All WWII Warbirds are way cool, but I believe the FW 190 is my own favorite. Just an elegant work of purpose-built engineering, and revolutionary in its day....

Good plane but sure glad it did not have the legs over England.

Amen!

Was it equipped with drop tanks?

A nice bird, but give me a Mustang or a Spitfire.

Very cool video. I especially like the form flight with the Spitfire. This appears to be a German or Austrian air show, so I feel good that the Gerries can showcase their WW2 technology next to the superior British counterpart, without too much emotional baggage.

No they thought they were not needed and took away from performance.

Often wondered what would have happened if they could have stayed longer over England.
Like the Mustang the tanks could have been dropped when contact had been made.
Come to think about it it took a while for the Air Corp to out fit the Mustang with tanks.Glad they thought it out in time for all of trips over Germany.

Pretty sure that was a Bf 109. IIRC the nose profile looks like one of the post-war Spanish-built examples like what was used in the Battle of Britain movie.

As to which was superior, Spit or Wurger (Fw 190), that would depend I'd guess on which version of each. I'm pretty sure the last "Dora" incarnation of the 190 was pretty close to any of the later marks of Spit.

IIRC the Fw was a far more versatile aircraft than the Spit, and far more survivable in the ground attack role.

Birdwatcher

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.

The 190 was one of the better aircraft of the war, an early design with a speed of over 400 mph, and yes it did have a drop tank available... there was some 20,000 built and in some 20+ different configurations. Started out with a twin row 14 cylinder radial engine of about 1,600 hp., and with the radial engine design it didn't compete with the 109 for material allowing for the numbers that were built...

Phil

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".

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.

Hear the P-51 @ 1:27-1:29?

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.

More on the Spit vs. the FW, these guys live and breathe this stuff....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/spitfire-ix-v-fw-190a-542-2.html

In all the Wurger is a better fighter but the spitfire had greater numbers, and by 1943 much better pilots on average. Dispite this their fw 190 kill ratio is just .04 meaning for 100 hundered Spifire ix shot down 104 fw 190a were shot down.


So many variables, and more than anything the skill sets of the opposing pilots.

Birdwatcher

With all the smoke coming out the exhaust in the beginning I thought that bird was one of the ultra rare coal fired 190s.
All of those old birds had souls like the old steam engines.

Jim

The Fw-190 had 20mm wingroot cannon that tore the ass off of Spits and P-51's. The pilot prob was another matter. Low fuel reserves, extended combat all reduced pilot training and long term survival(Law of averages catch up to everybody). With good pilots the190was called the "Butcher Bird" and deserved it.

Indeed, and good power of observation. From the link.

This FW190 is a 1:1 new build replica (almost 98% like the original aircraft, exept the engine).
The parts came from "Flugwerk" as a kit and "Meier Motors" put it together and made it airworthy.
These new FW190 replicas were sold with a Russian/Chinese ASh-82 14 cyl. radial engine, which was a good match for the rare BMW801 14 cyl. radial engines at a much lower cost. The replicas were designed with a new 3-blade prop, but one of the first examples crashed from a failure in the electric prop control. The 4-blade was a matched prop from the Tu-2 that was substituted while the problem with the new 3-blade was fixed. The 3-blade prop is now back in use.
This aircraft is now flying in the USA.




Crap, now I needs lots of money and a pilot's license

Birdwatcher

THIS ONE is the real deal, right down to the powerplant

An great footage of it flying side in company with a Mustang and Thunderbolt....

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

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.

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

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.

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...

Kurt Tank was the designer of the Fw-190...

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.

Two-thirds of 109 losses came from that schitty design....good job, Willi!

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.

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...

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.

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.

I put my money on a P51D/K model, any day, against the FW190.

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....




...and a photo of the famous fighter/torpedo bomber version carrying a 1,687lb torpedo.



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?



Birdwatcher

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

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.

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.

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

Hmmm....I kinda cater to this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8OgIHwOtd0

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..

not true.......... other than the lack of gas and pilots.

