How good was the Fw-190?
Namuel
I wonder how good the FW-190 was compared to allied fighters like P-51, P-47 or
P-38. I heard the Dora models where nicknamed 'Mustang Killers' wich implies
that they were quite successfull against P-51s...
Also is there a web site where kill ratios of Fw-190s/Bf-109s against allied
fighters are displayed?
thanks in advance
namuel
RMiG15
thanks in advance
namuel >>
Well, Nam, I am no expert and I know you will get much more detailed responses
than mine. But, I will get the ball rolling.
The FW vs. the P-51:
I would say you would have to specify varients here. The FW-190A was certainly
not the equal of the P-51D, for example. Speed and range were on the side of
the P-51.
The Dora was probably a match for the P-51D. The problem here is you can't
look at kill ratios for evidence, because by that time in the war the Germans
had several things working against them, including:
a) Poorly trained pilots
b) Inferior petrol
c) Inferior numbers
P-47 vs. FW-190:
The "Jug" was definitely faster in a dive. flat-out speed. . .again, it would
depend on the variant. Some of the late-war, paddle-bladed
P-47s were quite fast indeed. If you put an early P-47 against an FW-190A, all
other factors being equal, the FW would win, or should. Late war P-47s could
snuff an FW-190A. Late-model P-47 vs. a Dora? Don't know here.
FW vs. P-38
It's my understanding that the P-38s did not fare too well in the European
theater of ops, primarily because of cabin heating problems. Also, I don't
think their high-altitude performance was great ( I could be mistaken here ).
The P-38 was the first American fighter to attempt to escort the B-17s on their
deep penetration raids into Germany. The accounts I've read say they didn't do
very well. They apparently could not match the performance of the
Messerschmitts or FWs.
Again, I know you will get the real experts writing in with specific stats.
Good luck.
RMiG15
wal...@oneimage.com
>>
>Keep in mind that the Dora went to the 'old heads', the Experten,
who could get the best out of it. Comparing a 5 mission guy against
a 200 mission guy isn't a fair test of one airplane vs the other.
An 'old head' in a P51D, P47D25, Tempest or Spit Mk XIV or later would
be a fair match for a Dora, IMHO. :<)
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
Emmanuel Gustin
>I wonder how good the FW-190 was compared to allied fighters like
>P-51, P-47 or P-38.
The Fw 190A was the best fighter in the world when it appeared, in
late 1940: It that was better than the Spitfire Mk.V in most respects,
turn circle being one of the few exceptions. It was fast, had a high
roll rate, an excellent cockpit design, it was though and (after the
first few models) well-armed. The hasty development of the Spitfire
Mk.IX created a fighter that was the equal of the Fw 190A. The
biggest disadvantage of the Fw 190A was that its BMW 801 radial
engine did not provide good high-altitude performance. The
Merlin 61 with its two-stage supercharger did.
The Fw 190A was in its best element at fairly low altitudes,
although the Soviets developed the La-5 and Yakovlev fighters
until they had superior performance at those levels. The
radial-engined Fw 190 was also developed into the F and
G series of ground attack fighters, a development often
overlooked.
The P-51B and D had a similar engine as the Spitfire Mk.IX in
a more aerodynamic airframe, so they had an edge over the
Fw 190A at most altitudes, and a significant advantage
high up.
Test conducted with a captured aircraft revealed that a
P-47D could fight the Fw 190A with success if the pilot was
wise enough to keep the speed high. The German fighter
was more manoueverable at low speeds, and had better
acceleration. The introduction of paddle-blade propellers
and water injection for the R-2800 engine improved the
chances of the P-47D considerably, eating away the
advantages of the Fw 190A. Again, the P-47 with its
turbosupercharged engine held the advantage at high
altitude.
Same story for the P-38: Its turbosupercharged V-1710s
gave it a distinct advantage at high altitudes. At low altitudes
it is a probably again an "it depends": Late model P-38s with
the redesigned cooling system and power-boosted ailerons
could hold their own against any fighter in the war, and were
probably better than the Fw 190A. But the early P-38 models
were not so lucky in combat over Europe, perhaps also because
their systems did not work very well under European conditions.
The Fw 190D is another story. It exchanged the BMW 801
radial engine for the Jumo 213 in-line engine, and the latter
*did* give good high-altitude performance. The Fw 190D
is generally considered to be the equal of the P-51D, and
therefore also of the late-model P-47s and P-38s. In combat
with a P-51D, very much depended on pilot ability.
Note that the Fw 190D was a interceptor, and the P-51D an
escort fighter: The German fighter was sturdier and better
armed, for it had to be able to shoot down a B-17; but the
American fighter had a far longer range. The Fw 190D
would have been useless for the 8th AF, and the P-51D of
little value to the Luftwaffe. What a "better fighter" is, depends
very much on the requirements of the user.
>Also is there a web site where kill ratios of Fw-190s/Bf-109s against
allied
>fighters are displayed?
Such numbers probably could not be calculated reliably. Combat
reports are generally over-optimistic and often enough wrong
about the type of aircraft encountered. (One of the advantages
of the P-38 was that it was very hard to confuse with other aircraft,
therefore P-38 units were sometimes selected for tasks with a
high "friendly fire" risk.)
Even if they could be relied on, the figures still would not tell
you very much. Standards of pilot training and support varied
too much. In addition, you must consider that the Bf 109s and
Fw 190s were trying to shoot down the bombers, and the escort
fighter were trying to prevent that: A set-up that induces some
bias in itself.
Emmanuel Gustin
RMiG15
Uh, I didn't write that.
RMiG15
Felger Carbon
RMiG15 <rmi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980927181829...@ng78.aol.com>...
> FW vs. P-38
>
> It's my understanding that the P-38s did not fare too well in the
European
> theater of ops, primarily because of cabin heating problems.
A bigger problem was the really lousy and low-octane Brit petrol. I read
that engine life was measured in single-digit hours (4.6?). The P38 worked
great in all theaters where U.S. high-octane gasoline was used.
Jukka Kauppinen
: I wonder how good the FW-190 was compared to allied fighters like P-51, P-47 or
: P-38. I heard the Dora models where nicknamed 'Mustang Killers' wich implies
: that they were quite successfull against P-51s...
: fighters are displayed?
It was the best.
Higher top speed, wonderfully balanced controls, ability to
at amazing speeds, good climb rate, powerful engine with boost,
good armanent... These all combined into one airframe. Oh,
put great visibility and excellent maneuverability for a
"peed freak fighter" in too.
In the hands of experienced pilot the FW Dora was
the best piston engined fighter of the war in practise as well not
only when looking at raw stats.
The P51 didn't have any advantages over Dora, P-38
maybe climbed and clearly turned betterand the P-47
was very rugged construction taking lotsa of damage and
I guess could dive away from a Dora. But all planes were
very much inferior to this pinnacle of German engineering
by Kurt Tank.
And I'm talking about operational types and not any super-achieving
prototypes that didn't see any action.
jok
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi ICQ: 1848 793
Journalist Mail: MikroBitti, Jukka O. Kauppinen,
MikroBitti Kornetintie 8, 00380 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Tel/fax +358-17-824 225 or fax +358-9-120 5747
GSM +358-40-730 0036
http://mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak
http://www.mikrobitti.fi
The best-selling computer magazine in Scandinavia
Ruediger Landmann
: And I'm talking about operational types and not any super-achieving
: prototypes that didn't see any action.
Umm... Did any of the 150 or so Doras ever actually see action?
Wingman
A bigger problem was the really lousy and low-octane Brit petrol. I read
that engine life was measured in single-digit hours (4.6?). The P38 worked
great in all theaters where U.S. high-octane gasoline was used.
Where might I ask did we get our petrol, in those days we did not have our
own resources. It makes me wonder what axe he has to grind. Please get your
facts right Felger before committing yourself.
Wingman
Namuel
>The German fighter
>was more manoueverable at low speeds, and had better
>acceleration.
Really? I thought the FWs disadvantage would be rather poor low speed handling?
How f.e. could a FW-190 beat a hard turning Spitfire Mk.V (or similar)?
Does anyone have stall speed statistics of all the FW-190s?
regards
namuel
Jim Erickson
all the FW190 A variants together. It's my understanding that there
were significant improvements to the figher with time, i.e. the A-5 was
better than the A-4, which was better than the A-3 etc.. In terms of
the competetive fly-offs with captured FW190s what models were flown? I
seem to recall most were done with a rather early A-3 model, which would
tend to stack the deck in favor of the newer Allied fighters.
Anyone have some comparative data?
Jim Erickson
Bejewelled
>A bigger problem was the really lousy and low-octane Brit petrol. I read
>that engine life was measured in single-digit hours (4.6?). The P38 worked
>great in all theaters where U.S. high-octane gasoline was used.
>
>
>
There was no british petrol. It came from the US or the middle east. It was
good enough for Spitfires, Lancs, Typhoons, Tempests, Mosquitoes and yes, P-47s
and P-51s. All of which ran the same or higher manifold pressures as the P-38
up to the J. P-51s had plug and oil problems, but even then their loss rate on
one engine was no worse than the 38. The -47 loss rate, all causes, was half
that of the -38. The 56th FG, the only one to use P-47 throughout, had more
aces than all the -38 units in the ETO, north africa and Italy.
Why? Because the -38s advantages over german fighters at combat altitudes were
few if any.
In the PTO, the 80-100mph speed advantage over the opposition made the
difference. In Europe, the 38 brought nothing special (compared to 47 and 51),
but was twice as easy to see, had a bigger target area (full of vulnerable
stuff). Any theoretical advantage at heights over 30,000ft was not realized
because most of the combat was lower.
If the L was really better ( not the opinion of the Pax River fighter conf
1944), well you can't afford six years to get it right when there's a war on.
Adrian Camp
Kursad Albayraktaroglu
had the chance to fly both Spitfire Mk.Vb and Fw-190A3 in the same
squadrons. One of my older relatives is a retired TuAF pilot who had flown
both, and I recall him saying that the Fw-190 was superior to the Spitfire
in every aspect. I will visit him this Friday, and if anyone is interested,
just post here the questions and I will ask him; and put the replies here.
He has more than 400 hours logged on both planes.
Bejewelled
>In the hands of experienced pilot the FW Dora was
>the best piston engined fighter of the war in practise as well not
>only when looking at raw stats.
But not kill ratios?
seriously the 190D was a good fighter, one of the best in 1945, but really only
equal with the best allied types, 47M, 51D, Tempest V, Spit 14
At this late stage it is not easy to separate and rank fighter planes. They
were all good to survive to that point, and with the speeds and effective
armaments of the last days, the units which achieved the bounce were going to
score the kills.
Adrian Camp.
.
RMiG15
<<Umm... Did any of the 150 or so Doras ever actually see action?
>>
This figure on Dora production seems quite low. Anyone else have info on this?
RMiG15
Tamela R. Germano
<kur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, please do so. This type of first hand information is what a lot of
us are here for. I can get all the numbers I need from my ref books.
Dino in Reno
Tex Houston
"Air & Space" magazine. It has a short article titled "The Luftwaffe's
Best Piston Engine Fighter" about some restoration on the one remaining
example held at the Smithsonian Garber facility.
Tex Houston
Colorado Springs
>
>Mr Closterman is not considered the best source for accurate data. Several
>British pilots picked that book to pieces.
>
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
>USN SAR Aircrew
.
Emmanuel Gustin
>>The German fighter
>>was more manoueverable at low speeds, and had better
>>acceleration.
>
>Really? I thought the FWs disadvantage would be rather poor low
>speed handling?
You must consider that the comparison is with the P-47...
At low speeds an Fw 190 could outmanoeuvre the enormous
US fighter. But at higher speeds g-forces become important,
and the ability to enter tight turns decreases in importance.
Besides, the Fw 190 had the disadvantage of a nasty
high-speed stall in a fast turn.
What worked against a P-47 would not work against a
Spitfire Mk.V, and the other way around. Trying to dive
away from a P-47, for example, was unwise.
Emmanuel Gustin
John Campbell
>
> Jukka Kauppinen (juk...@dns.mikrobitti.fi) wrote:
>
> : And I'm talking about operational types and not any super-achieving
> : prototypes that didn't see any action.
>
Reading "The Big Show" by Pierre Clostermann there are quite a few
references to "long nose" Focke Wulfs generally giving a number for
FW's and only mentioning "long noses" (FW 190D/TA 152) as part of a
description of the furball. This would presumably indicate quite a few
did.
JC
Remove the obvious to reply
Krztalizer
>> Umm... Did any of the 150 or so Doras ever actually see action?
>
>Reading "The Big Show" by Pierre Clostermann there are quite a few
>references to "long nose" Focke Wulfs generally giving a number for
>FW's and only mentioning "long noses" (FW 190D/TA 152) as part of a
>description of the furball. This would presumably indicate quite a few
>did.
>
>JC
Mr Closterman is not considered the best source for accurate data. Several
British pilots picked that book to pieces.
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
It's always better to lose AN engine than THE engine.
Agtabby
>And I'm talking about operational types and not any super-achieving
>prototypes that didn't see any action.
O.K. I'll admit the 190D was an awesome fighter, but it did not see action in
huge numbers. You also ignore a few other factors
1. The US had hot versions of their fighters (P51H, P47M, F4U-4, P38?) that
only saw a small amount of action. The US simply did not have any incentive to
interupt production and service of the proven models, we outnumbered our
enemies and had more experienced pilots by the end of the war. This was part
of the US advantage, the P51D might not have been the ultimate fighter, but it
was supported in huge numbers and this provided economies. Likewise using
the 50 cal. MG across the board made supply much easier.
