|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,293
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,293 |
Can't compare the two with numbers or pilots... you have to remember that the spitfire didn't really show up until after the Battle of Britain and it was the Hurricane and 109 that saw the majority of that action... by the time the Spitfires really started to show up and the 190 was introduced, the majority of Germany's best pilots were spread out throughout Europe and into Africa, Italy and Russian theaters. As to the numbers, the Spitfire saw action in all four major theaters of action, Europe, Mediterranean, Asian, and the Pacific, and was flown right up to 1960 I believe. If you compared just the planes by manufacturer date the FW would come out on top every time, and was the first to introduce automatic engine controls, the fourteen cylinder, twin row radial engine equipped with a two speed internal supercharger had propeller pitch and fuel mixture automatically controlled by the throttle setting and required no attention from the pilot.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,622
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,622 |
I've read a book by, I believe, Johannes Steinhoff regarding comparison between the 109 and the 190, and his evaluation on the 190 was very favorable in regards to roll rate, speed, durability, armament, and any number of things that would help a pilot come back alive. His only real issue with the aircraft was its inability to glide. The advice given to pilots was, 'if the engine quits, waste no time in gettin out' because a large percentage of the weight was in that radial, and without power, it would plummet and take the rest of the airframe with it. His only other issue was the lack of visibility while taxiing and it sometimes got short of breath over 30K feet, which is what the Dora was intended to fix. The fact that with few changes, this aircraft evolved into the Ta-152 series, and the roles it played, speaks to its adaptability. As far as armament goes, several versions carried 4x20mm, and 2x`13mm as standard, with one version carrying 2x13mm, 2x20mm and 2x30 mm. The intent being rapid destruction of the 4 engined heavies with the shortest possible burst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,293
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,293 |
Don't know if it was just the later versions or all of them, but the Fw-190D the one with the upside-down inline V-12 made heavy use of electric controls instead of hydraulics or pulleys and cables, so much so that they considered the battery to be a target (to the point of putting it in an armor plate box for protection).
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,622
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,622 |
That was all of them, the flaps and landing gear were electric, as well as the engine controls. It still had cables and pulleys for the flight controls. If you couldn't tell, it's one of my favorite planes, right behind the Mustang. It even looks aggressive on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,730
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,730 |
That's either a kit build or an aftermarket modded prop. F-Dubs never had four bladed props. I couldn't see the cooling fan either so I'm thinking it isn't the BMW engine.
And, yes, 190's WERE equipped with drop tanks. Probably the most versatile and best engineered plane of WWII. Definitely my fave...
The FW kicks the Spit's ass until the later marks came out and still stayed competitive throughout the war provided combat was kept below about 25,000 ft.
4 blades props were used on some latter models of the 190, but was NOT field standards...were used on some later models of the F series, and G series...both designed and heavily armored for ground attack service...both replacing the a/c in Stuka units.. cooling fans were used, as even when they used non radial engines ( such as the BMW) they still were designed and equipped with an annular radiation... non radials were Jumo or Daimler Benz motors, which were V 12 water cooled motors..., behind an annular radiator, and had the much longer nose, Such as the Dora, or D Model...or the TA 152s and 153, which did not enter standard Luftwaffe Service as the War was being lost too quick by Germany at that point in time...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
Otto Frenzl, the designer of the FW-190, also did pioneering work with respect to the Area Rule. Richard Whitcomb later documented this effort, post-war.
The Area Rule became very important in the jet age. Kurt Tank was the designer of the Fw-190...
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
I wonder what the fuel load weighed.........
Had to be a nightmare to see out of......wonder if a bubble canopy was ever considered.
Only one exists......that's a shame. Actually, the 190 had better visibility than most WWII fighters, particularly to the sides and behind. Later models had the 'blown' glass canopy which was basically a bubble type canopy (somewhat similar to the Malcom hood of the Spit). Forward visibility was somewhat poor, but that was true of all radial engined fighters.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
Another FW-190 "asset" was it's wide-set landing gear compared to both the Spitfires and the Bf109s (aka "Me-109s")... both of which had very narrow landing gear.
