# Focke Wulf FW 190-D9 "the best fighter of Germany"?



## alex33 (Aug 9, 2016)

Hello,

If you look through countless sources you will sometimes read the claim that the FW-190-D9 is the best German fighter of the whole 2nd World War. 
But after much reading i don't think i've read many things that are in the D9's favour.
I've even read an allied report in the fw 190 books from richard smith and eddy creek that the d-9 was quite bad.
I don't have the report at hand cause i'm not at home right now. 
I think i also never read a combat report where a d9 pilot shot down an enemy plane. Of course a lot of this is because late war germany lacked good pilots. So normaly i would then look what eric winkle brown said about the aircraft but as far as i have read he actually did not fly a d9 but another variant.
I really love this plane but can somebody help me with that?
Where does the opinion come from that the D9 was the best German fighter in World War 2.

Cheers!
Alex


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 9, 2016)

Not "opinion", _myth_ ... .... it looks _evil_, as does the A variant, IMHO

Have you seen this?

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2016)

The D9 was an excellent fighter, the D13 would have been better, the Ta 152 was better than both for air to air combat.

The phrase "better' begs the question "better based on what criteria"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 9, 2016)

I think internal Nazi politics had a lot to do with recognition (or lack there of) for the FW-190. I have read the Kurt Tank of FW was not in favor with Hitler as Messerschmitt was which is why the BF-109 was the backbone fighter for the Luftwaffe, even though FW-190 proved to be a better performer in power and speed. 

And since the 109 was the most numerous fighter for the Luftwaffe, statistics would be in it's favor in the sheer number of missions and for pilots who would score in them. It was the most common fighter for the Allies to see so I think it was just imprinted in post war memory as the ubiquitous German fighter plane.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2016)

The "Dora" was intended to be a high altitude fighter/interceptor but the shift in the airwar by 1944 saw it pressed into service outside of it's intended role - the D-9s and D-11s used as top cover for JV44's jet operations are a good example of this.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 9, 2016)

I don't have a reference handy, but if I recall correctly, the Dora was given very high praise from Chuck Yeager.

Speaking of Yeager, I ran into that crusty old bastard last week. He really isn't looking too well. I suspect he won't be with us much longer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 9, 2016)

There are plenty of combat reports and victory claims from pilots flying the D-9. Here is just one from Oberleutnant Hans Dortenmann, for his destruction of an RAF Tempest on 28 March '45, his 31st victory.

"...After a first combing of the area and flying again on a northerly heading below the clouds, we encountered 25-30 enemy fighters of the types Tempest, Mustang and Thunderbolt. The enemy attacked our formation simultaneously from all sides..
In the turning fight at schwarm strength, I was able in a strong left turn with a half downturn from 80-30 meters, to position myself behind a Tempest. From there I fired at the enemy plane and observed hits in the fuselage and cabin. The enemy fighter straightened out from the turn and then tumbled and finally spun vertically down from an altitude of 1200 meters. The kill took place at 11.34h. I observed the crash with a fiery explosion about 5Km south west of Munster at some forest. I did not notice a parachute opening.
During the course of this air battle I observed three more fiery crashes in this area, among them the downing of a Tempest by Unteroffizier Hein."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 9, 2016)

The 190 was only German plane introduced during the War to make a significant contribution to the German War effort. The later in-line versions had suppior specifications to the 109, but from reading accounts, I think it came down to the pilot. 

The 190 was also the main tactical plane for the Luftwaffe for the later part of the War. Imagine the USAF relying solely on the P-47 for all its tactical needs.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 9, 2016)

I do believe Chuck Yeager is pushing 95 so yeah, no surprises there I suppose. Pretty soon, all the WWII vets will be gone.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 9, 2016)

Surely the 262 must be considered better?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> The 190 was only German plane introduced during the War to make a significant contribution to the German War effort. The later in-line versions had suppior specifications to the 109, but from reading accounts, I think it came down to the pilot.
> 
> The 190 was also the main tactical plane for the Luftwaffe for the later part of the War. Imagine the USAF relying solely on the P-47 for all its tactical needs.


The Bf109 was well above the Fw190 in it's contributions.

While the Fw190 (both fighter and ground attack versions) was a formidable machine, the Bf109 bore the brunt of Luftwaffe actions and generated more Aces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2016)

From sheer performance standpoint, the Me 262 is clearly superior to any FW 190 but operational record must always be considered (IMO). For the same reasons the P-80 is superior to the Mustang or Corsair - it would be hard to name the P-80 as the US best fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2016)

drgondog said:


> From sheer performance standpoint, the Me 262 is clearly superior to any FW 190 but operational record must always be considered (IMO). For the same reasons the P-80 is superior to the Mustang or Corsair - it would be hard to name the P-80 as the US best fighter.


Agreed - the Me262's performance was impressive, but the Bf109 and Fw190 were true fighters in that sense, the Me262 was not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 9, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed - the Me262's performance was impressive, but the Bf109 and Fw190 were true fighters in that sense, the Me262 was not.



And the 262's had D-9's as air guards when they took off or landed from their airfields. The 262 was more vulnerable than other fighters for those times.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Aug 9, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> I don't have a reference handy, but if I recall correctly, the Dora was given very high praise from Chuck Yeager.
> 
> Speaking of Yeager, I ran into that crusty old bastard last week. He really isn't looking too well. I suspect he won't be with us much longer.