The US was about to deploy the F8F in the Pacific, we were in no rush. We had
huge numbers of F6F's and F4U's already in service. The P47M was ready in
time to see significant combat, but nobody wanted to interupt the assembly
lines to retool.
2. The US had different requirements, the P51 had to fly huge distances then
fight, then fly back. The US also needed fighter bombers, and the P47 and F4U
were superb in this role. The US simply did not need a pure interceptor at
this time in the war, we were on the offensive. If we did we could have had
the F8F or P51F/H in service in Europe earlier.
3. US aircraft were on the average very rugged, and this helped keep pilots
longer. Remember the biggest factor in air to air combat is pilot skill, and
experience is a major factor here. Having a plane that that gets the pilot
back alive more often has the subtle advantage of preverving pilot skills. I
don't think it was a coincidence that the two higher scoring US aces flew twin
engine (Bong in P38) and large radial powered aircraft (Gabroski (sp) P47).
4. One thing I admire about the Germans is that they generally had lower octane
fuel, yet they still had some amazing performing aircraft. With our avgas they
would have done better.
How would the 190D do against P38L's, F8F's, P51H's, F4U-4s, or P47M's? Or a
P47J?! It would have been an awesome battle, I don't think any plane would
have a huge advantage - pilot skill would determine most engagements. And
again we needed planes that were more than pure interceptors - we needed
escorts and fighter bombers.
Andrew
Agtabby
O.K. dumb question:
What was the dif between the FW-190D and the Ta-152? How many were made?
tanks,
Andrew
Alexander Odintsov
Most soviet aces sayd that Bf.109 E and F series was more serios enemies
then FW-190. La-5, La7, Yak-9, Yak-3 and P-39, P-63 had better perfomance in
air combat.
--
Best Regards
Alexander Odintsov
cc...@hippo.ru
DHeitm8612
>I wonder how good the FW-190 was compared to allied fighters like P-51, P-47
>or
>P-38. I heard the Dora models where nicknamed 'Mustang Killers' wich implies
>that they were quite successfull against P-51s...
>Also is there a web site where kill ratios of Fw-190s/Bf-109s against allied
>fighters are displayed?
>
>
>namuel
You probably need to qualify that question a bit so fighters from the same time
frame are compared against each other. Legitimate comparisons cannot be made
between fighters that served in 1941 and 1945.
I found an article written by Col. "Kit" Carson entitled "The Best of the
Breed" in which he evaluates opposing fighters in the ETO for "Airpower"
magazine (July, 1976). The article in question is the final installment of the
series he wrote for the magazine and is the only installment I seem to have. It
compares the, Bf-109, and Fw-190A to the P-51, P-47, Spitfire and Tempest.
It's a lengthy article and I will attempt to transcribe it for the newsgroup if
anyone is interested.
Keith Heitmann
dheit...@aol.com
<A HREF="
http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/page2.htm">Stalag 13 Aviation Links</A>
http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/page2.htm
The September 27 update includes: 232 new links, 6 update and 20 deletions.
Total links listed: 7379.
Namuel
>It's a lengthy article and I will attempt to transcribe it for the newsgroup
if
>anyone is interested.
>
>Keith Heitmann
>dheit...@aol.com
Yes, please do so.
regards
namuel
Emmanuel Gustin
>What was the dif between the FW-190D and the Ta-152?
The Ta 152 was basically an aerodynamically refined, longer
development of the Fw 190D. There were two main Ta 152
models: C and H. The Ta 152C had normal-span wings for
operations at low and medium altitudes, but only prototypes
were built. The Ta 152H was a high-altitude version with
unusual, long-span wings. Engines were DB 603 or Jumo 213,
with the Jumo 213 being used in all production aircraft.
>How many were made?
About 200 Ta 152s, most of them H models. About 700
Fw 190Ds.
See also:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html
Emmanuel Gustin
Jukka Kauppinen
: : prototypes that didn't see any action.
: Umm... Did any of the 150 or so Doras ever actually see action?
You're mistaking the Fw 190 Dora to TA 152.
TA 152 was build in limited numbers, 190 D model
was used since summer/autumm 1944 and built
in kinda larger numbers.
Jukka Kauppinen
: >was more manoueverable at low speeds, and had better
: >acceleration.
:
: Really? I thought the FWs disadvantage would be rather poor low speed handling?
: Does anyone have stall speed statistics of all the FW-190s?
Ups, I think I've made a mistake here. I certainly meant
to say high speeds.
It had wonderfully balanced controls, that gave the plane
great controls in high speeds where its opponents like
Spitfire and Mustand were stiff and unresponsible.
Like, while Mustand still responded a Dora was able to roll
at will, giving the pilot maneuvering advantage in hands
of skilled pilot.
A spitfire or other dedicated "dogfighter" certainly
gave a slow Focke Wulf a hell, unless the FW could
dive away to escape.
An other hand, if I was comparing FW 190 Dora model's
low speed maneuvering to P51, then yes, Dora was better.
Jukka Kauppinen
: >And I'm talking about operational types and not any super-achieving
: >prototypes that didn't see any action.
:
: huge numbers. You also ignore a few other factors
Focke Wulf 190 D certainly saw more action than any of the
Allied uberplanes, like the F8F or any P51/P47 wondermodel.
FW 190 D was in used since summer/autumm 1944.
What about those you mention below?
:
: 1. The US had hot versions of their fighters (P51H, P47M, F4U-4, P38?) that
: only saw a small amount of action.
Late 1945 if ever.
I'm talking about operational types, not coming wunderplanes.
I could start talking then about the prototypes of Dornier 335,
Ta 152s or other German pieces of aircraft engineering, but
no, I talk about operational ones, and FW 190 D was IMHO
the greatest fighter aircraft of the war.
: How would the 190D do against P38L's, F8F's, P51H's, F4U-4s, or P47M's? Or a
: P47J?! It would have been an awesome battle, I don't think any plane would
: have a huge advantage - pilot skill would determine most engagements. And
: again we needed planes that were more than pure interceptors - we needed
: escorts and fighter bombers.
Yes, a pilot skill was a definite factor in the war.
And luck too.
I am though only comparing the basic operational aircraft
to each other, and in that light there is no equal to the Dora.
Of course putting Ta 152 against P51H or anything would be
amazing to speculate. :-)
ArtKramr
>From: juk...@dns.mikrobitti.fi (Jukka Kauppinen)
>An other hand, if I was comparing FW 190 Dora model's
>low speed maneuvering to P51, then yes, Dora was better.
>
>jok
According to the many luftwaffe pilots I spoke to in 1945, the Emil was far and
away the preferred ME-109 by most German pilots. They felt that everything
after the emil was downhill.
Arthur
In solemn salute to those thousands of our comrades -great, brave men that they
were- for whom there will be no homecoming, ever.
Ernie Pyle
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
XIV/FW-190D tied for best piston air-to-air fighters of the war, with the
P-51D slightly behind (IIRR. I'll check at home). He'd flown all of them,
many in mock (or real) dogfights, and was doing a head to head comparo. His
comparison deliberately ignored such factors as pilot quality and operational
factors such as range or ease of instrument flight; he was considering as if
he was trying to shoot himself down in a dogfight over his base, in clear
skies.
He rates the Me-262 as the best fighter of the war, period. More
interestingly, he also rates the greatest fighter a/c of the war (he also
does that for dive and torpedo bombers), on a scale that takes into account
their impact on the war, which pretty much requires the time in service and
numbers of the a/c in service to be significant. That eliminates a/c such as
the ME-262, late Corsairs, FW-190Ds, etc., and moves up a/c like the Hellcat
and Zero.
He also rates the greatest Carrier fighters of the war separately, again
taking into account their impact on the war, and operational factors. From
memory, the Hellcat is number one, the Zero second, the Wildcat third (?),
with the Corsair some ways down the list (mainly due to its very poor
handling qualities around the boat, and it's rather mediocre climb and poor
stall characteristics [C.C. Jordan is welcome to disagree:-)]. Note, he was
talking about the earlier models, which is what the RN flew). The Hurricane
and Spit bring up the rear, the latter due to it being completely unsuited to
the stresses and strains of deck landing.‰ ‰ ‰
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Bob Andrew
RMiG15 wrote:
> <<Umm... Did any of the 150 or so Doras ever actually see action?
> >>
>
Namuel
>According to the many luftwaffe pilots I spoke to in 1945, the Emil was far
and
>away the preferred ME-109 by most German pilots. They felt that everything
>after the emil was downhill.
Can one generally say wether the high speed aircraft or the nimble ones were
better? I mean it's obvious that a Spitfire Mk.V couldn't outrun a Dora, while
a Fw-190 couldn't turn with an early Spitfire/Hurricane etc..and the trend was
that the later in the war the faster (and less maneuverable) the planes became.
But in a 1vs1 dogfight, wich type of plane would succeed? (Given equal pilot
skills) Wich factor (speed/climbing or maneuverability) was more important?
Anyway my initial question wasn't only aimed on a theoretical (technical)
comparison between Fw-190 and Allied fighters but also on the historical part:
How DID the Fw-190s perform in the war? Considering also things like the pilot
factor, supply problems etc.
I'd also be interested in how many of the German Luftwaffe aces flew the
Fw-190?
Regards,
namuel
Kurt Plummer
>
> >From: juk...@dns.mikrobitti.fi (Jukka Kauppinen)
>
> >An other hand, if I was comparing FW 190 Dora model's
> >low speed maneuvering to P51, then yes, Dora was better.
> >
> >jok
>
> away the preferred ME-109 by most German pilots. They felt that everything
> after the emil was downhill.
>
>
> In solemn salute to those thousands of our comrades -great, brave men that they
> were- for whom there will be no homecoming, ever.
>
> Ernie Pyle
Hey Ernie,
Gotta disagree here. The /F/ was considered the best. Better engine,
still light on the weapons weight and CG, not overtorqued-for-the-tail.
The Emil was comparitively a bit underpowered and weak-everywhere.
I think it was E. Brown who rated the 109F as 'Perhaps the best in the
World in 1941' (considering the Wulf was up an running towards the end
of this year...)
I also doubt many flew the K under circumstances where its best features
would really show and of course Galland put it best/worst to Goering:
"Give Me Spitfires!"
KP
Kurt Plummer
>
> Can one generally say wether the high speed aircraft or the nimble ones were
> better? I mean it's obvious that a Spitfire Mk.V couldn't outrun a Dora, while
> a Fw-190 couldn't turn with an early Spitfire/Hurricane etc..and the trend was
> that the later in the war the faster (and less maneuverable) the planes became.
> But in a 1vs1 dogfight, wich type of plane would succeed? (Given equal pilot
> skills) Wich factor (speed/climbing or maneuverability) was more important?
>
> Anyway my initial question wasn't only aimed on a theoretical (technical)
> comparison between Fw-190 and Allied fighters but also on the historical part:
> How DID the Fw-190s perform in the war? Considering also things like the pilot
> factor, supply problems etc.
>
> I'd also be interested in how many of the German Luftwaffe aces flew the
> Fw-190?
>
> Regards,
>
> namuel
Hey Namuel,
I just do sims here which are 'unrealistic' in having an XX proximity
radius perfect alert Break Now!! cue for the opponent AI; as well as
some cheats to the flight physics for them but generally-
1. Surprise Counts More Than Anything.
2. Where Surprise Is, Deflection doesn't matter
3. Where Surprise /ain't/ the angle's competitive win if they try hard
enough.
4. Wingmen Win Battles. Alone play angles, in numbers play energy.
Generally, because they 'always see it coming', I will end up in
spiraling barrel roll or scissors contest before a BnZ successful
slash-pass and here 'G happens' (regardless by initial bank and
pitched-lead aiming calc).
As such it's more the /roll at AOA/ that counts since, for gunfire over
a long nose, the tendency is to miss-align the wings when the target
goes under and then need to 'waggle' with rudder and ailerons trying to
cross the target noseline at the shallowest possible arc when he
reappears (so you can get max hits for the flightpath deflection).
The FASTER you can retain this ability in terms of true airspeed and
criticals; the more apt you are to get in, get your shot and get OUT
before he can react to any over shoot or chase you back up in the
vertical.
It should be noted that I -DON'T- subscribe to the 'shove it up his a**
and pull the trigger' approach, preferring the chance at a big
silouhette and a 'clean break' getaway if I miss. This means high
deflections which requires knowing how to guess lead from a target which
is creating some really weird (angular and depth of field/closure are
very similar) moves. In 2D that's hard enough, in 3D I would guess it
was a royal pain.
The FW-190 had heavy elevators which need fairly constant trim-minding
(though it was electrical unlike the 'steam wheels' of the 109) with
large speed changes and this was particularly noticeable around 220mph
which is just below where I like to turn-fight.
Together with a certain 'stutter' in the autobrain throttle mix these
factors can mess up gunnery too. The nose actually is easy to see over
as the plane flies nose down and (in BnZ slash-preferred) tends to
trim-heavier yet with the dive angle.
Looking /around/ the Schnozz is harder unless you're skidded well up the
turn arc however (which causes misses due to wing crossing angles of the
guns).
I found the rudder, while effective, did not always provide the needed
'umph' in swinging the game-guns onto target as AOE and SWOTL scores
usually registered with one wing or with the MG before either cannon
etc. The aileron residuals depended on how much I was pulling but DID
match the rudder harmony's pretty well (the 'super turner' Spit for
instance has a noticeable tendency to 'dish out' (up and across-in) the
tail and 'curl under' the wingtip when I fight with it in harsh angles
battles and it's /supposed/ to be good here) in getting the full weight
of fire on-target.