Accounts I've read written by the German pilots who flew them said that the FW-190 was a much, much easier aircraft to fly... very gentle with few "bad habits"... unlike like the Bf109 which was supposedly kinda "tricky" to fly.
I don't know how true it is, but it's been said that the German's lost almost as many Bf109s to landing accidents (due to the narrow-set landing gear) as to their opponent's efforts in "dog-fights". Two-thirds of 109 losses came from that schitty design....good job, Willi!
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
I've read a book by, I believe, Johannes Steinhoff regarding comparison between the 109 and the 190, and his evaluation on the 190 was very favorable in regards to roll rate, speed, durability, armament, and any number of things that would help a pilot come back alive. His only real issue with the aircraft was its inability to glide. The advice given to pilots was, 'if the engine quits, waste no time in gettin out' because a large percentage of the weight was in that radial, and without power, it would plummet and take the rest of the airframe with it. His only other issue was the lack of visibility while taxiing and it sometimes got short of breath over 30K feet, which is what the Dora was intended to fix. The fact that with few changes, this aircraft evolved into the Ta-152 series, and the roles it played, speaks to its adaptability. As far as armament goes, several versions carried 4x20mm, and 2x`13mm as standard, with one version carrying 2x13mm, 2x20mm and 2x30 mm. The intent being rapid destruction of the 4 engined heavies with the shortest possible burst. I'll have to look for that info, old70. In all my books, there is not one mention of that quirk. I fail to see how losing power would all of a sudden cause that much instability. One would think they would be flying with so much trim it would be near useless as a fighter.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
That's either a kit build or an aftermarket modded prop. F-Dubs never had four bladed props. I couldn't see the cooling fan either so I'm thinking it isn't the BMW engine.
And, yes, 190's WERE equipped with drop tanks. Probably the most versatile and best engineered plane of WWII. Definitely my fave...
The FW kicks the Spit's ass until the later marks came out and still stayed competitive throughout the war provided combat was kept below about 25,000 ft.
4 blades props were used on some latter models of the 190, but was NOT field standards...were used on some later models of the F series, and G series...both designed and heavily armored for ground attack service...both replacing the a/c in Stuka units.. cooling fans were used, as even when they used non radial engines ( such as the BMW) they still were designed and equipped with an annular radiation... non radials were Jumo or Daimler Benz motors, which were V 12 water cooled motors..., behind an annular radiator, and had the much longer nose, Such as the Dora, or D Model...or the TA 152s and 153, which did not enter standard Luftwaffe Service as the War was being lost too quick by Germany at that point in time... Seafire, The only four blader I've ever seen was on the Ta-152/3. It's too bad they didn't come out earlier. It probably would've been the ultimate fighter. It's said, ole Tank came upon some Mustangs during a test run and easily outpaced them to safety...
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,622
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,622 |
Have to check my references, when I find it, I'll post it.
I just rechecked, it wasn't from Steinhoff, but taken from a narrative of JG 51s initial conversion to the A3's in 1942. It's recapitulated in Osprey's FW190 aces of the Russian front.
Last edited by old70; 08/22/14.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,927
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,927 |
Otto Frenzl, the designer of the FW-190, also did pioneering work with respect to the Area Rule. Richard Whitcomb later documented this effort, post-war.
The Area Rule became very important in the jet age. Kurt Tank was the designer of the Fw-190... Correct, my bad. Frenzl did some design work on the FW-190 and "discovered" the Area Rule, but didn't have the time or the resources to thoroughly investigate it. Richard Whitcomb, post-war, had both the time and the resources to do so and it has been forever known as the Whitcomb Area Rule.
Keep your gun-hand ready and your eyes peeled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,689
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,689 |
I put my money on a P51D/K model, any day, against the FW190.
Sam......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,874
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,874 |
It's said, ole Tank came upon some Mustangs during a test run and easily outpaced them to safety...