A little respect for one of our most famous WWII vets would be nice...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 9, 2016)

".... the Dora was given very high praise from Chuck Yeager."

He also liked the P-39 Airacobra and flew it skillfully.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> And the 262's had D-9's as air guards when they took off or landed from their airfields. The 262 was more vulnerable than other fighters for those times.


See post #5


----------



## wuzak (Aug 9, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Bf109 was well above the Fw190 in it's contributions.
> 
> While the Fw190 (both fighter and ground attack versions) was a formidable machine, the Bf109 bore the brunt of Luftwaffe actions and generated more Aces.



If you re-read his statement, you will se he says that the Fw 190 was the only aircraft _introduced during the war_ which made a significant contribution.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2016)

grampi said:


> A little respect for one of our most famous WWII vets would be nice...



What is so disrespectful about his post?

Unless taken out of context, nothing he said was meant in disrespect.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 9, 2016)

drgondog said:


> From sheer performance standpoint, the Me 262 is clearly superior to any FW 190 but operational record must always be considered (IMO). For the same reasons the P-80 is superior to the Mustang or Corsair - it would be hard to name the P-80 as the US best fighter.


Hey dd you proposed the Ta 152 which had almost no combat record. I just thought that the 262 deserved a mention as its problems were lack of fuel pilots and numbers, given enough 262s with good pilots and fuel it could have changed the war, the Russians would have reached the Netherlands.

Just joking.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 9, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What so disrespectful about his post?
> 
> Unless taken out of context, nothing he said was meant in disrespect.


I didnt like the language "crusty old bastard" directed at one of the worlds great aviators, and speculating about ho long a 95 year old will be with us is impolite to say the least.

Maybe a question of two nations divided by a common language, there is no way I would talk about ANY 95 year old in those terms let alone one of historys greats.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I didnt like the language "crusty old bastard" directed at one of the worlds great aviators, and speculating about ho long a 95 year old will be with us is impolite to say the least.
> 
> Maybe a question of two nations divided by a common language, there is no way I would talk about ANY 95 year old in those terms let alone one of historys greats.



Then you obviously took it out of context. Calling an old military veteran a "crusty old bastard" is never meant in disrespect.

In fact as an example I am a veteran myself, and me and my fellow brothers from my unit routinely refer to the older members of our old unit "you old bastard".

There is a difference between saying "the crusty old bastard" and "the fucking bastard."

The latter would be a term of disrespect. The former would not.

Again, unless taken out of context, there was nothing disrespectful about it. It was nothing more than a phrase/ figure of speech. It often is used as a sign of respect.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2016)

And as for speculating how long he is going to live?

He is 95 years old and in possible failing health.

Saying you don't expect him to be with us much longer is stating a fact, not disrespecting him.

Am I disrespecting my 97 year old Grandmother by stating the obvious fact that she will not be with us much longer?

I think some of you need to stop being so sensitive and PC over something that was not really that big of a deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2016)

I know him, have mixed opinions about him - but no mixed opinions regarding his stature in the aerospace biz.

He is a.) a "crusty SOB" and b.) cranky of mixed moods, and c.) one of the greatest pilots over nearly 70 years with a distinguished published (and unpublished) war records. Bud Anderson has the same opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 9, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> I don't have a reference handy, but if I recall correctly, the Dora was given very high praise from Chuck Yeager.



Eric Brown also said of the D-9; "_This was, in my opinion, the finest piston-engined fighter to enter Luftwaffe service_." 

He rated it the second-best piston-engined fighter of the entire war, just behind the Spitfire XIV and just head of the P-51D.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then you obviously took it out of context. Calling an old military veteran a "crusty old bastard" is never meant in disrespect.
> 
> In fact as an example I am a veteran myself, and me and my fellow brothers from my unit routinely refer to the older members of our old unit "you old bastard".
> 
> ...


Shoulda been around my household when I was a kid...there was always a fine blend of combat vets who were: career Navy Chiefs, Army senior Sergeants, USMC senior sergeants, USAF career senior Sergeants and associated riff-raff that all sported numerous stripes. This didn't include the renegade family members who had the nerve to be of the commissioned sort. Add to that mix, the group of friends who were all combat vets from all branches.

Get them all in a room and the insults, name calling and general mayhem always was a result. (Squidlegs, Seagoing bellhop, Shallowater sailor and such were the mildest of the names being tossed back and forth)

The only one that was immune from that, was Uncle Bill who was a USN Captain, and when he'd enter the room, the guys would all stand up, and he roll his eyes and say "for the love of God, sit the eff down" which was usually answered with such things as "fine, ya' old bastard...I was going to get a beer anyway..."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alex33 (Aug 10, 2016)

Greyman said:


> Eric Brown also said of the D-9; "_This was, in my opinion, the finest piston-engined fighter to enter Luftwaffe service_."
> 
> He rated it the second-best piston-engined fighter of the entire war, just behind the Spitfire XIV and just head of the P-51D.



I coud swear i read on this forum that he never actually flew a d-9 but another d variant. But that could also mean that that guy was mistaken.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 10, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then you obviously took it out of context. Calling an old military veteran a "crusty old bastard" is never meant in disrespect.
> 
> In fact as an example I am a veteran myself, and me and my fellow brothers from my unit routinely refer to the older members of our old unit "you old bastard".
> 
> ...


I didnt realise that Soulezoo served with Jeager. As you say, old veterans can address each other with terms that seem like complete disrespect from those outside the group.


