships by accident when not flying (as did Glorious, although that was more
negligence) than enemy carriers, but mostly they would have been chased by
cruisers. GZ, Furious and her half-sisters could outrun almost everything else
except a few battlecruisers and the fastest new treaty battleships, so they
needed anti-cruiser armament (just as the Lexingtons had, and even the Midways
almost had 8" guns -- Mitscher among others wanted them). Undoubtedly GZ's 5.9"
battery would have been progressively reduced/replaced by more 4.1" and 20/37mm
as time went on, just as every other combatant modified their CVs. But her
initial planned medium AA armament wasn't bad for the era; IIRR 12 (6 x 2) 4.1"
guns.

In short, assuming (a really big if) that the Germans had completed GZ in time
for Norway or the Bismarck breakout and been able to work her up to a useful
operational level, she might well have played an important/decisive role, causing
Hitler to authorize more of them. Or she might have been lost to mishap early on
( say a sub torp like Courageous), and things would have progressed as they in
fact did. But given my caveat above, I think there's no question how useful she
_could have been_ to the Germans, considering the large positive effect the
possession of quite limited carriers had for the BB-based British fleet in the
same period. Always assuming the Germans used her properly, of course; the
british had already demonstrated a couple of ways (Courageous and Glorious) -Not-
to use CVs.

Guy

"David E. Powell" wrote:

Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat in the invasion of Southern
France, in 1944?

Checking John Winton's "Find, Fix and Strike," it appears that there was little
German reaction, and the only combat was between a few Do-217s and Ju-88s and
some Seafires and Hellcats. There dont appear to have been any Corsairs
involved, just Seafies, Martlets, and one squadron of Hellcats (800 Sq. on HMS
Emperor). Corsairs and Hellcats participated in the series of attacks on the
Tirpitz in 1944, but air combat seems to have been limited.

Guy

"David E. Powell" wrote:
Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat
in the invasion of Southern
France, in 1944?

DEP


Only Air-to-Air the Hellcats in ANVIL-DRAGOON were against Ju-52s, Ju-88s,
and He-111s.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!