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

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?

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 performance was affected by which weapons it carried, but in general it
was considered a classic dogfighter. About half of production was devoted to
ground attack variants, but most people think of them as fighters - the reason
they were used as ground attack is they could take incredible punishment that a
109 simply could not. Some of the Luftwaffe Experten shot down dozens of
Allied fighters in the FW 190, so I would say its the game out of true, not
some inherent weakness in the fighter of WWII.

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

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

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

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

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
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 performance was affected by which weapons it carried, but in
general it
was considered a classic dogfighter. About half of production was
devoted to
ground attack variants, but most people think of them as fighters -
the reason
they were used as ground attack is they could take incredible
punishment that a
109 simply could not. Some of the Luftwaffe Experten shot down dozens
of
Allied fighters in the FW 190, so I would say its the game out of
true, not
some inherent weakness in the fighter of WWII.

I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone had
asked the
late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was superior
to the
109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and IIRC, his
comment was
that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
needed more
attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have always
understood that
manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a balancing act,
too stable and
it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?
ISTR the F16 would be rather unstable if it wasn't for the computerised
flight control
system?

The CO

I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone had
asked the
late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was superior
to the
109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and IIRC, his
comment was
that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
needed more
attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have always
understood that
manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a balancing act,
too stable and
it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?

Lots of folks flew both and comparisons between the two are all over the board.
For some like Novotny, a 109 was an antiquated and poorly laid out has-been; he
felt the 190's brilliantly thought out "T"-shaped instrument panel made his job
far more instinctual than in the more labor intensive Messerschmitt cockpit.
Others like Rall and Barkhorn felt that the small size of the 109 led one to
feel as if they were "wearing" the Me, so movements were practically reflexive
and coordinated between pilot and airframe. I think the demarcation between
factions is frequently set at when that particular pilot began to fly German
fighters -- 1942 and earlier, the pilots generally preferred the nimble 109,
even after fighters of a better class were introduced. Conversely, the "young
lions" that came along after the 109's heyday felt no great affinity for it
when offered the technologically advanced Focke Wulf fighter. I guess once
they survived into 1944 and 45, each group were entitled to latch onto whatever
superstition had kept them alive when so many of their comrades had fallen.
Look at Rudel - that frickin' Nazi started the war in a flight of Stukas, at
one point transitioned to CAS FW-190s, then ended the war back in a flight of
Stukas - at a time in the war when daylight operations in the Ju 87 were
considered absolute suicide by Allied and most German airmen alike. Go figure.

v/r
Gordon

Subject: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 5/20/04 9:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone had
asked the
late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was superior
to the
109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and IIRC, his
comment was
that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
needed more
attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have always
understood that
manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a balancing act,
too stable and
it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?

Lots of folks flew both and comparisons between the two are all over the
board.
For some like Novotny, a 109 was an antiquated and poorly laid out has-been;
he
felt the 190's brilliantly thought out "T"-shaped instrument panel made his
job
far more instinctual than in the more labor intensive Messerschmitt cockpit.
Others like Rall and Barkhorn felt that the small size of the 109 led one to
feel as if they were "wearing" the Me, so movements were practically
reflexive
and coordinated between pilot and airframe. I think the demarcation between
factions is frequently set at when that particular pilot began to fly German
fighters -- 1942 and earlier, the pilots generally preferred the nimble 109,
even after fighters of a better class were introduced. Conversely, the "young
lions" that came along after the 109's heyday felt no great affinity for it
when offered the technologically advanced Focke Wulf fighter. I guess once
they survived into 1944 and 45, each group were entitled to latch onto
whatever
superstition had kept them alive when so many of their comrades had fallen.
Look at Rudel - that frickin' Nazi started the war in a flight of Stukas, at
one point transitioned to CAS FW-190s, then ended the war back in a flight of
Stukas - at a time in the war when daylight operations in the Ju 87 were
considered absolute suicide by Allied and most German airmen alike. Go
figure.

v/r
Gordon


Of the many German fighter pilots I spoke to in the Hofbrau Haus in Munich
shortly after the war the majority opted for the ME 109. The Emil or "E "
model seemed the number one choice. Many were saddened because the Emils were
replaced by what they considered models that were not quite as good. These
discussions were in the summer of 1945.


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