Comparitively, I always had an easier time getting /hits/ with the 6-8
.50s (rounds in air?) on P-XX but the FW /shreds/ fighter targets when
it does bang-on whereas Stangs and Jugs do not, always, get first-salvo
kills. Bombers need 30mm or again your 'betting against the box' on how
many bullets have your name on them in multipass reattack.
Second Shooter.
Until I tried the recent Janes 'WWII' demo, I'd never found an opponent
section tactics AI so sophisticated as to be unbreakable. Wingmen, well
spaced and with good aggressive-knockoff timing are like a 'second
checking account' of turn rate and gunline to draw upon. With an
average 10-15% better-than performance between any of the equivalent
time frame opponents at most; you just /cannot/ beat 85% more-totals if
they've got their coordination down, even if you're in the 'better
machine'.
As an example: In 'WWII', I found myself never having time for more
than 4-6 second, 50-60`, 'maneuver attention spans', per target before
SPEED and the ability to regain it quickly through unload-getaway, made
the difference between survival and death in my Jug. You can usually
'break' from one with enough speed to get across his gun merge but are
then literally 'holding still' for the second man. Essentially, once
they get behind you, it's over (and I was fighting a pair of 190A5/R2's
with underwing 30s which should have made them 'sluggish' as hell).
Aces?
Well, according to one of the links I'm sending you to, the _Top Fifty
Six_ slots on the chart of 'who's the best killer' belong to Germans and
of these, 17 are FW-190 jocks. I know Glunz and Priller and 'The Cock'
Hahn did their time on these as did Baer and Barkhorn; two of the
Luftwaffens best. Galland at least tried the D before moving on to the
262 for his 'squadron of experts' while Hartmann, Steinhoff(Trautloft?)
and Marseilles finished the war or were crippled out of/killed as 109
loyalists.
The Slaughter Yellows (JG-26, Top Guns) were among the first to get the
190 in the West while Eastern equivalents like JG-54 were delayed by the
bomber-campaign needs and then largely tasked to Jabo duties which the
little Auggie Eagle simply couldn't handle. As the fronts collapsed and
units remixed however, the Grun Herz were the first to get the Dora-9's.
Supposedly JG-26 finished out the war with a 6:1 (some say 9:1) kill
ratio. They were certainly the creme' and as such were glory-used on
short term basis in theatres and engagements where they weren't utterly
destroyed by wrong-mission/bad attrition numbers taskings.
If they had 190's for most of the war you can safely say that 'it was
the best' since most of the 109 greats did their worst over the Eastern
Front where the competition wasn't playing as rough and 26 wasn't there
for very long. Again, the bomber-killer role (with heavy cannon and
armor) may slant the view towards escort sniping and sheer numbers of
defensive box fires if you include /all/ units whilst schlacting was
also not a good way to grow old.
A comparitive-era review of TOE's from one of the various 'War Diaries'
published on these two top-fighter units might prove conclusive (see
LINKS) though.
KP
LINKS-
German Warfare Books
http://www.eagle-editions.com/bookintro.html
Stof's FW-190 Home
http://pages.pratique.fr/~carribat/stoffw.html
Sig Covers (Luft Aces)
http://www.magicnet.net/~westham/gl.html
Luftwaffe Resource Page Directory
http://www.tiac.net/users/srose/luftwafe/main.html
Butcher Birds Online (Check FW-190 section)
http://www.butcherbirds.com/
C.C. Jordan
>FWIW, Eric 'Winkle' Brown, in his book "Duels in the Sky," rated the Spit
>XIV/FW-190D tied for best piston air-to-air fighters of the war, with the
>P-51D slightly behind (IIRR. I'll check at home). He'd flown all of them,
>many in mock (or real) dogfights, and was doing a head to head comparo. His
>comparison deliberately ignored such factors as pilot quality and operational
>factors such as range or ease of instrument flight; he was considering as if
>he was trying to shoot himself down in a dogfight over his base, in clear
>skies.
[snip]
>He also rates the greatest Carrier fighters of the war separately, again
>taking into account their impact on the war, and operational factors. From
>memory, the Hellcat is number one, the Zero second, the Wildcat third (?),
>with the Corsair some ways down the list (mainly due to its very poor
>handling qualities around the boat, and it's rather mediocre climb and poor
>stall characteristics [C.C. Jordan is welcome to disagree:-)]. Note, he was
>talking about the earlier models, which is what the RN flew). The Hurricane
>and Spit bring up the rear, the latter due to it being completely unsuited to
>the stresses and strains of deck landing.‰ ‰ ‰
I must state from the outset that I am not a fan of Eric Brown.
He appears to me (and many others, I am sure) as the Bernard Law
Montgomery of British aviation. And believe me, from a Yank, that's not
a compliment. :-)
I prefer to gather empirical data from objective military test reports and from
the actual pilots who flew the planes day in and day out. Not from a self
appointed Grand Muckimuck. Am I being unfair yet again? Maybe, but
like Brown, I am excercising my prerogative of pigheaded opinionatedness. :-)
My best regards,
C.C. Jordan
Now online - The F4U-4: The Best Fighter/Bomber Of WWII?
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/index.html
The "Planes and Pilots of WWII" website.
An online WWII aviation history magazine.
Where veterans can publish their memories
on their own webpage.Veterans are encouraged
to submit articles, stories and essays by
e-mail. Write me for details, or click on
the "Submission guidelines" link on the index
page of the website. A member of the WWII
Web-ring.
IFlyRC
charge in the final weeks. can anybody confirm or deny?
Thanx
Scott
Emmanuel Gustin wrote in message <6uqjvd$mnq$1...@fu-berlin.de>...
DHeitm8612
I have transcribed what I call PART 1 of a lengthy article originally written
by American WW2 ace Col. "Kit" Carson, who was also an engineer, written for
Airpower magazine in 1976. The article is entitled "BEST OF THE BREED" and
takes a hard cold look at the various measurable aspects and performances of
the various fighters. Part 1 analizes the Me-109 (Bf-109 for the purists)
model. Part 2 is coming and will deal with the Fw-190.
I have placed part 1 in a zip file on my small LUFTWAFFE DATABASE page. Just
click on the BEST OF THE BREED button and it will take your right to the page
where you can download the .WRI (recommended) version or the unformatted .TXT
ascii version.
<A HREF="http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/index.htm">Luftwaffe Database</A>
http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/index.htm
Emmanuel Gustin
>the trend was
>that the later in the war the faster (and less maneuverable) the planes
became.
That's not entirely correct. Wing loading increased, and therefore
low-speed turn radius increased. But at the same time the wings
were made stronger and the aileron designs became better, and
roll rate increased considerably, especially at high speeds.
>But in a 1vs1 dogfight, wich type of plane would succeed? (Given equal
pilot
>skills) Wich factor (speed/climbing or maneuverability) was more important?
Looking at the results from the Pacific it was definitely speed/climbing,
because this allows the pilot to dictate the terms of the engagement.
>I'd also be interested in how many of the German Luftwaffe aces flew the
>Fw-190?
Most of them preferred the Bf 109. The Fw 190 was new. The best
German pilots were those who had received the thorough, long
pre-war training; the Bf 109 was what they were used to, and pilots
tend to be conservative. And, despite all the ugly things that have
been said about it, the Bf 109 remained a competitive fighter until
the end of the war.
Also, of the 20001 Fw 190s built, many went to ground attack units,
where the radial-engined Fw 190 was the preferred replacement
for the extremely vulnerable Ju 87 and Hs 123. The Bf 109 was still
the most common equipment of fighter units.
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel Gustin
from
>the actual pilots who flew the planes day in and day out. Not from a self
>appointed Grand Muckimuck. Am I being unfair yet again?
Probably. Remember that Brown was an extremely experienced test
pilot who had the opportunity to fly more different combat aircraft
than any other pilot, including a large number of captured German
aircraft: If he is not entitled to an opinion, who is? One does not have
to put absolute faith in Brown's evaluations, and his ranking lists
probably must be taken with a grain of salt; but nevertheless his
experience is unique.
Besides, you have been dismissing every author who dislikes
the F4U. Do I detect a habit there?
Emmanuel Gustin
Namuel
>I also doubt many flew the K under circumstances where its best features
>would really show and of course Galland put it best/worst to Goering:
>"Give Me Spitfires!"
I think he was rather calling for Me-262s, wasn't he?
namuel
Namuel
>Most of them preferred the Bf 109. The Fw 190 was new. The best
>German pilots were those who had received the thorough, long
>pre-war training; the Bf 109 was what they were used to, and pilots
>tend to be conservative. And, despite all the ugly things that have
>been said about it, the Bf 109 remained a competitive fighter until
>the end of the war.
Then wich version did they favor? Were the high decorated Aces allowed to
choose wich version they'd fly?
namuel
Ruediger Landmann
: : : And I'm talking about operational types and not any super-achieving
: : : prototypes that didn't see any action.
: :
:
: You're mistaking the Fw 190 Dora to TA 152.
Yep - that's exactly what I did! Thanks for picking me up.
ArtKramr
>From: nam...@aol.com (Namuel)
>Then wich version did they favor? Were the high decorated Aces allowed to
>choose wich version they'd fly?
>
>namuel
For every FW I saw I saw 10 ME's. A pilot had to fly the plane that the
squadron was equipped with. It was rare that an ME-109 squadron would have
FW's as well. Too many problems with parts and maintainance. But toward the end
of the war, neither ME's or FW's were in the air in any numbers. In Feb. March
and April of 1945, flack was our problem a lot more than fighters. When
fighters did show up, our air cover usually made short work of them.
Arthur
344th Bomb Group, 494th Bomb Squadron, 9th Air Force
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
R. Metrione
wrote:
> FWIW, Eric 'Winkle' Brown, in his book "Duels in the Sky," rated the Spit
> XIV/FW-190D tied for best piston air-to-air fighters of the war, with the
> P-51D slightly behind (IIRR. I'll check at home). He'd flown all of them,
> many in mock (or real) dogfights, and was doing a head to head comparo. His
> comparison deliberately ignored such factors as pilot quality and operational
> factors such as range or ease of instrument flight; he was considering as if
> he was trying to shoot himself down in a dogfight over his base, in clear
> skies.
The book is interesting but suspect! Some of his choices are questionable
at best. For example, he rates the Swordfish as the best torpedo bomber
of the war. This bartly because he ranks impact on the war so highly. In
fact even the Devestator could probably have done as well in the same
environment and with the same torpedos. The TBF was clearly superior as
were the Japanese types (Jill?). But for Brown the war seemed to either
end with the Battle of Britain or just be an extension of it. British and
German (their main oponent tyopes are always rated more highly than
others).
He also, conveniently, ignores the impact of the P-51 on the air war while
rating the Spifire XIV higher. He ignores the impact of the Hellcat, the
Zero etc. He has his facts wrong concerning top speeds of Italian
fighters, the Re and MC models.
All in all a very disappointing job of rating various types. I would like
to see a similar book by a less prejudiced author (that is, one whose
views coincide more closely with mine) with similar experience, if that is
possible.
Kurt Plummer
Chuckle, wouldn't /that/ have been _Cold_Water_ in 1940!;)
I don't know how hard he -really- pushed for the Me-262 (I would have
stooped to industrial espionage and falsified orders for a
squadron-of-ten and the experten to fly it, in early '44. Hell, they
did more than that for the He-219!
However at the time of the Emil series; I thought that he was
most-impressed by the Spitfire and made the mistake of being honest with
Goering about his views... Maybe it was errrr, Papa Somebody (the guy
who smacked a church in a transport) instead??
KP
Kurt Plummer
>
> >Most of them preferred the Bf 109. The Fw 190 was new. The best
> >German pilots were those who had received the thorough, long
> >pre-war training; the Bf 109 was what they were used to, and pilots
> >tend to be conservative. And, despite all the ugly things that have
> >been said about it, the Bf 109 remained a competitive fighter until
> >the end of the war.
>
> choose wich version they'd fly?
>
> namuel
Hey Namuel,
FWIW, I seem to recall that the /Dora itself/ was received with some
misgivings and one of the Rechlin or FW plant pilots had to make the
rounds 'showing how it's done'. Errr, from the _Monogram Close Up:
Ta-152_?
KP
DHeitm8612
>I have transcribed what I call PART 1 of a lengthy article originally written
>by American WW2 ace Col. "Kit" Carson, who was also an engineer, written for
>Airpower magazine in 1976. The article is entitled "BEST OF THE BREED" and
>takes a hard cold look at the various measurable aspects and performances of
>the various fighters. Part 1 analizes the Me-109 (Bf-109 for the purists)
>model. Part 2 is coming and will deal with the Fw-190.
>
>I have placed part 1 in a zip file on my small LUFTWAFFE DATABASE page. Just
>click on the BEST OF THE BREED button and it will take your right to the page
>where you can download the .WRI (recommended) version or the unformatted .TXT
>ascii version.
>
>
>http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/index.htm
>
It seems the ascii version I uploaded to the site last night was slightly
trashed. I have uploaded a fresh copy of the file in a new zip, so if you
downloaded the previous ascii version zipfile I apologize and you can now get
the fresh version at the above link..
C.C. Jordan
I guess it's your turn to be unfair. The only author I have dismissed
relative to the F4U, is Brown. Green I dismissed on general principle.
Green's mistakes are not limited to the Corsair, not by a long shot.
I will grant you that the majority of Green's errors were made 30 years
ago. Nonetheless, people still use his data and believe it to be true.
Best regards,
Kurt Plummer
>
> dheit...@aol.com (DHeitm8612) wrote:
> >>Part 2 of "Best of the Breed" by Col. "Kit" Carson is now available for
> >download a the following link.