----------



## alex33 (Aug 10, 2016)

Ha finally found that quote that states that the d9 wasnt flown by brown.


vanir said:


> It was discovered in the 60s iirc that the Fw-190D-9 that Brown evaluated, which formed the entire basis of all western appreciation on the combat performance of Doras, wasn't a D-9 at all but a D-12 with a completely different engine fitment. It was much rarer, hand assembled and reflected neither the build quality nor the performance and character of most Doras that fought. For a start the D-12 was fitted with an extremely complicated multiple stage and automatically geared blower system with a throttle altitude boost and an emergency overboost facility, all weather pilot equipment (radio navigation and other new technologies), it was a very well equipped and futuristic fighter, very much like the sort of specification you'd expect from a piston fighter-bomber in Korea era, like an F4U-4 or a Seafury.
> 
> An American postwar evaluation on a rebuild true D-9 at Wright Patterson gave completely different results to Brown's tests of course, nowhere near the performance superiority he found. They characterised it as a hotrod built in a backyard shed and were amazed it could keep pace with a Mustang without falling apart, it was very rough to fly. Brown's was much faster at sea level and had far better altitude performance plus it was just an all round nicer pilots plane. What really doesn't help is the fact FW company documentation gives almost exclusively calculated figures so common perceptions are completely misled, you need to speak with dedicated specialists in the specific field and aircraft type, and the tendency to take pilots at their word like Brown is high, but there is no reason to assume his accounts taken with more authority than wartime pilot accounts, which officially had an error margin.



And here is the report that i mentioned that straight up says that the d-9 is worse than the A series.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

Thats what i dont really get why it is said that it was so good. Could it be that this report is wrong? Or is that true. I really dont understand. Especially cause i love the d-9 =(

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I didnt realise that Soulezoo served with Jeager. As you say, old veterans can address each other with terms that seem like complete disrespect from those outside the group.



It was just an example.

In English, refferring to someone as a "crusty old bastard" is a refference to being old and typically is not meant with disrespect.

You are taking it out of context.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Aug 10, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is so disrespectful about his post?
> 
> Unless taken out of context, nothing he said was meant in disrespect.


Calling someone a "crusty old bastard" is not respectful...


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I didnt realise that Soulezoo served with Jeager. As you say, old veterans can address each other with terms that seem like complete disrespect from those outside the group.



They don't have to be old to do that! In every squadron I was ever in if another pilot was "nice" by todays standards I was very cautious around them. Sarcasm is a great tool to keep everyone on their toes...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 10, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The D9 was an excellent fighter, the D13 would have been better, the Ta 152 was better than both for air to air combat.
> 
> The phrase "better' begs the question "better based on what criteria"?




Confirm the D-13 was basically the pinnacle of the "short" wing versions, and the Ta-152H as the same of the "long" wing versions?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> They don't have to be old to do that! In every squadron I was ever in if another pilot was "nice" by todays standards I was very cautious around them. Sarcasm is a great tool to keep everyone on their toes...
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



A friend of mine's father was a F4U pilot in VMF-124 at the end of the war. They went as a family to see "Top Gun" when it came out. When my friends wife asked how it liked it at the end, he replied "The locker room scenes seemed pretty realistic".


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 10, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It was just an example.
> 
> In English, refferring to someone as a "crusty old bastard" is a refference to being old and typically is not meant with disrespect.
> 
> You are taking it out of context.



Thank you Adler.. I seem to have missed the kerfuffle that I started unintentionally.

You summed up perfectly my "context".

To be clear, I mean no disrespect to Gen. Yeager at all. I have the utmost of respect for him.

No, I didn't serve with him, but he lives in my area (Grass Valley California), very close in fact. 25 years ago I'd run into him every once in awhile at the BX or dispensary at Beale AFB. While I can't say we are "close friends" we are familiar. Our best discussions centered on hunting and a shared love of Weatherby rifles.. not so much on aviation. (My father having served in USAAF in WW II was at least a point of something in common)

In terms of my saying "crusty old bastard" this is a term of endearment for me and I said it as I thought it (not thinking folks here would not get the reference), and I have said this to his face before-- right after one of his rants. He stopped, thought about what I just said and then just grinned. Would you rather me be more direct and say "mean old potty mouthed SOB?" Fact is, he is a grumpy old man at this point and his faculties are leaving him. I mention "he won't be around much longer" less because his age makes it so, but rather as a statement of fact as I have watched him decline a lot since I saw him last. I said it more in terms of letting folks of this forum know about the situation of one of our most esteemed. One can provide some reverence while he is still with us rather than reading he just passed and then think about what he's done.

So I apologize to those who have taken issue with my statement. I ask that you understand this is a giant of a man in our world that I just happen to be more familiar with personally than most here and it reflected in my post. I am more than certain that anyone here that knows Mr. Yeager better than I can more than vouch for the context I used and that it reflects appropriately.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2016)

Blimey! Anyone remember the old Fortune's song..."Storm in a teacup"


----------



## Kryten (Aug 10, 2016)

Anyone who has been in the armed forces knows the banter is part of the culture especially between rival services and units, the way ex servicemen talk to each other is often interpreted as hostility by civvies, a lot of my friends are also ex servicemen and it's just the norm to greet them with an insult, if your so hypersensitive you get upset over that then your not going to cope with the realities of military life!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2016)

grampi said:


> Calling someone a "crusty old bastard" is not respectful...



