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

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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.

The gear was adaquete for the Emil and Fritz (109E and 109F) if a bit
cantankerous: however by the time the heavier Gustav (which replaced
the DB601 with the more powerfull and havier DB605 engine) the
problem got worse. It was basically a problem caused by gyroscopic
precesion (the takeoff swing only on landing) that was made worse by
the narrow track of the undercarriage. A contarotating propellor
would have solved it for instance.

The undercarriage had the advantage of being pined to the fueselage,
thus saving structural weight and allowing easy disassembly of the
wings for transport. (the aircraft could stand on its undercarriage
with its wings detached)

Towards the end of the war the synthetic fuel plants started producing
higher octane fuel. This might have delayed the the need to oversize
the German engines had it come as early as supplies of high octane
came to the Allies.

I don't believe the Me 110, Me 108 or any other Me had under-carriage
problems.

The Me 262 had nose wheel collapse problems but they were due to
faulty materials.

The Me 262 had nose wheel collapse problems but they were due to
faulty materials.


I disagree - in nearly every case, the failure of the nose gear on a 262 could
be traced back to incorrect towing procedures. Putting the entire weight of an
aircraft on the axel of the nose gear and yanking it around with a Krad is a
sure recipe for an accident. Pilots that mention the fragile nose gear were
usually talking about this type of accident, not failures during landing or
takeoff.

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

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