> >>http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/index.htm
> >>Part 2 deals with the Fw-190. Part three coming soon...
> >>Keith Heitmann>dheit...@aol.com
> >
> Why not just buy the book? It's well worth it!
> As for the Fw190 - it was damned good but the Germans didn't upgrade it
> fast enough. Erich Milch was to blame for that; he abhorred anything that
> would interfere with production. As a result the Germans were always behind
> in the update/new aircraft program. I know you're going to say "What about
> the 262?" - well, it proves my point. Milch had a personal grudge against
> Messerschmidt and the 262 should have been in service in '43!
> As for the 190 - it had a very fast roll rate - essential in a fighter -
> and a heavy armament that was effective against both bombers and fighters.
> Great ground handling, which was one of the 109's weaknesses. Now id the 190D
> had come into service as soon as the Spitfire IX showed its equivalence to the
> plain vanilla 190 . . .
> Walt Bj ftr plt ret
Hey Walt,
I think you're ignoring the 'C/angaroo'. I don't know as much as I'd
like about this version but I believe it was powered by the 'same'
monster-DB603 as made it's way eventually into the Ta-152C (mech charger
and chemical injection were of course certainly different).
Generally the Jumo's (D: 213a to f) are NOT given the 'just super' nod
that the Daimler Benz were (though both used low-pressure steels if I
recall...?) but if anybody can say just -what- would have been necessary
to get the 190C up and running with or without the pouch; I think you
would have your dancing partner for the MkIX. As it was, the 190D was
V-series service-test operational in the Med in 1943 because that one
Ami in a lend lease Mk.V bagged two before getting his aileron shot off.
Also keep in mind that even the 190-A- had TWO superlative operating
zones: 0-5 and 18-20K where it was 'roughly equal' with the later Spit;
the IX pulling away inbetween and above, as I recall.
And THAT is Germany's err, IMO. Suspecting yourself of 'inherent'
genetic superiority to the point you accept 'good enough' in the weapon
and don't deliberately choose to _STOMP_ the other guy in platform
performance (i.e. across the board and in major percentages) is just
asking for trouble.
The Allies (U.S.) itself could be said to have made that mistake later
on but being behind an ocean saved the factories which Germany could
not...
KP
Kurt Plummer
>
> >The book is interesting but suspect! Some of his choices are questionable
> >at best. For example, he rates the Swordfish as the best torpedo bomber
> >of the war. This bartly because he ranks impact on the war so highly. In
> >fact even the Devestator could probably have done as well in the same
> >environment and with the same torpedos.
>
> they should respresent the word for "obsolete", the way Quisling represents
> 'traitor'.
>
> The TBF was clearly superior as
> >were the Japanese types (Jill?). But for Brown the war seemed to either
> >end with the Battle of Britain or just be an extension of it.
>
> was limited to some sort of minor supporting role in the war.
>
> British and
> >German (their main oponent types are always rated more highly than
> >others).
> >
> >He also, conveniently, ignores the impact of the P-51 on the air war while
> >rating the Spifire XIV higher. He ignores the impact of the Hellcat, the
> >Zero etc. He has his facts wrong concerning top speeds of Italian
> >fighters, the Re and MC models.
> >
> >All in all a very disappointing job of rating various types. I would like
> >to see a similar book by a less prejudiced author (that is, one whose
> >views coincide more closely with mine) with similar experience, if that is
> >possible.
>
> country on the back. A lot like Closterman in my mind -- "We'd like to thank
> you chaps with providing background music for our victory." Not a very
> accurate reporting job on the aircraft of the day, considering he was so
> familiar with them! Personally, I think Bob Cardenas does a better job at
> objectively evaluating aircraft from both sides of the war. He loved the
> AR-234, for instance, and felt it was a logical, futuristic development for
> bombers to take. He flew in American fighters over Europe with Yeager and
> Anderson, yet he is not lured by the easy out of calling that aircraft the best
> of the war. He takes a long time to answer, and says, "It usually went to the
> better pilot, anyway."
>
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
> It's always better to lose AN engine than THE engine.
Hey Gordon,
My big problems with the book (other than the fact that some joker
pulled the Mk.XIV section from the library-only copy!:( were the utter
absence of Japanese fighters from useful eval. The Hayate and later
models of the Hien are just NOT represented, though if I recall, the
Shiden Kai /is/.
Did the Aussies not ship anything to Britain during the war or did he
write the novel with no experience from the Wright FE birds? I would
have thought we would 'invite' such an august personage to come play
with our toys in exchange for a 'few after-words'.
I must also say that, given what? 500hp? of difference in the two, I
would have had less less problem being inpolitic in choosing the Mk.XIV
over the 'Stang on pure performance. The Mk.IX might have been a
different case though...
Also, if the 190D could match the XIV in a dogfight then whoever made
the statement about 'flying him out of fuel' was in error because the
concept of 'point defense inferiority' implies that an offensive escort
won't be coming to the local AS fighters aerodrome /anyway/ (though if
you have he radii/loiter to do so well in advance you may certainly be
able to monkey with them in scramble...).
KP
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
36117472...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:39:35 GMT, g_alca...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >FWIW, Eric 'Winkle' Brown, in his book "Duels in the Sky," rated the Spit
> >XIV/FW-190D tied for best piston air-to-air fighters of the war, with the
> >P-51D slightly behind (IIRR. I'll check at home). He'd flown all of them,
> >many in mock (or real) dogfights, and was doing a head to head comparo. His
> >comparison deliberately ignored such factors as pilot quality and operational
> >factors such as range or ease of instrument flight; he was considering as if
> >he was trying to shoot himself down in a dogfight over his base, in clear
> >skies.
>
>
> >He also rates the greatest Carrier fighters of the war separately, again
> >taking into account their impact on the war, and operational factors. From
> >memory, the Hellcat is number one, the Zero second, the Wildcat third (?),
> >with the Corsair some ways down the list (mainly due to its very poor
> >handling qualities around the boat, and it's rather mediocre climb and poor
> >stall characteristics [C.C. Jordan is welcome to disagree:-)]. Note, he was
> >talking about the earlier models, which is what the RN flew). The Hurricane
> >and Spit bring up the rear, the latter due to it being completely unsuited to
> >the stresses and strains of deck landing.‰ ‰ ‰
>
> I must state from the outset that I am not a fan of Eric Brown.
> He appears to me (and many others, I am sure) as the Bernard Law
> Montgomery of British aviation. And believe me, from a Yank, that's not
> a compliment. :-)
>
> the actual pilots who flew the planes day in and day out. Not from a self
> like Brown, I am excercising my prerogative of pigheaded opinionatedness. :-)
>
> My best regards,
> C.C. Jordan
Of course, those empirical test reports were
gathered by pilots like, um, Eric Brown, who was
responsible for testing a/c for their naval suitability
as well as their flying qualities. So yes, I do think
you are being unfair. Let's see, Brown holds the
record for having flown the most different types of
aircraft, was the RN's chief test pilot for many
years, and later DAW (I think. Head of
requirements, anyway). His day -to-day combat
experience extends from flying Gloster Gladiators
in combat in the BoB, Wildcats in combat on HMS
Audacity, and he seems to have managed to get into
combat in a Spit Mk. IX against a FW-190 at some
point. He also flew the angled deck trials, the
flexible deck trials, was the first pilot (British one,
anyway) to land a jet on a carrier, etc. etc.,
finishing up his military flying with the F-4
Phantom.
I hardly think he's some self-appointed Grand
Muckimuck. He does, however, have piloting
experience that's unique. If Chuck Yeager were to
write a book about the flight characteristics and
cockpit layouts of all the a/c he's test flown, would
that qualify him as some self-appointed Grand
Muckimuck (we'll ignore all the hero-worship etc.
That's an external thing). Wouldn't you want to
hear what he has to say?
Now, that's not to say that I've never found errors
in Brown's books; I have, especially in some of the
performance stats. Whether due to typos or what,
I'm not sure, but I note such discrepancies. When
it comes to handling qualities or ergonomics,
however, that's definitely in the realm of the test
pilot, and such evaluations are the only place to
find out why an a/c with great brochure figures
may be considered a dog. For instance, take the P-
51H; its stats show it superior to the D in every
performance category. But, according to test
pilots, the seat was positioned at a different angle,
and many test pilots (Yeager for one) state that they
were never able to get as comfortable in an H as
they were in a D. That's rather important if you're
going to be flying long-duration missions (and the
P-51 cockpit was hardly an ideal place to be cooped
up for 6 or 7 hours at the best of times).
In conclusion, it's not as if I think that the Corsair
is a dog; it has its strengths and weaknesses like
any other a/c, and as a fighter bomber it may well
be the best in World War II. By the time it
appeared in WW II, however, the individual quality
of the a/c mattered very little compared to the
numbers involved. All countries had fighters that
were capable of beating anyone else's on any given
day, depending on the tactical situation, pilot
quality, etc. Having never flown any of them, all I
can do is read accounts by pilots who have flown
several of them, and are thus able to make direct
comparisons between a/c (this is in addition to the
test data).
Guy
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
30099810...@metrion1.bcm.tju.edu>,
metr...@jeflin.tju.edu (R. Metrione) wrote:
> In article <6urk2n$722$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, Eric 'Winkle' Brown, in his book "Duels in the Sky," rated the Spit
> > XIV/FW-190D tied for best piston air-to-air fighters of the war, with the
> > P-51D slightly behind (IIRR. I'll check at home). He'd flown all of them,
> > many in mock (or real) dogfights, and was doing a head to head comparo. His
> > comparison deliberately ignored such factors as pilot quality and operational
> > factors such as range or ease of instrument flight; he was considering as if
> > he was trying to shoot himself down in a dogfight over his base, in clear
> > skies.
>
> at best. For example, he rates the Swordfish as the best torpedo bomber
> of the war. This bartly because he ranks impact on the war so highly. In
> fact even the Devestator could probably have done as well in the same
> were the Japanese types (Jill?). But for Brown the war seemed to either
> German (their main oponent tyopes are always rated more highly than
> others).
Yup, the Devastator and TBF may well have done
better if they'd had the same torps. But they
didn't, did they, nor did they have any night
training. Brown explains the reasons for
rating the Swordfish so highly, even though he's
the first to admit that it was obsolete from the day it
was designed. The Stringbag's strategic effect on
the war was huge, from Taranto and the Bismarck
through the day to day grunt work of ASW from
MAC ships.
>
> He also, conveniently, ignores the impact of the P-51 on the air war while
> rating the Sptifire XIV higher. He ignores the impact of the Hellcat, the
> Zero etc. He has his facts wrong concerning top speeds of Italian
> fighters, the Re and MC models.
While you can certainly argue the impact the P-51
had on the war (and I would tend to rate it higher
here than he would), his 'Best' list was based on
flying performance, not operational factors such as
range, and even on that, he's essentially saying that
there's little to choose betwen the three a/c. I think
he says something like "having flown both a/c (Spit
XIV and P-51D) many times in mock dogfights, I
can see no clear way to victory for either of them.
If I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably
give the Spit the nod."
The P-51 was very important in neutralizing
the Luftwaffe prior to D-Day, but Lightnings could
have done the same job (at higher cost, to be sure).
Fot that matter, as far as impact and combat
longevity goes, I'd put the ME-109 right up there.
Like the Spit it was there from first to last, and was
always a viable fighter.
I think maybe the copy you read is missing the
chapters dealing with the period after 1940, as he
most certainly doesn't ignore the impact of the
Hellcat and Zero. He boosts both of them to the
top of one of his lists that takes impact into
account.
As to the Italian a/c, I'm not familiar enough with
their performance to say. There are certainly
numbers in the book I can quibble with, and
sources often disagree. I remember an argument a
while back about the top speed of the Raiden. We
had all the standard works, as well as U.S.
performance test results from Wright Field (I
think).
Some were quoting 400+ mph (417?), others were
quoting considerably less. The 417 number came
from the Wright Field tests, IIRR, but they were
apparently using far higher octane gas than the
Japanese had access to.
>
> All in all a very disappointing job of rating various types. I would like
> to see a similar book by a less prejudiced author (that is, one whose
> views coincide more closely with mine) with similar experience, if that is
> possible.
>
I like the way you are careful to define "less
prejudiced";-) I'd love to see lots of books by
pilots who flew a/c of both sides; I've got quite a
few accounts by pilots who flew both the Spit and
ME-109. Brown, at least, has written books, as
have a few others like Beaumont.
C.C. Jordan
Guy,
I have never used any test data generated by Brown.
Tho I understand that many have.
> So yes, I do think you are being unfair.
[snip]
I no argument with Brown's credentials.
What bothers me about Brown is his Montgomery like way
of adjusting the facts to suit his opinion.
I prefer data where the pilot adjusts his opinion to suit the
facts.
It's just that simple.
My best regards,
C.C. Jordan
Now online - The F4U-4: The Best Fighter/Bomber Of WWII?
Krztalizer
>>I also doubt many flew the K under circumstances where its best features
>>would really show and of course Galland put it best/worst to Goering:
>>"Give Me Spitfires!"
>
>I think he was rather calling for Me-262s, wasn't he?
>
>namuel
>
>
No, absolutely not. The two of them were standing on Galland's airfield in
Southern France in 1941 and Goring, with his usual lack of intelligence, asked
Galland what he needed "to win the war?", and Galland replied "a squadron of
Spitfires".
Krztalizer
>The book is interesting but suspect! Some of his choices are questionable
>at best. For example, he rates the Swordfish as the best torpedo bomber
>of the war. This bartly because he ranks impact on the war so highly. In
>fact even the Devestator could probably have done as well in the same
>environment and with the same torpedos.