And you are being overly sensative and taking it out of context...


----------



## alex33 (Aug 10, 2016)

Ok guys could we maybe stop with this ot stuff? My question still stands

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 10, 2016)

alex33 said:


> Ha finally found that quote that states that the d9 wasnt flown by brown.
> 
> And here is the report that i mentioned that straight up says that the d-9 is worse than the A series.
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
> ...



Interesting about the different versions. I wonder if the D-9 tested at Wright could be considered representative of what was generally found in service. It would be great to hear German opinions.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 10, 2016)

when you get a bunch of fighter pilots together the tone of the conversation is a mix of sarcasm, wise cracks, exaggeration, and poking fun...all in good nature. I had the opportunity to be at a gathering or 2 and witnessed it. my father who rarely talked like that chimed right in like it was yesterday since he last talked like that. it did give me a little insight into his humor ( which became family humor ). just to give you an idea of what it was like here is a pretty funny story...

The Flak House Capers

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Aug 11, 2016)

The Wright D-9 is not really representive as it is reported with Jumo 213E engine whereas the D-9 was equipped with Jumo 213A. Among other defects (improper maintenance?) the automatic engine control was obviously not properly adjusted to the Jumo 213E.


----------



## grampi (Aug 11, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then you obviously took it out of context. Calling an old military veteran a "crusty old bastard" is never meant in disrespect.
> 
> In fact as an example I am a veteran myself, and me and my fellow brothers from my unit routinely refer to the older members of our old unit "you old bastard".
> 
> ...


That's problem with speaking in text. You can't always pick up the sarcasm...now if we were there in person to hear the "crusty old bastard" comment, I doubt any of us would've had a problem with it...


----------



## stona (Aug 11, 2016)

alex33 said:


> If you look through countless sources you will sometimes read the claim that the FW-190-D9 is the best German fighter of the whole 2nd World War.
> But after much reading i don't think i've read many things that are in the D9's favour.
> 
> Where does the opinion come from that the D9 was the best German fighter in World War 2.



Hans Dortemnann's diary, after an initially poor impression of the D-9.

_"In spite of this I want to state right from the outset that this plane [D-9] cobbled together out of necessity, turned out to be the best fighter plane made in Germany throughout the whole war...It takes quite some time until we are sufficiently familiar with our new birds. But really, even now the machine proves its superiority with every flight. Enormous climbing ability, far better acceleration in a dive, significantly higher cruising speed and definitely improved turning ability compared to a Fw 190 or 109. Slowly we are getting enthusiastic about the Dora 9."_

Other impressions from the men that flew the type, and could directly compare it with others they had flown.

Fw. Friedrich Ungar (9./JG54)
_"My first reaction was terrible! Because of the long fuselage it would not be able to turn! But this first impression was soon dispelled. I was able to fly 'White 3' three times on this day. I found it much better than the Me 109 and the big wooden propeller gave it terrific acceleration and it climbed much better."_

Fhr. Gerhard Frisch (2./JG2)
_"As for the Dora 9 it had few shortcomings. I had been flying Fw 190 As with BMW twin radial row engines. There was no conversion training, we just climbed in and started flying! You could feel the power as soon as you opened the throttle, it just sped away."_

Fnj.Ofw Heinz Marquardt (IV./JG51)
_"The D-9 was the strong one, the safe one. Cruising speed was 600Km but the others were much slower. The power was excellent and it was the most stable in a dive. It landed smoothly at the recommended 220Km, better than the 109!" 
_
Almost every man who flew the type had a very positive impression of it.

Cheers

Steve

I thought I'd add another from Fw. Gerhard Kroll (9./JG54) as he was clearly a young man who planned ahead 

_"I really liked this new aircraft [D-9], it was much more powerful than the 109 and much better in take off and landings. It was not weighed down with extra equipment like the late versions of the 109. It was equal to any of our adversaries like the P-51 Mustang. One of the small things that made a difference was the backpack parachute of the Focke-Wulf compared for the seat pack style that was used in the 109. It was much easier to handle on the ground and during bail out."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alex33 (Aug 12, 2016)

Very cool. So it seemed that the pilots at first disliked it but then seemed to love it. Interessting. But good to see that the wright report is wrong. It really baffled and shocked me the first time i read it. Especially because it is overall very negative. I don't quite get this why did they put the wrong engine in the plane and then make a report that says the dora was shi*?


----------



## GregP (Aug 12, 2016)

So we have one good report that somehow trumps a bad report, when neither one can be verified, and one who says the aircraft the USA flew was not representative of the species. Doesn't seem very definitive to me.

It would be worth looking into Denniss's statements, and I don't dispute them here, but I seriously doubt if US mechanics changed the engine ... it came to us that way. It was a foreign plane and was simply looked at, gone through, tuned up, and tested. What makes anyone think one report is more believable than another one? Especially without any research.

They made a few Fw 190 D-9s, some 1,809 out of 1,850 total D models. So it DID make the war and create a war record. The often-quoted performance numbers show it to be a good, solid mount, but nothing extra special. A P-51D was faster and it wasn't the fastest Allied fighter. 

The Luftwaffe aircraft that did the most damage to airborne targets in the war was the Bf 109 by a wide margin. What would raise the Fw 190 D-9 to a status above the Bf 109 that shot down most of the downed Allied planes in the war? The fact that it had fewer weaknesses? Better landing gear? The Bf 109, especially a late model, was faster, climbed better, took off and landed shorter, but had a shorter range and didn't hit as hard when shooting. But it DID manage to cause a LOT of damage.