Fw-190 D-9

Engine: Junkers Jumo 213A1 with MW-50 boost.
Power: 2,240 HP.
Max. Speed: 704 km/h. (438 mph.)
Max. Climb: 1110 m/min (3,642 ft/min.)
Empty Weight: 3,490 kg. (7,694 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,293 kg. (9,464 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 4,839 kg. (10,670 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 10.50 m. (34.4 ft.)
Wing-Area: 18.3 sq.m. (197 sq.ft.)
Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) & 2x 20mm cannons (MG 151/20).

P-51D

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.
Power: 1,790 HP.
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Max. Climb: 1011 m/min. (3,320 ft/min)
Empty Weight: 3,466 kg. (7,641 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 5,034 kg. (11,100 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 5,489 kg. (12,100 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.)
Wing-Area: 21.64 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.)
Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2).

The D-9 was a great plane, but I don't think it was better than a P-51D. The war winning attribute of the P-51 was it's range and the fact that it could take the fight to the enemy. For our purposes, the P-51D was a FAR superior overall fighter.

In a 1v1 scenario, they each had unique characteristics, but no one characteristic to make one stand much above the other.

Edit: on a related note, met a guy who owned a P-51D and an F4U. They would dogfight them. He said they were very different, and as long as you used the strengths of the one you were in you could avoid getting beat by the other. Great to listen to him talk about those aircraft.

To that I suppose you have to add all the other factors like optimum performance altitude, roll rate, acceleration, ease of handling, maximum diving speed, handling during recovery from a dive and "zoom" rate. IIRC they could all turn hard enough by that time to black out the pilot.

And also perhaps the Ta 152 was the "real" last of the Fw 190's...

472mph at 40,000ft...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152



Birdwatcher

Great pic of an FW-190

[img]https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hph...a62bb77142e3c907f4b3e206&oe=546A804B[/img]

Thank you for the post Birdwatcher, if you click on You Tube on the lower right corner of the You Tube window there are some equally outstanding videos of other WWII Aircraft doing their thing!!!!!!

I got lost looking at those Videos as well.

Great post as I never get tired of looking at those aircraft from that era in our history.

Me either, and on a related note, I have found that Wikipedia does an outstanding job inside their acticles linking pilot names to units, aircraft, and other pilots. One can spend considerable time just browsing the links to read about the careers of many pilots on both sides.

Anyways.....

Here's some great footage of a guy flying a replica 190, while I know actual Spits, Mustangs and P-47's could provide similar footage, the video does give an idea of the handling qualities of a WWII era warbird. Note the excellent visibility too.

Worth recalling that for a whole year, August '41 to September '42, the allies really didn't have anything to match the Focke Wulf in combat, the Hawker Typhoon (which could outrun it at low altitude) being rushed into service in an attempt to match it. Maybe a whole 'nother year after that before comparable allied fighters had the range to challenge it deep inside Europe.



Birdwatcher

I'm finding some of the best places to find out about warbird performance is on the flight simulator game sites where guys have apparently spent much time researching actual data and accounts.

With regards to "whose plane is better", in this case P-51 vs German fighters this was a particularly pithy comment....

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/387458-Bud-Anderson-on-dogfighting-in-the-P51/page5

Here's what's important:

1. Pilot training, skill and experience.
2. Detecting (seeing) the other guy first.
3. Being higher, faster and in a good position
4. Being able to shoot straight
5. Luck

Relative aircraft performance is way down the list.

The bottom line: Most military pilots are egotistical blowhards (I count myself in that category). The ones who get to give accounts of their exploits are the ones who survived them. Their plane out-turned, out-climbed, out-gunned and outran the enemy, because if it hadn't, they wouldn't be around to tell the story.

Their claims concerning aircraft performance don't necessarily make them true, although if you read between the lines in the Bud Anderson interview, you will get a glimpse of the reality.....

The way to shoot down an enemy is to sneak up behind him and do him in with a close-up non-deflection shot. Something like 80% of the kills in WW-2 were from non-deflection shots.

If you want to fly the P-51 in the game more as it was in real life, fly 8:1 numbers against rookie A/I climbing up from 10,000 feet below and set to attack bombers.

Birdwatcher