The Devastator was nearly 80% effective in eliminating it's own crews. I think
they should respresent the word for "obsolete", the way Quisling represents
'traitor'.
The TBF was clearly superior as
>were the Japanese types (Jill?). But for Brown the war seemed to either
>end with the Battle of Britain or just be an extension of it.
Agreed -- he makes it clear that if an aircraft wasn't fighting FOR Britain, it
was limited to some sort of minor supporting role in the war.
British and
>German (their main oponent types are always rated more highly than
>others).
>
>He also, conveniently, ignores the impact of the P-51 on the air war while
>rating the Spifire XIV higher. He ignores the impact of the Hellcat, the
>Zero etc. He has his facts wrong concerning top speeds of Italian
>fighters, the Re and MC models.
>
>All in all a very disappointing job of rating various types. I would like
>to see a similar book by a less prejudiced author (that is, one whose
>views coincide more closely with mine) with similar experience, if that is
>possible.
This is what happens when a damn good pilot tries his hand at patting his own
country on the back. A lot like Closterman in my mind -- "We'd like to thank
you chaps with providing background music for our victory." Not a very
accurate reporting job on the aircraft of the day, considering he was so
familiar with them! Personally, I think Bob Cardenas does a better job at
objectively evaluating aircraft from both sides of the war. He loved the
AR-234, for instance, and felt it was a logical, futuristic development for
bombers to take. He flew in American fighters over Europe with Yeager and
Anderson, yet he is not lured by the easy out of calling that aircraft the best
of the war. He takes a long time to answer, and says, "It usually went to the
better pilot, anyway."
Gordon
DHeitm8612
Part 2 of "Best of the Breed" by Col. "Kit" Carson is now available for
download a the following link.
http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/index.htm
Part 2 deals with the Fw-190. Part three coming soon...
Keith Heitmann
dheit...@aol.com
<A HREF="
C.C. Jordan
I'm reposting this reply and this time, I'll include all the words. :-)
>Of course, those empirical test reports were
>gathered by pilots like, um, Eric Brown, who was
>responsible for testing a/c for their naval suitability
>as well as their flying qualities.
Guy,
I have never used any test data generated by Brown.
Tho I understand that many have.
> So yes, I do think you are being unfair.
[snip]
I have no argument with Brown's credentials.
What bothers me about Brown is his Montgomery like way
of adjusting the facts to suit his opinion.
I prefer data where the pilot adjusts his opinion to suit the
facts.
It's just that simple.
My best regards,
C.C. Jordan
Now online - The Last P-40C by Tom Cleaver and Erik Shilling.
wal...@oneimage.com
>>Part 2 of "Best of the Breed" by Col. "Kit" Carson is now available for
>download a the following link.
>>http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/index.htm
>>Part 2 deals with the Fw-190. Part three coming soon...
>>Keith Heitmann>dheit...@aol.com
>
Jukka Kauppinen
: As for the Fw190 - it was damned good but the Germans didn't upgrade it
: fast enough. Erich Milch was to blame for that; he abhorred anything that
: would interfere with production. As a result the Germans were always behind
: in the update/new aircraft program. I know you're going to say "What about
: the 262?" - well, it proves my point. Milch had a personal grudge against
: Messerschmidt and the 262 should have been in service in '43!
One point:
Even if the 262 development had been high priority from start,
it would have not been in use in large quentities before summer/autumm
1944.
Why?
Engines.
They didn't have a working, truly reliable jet engine before
that.
Actually not even after that. When first production Jumo 004
engines started coming they wre full of flaws and had
very short life.
If I'm not totally wrong even the "good" production models
had something like 20 hours flying time before engine had
to be changed.
So before summer 1944 they might have had a large armada
of built 262 - waiting for engines. And few flying with
hand made prototype engines.
jok
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi ICQ: 1848 793
Journalist Mail: MikroBitti, Jukka O. Kauppinen,
MikroBitti Kornetintie 8, 00380 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Tel/fax +358-17-824 225 or fax +358-9-120 5747
GSM +358-40-730 0036
http://mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak
http://www.mikrobitti.fi
The best-selling computer magazine in Scandinavia
Emmanuel Gustin
>No, absolutely not. The two of them were standing on Galland's airfield in
>Southern France in 1941 and Goring, with his usual lack of intelligence,
asked
>Galland what he needed "to win the war?", and Galland replied "a squadron
of
>Spitfires".
Yes. It was probably tactless. But it is a good example of the "their
aircraft are better" syndrome that often infects fighter pilots when
things don't go their way. It usually disappears when the concerned
aircraft --- be it the Spitfire, Bf 109, A6M or MiG-15 --- is captured
and tested, and its weaknesses are revealed. Knowledge of the
enemy is important for morale as well as for tactics.
Emmanuel Gustin
Ruy Horta
>>Keep in mind that the Dora went to the 'old heads', the Experten,
>who could get the best out of it. Comparing a 5 mission guy against
>a 200 mission guy isn't a fair test of one airplane vs the other.
>An 'old head' in a P51D, P47D25, Tempest or Spit Mk XIV or later would
>be a fair match for a Dora, IMHO. :<)
Not at all, both green and veterans flew the Dora, more emphasis on
the green pilots, as there weren't that many veterans to spare.
The book to get a good picture of a Dora unit is Eagle Edition's
"Green Hearts, first in Combat with the Dora-9", Axel Urbanke...even
with the initial batch of Dora-9s they received they were forced to
use pilots straight out of advanced flight school (not even finishing
it!!).
So chances were likely that the Dora driver encountered in combat was
as green as those flying a Bf109G-10/K-4 or Fw190A-8/9, on the other
hand the same can be said for veterans...
It is interesting to see again and again, the idea of elite Luftwaffe
units with strong concentrations of veteran flyers in the latest
types, this is simply not true...even for the average Me262
encountered in combat.
Ruy Horta
Luftwaffe and JG53 webpage
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
"How good bad reasons and bad music sound
when we march against an enemy."
(Due to the ever increasing activity of SPAMMERS,
I've been forced to include an anti-SPAM, sorry.
If you want to e-mail me, just remove NOSPAM.)
Yama
Kurt Plummer wrote:
> ArtKramr wrote:
> >
> > According to the many luftwaffe pilots I spoke to in 1945, the Emil was far and
> > away the preferred ME-109 by most German pilots. They felt that everything
> > after the emil was downhill.
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> > In solemn salute to those thousands of our comrades -great, brave men that they
> > were- for whom there will be no homecoming, ever.
> >
> > Ernie Pyle
>
> Hey Ernie,
You surely meant Art....that Ernie thing is his signature...:)
> Gotta disagree here. The /F/ was considered the best. Better engine,
> still light on the weapons weight and CG, not overtorqued-for-the-tail.
>
> The Emil was comparitively a bit underpowered and weak-everywhere.
The thing with Friedrich was that it was undergunned. Some Luftwaffe pilots protested
this by sticking on inferior Emil because it had two cannon, Friedrich had just one.
Galland describes how Hitler asked his opinion - would he take one cannon in the nose
or two in wings? (Molders said that one was enough) Galland answered that he would
rather take all three.
> I think it was E. Brown who rated the 109F as 'Perhaps the best in the
> World in 1941' (considering the Wulf was up an running towards the end
> of this year...)
>
> I also doubt many flew the K under circumstances where its best features
Hartmann is quoted saying that G-10 was best what he flew - of course Gustav was
pretty much all what he ever tried.
> would really show and of course Galland put it best/worst to Goering:
> "Give Me Spitfires!"
Considering how popular "First and the Last" is, it is amazing this thing is
misunderstood all the time. Galland did not consider Spitfire being better than 109 -
quite the opposite. His comment was just meant to protest against many of the
Luftwaffe top brass who were still living biplane era, and wanted to turn Friedrich
to some sort of short-ranged, undergunned Zero-wannabe.
Ruy Horta
>>>I also doubt many flew the K under circumstances where its best features
>>>would really show and of course Galland put it best/worst to Goering:
>>>"Give Me Spitfires!"
>>
>>I think he was rather calling for Me-262s, wasn't he?
>No, absolutely not. The two of them were standing on Galland's airfield in
>Southern France in 1941 and Goring, with his usual lack of intelligence, asked
>Galland what he needed "to win the war?", and Galland replied "a squadron of
>Spitfires".
This is also a remark that is often repeated, but used out of context,
it gives the wrong impression.
1. Orders by Goering to fly CLOSE escort to the bombers, taking away
the initiative away from the Jagdflieger.
2. Initiative, best seen in fighter sweeps and Freie Jagd, is/was well
suited to the Emil and the Jagdwaffe's tactical doctrine.
3. Galland (and Moelders) plead remain loose from the Bombers and to
keep flexible.
4. THEN on being asked what Galland would like to win the war...answer
to spite Goering...SPITFIRES, why?
5. The Spitfire is the better defensive fighter...in this regard
better suited to escort the slow bombers, the 109 loses relatively
more in this role then the Spitfire would.
So finally, did Galland at any time in the BoB think the Spitfire was
superior, absolutely not...Galland believed in the superiority of the
Emil, IF used in the manner it was designed to do.
Kurt Plummer
>
> Kurt Plummer wrote:
>
> > ArtKramr wrote:
> > >
> > > According to the many luftwaffe pilots I spoke to in 1945, the Emil was far and
> > > away the preferred ME-109 by most German pilots. They felt that everything
> > > after the emil was downhill.
> > >
> > > Arthur
> > >
> > > In solemn salute to those thousands of our comrades -great, brave men that they
> > > were- for whom there will be no homecoming, ever.
> > >
> > > Ernie Pyle
> >
> > Hey Ernie,
>
> You surely meant Art....that Ernie thing is his signature...:)
>
> > Gotta disagree here. The /F/ was considered the best. Better engine,
> > still light on the weapons weight and CG, not overtorqued-for-the-tail.
> >
> > The Emil was comparitively a bit underpowered and weak-everywhere.
>
> The thing with Friedrich was that it was undergunned. Some Luftwaffe pilots protested
> this by sticking on inferior Emil because it had two cannon, Friedrich had just one.
> Galland describes how Hitler asked his opinion - would he take one cannon in the nose
> or two in wings? (Molders said that one was enough) Galland answered that he would
> rather take all three.
>
> > I think it was E. Brown who rated the 109F as 'Perhaps the best in the
> > World in 1941' (considering the Wulf was up an running towards the end
> > of this year...)
> >
>
> pretty much all what he ever tried.
>
> > "Give Me Spitfires!"
>
> misunderstood all the time. Galland did not consider Spitfire being better than 109 -
> quite the opposite. His comment was just meant to protest against many of the
> Luftwaffe top brass who were still living biplane era, and wanted to turn Friedrich
> to some sort of short-ranged, undergunned Zero-wannabe.
Hey Yama,
Maybe it's 'brochure' but the value for the Bf-109G10 was 426mph with a
lot of 'unclean' airframe features and (??) unknown chemical boost. The
K did 454-462 which is the difference between outrunning and being /run
down/ by any of the latewar US'ian fighters in level flight.
Neither plane was a blessing in level flight and the vertical play was
supposedly limited by the lack of roll-over in Immelmans and so on.
The twin-Emil installation had what? /60/ rounds of MG-FF quality?
Geeze that gun is a MK108 with 10mm less 'Boom'! The MG-151 gave you a
superior weapon all round, even in the original 15mm versions.
I would pull the 7.9's (or even the 13's) before anything but you are
right, FOUR, /in/ the wings, with 200rpg at least was the way to go. Of
course you would have to rebuild the wings with twice-thick spars (so
why not put in a wide track gear and retwist the wings to rid you of the
slats and then you could add electric trim and powered ailerons and and
and...;).
Lastly, Galland was wrong about the Bf-109 if he really wanted to take
the Bf-109 up to the G-level directly. The 'F-ero' did some good work
in the the Desert and the East but the 'Gut-av' was a failure from the
very first.
KP
Kurt Plummer
>
> One point:
>
> Even if the 262 development had been high priority from start,
> it would have not been in use in large quentities before summer/autumm
> 1944.
>
> Why?
> Engines.
>
> They didn't have a working, truly reliable jet engine before
> that.
>
> Actually not even after that. When first production Jumo 004
> engines started coming they wre full of flaws and had
> very short life.
>
> If I'm not totally wrong even the "good" production models
> had something like 20 hours flying time before engine had
> to be changed.
>
> So before summer 1944 they might have had a large armada
> of built 262 - waiting for engines. And few flying with
> hand made prototype engines.
>
> jok
Hey Jukka,
The Me-262 was the F-117 of the 1940's. I know I keep saying it but
LOOK at the number of bombers (50) killed by the 'squadron of experts'
in the LAST MONTH of the war (minimal support, fuel, space, warning
etc.).
It was utterly wasted as a bomber and as a recce aircraft was too short
legged for even the summer of '44.
The 004 hours were actually 10-per and WOULD BE WORTH IT. If I had to
set every third craftsmen in the country to grinding and hand clothing
turbine blades to keep those damn wonder-weapons airborne by -damn- they
would _Be Doing Just That_! Especially since I could have 500 Bf-109's
/just daring/ the 'Stang jocks to come down and 'make a play' on each of
the jet bases.
Even if you take the debut date all the way to August with that one
KampfGruppe, (54?) if you can strip every ace from every unit (Hartmann
from the East, Barkhorn from the Hospital, EVERYONE) you would have had
at least a /shot/ at forcing the bombers back (early R4m deployment
would be the key). All before the Bulge Mistake made things 'easy' on
the ground.