I respect the Fw 190 D-9 (indeed all Fw 190s) for being solid, good-handling, generally good-performing fighters with many innovative features. But I'd pick the Bf 109 as the most effective fighter the Luftwaffe ever fielded; not the Fw 190.

In an ideal world if we could do it again (No!), I'd pick the Fw 190 series as the plane I'd rather have started the war with, especially the wide-track gear, the single-lever power setup, and outstanding armament, but in the real world the Bf 109 was a more effective mount by long shot. It may have been overshadowed in many ways by the Fw 190, especially late models, but 1,850 Fw 190Ds versus 34,000+ Bf 109s is a "no contest" when fighting starts. The 20,000+ Fw 190s did a great job for Germany. But the Bf 109s absolutely did also, in more places and in greater numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2016)

It's not about the most effective aircraft, obviously tens of thousands of Bf 109s will trump a couple of thousand 'Doras'. It's what the men who flew the D-9 in combat thought of it, and they almost invariably rated it above either the Bf 109 or A series Fw 190s. There are complaints about the quality of the construction of the aircraft, Sorau built aircraft were sought by the pilots who considered them better made. They, unlike us, or the pilots at Wright Field, had the benefit of being able to make comparisons, having flown the various types in combat, not carrying out a series of test routines with less than realistic engine settings (or even engine).

The British had a similar problem trying to estimate the REAL performance of Pingel's 'Friederich' and Faber's 'Anton'.

Experienced combat pilots will soon find ways to exploit the strengths of their aircraft, Gerhard Frisch of JG 2 discovered for example

_"There was one unique manoeuvre the D-9 could perform and that was when, in a climbing turn, it could suddenly flip over and change direction. We were able to exploit this exceptional agility to our advantage."_

It is correct to say that the initial impression of the D-9 on many pilots was not great, but they soon came to like it. Obgfr. Werner Molge of JG 26 is typical.

_"I finally got to really like the D-9. The turning radius was about the same as an A-8, even though the D-9 was longer. It was faster, better in handling and we could turn into a bank faster. The roll rate was better and climbing speed was faster. Overall the new D-9 gave a feeling of confidence to the pilot."
_
There's not much not to like there.

Near the end of the war, on 5th May, Molge was upset to deliberately crash his D-9 into a bomb crater to write it off.

Dortenmann alone was credited with 18 victories flying the D-9 between 2nd November '44 and 27th April '45. These include one B-17 and most of the Allied fighter types available, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Spitfire, Tempest, and even a couple of Yaks at the end.
Most, five, were Mustangs, but there were probably more of these around at the time.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2016)

The question that comes to my mind, is what was the service record of the captured D-9 types?

I hardly think that they were factory fresh and in some cases, may have even had previous combat damage of some sort that had been hastily repaired along the way.

As the war was grinding to a close, many supply and service depots ceased to exist or were increasingly difficult to transport to and from (rail or road), so there was alot of front-line cannibalizing and salvaging going on just to try and keep the Staffels up to strength.

So with this in mind, there may be contributing factors to the poor performance of the captured Doras that the Allied pilots experienced.


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2016)

The Allies just weren't interested in the German piston engine fighters at the end of the war. The first D-9 to fall into British hands (Theo Nibel's) after 'Bodenplatte' was of course examined before being sent to Farnborough where they never even bothered to re-assemble it.
The Anglo-Americans knew they had fighters at least as good as the Germans and that they had little to learn.
The interest after the war lay in the German jet and rocket types, the British alone acquired ten He 162s and twenty Me 163s.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2016)

Granted that there was a great interest in the Jet & rocket types, but they certainly took a good number of piston types, too.

A glance at HMS Reaper's deck shows there was quite a few taken back to the U.S.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2016)

The British took quite a few too, but the only one which they tried to fly in a meaningful way was the Do 335, and that crashed, killing the pilot. 
Most of the piston engine types taken back at the end of the war ended up at static displays at various events before being ignominiously scrapped. A lot of aircraft that were captured _and_ given AM numbers were never taken back to the UK but scrapped where they were acquired.
As far as I know the British never bothered to fly a D series Fw 190 after the war at all.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Granted that there was a great interest in the Jet & rocket types, but they certainly took a good number of piston types, too.
> 
> A glance at HMS Reaper's deck shows there was quite a few taken back to the U.S.
> 
> ...



I am crying at the thought of how many of those were scrapped.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Aug 12, 2016)

> The Luftwaffe aircraft that did the most damage to airborne targets in the war was the Bf 109 by a wide margin. What would raise the Fw 190 D-9 to a status above the Bf 109 that shot down most of the downed Allied planes in the war? The fact that it had fewer weaknesses? Better landing gear? The Bf 109, especially a late model, was faster, climbed better, took off and landed shorter, but had a shorter range and didn't hit as hard when shooting. But it DID manage to cause a LOT of damage.



IMO it was superior because an average or poorly trained pilot could get more out of it. Bf 109 could be lethal in experienced hands, but it had several limitations, including view from the cockpit -much better in 190 series-. Roll rate was also superior, and it seemed more adaptable to heavily armoured version. 

It is interesting that such a Fw 190 appeared so late in the war. Fw 190 A struggled at high altitudes, but due to circumstances (DB 603 employed in Me and Ju 213 not getting priority) it appeared in late in 1944.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am crying at the thought of how many of those were scrapped.


