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

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

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

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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.

In a bad landing at night the pug nosed FW190A could over nose and end
up on its back. As the pilot was in a bubble canopy he could easily
be killed and frequently was.

The Me109 with its long nose, burried cockpit and famously weak
undercarriage which simply collapsed was a virtue in these
circumstances and the crews prefered it for this reason.

Several of these aircraft were fitted with neptune radars with the
intention of chasing Mosquitos. They worked well but after staring
at the phosphors the pilot lost his precious night vision and the idea
was dropped.

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

Subject: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 5/22/04 12:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time

In a bad landing at night the pug nosed FW190A could over nose and end
up on its back. As the pilot was in a bubble canopy he could easily
be killed and frequently was.


Ol' Willie never could design a decent landing gear.

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

"John Waters" wrote in message m...
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?

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
Walt BJ

(WaltBJ) wrote:

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.

I used to play around with FA18 Fighter and if you were in a fast chase you ran
it dry real quick. Also couldn't reach a running Russian with a Sidewinder
unless you were real close.

These days I sometimes play with Microsoft's WWII Combat Flight Sim. A friend
who flew P47's found it pretty amazing and I have compared it to the gun camera
films I have and the range and leads seem about right (except the tracers go
the same place as the other rounds, which I understand is not quite right). In
fact, I taped the computer video in black and white and edited it in among
camera film and it looks pretty darn good.

The physics models are good with the P47 feeling heavy and slugish compared to
the P51. The German planes are much different and rather twitchy. Of course,
they were supposed to be fast climbing interceptors versus the Allies need for
long range escorts.

BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a turning
radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
wonder if this reflects real conditions?

-- Charlie Springer

BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a
turning
radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
wonder if this reflects real conditions?

I went about European Air War completely backwards - flying missions in Me 262s
and P-47s against essentially sitting ducks (B-24s and He 111s, respectively).
After a couple years playing it and trying nearly every aircraft, I flew a
couple campaigns set on realistic (read: landing by parachute was considered a
success) and the best fighter v fighter in the game was a Spit IX. Close
second, as far as flying a whole campaign, was the Hurricane. That thing had a
ton of guns and most of what was being fired back was light enough that, when
hit, you could bail out over friendly territory and begin again. Defending
Beachy Head from a sky full of 110s seemed pretty realistic, *for a game*. One
thing I hate about WWII flight sims is that aircraft in bomber streams never
seem to feel effects of turbulance. Formations bob ever so gently in rhythmic
patterns at a set airspeed, like perfect robots. 10+ Mosquitos fly along at
12,000' in loose groups at 280 knots, serene as nuns as you fall in astern.
Yah, that's realism.

Has anyone seen a decent nightfighter sim? Something in a Mosquito or Beau..?

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

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

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