I'm NOT a Nazi Symp but I can't stand the thought that we put 'moral
superiority' above true-tactical risk because you /cannot/ apply
mass-battle attrition to a platform which takes the concept of air
fighting to another level of 'exchange ratio' entirely.
Those who do are inevitably left being LGB'd in their bunkered mindset.
KP
Kurt Plummer
>
> krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Krztalizer) wrote:
>
> >>>I also doubt many flew the K under circumstances where its best features
> >>>"Give Me Spitfires!"
> >>
Hey Ruy,
How many gallons in a Spit? How many in a 190E?
Which had the better cruise-height : range profile?
Which would pull it's wings off in high speed dives more often?
Which could fly farther in medium altitude frei-jagd sweeps? Say 15K.
Which could fly farther in /low/ altitude frei-jagd sweeps? Say 1-2K.
You cannot disassociate the mission from the platform. I don't think
the Emil's (E-4?) had the racks to carry bombs and I doubt they could
'sneak strafe' into the inland fields with much return-chance,
especially if 'cut off' engaged.
They HAD TO face fighters to be useful as aircraft and the key to doing
this was coming with bombers where the /defensive/ interceptors either
came up or were bombed on their fields.
Even the early CH stations could differentiate from between formation
densities and types so your only chance, IMO, would be something like an
Me-110 sweep. In this case, the 'frei jagd' would /need/ surprise and
height-speed which again seems to be unlikely if they were flying a
bomber profile.
KP
Bejewelled
>
>The P-51 was very important in neutralizing
>the Luftwaffe prior to D-Day, but Lightnings could
>have done the same job (at higher cost, to be sure).
>
The P-47 deserves the honours here. It still provided half the USAAF force
counted by groups on D-day (8th and 9th AF). It held the line from April 43
until the 38s arrived in october and the 51 in November. It flew 48% of the
fighter sorties in the ETO (figs possibly include MTO) and if the mustang had
not turned up, the 47 could have done the job alone.(Yes, the range difference
could have been addressed, after all the 47(N) was the longest ranged fighter
of all.)
As far as the Torp bombers go, can someone enlighten me with the actual torpedo
sinking record of the Avenger? ( I know about the two big BBs, but not much
else, whereas the records of swordfish and kate are well-known.) Grace,
however, may have been the best-performing TB??
Adrian Camp.
Namuel
>No, absolutely not. The two of them were standing on Galland's airfield in
>Southern France in 1941 and Goring, with his usual lack of intelligence, asked
>Galland what he needed "to win the war?", and Galland replied "a squadron of
>Spitfires".
>
Uh...I was referring to his later efforts in JV44 etc....
namuel
Bejewelled
>As for the Fw190 - it was damned good but the Germans didn't upgrade it
>fast enough.
Because there was no engine better than the 801 available. The engine
procurement seems to have been a shambles. No 2000hp engine (leaving out the
db606 double 601) was available until 1944 (Britain had had three by then, USA
two). The DB603 got into all kinds of prototypes and twins but didn't power a
single-engine fighter, unless those Ta152Cs saw action. Given no engine, you
have to blame whoever planned that situation. Was it Milch? No, the decisions
had to be made in 1940, engines take far longer than airframes. In the meantime
DB had so MANY proto engines, they used up all the numbers of the 6XX kind
(almost). But only the 603 saw action, and that in the Do217, He219 or Me410
first? Seemed to take ages to ramp up, and was overtaken by the Jumo 213, which
seems to have been just as good but not in favour. Anyone know the story of the
603? Georg Hopp still lurk here?
Adrian Camp
Ruy Horta
>Even if the 262 development had been high priority from start,
>it would have not been in use in large quentities before summer/autumm
>1944.
>
>Why?
>Engines.
But this doesn't take into account the 6-months only development
clause Hitler imposed on R&D in 1940. This seriously delayed the
German work on the longer term projects, one of which the design of
jet engines.
Take this into account and MAYBE, the jet engine development could
have been pushed by 6-18 months...a guess of course.
As for engine life...10-20 hrs would be sufficient for what the a/c
was meant to do...the 109-004 jet engines were cheap to produce and
easy to replace, problems arose not only from the short engine life,
but a failing logistics structure.
So if only you could have a dependable 10-20hrs, and could replace it
before that max. limit, the short duration is no problem.
DB605-series engines weren't expected to last more then 100hrs or so
as the air frame was suposed to be finished long before that.
Lets say that the 262 gets 10 sorties in of 1 hr on a pair of engines,
shoots down an average of 1 NME bomber, then we are talking a very
positive sum.
Ruy Horta
>They HAD TO face fighters to be useful as aircraft and the key to doing
>this was coming with bombers where the /defensive/ interceptors either
>came up or were bombed on their fields.
Just think...the US 8th had to learn the SAME lesson again as
well...so you might be forgiven :)
Close defence isn't as effective at countering fighters as sweeps
ahead of the bomber stream, that was proven when the Emils had more
freedom early on in the BoB, and later by the USAF when they're
fighters attacked the Luftwaffe wherever they could, early in the
mission, before they could pose a threat.
Tamela R. Germano
bejew...@aol.com (Bejewelled) wrote:
> As far as the Torp bombers go, can someone enlighten me with the actual
torpedo
> sinking record of the Avenger? ( I know about the two big BBs, but not much
> else, whereas the records of swordfish and kate are well-known.) Grace,
> however, may have been the best-performing TB??
>
>
> Adrian Camp.
Heck, ask a Brit sailor who was in the Med about the S.M. 79 as a TB.
What counted most in TB action, after the type of torpedo, was enemy
fighters and the total amount of AA that hit you on your run-in, not what
you were flying. If you were not knocked down before or on your attack you
would do as well in a Swordfish, Avenger, S.M.79, or Kate.
Dino in Reno
Matthew Saroff (Remove .123456 to reply)
>
>
>Kurt Plummer wrote:
>
>> would really show and of course Galland put it best/worst to Goering:
>> "Give Me Spitfires!"
>
>Considering how popular "First and the Last" is, it is amazing this thing is
>misunderstood all the time. Galland did not consider Spitfire being better than 109 -
>quite the opposite. His comment was just meant to protest against many of the
>Luftwaffe top brass who were still living biplane era, and wanted to turn Friedrich
>to some sort of short-ranged, undergunned Zero-wannabe.
Hi,
According to "The First and the Last", it was intended as
a joke. It was also intended as a snide comment, as it followed
orders to do very close escort of the bombers, which meant that
the initiative would belong to the Spits, particularly since the
ME-109, was better at the "zoom and boom" and less so in turning.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@123456.pobox.com. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Wilhelm Wirén
> Even if the 262 development had been high priority from start,
> it would have not been in use in large quentities before summer/autumm
> 1944.
>
> Why?
> Engines.
>
> They didn't have a working, truly reliable jet engine before
> that.
If the jet fighter programme had been given the highest priority classification
in say early 1941 instead of the militarily ineffective long-range rocket
programme, the Germans certainly would have had produced a lot of jet engines a
lot sooner. However the V 2 programme and other cost-ineffective developments
sucked much of the high grade raw materials which would have been better spent on
fighter development and manufacture. The Germans calculated that e.g. the heavy
Flak shells necessary to down a bomber contained enough aluminium in the fuze
assembly to build a fighter aircraft ( a medium tank could have been built from
the steel in the shells).
> Actually not even after that. When first production Jumo 004
> engines started coming they wre full of flaws and had
> very short life.
>
> If I'm not totally wrong even the "good" production models
> had something like 20 hours flying time before engine had
> to be changed.
What can you expect from a jet engine shoddily fashioned out of little more than
pot iron by slave labourers.
Wilhelm Wirén
Yama
> Yama wrote:
>
> > Considering how popular "First and the Last" is, it is
> amazing this thing is
> > misunderstood all the time. Galland did not consider Spitfire
> being better than 109 -
> > quite the opposite. His comment was just meant to protest
> against many of the
> > Luftwaffe top brass who were still living biplane era, and
> wanted to turn Friedrich
> > to some sort of short-ranged, undergunned Zero-wannabe.
>
> Hey Yama,
>
> Maybe it's 'brochure' but the value for the Bf-109G10 was
> 426mph with a
> lot of 'unclean' airframe features and (??) unknown chemical
> boost.
MW-50 I believe. Or was it GM-1 in G-10? D'oh.
> The
> K did 454-462 which is the difference between outrunning and
> being /run
> down/ by any of the latewar US'ian fighters in level flight.
>
> Neither plane was a blessing in level flight and the vertical
> play was
> supposedly limited by the lack of roll-over in Immelmans and so
> on.
K-4 was, of course, faster and climbed better (3.5 minutes to
6,000 meters with MW-50 boost). Now when I think of it, it might
be that Hartmann said that G-10 was best of _Gustav_, (not sure
whether Hartmann ever flew K) he was pleased with it's handling
and it had best performance of all G models. Of course many
late-war Allied planes were a bit faster, but G-10/14 (680km/h)
were still quite a leap from G-5/6/8 (a bit over 620).
> The twin-Emil installation had what? /60/ rounds of MG-FF
> quality?
> Geeze that gun is a MK108 with 10mm less 'Boom'! The MG-151
> gave you a
> superior weapon all round, even in the original 15mm versions.
Galland of course realized advantages what 151 had over FF, but
still, considering that planes were getting faster and better
protected all the time, change from 2 cannons to 1 seemed like
bad improvment.
> I would pull the 7.9's (or even the 13's) before anything but
> you are
> right, FOUR, /in/ the wings, with 200rpg at least was the way
> to go. Of
> course you would have to rebuild the wings with twice-thick
> spars (so
> why not put in a wide track gear and retwist the wings to rid
> you of the
> slats and then you could add electric trim and powered ailerons
> and and
> and...;).
...which would result to something like FW-190, which was never
design goal for 109, which was to produce plane like, well, 109=)
> Lastly, Galland was wrong about the Bf-109 if he really wanted
> to take
> the Bf-109 up to the G-level directly. The 'F-ero' did some
> good work
> in the the Desert and the East but the 'Gut-av' was a failure
> from the
> very first.
The F was originally supposed to be much lighter, and when you
consider that armament couldn't be reduced much anymore, what is
left to degrade is armour and fuel capacity...faced with such
prospects it's no wonder Galland would rather had Spitfires.
What comes to Gustav, it should be remembered that G was
essentially early 1942 product, and it was used in frontline
service up to summer '44 without any increase in performance
(actually G-6 was a bit slower than G-2).
Yama
> If the jet fighter programme had been given the highest
> priority classification
> in say early 1941 instead of the militarily ineffective
> long-range rocket
> programme, the Germans certainly would have had produced a lot
> of jet engines a
> lot sooner.
Possibly, but lets put the decision to right timeframe: where is
the pressing need for unproven and delicate jet technology in
1941? Maybe Germans should have realise that they might need it
in the future, but did anyone else? Brits were just as slow,
Yanks, Russians, Japanese hardly had a glue, Italians had a good
start with Caproni-Campini but they dropped the idea (and God
knows THEY needed better engines).
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
> >the Luftwaffe prior to D-Day, but Lightnings could
> >have done the same job (at higher cost, to be sure).
> >
>
> The P-47 deserves the honours here. It still provided half the USAAF force
> counted by groups on D-day (8th and 9th AF). It held the line from April 43
> until the 38s arrived in october and the 51 in November. It flew 48% of the
> fighter sorties in the ETO (figs possibly include MTO) and if the mustang had
> not turned up, the 47 could have done the job alone.(Yes, the range difference
> could have been addressed, after all the 47(N) was the longest ranged fighter
> of all.)
Quite agree, the P-47 was essential. However, to provide escort all the way
to deep targets that the Luftwaffe had to defend, you needed longer range
than the Jug could (then) provide, and that's either the P-38 or P-51. We
all know about the P-38's engine problems in NW Europe, but it did allow
escort as deep as needed, albeit at a higher cost and loss rate. A great
book on the subject is "To Command the Sky" by Newton and Macfarland(?). It
describes the USAAF battle to win air superiority before D-Day, the changes
in tactics and equipment on both sides, and the personalities of the
commanders and how they affected things. It's in the Smithsonian "History of
Aviation" series.
Personally, if I had to fly long duration missions at high altitude, I'd take
a P-47N any day. By all accounts, the P-47 was a much quieter a/c than the
P-51, owing to the exhaust running to the turbocharger aft of the cockpit
instead of to exhaust stacks directly in front of it. The R-2800 also ran a
lot smoother than the Merlin (which was apparently only smooth when near max.
throttle), and the cockpit was much roomier. Over water, too, I'd much
prefer to have an air- cooled radial. In NW Europe, the overwater distances
were much less than the Pacific, and the Air/Sea Rescue services had a lot
smaller area to search, so the liquid-cooled engine is less of a factor.
BTW, I once read in Kit Carson's book on the P-51 an economic comparison of
the P-51 and its two stablemates. Carson made the point that the Mustang was
cheaper, required fewer man-hours to build, and used fewer strategic
materials than either of the others (not surprising). It also burned roughly
half the fuel per hour (I forget the exact figures) that the others did,
which is a big operational and strategic advantage.
>
> As far as the Torp bombers go, can someone enlighten me with the actual torpedo
> sinking record of the Avenger? ( I know about the two big BBs, but not much
> else, whereas the records of swordfish and kate are well-known.) Grace,
> however, may have been the best-performing TB??