You and me both!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 12, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Granted that there was a great interest in the Jet & rocket types, but they certainly took a good number of piston types, too.
> 
> A glance at HMS Reaper's deck shows there was quite a few taken back to the U.S.
> 
> ...



Does anyone know what the bulges are in the forward fuselage of that first Me 262 in the picture?


----------



## GregP (Aug 12, 2016)

When I posted above, it was in response to the thread title, "best fighter of Germany."

I tend to think about what really happened instead of what might have been, and I zeroed right in on the Bf 109 doing more for the German war effort. Certainly the Fw 190 series, and the D in particular were excellent aircraft, and nothing I said above takes away from that in my mind. It very well could have been the best Luftwaffe fighter at some point in time, probably in 1944. 

So at that point in time, the Fw 190 D-9 might well have been the best overall when flown by average pilots. With so few built and accomplishing so little in real life, I can't suggest the Ta-152 at all. The D-9 that were built did a very credible job in the face of overwhelming numbers.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 12, 2016)

Wow, you guys are just too good. "The best fighter of Germany". It is the same old story,...
WHEN! The 262 was not there in 1941. It was not in any way shape or form the best
from 1939 to 1943. In late '44 and '45 it made an impact on those that opposed it, but
that is that. The 262 did not change the direction of the war in any way. The FW-190 and
Bf.109 did in many different theaters that they participated in.
A lot of great views from many a prospective.


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2016)

The 'Dora' series is also yet another demonstration of the woeful inability of the RLM and German aircraft industry to develop an idea. The decision to fit an inline engine to the Fw 190 was taken in November 1941. It was September 1942 before a Jumo powered version flew, though they messed about with various DB powered versions. JG 54 got the first four service versions in September 1944. It took nearly three years to go from concept to service, imagine if the Merlin engine-P 51 marriage had taken that long to consummate 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> Does anyone know what the bulges are in the forward fuselage of that first Me 262 in the picture?


Photo recon variant: Me262A-1a/U3

The bulges were to accomodate the cameras.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> Does anyone know what the bulges are in the forward fuselage of that first Me 262 in the picture?



It looks like a reconnaissance version (A-5a) and the bulges cover the magazines for the cameras. The odd thing is I can't work out which aircraft it is, as I can't find a US EB/FE/T2 number to match that sub type.

Cheers

Steve

As explained above it's a U3, the Americans grabbed a couple of these. I'd bet that the one on deck is W.Nr. 500098, given the US number FE-4011. It crashed and burned following a landing accident (brake failure) at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport, Coraopolis, on 19th August 1945. The pilot, Lt. James Holt managed to escape unharmed before the aircraft burned out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2016)

It was an Me262A-1a/U3.

It's assigned number was: FE-4012, I am not sure what the WkNmr was.

There were actually two, I'll have to look and see if I can find the details of the other.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 12, 2016)

I would not be surprised if one of those He-219s happens to be at the Dulles branch of the Smithsonian...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> I would not be surprised if one of those He-219s happens to be at the Dulles branch of the Smithsonian...


Yes, one of those aboard the HMS Reaper was an He219A-2 (WkNmr 290202) assigned Foreign Number FE-614 and is at the NASM nearing completion of a full restoration.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> I would not be surprised if one of those He-219s happens to be at the Dulles branch of the Smithsonian...



Going to go see it in a few weeks. Can't wait. 

Last time I was at the museum in DC, neither the 219 or 335 were on display.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 13, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Going to go see it in a few weeks. Can't wait.
> 
> Last time I was at the museum in DC, neither the 219 or 335 were on display.



Ditto!

The Do-335 might be in that shot as well. I see it way in the back?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Ditto!
> 
> The Do-335 might be in that shot as well. I see it way in the back?



Can't wait to see that one as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 18, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> the tone of the conversation is a mix of sarcasm, wise cracks, exaggeration, and poking fun...all in good nature.



Sounds like engineers, although it's never in good nature with engineers... ;D I do have to censor my language and humour when around family and friends. The guys at work, we often tell each other of instances where at social gatherings we'll chime in with some wise crack and the room suddenly goes silent! Working on the night shift spawns some pretty black stuff in our heads...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 18, 2016)

Hey Adler,

We better see some good pics when you get back ... or NO MORE TOOTSIE POPS, not even 4 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 18, 2016)

I went to the Udvar Hazy Center the day after it opened and the Do 335 wasn't there, but seeing the Aichi Seiran floatplane and Arado 234 was definitely a highlight. Would love to go back and see the more recently installed stuff.

Regarding the name calling earlier on in the thread; it does depend on your environment; I can see how those not conditioned to the kind of language that many (in military and hangars!) use would find such things upsetting. The banter between people is unique in these situations and it reflects a bond not necessarily experienced by outsiders. I'm sure the likes of Yeager would not object in the slightest if called an SOB.

Language is a funny thing. I saw a comedian talking about the use of the word c*nt, which in many people's books is as offensive as it gets, but this guys was saying - and Brits will back me up here, there are some Brits who use it in every day language, like (said in a Cockney drawl) "Ow aare ya, you f*cking c*nt! 'Avent seen you in ages...", yet if I said that to some of my wife's friends, I'd get astonished looks, although most would know that's just me and my foul mouth after all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 18, 2016)

nuuumannn said:


> Language is a funny thing. I saw a comedian talking about the use of the word c*nt, which in many people's books is as offensive as it gets, but this guys was saying - and Brits will back me up here, there are some Brits who use it in every day language, like (said in a Cockney drawl) "Ow aare ya, you f*cking c*nt! 'Avent seen you in ages...", yet if I said that to some of my wife's friends, I'd get astonished looks, although most would know that's just me and my foul mouth after all.