Ya, it seems Mr Tank weren't no sit around the office sort of airplane designer, flying himself around Germany late in the war when the skies were full of Mustangs. Anyhow, here's a pic of a Fw with drop tanks, I'm guessing one of the armoured ground-attack versions.... ![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Sharpshin/jaborei_g3_zpsb6ce4223.jpg) ...and a photo of the famous fighter/torpedo bomber version carrying a 1,687lb torpedo. ![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Sharpshin/a5u14_zps503372dc.jpg) Only three (??) ever being completed, and never used in combat. Apparently three were bult and tested in anticipation of the Fw being used from carriers if Germany ever built one (plans were scrapped), otherwise it had few advantages over land based Ju 88 or He 111 torpedo variants. Not that the Luftwaffe was ever big on torpedo bombers anyway. http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/inde...postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 both the FW-190 A5 (U14) and the F8 (U14- later R14) were adapted to carry torpedoes but there is no evidence that they ever did so in combat, being trials aircraft only. The aircraft are distinguished from normal FW 190s in that the rear wheel was much longer and lifted the tail further into the air to accommodate the torpedo and stop it striking the ground.
The text of the book supplies further details. Only two A-5s were built or converted for torpedo-carrying, Werke Nos 871 and 872. All armament was removed except for a pair of 20mm MG151s in the wing roots and a single LTF5b could be carried with or without drop tanks. Maximum speed with torpedo slung was clocked at 310 mph.
The entry is sparse but it does record the U14 type was tested in August 1943 but never went into production. There is no political background but my best guess is that it was not as good as the heavier HE111 or JU88 (which could carry two torpedoes) and by 1943 the carrier Graf Zeppelin had again been put on 'hold' which would mean torpedo-carrying FW-190s had no practical application. IIRC the stall speed with flaps and gear down of even an unladen 190 was around 100 mph, must have been pretty hairy in trials trying to get low and slow enough to drop the torpedo without stalling out. Finally, I came acros this pic... a 4,000 lb bomb? ![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Sharpshin/jabo_zpsf4a6ee40.jpg) Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,874
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,874 |
I put my money on a P51D/K model, any day, against the FW190.
The pilots themselves apparently thought it was a pretty close thing, those German aces still flying and assigned to the Western Theater in 1944 continued to make kills, even against the Mustang. ...and if ground fire was factored into the mission, I'd take the FW any day. Birwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,689
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,689 |
the later P51 had a very good kill ratio against FW190s. They could out fly the FW in every category but roll rate. The Mustang had about 70 MPH speed advantage with the later models.
Toward the end, the few pilots Germany could put up were either very very green, or some of the old Aces still left alive.
The good Americans could out fly and out fight either.
Germany and the FW, along with other 'wonder planes', was an example of too little, and too late.
Don't forget the FW had three or four years lead time on the P51, and they kept at it with ideas and developments. It was a good plane, but not good enough.
Last edited by Mannlicher; 08/23/14.
Sam......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 634
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 634 |
Not true, the 190 D models were better than the Mustangs. The D-9 was faster and had a better rate of climb. As mentioned, Germany was short on pilots, had crap fuel and were outnumbered in the skies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,293
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,293 |
The only thing that hindered the FW's superiority was government!
In fact the FW used a construction technique that all but made it impossible for allied bombers to stop its construction.... parts were made at many locations and assembled somewhere else.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,693
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,693 |
Even birds know not to land downwind!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
I think all the 'frontline' fighters of WWII were pretty close in performance. Ultimately, it came down to the pilot and that's where the Allies had an unshakeable advantage. The pool just kept getting drained for Germany and Japan.
It's remarkable how many of Germany's top aces made it through the war. Even surviving the Eastern Front with its decidedly inferior foes was quite an accomplishment. And many of the top EF pilots ended up perishing in the last months of the war as they were transferred to the defense of the Reich. There's only so much mental and physical stress a human can handle and many of those guys had been at war for 6 years or more..
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
582 members (16penny, 12344mag, 007FJ, 10gaugemag, 10ring1, 06hunter59, 51 invisible),
2,417
guests, and
1,259
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,242
Posts18,466,827
Members73,925
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