I don't have a breakdown strictly for the Avenger, but Friedman's "U.S. Naval
Weapons" gives one for the Mk. 13 aerial torp overall. Since the Devastator
had poor torps and little chance to use them (with results we all know), I
suspect that you can take them as essentially applying to the TBF/TBM, many
of which would have the drag shroud/parachute fitted, plus reliability
improvements.
IIRR, there were around 1250 attacks, with about 40% hits. Percentage of
hits varied from around 31% for DDs, up to 50% for BB/CV (IIRC. Either
capital ships or merchant ships were at about 40%, with the other at 50.
You'd think the merchies would be easier to hit, but my memory seems to think
it went the other way. I'll try and check it tonight, and post the correct
figures).
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:31:05 GMT, g_alca...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I'm reposting this reply and this time, I'll include all the words. :-)
>
> >Of course, those empirical test reports were
> >gathered by pilots like, um, Eric Brown, who was
> >responsible for testing a/c for their naval suitability
> >as well as their flying qualities.
>
> Guy,
> I have never used any test data generated by Brown.
> Tho I understand that many have.
>
> > So yes, I do think you are being unfair.
>
> [snip]
>
> I have no argument with Brown's credentials.
>
> What bothers me about Brown is his Montgomery like way
> of adjusting the facts to suit his opinion.
>
> I prefer data where the pilot adjusts his opinion to suit the
> facts.
>
> It's just that simple.
>
> My best regards,
>
> C.C. Jordan
Well, presumably Brown's test reports must have suited the Admiralty, and
agreed with all their other data, or they wouldn't have kept him in the
position he had for so long. Are you suggesting that he altered his test
reports? If on the other hand you're suggesting that he has personal biases,
sure, so does every pilot. But, it's the job of the test pilot to provide
objective data where flight performance is concerned; subjective comments
like the location of instruments or the 'feel' of the aircraft are a
different matter, and easily confirmed by having several pilots fly the a/c.
Please not that I have no personal stake in this; it's not as if I think the
"this plane's performance is better than that plane's performance" discussion
has much relevance in the real world, where tactics, training, maintenance,
the situation etc. all enter in. Still, we all have fun doing these:-) My
attitude, to borrow a friend's expression, is that "the most important thing
in a fighter's performance is the quality of the weight holding down the
seat," or words to that effect:-> Given fighters that are roughly within 10%
performance of each other, it's just not that significant.
MLenoch
>In NW Europe, the overwater distances
>were much less than the Pacific,
The shortest distance over the English channel is 24 miles, from England to
France.
> It also burned roughly
>half the fuel per hour (I forget the exact figures) that the others did,
>which is a big operational and strategic advantage.
I flight plan 60 gallons per hour for the P-51 vs. 90 for the P-47 or Corsair.
30 extra gallons per hour for 4 to 5 hours is a lot of fuel to haul around.
V. Lenoch
Bejewelled
>Well, presumably Brown's test reports must have suited the Admiralty, and
>agreed with all their other data, or they wouldn't have kept him in the
>position he had for so long. Are you suggesting that he altered his test
>reports?
Brown's early books are edited by Bill Green, and indeed they read like they
were him. The figures seem to be from the manuals, not the Brown notebooks. The
later Duels in the Sky is all Brown, and there are some funny numbers in
there.E.G. the D.520, given as 288mph,4000ft/min climb. The usual speed figure
is 332, and 4000fpm is impossible for a plane with 920hp weighing 6000lbs
(calculate 33,000x920hp/6000lbs gives the available climb rate with no drag and
a perfect prop. giving 5000fpm, but around 25% of the power goes in the prop
efficency, and 25% of the rest in drag giving 2800fpm true).
Likewise, as CC says, the corsair climb is the low 2100ish figure we see in
other books. This is too low for max climb for a F4U-1, and it's got at 144mph
with the cowl flaps open. F4U-1 should have had about 3300fpm max, but do those
cowl flaps take away 1200fpm? Maybe, in a low-drag airframe. The 2100 must be a
sustained clmb speed, not the max available.
Test pilot reports are valuable, but often highlight problems that squadron
pilots get used to, like the 109's famous slats. Didn't hinder Marseille much!.
On the other hand, squadron pilots tend to boost their own mount but may have
flown no others. and of course they can all whip the other types in mock
combat! (Who loses all these fights???).
You just have to soak up the opinions nad make your own best guess.
Adrian Camp.
C.C. Jordan
>In article <3612e20d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:31:05 GMT, g_alca...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm reposting this reply and this time, I'll include all the words. :-)
>>
>> >Of course, those empirical test reports were
>> >gathered by pilots like, um, Eric Brown, who was
>> >responsible for testing a/c for their naval suitability
>> >as well as their flying qualities.
>>
>> Guy,
>> I have never used any test data generated by Brown.
>> Tho I understand that many have.
>>
>> > So yes, I do think you are being unfair.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I have no argument with Brown's credentials.
>>
>> What bothers me about Brown is his Montgomery like way
>> of adjusting the facts to suit his opinion.
>>
>> I prefer data where the pilot adjusts his opinion to suit the
>> facts.
>>
>> It's just that simple.
>>
>> My best regards,
>>
>> C.C. Jordan
>
>Well, presumably Brown's test reports must have suited the Admiralty, and
>agreed with all their other data, or they wouldn't have kept him in the
>position he had for so long. Are you suggesting that he altered his test
>reports?
Well, if he was writing what they wanted to hear, instead of what he
knew to be true, then perhaps he did (though I doubt it). I write more
than a dozen test reports each month (not about aircraft, about weapons systems
and related sub-systems, IE: Things that shoot.). One can color or flavor the
reports quite easily with language and not alter test data. Even if the data
says the weapon performed well, One can leave the impression that it was
not liked. You would be surprised how important the tone of a report is
to acceptance of the weapon. However, as a rule I won't allow my
"feelings" to sneak into a report. The system will live or die on it's merit
only. Only when I feel that there are yet undiscovered design flaws will
I write a report that might be termed, subjective. Even then, I always suggest
further testing as the proper route to determining if such a flaw exists.
>If on the other hand you're suggesting that he has personal biases,
>sure, so does every pilot.
I have an acquaintance with a retired test pilot. This man was completely
objective. He was the consumate professional. If you work in R&D, you had
better be objective or your won't be in that field very long. Moreover, your
data will be forever tainted, and therefore useless. Take it from someone
who has worked in the field for nearly 20 years, personal opinion has no
place in R&D.
>But, it's the job of the test pilot to provide
>objective data where flight performance is concerned; subjective comments
>like the location of instruments or the 'feel' of the aircraft are a
>different matter, and easily confirmed by having several pilots fly the a/c.
>
>Please not that I have no personal stake in this; it's not as if I think the
>"this plane's performance is better than that plane's performance" discussion
>has much relevance in the real world, where tactics, training, maintenance,
>the situation etc. all enter in. Still, we all have fun doing these:-) My
>attitude, to borrow a friend's expression, is that "the most important thing
>in a fighter's performance is the quality of the weight holding down the
>seat," or words to that effect:-> Given fighters that are roughly within 10%
>performance of each other, it's just not that significant.
In a world where increments of improvement are measured in fractions of a
percent, 10% is a quantum leap. That's 40+ mph, 300 to 400 fpm in climb,
8 to 9 degrees of roll rate. Besides, your ten percent number does not always
reflect reality. The Ki-43, still flying in combat in mid 1945, was not within
the 10% window of a P-38L, P-47N or P-51D.
I am in agreement that the greatest single factor is certainly the man flying
the airplane.
All the best,
Wilhelm Wirén
> Wilhelm Wirén wrote:
>
> > If the jet fighter programme had been given the highest
> > priority classification
> > in say early 1941 instead of the militarily ineffective
> > long-range rocket
> > programme, the Germans certainly would have had produced a lot
> > of jet engines a
> > lot sooner.
>
> Possibly, but lets put the decision to right timeframe: where is
> the pressing need for unproven and delicate jet technology in
> 1941?
The A 4 project which did receive the highest priority relied on the
even more unproven and delicate rocket technology. Concentrating on jet
development would have held a promise of a fighter with a 200 km/h or
more speed advantage compared to contemporaries and achieving
uninterceptable bombers and recce aircraft. In retrospect those seem
more pressing needs than one for an inaccurate method of delivering a
1000 kg warhead with a rocket; although Hitler in 1941 held the opinion
that about 10 tons would be needed for an effective weapon he went along
with the Peenemuende Boffins' time waste scheme.
> Maybe Germans should have realise that they might need it
> in the future, but did anyone else? Brits were just as slow,
> Yanks, Russians, Japanese hardly had a glue, Italians had a good
> start with Caproni-Campini but they dropped the idea (and God
> knows THEY needed better engines).
I doubt if the Italian solution of a ducted fan with a rudimentary
afterburner qualifies as a good start; possibly excepting the reduced
need for critical raw materials compared to a regular jet engine.
Wilhelm Wirén
Bejewelled
>
>The A 4 project which did receive the highest priority relied on the
>even more unproven and delicate rocket technology. Concentrating on jet
>development would have held a promise of a fighter with a 200 km/h or
>more speed advantage compared to contemporaries and achieving
>uninterceptable bombers and recce aircraft. In retrospect those seem
>more pressing needs than one for an inaccurate method of delivering a
>1000 kg warhead with a rocket; although Hitler in 1941 held the opinion
>that about 10 tons would be needed for an effective weapon he went along
>with the Peenemuende Boffins' time waste scheme.
>
The whole R&D setup was taken up by toys, and advanced tech which couldn't
deliver in the time frame. But no 2000hp engine in good time, which only needed
to be asked for. (I guess DB, BMW or Ju could have delivered if asked). No
adequate pilot training setup.
How about this. Your enemy has a bomber force measured in thousands based 100
miles from your nearest airfield for two years, and bombs you day and night.
You don't even attempt any counter-force bombing (well, a few intruder sorties)
and you invest in technology that won't help until year three. Then you wonder
why the jets don't work? There are so many fundamental errors in the german
approach (not just the LW) that no one 'what-if' is going to fix it.
Adrian Camp.
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
AFAICT, we have no disagreement on this. I asked you if you thought Brown
had been less than objective in his evaluations, and you thought he had not
been. Have you ever seen the actual reports he generated for the FAA, rather
than the much more anecdotal data in his books? I presume they would be
similar to what you'd find from PAX or Wright Field or any other test
facility.
>
> >But, it's the job of the test pilot to provide
> >objective data where flight performance is concerned; subjective comments
> >like the location of instruments or the 'feel' of the aircraft are a
> >different matter, and easily confirmed by having several pilots fly the a/c.
> >
> >Please not that I have no personal stake in this; it's not as if I think the
> >"this plane's performance is better than that plane's performance" discussion
> >has much relevance in the real world, where tactics, training, maintenance,
> >the situation etc. all enter in. Still, we all have fun doing these:-) My
> >attitude, to borrow a friend's expression, is that "the most important thing
> >in a fighter's performance is the quality of the weight holding down the
> >seat," or words to that effect:-> Given fighters that are roughly within 10%
> >performance of each other, it's just not that significant.
>
> In a world where increments of improvement are measured in fractions of a
> percent, 10% is a quantum leap. That's 40+ mph, 300 to 400 fpm in climb,
> 8 to 9 degrees of roll rate. Besides, your ten percent number does not always
> reflect reality. The Ki-43, still flying in combat in mid 1945, was not within
> the 10% window of a P-38L, P-47N or P-51D.
Which is just the point I was making. When the performance difference is
greater than 10 percent or so (or 5% or any other percent you think is
significant), then it's tough for the pilot to make up the difference. The
Oscar was obsolete long before 1945. That exceptional pilots were still
occasionally able to give some of our guys a hard time doesn't change the
fact that with anything approaching average pilots on both sides, the Oscar's
going to lose. Get a Frank or a George, and things are a lot more even
(although our a/c are still considerably faster in speed, we don't have the
"everything except turn rate/radius" advantage that's true with the Ki-43).
If you take Spit XIVs, P-51Ds, P-47Ms, Tempest Vs, FW-190Ds, ME-109Ks,
Corsairs, etc., and let the same group of pilots fly all of them, the better
pilots are going to beat the poorer ones, more or less regardless of what a/c
they're flying (subject to personal flying style matches with a/c quirks).
> I am in agreement that the greatest single factor is certainly the man flying
> the airplane.
>
> All the best,
> C.C. Jordan
And to you.
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
bejew...@aol.com (Bejewelled) wrote:
>
> >Well, presumably Brown's test reports must have suited the Admiralty, and
> >agreed with all their other data, or they wouldn't have kept him in the
> >position he had for so long. Are you suggesting that he altered his test
> >reports?
>
> were him. The figures seem to be from the manuals, not the Brown notebooks. The
> later Duels in the Sky is all Brown, and there are some funny numbers in
> there.E.G. the D.520, given as 288mph,4000ft/min climb. The usual speed figure
> is 332, and 4000fpm is impossible for a plane with 920hp weighing 6000lbs
> (calculate 33,000x920hp/6000lbs gives the available climb rate with no drag and
> a perfect prop. giving 5000fpm, but around 25% of the power goes in the prop
> efficency, and 25% of the rest in drag giving 2800fpm true).
Yup, I remembr being amused by the D.520 numbers myself, and there are some
others that disagreed considerably with other sources. I don't know if this
was a typo, or some really bizarre mental error (not too long ago while
writing sonething about the first take off and landings from a ship, I
referred to 'Glenn Ely':-)) OTOH, Brown did fly the a/c.
> Likewise, as CC says, the corsair climb is the low 2100ish figure we see in
> other books. This is too low for max climb for a F4U-1, and it's got at 144mph
> with the cowl flaps open. F4U-1 should have had about 3300fpm max, but do those
> cowl flaps take away 1200fpm? Maybe, in a low-drag airframe. The 2100 must be a
> sustained climb speed, not the max available.