Absolutely true. It is all about context, though, having said that, the C-word is almost invariably found offensive by women.

One of the problems of the typed word is that it lacks that context, given not just by pronunciation (like 'you c******nt' with several Us, not nearly as offensive in English usage) but by all sorts of other visual cues lumped together as body language.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 18, 2016)

Another example (in the United States, anyway) of this language issue is use of the word ni**er.
Apparently, it's common and acceptable for certain people to address other certain people with that word.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 19, 2016)

Americans get offensive even with the use of the word 'black', which kinda makes it hard being a kiwi since our tourist board and sports teams have gone overboard by naming everything 'The Black-This' and 'The Black-That'.


----------



## stona (Aug 19, 2016)

Yep, watched our girls beat the 'black sticks' a couple of days ago, which is consistent, if not inspired naming 

Maybe the Kiwis hope that by naming everything the black this or that, something of the aura of the mighty All Blacks will rub off!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2016)

nuuumannn said:


> Language is a funny thing. I saw a comedian talking about the use of the word c*nt, which in many people's books is as offensive as it gets, but this guys was saying - and Brits will back me up here, there are some Brits who use it in every day language, like (said in a Cockney drawl) "Ow aare ya, you f*cking c*nt! 'Avent seen you in ages...", yet if I said that to some of my wife's friends, I'd get astonished looks, although most would know that's just me and my foul mouth after all.


I once met a German barmaid who was briefly engaged to an English soldier. She flew to meet his parents in England who asked her how her journey went. She replied "I am sick as a nuns [email protected] sat on that [email protected] of an aeroplane for 2 hours". She didnt realise that her boyfriends squaddie English should not be used infront of the future in laws, the engagement didnt last long after that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2016)

stona said:


> Yep, watched our girls beat the 'black sticks' a couple of days ago, which is consistent, if not inspired naming
> 
> Maybe the Kiwis hope that by naming everything the black this or that, something of the aura of the mighty All Blacks will rub off!
> 
> ...


Yeh but "TALL BLACKS" for the basketball team is inspired.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Here, here! More honest and *important info here than in most of the rest of the posts combined!*



Yours included...


----------



## GregP (Aug 19, 2016)

Hey Shooter, try consolidating your posts so you never post right after yourself. You might notice nobody in here does much that except you.

About the guns being "almost useless," the Me 262 recorded very close to 540 Allied kills and US pilots shot down 140 of them. They only built some 1,430 Me 262s and only about 100 at a time ever saw combat according to Adolph Galland's books. Many that were completed never flew due to pilot and fuel shortages, and the relative inability of the factory to get them delivered on time with any reliability due to constant bombardment as well as airframes damaged before delivery due to same.

540 kills doesn't make it sound quite "useless." I'd say they did pretty well considering the guns weren't optimized for fighter-versus-fighter combat and it never was intended as a dogfighter. In the end, it had a negligible impact on WWII combat, but is DID make us grateful they didn't get the engine woes worked out a lot earlier. Many aircraft on both were not optimized for some mission they were called upon to perform, but very few if any WWII combat aircraft were "useless."

I might include the LWS-6 (PZL-30) Zubr in the "useless" category, except some of the completed airframes WERE used as decoys to give the Luftwaffe something to shoot at, and the engines DID get used as fruit orchard warm air fans, so the Zubr at least contributed mass suicide of some of its airframes. The Soviets actually flew several as trainers. I wonder if they were training as Kamakazes? The total production run of 17 makes me wonder about the Polish military department of procurement's qualifications. I bet the guys who bought 17 Zubrs were Cavalry officers, qualified to buy exceptionally good horses, but totally ineffective when it came to machinery, particularly aerial bombardment devices.

I understand the airframes reached their service life after one long mission. I guess the Soviets flew a lot of short hops.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hey Shooter, try consolidating your posts so you never post right after yourself. You might notice nobody in here does much that except you.
> 
> About the guns being "almost useless," the Me 262 recorded very close to 540 Allied kills and US pilots shot down 140 of them. They only built some 1,430 Me 262s and only about 100 at a time ever saw combat according to Adolph Galland's books. Many that were completed never flew due to pilot and fuel shortages, and the relative inability of the factory to get them delivered on time with any reliability due to constant bombardment as well as airframes damaged before delivery due to same.
> 
> ...



Don't forget it was armed for it's intended purpose...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 19, 2016)

I have often wondered why the Bf 109 is so often ignored as a great fighter. It wasn't a cake-walk for an Allied fighter even on the last day of the war if flown competently.

According to both Hartmann and Barkhorn, it's best feature was centerline armament. As has been quoted before, the Germans thought, "one in the nose is worth 2 in the wings." The guns in the fuselage don't have to converge and the bullet stream stays more or less together for a long time and a long distance.