Actually, IIRC he wrote 2,400 fpm, so your gap is 900 feet, and that's an
initial climb as if you were climbing to a CAP from take-off, (i.e. not using
War Emergency at light weight, which seems to be where many max. climb
figures come from). That number seemed reasonable to me, in the same range
as early Spits with half the power and weight. It did seem a bit low
compared to the F6F (or the F4F, where Brown's climb figures certainly
disagree with the stats quoted in places like "The First Team". Then again,
there were lots of different version of the F4F, with different engines and
with/without folding wings).
> Test pilot reports are valuable, but often highlight problems that squadron
> pilots get used to, like the 109's famous slats. Didn't hinder Marseille much!.
Better if they do that than the opposite, where the experienced pilots say
"any idiot should be able to handle this," while the poor squadron nuggets
are dying like flies:-) How many pilots were killed learning to fly Sopwith
Camels? The D. VII was so good because the average pilot could be effective
in it, not because it was exceptional in any particular category.
> On the other hand, squadron pilots tend to boost their own mount but may have
> flown no others. and of course they can all whip the other types in mock
> combat! (Who loses all these fights???).
> You just have to soak up the opinions nad make your own best guess.
Absolutely, and I try never to work from a single source, Brown or otherwise.
Bejewelled
> (or the F4F, where Brown's climb figures certainly
>disagree with the stats quoted in places like "The First Team".
He gives 3300 fpm, high by 1000 I guess. He is definitely biased in favour of
the Wildcat, which I always thought did well because of the first team pilots,
being not too exceptional other than in ability to take damage. OTOH, nobody
has better credentials than Brown.
> The D. VII was so good because the average pilot could be effective
>in it, not because it was exceptional in any particular category.
>
Just a point of order, the DVII with BMW engine was exceptional. The engine was
altitude-rated, being over-compressed and unable to take full throttle at SL,
but producing full power high where the allied engines were short of breath.
That's why it was so succesful. Being easy to fly didn't hurt though. Can't
defend the Camel, the SE5A guys used to say the Camels had high scores because
they had to shoot down all the enemy to get home.
Adrian Camp.
wil...@hotmail.com
>
> >As for the Fw190 - it was damned good but the Germans didn't upgrade it
> >fast enough.
>
> Because there was no engine better than the 801 available. The engine
> procurement seems to have been a shambles. No 2000hp engine (leaving out the
> db606 double 601) was available until 1944 (Britain had had three by then, USA
> two).
AFAIK the BMW 801D-2 was rated at 2100 hp in mid-1942; although that was with
MW 50; its emergency rating without the water-methanol boost being about 1700
hp. The Germans' delay in producing high-powered engines was probably partly
due to their lack of high grade alloys. However considering the fact that the
Luftwaffe had pre-war 9 cylinder radials in the 1000 hp range; the P&W Wasp
derivative BMW 132 and the Bramo Fafnir 323; it is surprising that they
didn't produce a Double Waspish two row radial by making a pair of those 132s
or 323s yank the same crank. Possibly there was a liquid lobby biased against
radials in the RLM also.
Wilhelm Wirén
wil...@hotmail.com
> ...However considering the fact that the
> Luftwaffe had pre-war 9 cylinder radials in the 1000 hp range; the P&W Wasp
> derivative BMW 132...
Dang it, did I write Wasp. In fact the BMW 132 started out as a licence-built
P&W Hornet and was not a direct Wasp derivative.
Bejewelled
Interesting to see the 2100hp of the 801 mentioned. I wouldn't class this as a
2000hp engine on the basis of its MW-50 power, I'm looking at take-off power.
By boosted power, the R-2800 had 2800hp wet, and the Sabre VII 3055hp wet, but
they are both really 2000hp class.
However I'm keen to know if anyone can say when the 801 first got MW-50
actually installed in the 190, I seem to recall it wasn't fitted til the A-8
(although there was provision from the A-4 onward. And at what height it could
pull 2100hp. By my estimate it could only raise the boost required for 2100hp
up to around 5000ft. In high gear it would have around 1850HP with MW-50,
probably to around 1200ft (a guess).
Lastly, why did the 801 reputedly lose power high up. What was special about
it, as the full-throttle height was about the same as the merlin 45 in the Spit
V, but the spit began to catch up at 25,000, and had more ceiling? Or was the
determining factor the 190s terrible wing/span loading, not the 801 at all.
Adrian Camp
Yama
> Yama wrote:
>
> > Possibly, but lets put the decision to right timeframe: where
> is
> > the pressing need for unproven and delicate jet technology in
> > 1941?
>
> The A 4 project which did receive the highest priority relied on
> the
> even more unproven and delicate rocket technology. Concentrating
> on jet
> development would have held a promise of a fighter with a 200
> km/h or
> more speed advantage compared to contemporaries and achieving
> uninterceptable bombers and recce aircraft. In retrospect those
> seem
> more pressing needs than one for an inaccurate method of
> delivering a
> 1000 kg warhead with a rocket; although Hitler in 1941 held the
> opinion
> that about 10 tons would be needed for an effective weapon he
> went along
> with the Peenemuende Boffins' time waste scheme.
I agree that massed production of V-2 was lunacy; limited
production would have been understandable, because of weapons
great psychological effect. Curiously, much more primitive V-1 was
far more cost-effective weapon than V-2.
The 'only projects which bear fruit within a year' was clearly a
mistake, though it didn't manage completely kill off new projects,
and Nazi were not first nor the last to have 'home by Christmas'
attitude. I nevertheless doubt that really signifant speeding of
jet technology would have been possible at 1941 or '42. In FW-190
they alreadyhad fighter to restore their superiority, though they
probably didn't realize that it wouldn't last long.
> > Maybe Germans should have realise that they might need it
> > in the future, but did anyone else? Brits were just as slow,
> > Yanks, Russians, Japanese hardly had a glue, Italians had a
> good
> > start with Caproni-Campini but they dropped the idea (and God
> > knows THEY needed better engines).
>
> I doubt if the Italian solution of a ducted fan with a
> rudimentary
> afterburner qualifies as a good start; possibly excepting the
> reduced
> need for critical raw materials compared to a regular jet
> engine.
Had they co-operated with Germans (C-C was by no means secret
project, it was widely published when it flew), they would have
got the idea of putting turbine to their engine. Italian engine
had some technical features which Germans would have found useful,
like afterburner.
Yama
> hp. The Germans' delay in producing high-powered engines was
> probably partly
> due to their lack of high grade alloys. However considering the
> fact that the
> Luftwaffe had pre-war 9 cylinder radials in the 1000 hp range;
> the P&W Wasp
> derivative BMW 132 and the Bramo Fafnir 323; it is surprising
> that they
> didn't produce a Double Waspish two row radial by making a pair
> of those 132s
> or 323s yank the same crank. Possibly there was a liquid lobby
> biased against
> radials in the RLM also.
Before the war Europeans were rather certain that liquid-cooled
engines were way to go in future: RAF was rather suprised when
radial-equipped FW's began to whack them. However, that Germans
didn't produce Double Wasp-style engine is IMHO more like that
they didn't see the need for one: it was way too big to planes
size class of 109/190, as Germans were very cautious about how
much materials plane used.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
configurations, but it isn't clear what happened with the work.
I'd suspect that the suggestion of short-sighted planning, not ancipating
the need for next generation larger engines, may be a big part of the
situation. Also, it seems that really successful engine desings are as
much art as engineering, note all the big engine designs and prototypes
attempted by other countries and how few succedded into production.
Perhaps the Germans didn't have the right mix of time and talent to get a
winner under the circumstances?
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
bejew...@aol.com (Bejewelled) wrote:
>
> > (or the F4F, where Brown's climb figures certainly
> >disagree with the stats quoted in places like "The First Team".
>
> He gives 3300 fpm, high by 1000 I guess. He is definitely biased in favour of
> the Wildcat, which I always thought did well because of the first team pilots,
> being not too exceptional other than in ability to take damage. OTOH, nobody
> has better credentials than Brown.
Re-read it last night. He was describing the Wildcat I, and mentions that it
had a Wright Cyclone with a single stage two-speed supercharger, and
non-folding wings (4 .50s too). The single-stage supercharger might well
explain the difference in initial climb performance compared to heavier USn
F4F-3/4 with the Twin Wasp and two stage superchargers. Some Spits and
Seafires, like the LIIC (?) and Spit XII also went this route and had high
initial climb rates.
It's also possible that these a/c were missing some equipment or armor,
compared to USN a/c.
>
> > The D. VII was so good because the average pilot could be effective
> >in it, not because it was exceptional in any particular category.
> >
> Just a point of order, the DVII with BMW engine was exceptional. The engine
was
> altitude-rated, being over-compressed and unable to take full throttle at SL,
> but producing full power high where the allied engines were short of breath.
> That's why it was so succesful. Being easy to fly didn't hurt though. Can't
> defend the Camel, the SE5A guys used to say the Camels had high scores because
> they had to shoot down all the enemy to get home.
>
I've seen RAF pilots state that the S.E.5A was also quite good at altitude,
certainly far better than the Camel, as well as being a much better gun
platform.
Guy‰
Ruy Horta
>Actually, Jane's lists some big engines, including 18 cylender
>configurations, but it isn't clear what happened with the work.
>I'd suspect that the suggestion of short-sighted planning, not ancipating
>the need for next generation larger engines, may be a big part of the
>situation. Also, it seems that really successful engine desings are as
>much art as engineering, note all the big engine designs and prototypes
>attempted by other countries and how few succedded into production.
>Perhaps the Germans didn't have the right mix of time and talent to get a
>winner under the circumstances?
You miss the most obvious, a year or so gap in research and
development (long term and at war tempo/financing) because of the
simple fact they thought that they'd WON the war before the end of 42,
maybe into 43.
That's why there is a gap especially in late '43 mid '44, after 1944,
the accelerated programs bare of their fruit, but too late.
Bejewelled
>Re-read it last night. He was describing the Wildcat I, and mentions
that it
>had a Wright Cyclone with a single stage two-speed supercharger,
I re-read it too, and what a badly-produced poorly edited book it is. Not to
mention those pictures. Lots of them are models or drawings. The MC202, as well
as getting a raw deal on the speed front, is illustrated by an MC205. The USNI
published this book, and made a mess of it. Usually their stuff is good.
(I wouldn't be without the book though).
Adrian Camp.
Bejewelled
>You miss the most obvious, a year or so gap in research and
>development (long term and at war tempo/financing) because of the
>simple fact they thought that they'd WON the war before the end of 42,
>maybe into 43.
>
Yes, but engines take longer than that. I doubt if any big piston engine saw
service if it wasn't under serious development in 1939, from any country.(I'm
not sure about the R3350???)
Adrian Camp
Ruy Horta
But then look at the engine projects for 44, 45 and 46, and roughly
put them 6-12months earlier...I know this is rough, but of 10 projects
lets say a few would have been succesful earlier on (even engines like
all the 109-003, 004, 011 turbo jets). That time would have put less
strain on the strategic material situation, more experienced crews
available to get the best out of the performance, a general more
favorable strategic situation where in to use these types.
Lets not think about the jets too much, but just think that an a/c
performing as the D-9 COULD easily have been in service 6 months
earlier and maybe 12 months earlier (thus mid. '43...and why not?).
IF if if...all hypothetic, but less imaginative as many ideas
expressed on this NG.
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
Yeah, those model shots (Betty, Emily, Stuka etc) are pretty cheesy. You
should see what they (or the original English publisher?) did to Norman
Friedman's "British Carrier Aviation". Apparently layout and proofing were
done by someone with a computer but no sense. Charts and illustrations
located at the opposite ends of the chapter from the text discussing them (19
pages in one case), plus lots of missing words that would or should have been
caught by human proofreader.
Considering the fine quality of USNI's previous jobs on his "Illustrated
Design History" series and other books, I can only hope that "British Carrier
Aviation" isn't the production standard to expect in the future.
Guy ‰
Wilhelm Wirén
> Before the war Europeans were rather certain that liquid-cooled
> engines were way to go in future: RAF was rather suprised when
> radial-equipped FW's began to whack them. However, that Germans
> didn't produce Double Wasp-style engine is IMHO more like that
> they didn't see the need for one: it was way too big to planes
> size class of 109/190, as Germans were very cautious about how
> much materials plane used.
I'd be surprised if at least the BMW 132s were much heavier than
500...600 kg dry, the Henschel Hs 123 had one and weighed just 1450 kg
empty; the engine's dry weight in German single-seaters I have the
relevant data handy for (the BF 109E-1 and FW 190A-8) being around 1/3
of the plane's empty weight. A Double 132 would probably not have
weighed much more than a FW's BMW 801D-2 which had a dry weight of 1053
kg. A Double Waspish engine also would not have required a much
increased fuselage cross-section; measured from pic's the cowling
diameter in 132s and 323s appears to have been in the 135...145 cm class
vs. ca. 130 for the FW's 801. BTW the Germans don't appear to have been
very cautious in material things with the FW, for a small plane it was
quite heavy with an empty weight of more than three tons.
A Double 132 or 323 would also have made a dandy powerplant for
multi-engined aircrafts freeing DB 603s and Jumo 213s for
single-seaters. E.g. during the Luftschlacht um England in 1940, the
most popular and reliable of the widely used Luftwaffe medium bombers
(Do 17Z, He 111, Ju 88) was the Dornier, coincidence or not it was the
only radial-engined twin in the trio.
Wilhelm Wirén