I believe the top aces stayed with the Bf 109 because they were already familiar with all it's good and bad points in combat, and didn't want to get killed rediscovering these things fighting in the Fw 190. I know Hartmann and Barkhorn flew the Fw 190 and elected to stay with the Bf 109, while simultaneously praising the Fw 190's flight characteristics. Considering the life-expectancy of new combat pilots (and pilots new-to-type), perhaps their decision was understandable to everyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hey Shooter, try consolidating your posts so you never post right after yourself. You might notice nobody in here does much that except you.


That's assuming anyone reads his stuff

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Many German jet Pilots thought the 262 was a great dog fighter in which it was very hard to get shot down in but the guns were crap and cost one Nazi pilot his life after putting not one, but two 30 mms into a P-47, only to get hosed on the overshoot buy the 8 .50s. Most Allied and all Ruski single engine fighters only required one 30 mm hit to be shot down.


See Greg?

Reading and quoting this drivel of thiers is two minutes of my life I'll never get back...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Aug 19, 2016)

It's always worth a side-bet when Shooter raises his head as to how long it will be before he mentions the leading-edge slats on a 109.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 19, 2016)

I'll have to disagree with that Shooter. The slats only cover about 1/3 of the wing and basically only serve to keep the ailerons effective after a stall of the main wing. If the pilot pulls hard enough to have only the slatted area effective, he will not out-turn anyone, but can stop from dropping a wing due to stall departure ... and the slats only open near the stall. Yes the CL is increased, but only around the time when 2/3 of the main wing, without slats, is stalled or VERY close to it.

I don't believe the pilot can really pull hard enough at much over 280 mph to get the slats out, and certainly not at anything over 300 mph. The Bf 109, even without slats, wasn't a bad turning aircraft. I'd think the slats would come into play mostly at 180 - 220 mph, in a dogfight that involved hard turning while decelerating.

Better pilots tried hard to avoid that regime since that's where most pilots died while dogfighting. The top aces were mostly ambush hunters, who knew the value of escaping a bad situation rather than trying to fight it out. Hartmann was famous for never losing a wingman. You usually don't achieve that record if you engage in frequent dogfights. You can do that for a little while, but not for as long as Hartmann did without using sound ambush tactics.

Guys, I think you are right above and I'll probably decline to comment much more going forward. If I don't get deep into a basic discussion that is proceeding in a less than wonderful manner, it doesn't tend to get the keyboard fingers going without thinking happening at the same time. And getting that going tends to get me in escalating trouble. Better to just bow out.

That should have been obvious when the first thing that happened was to disagree with Drgondog. Having tried that somewhat unsuccessfully myself, and having come to realize he was right all along most of the time, it sets a tone best avoided by me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Don't be so snarky!



Then don't tell people that their posts are not important.

Got it bud!


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I only pointed out what Hartmann said; He liked the LE Slats because "He could shoot across the circle farther than other planes could".
> You are also right about his being a Zoom and Boom Ace! He never Dogfighted if he could avoid it. He also preferred the Mk-151-20 over the Mk-108 for his main weapon. He thought the 30 mm gun was very hard to get hits with.


I think you need to tell us the page # and book, or where ever this statement was made.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> I think you need to tell us the page # and book, or where ever this statement was made.


Don't hold your breath... 

I'm still laughing over the "30mm was very hard to get hits with" part.

Oh, that and the Mk108 cannon on the Me262 was ineffective.

If it wasn't for the fact that the threads get flooded with all this horse=sh!t, I'd spend more time reading their posts for the entertainment factor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2016)

Alright everyone. Lets not let this thread completely break down. Let us mods do our thing...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2016)

OK, Shooter, I'll bite one more time.

The Ha.1112 airframe is a Bf 109 G-2 unit, which I used for my estimate since I have access to one. It has 170 sq ft of area. I made the measurement via CAD and you are right, the slats don't cover 1/3 of the wing area. They actually cover 32.221% of the wing area, or slightly less than 1/3.

So the High Lift slatted area is 54.776 sq ft and the unslatted area is 115.224 sq ft.

If you go look at any 3-view, you'll see that the slats are located out near the skinnier part of the wing, near the tips, but they don't include the wingtips. The inner unslatted area is at the point of longer chord, making the area add up a bit quicker than around the ailerons.

I was close with my ballpark estimate, but precision really IS better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> No book, I played golf with him three times on my first tour in Germany.


I have never heard of him playing golf and even if he did, why would he play golf with some random shave-tail nobody and out of the blue, discuss great in-depth personal sentiments with said shave-tail on said golf course.

Seriously...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The 262's biggest problem was not it's aerodynamic performance witch was mostly, but not completely great, was it's guns! Which were almost worthless when compared to all other guns of the war. Even the Germans knew this after some little experience.


Can you give further details of the special guns that didnt work developed and fitted to the 262. Were these guns developed because of concerns over losses affecting US morale or simply to avoid four engined bombers dropping onto Gerrmany?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is why I do not have much regard for Eric Brown as a expert on the various types of WW-II planes.
> Sure, he flew them all and has a huge resume', but anyone who thinks the Spit 14 was a great plane is either a Nationalistic Fan Boy, or delusional.



He may have know his stuff just a little better than you....




Shooter8 said:


> It was slow to service and had to have many defects fixed before it was considered safe to send out into less experienced hands.



I'd like to see a source for that.

As for slow to service, it was no longer than many of its contemporaries.




Shooter8 said:


> The size and area of the Verticle fin and rudder were both enlarged two or three times depending on who said what and how much of an enlargement we are talking about.



The fin was the same size, the rudder area increased.

Also, not an unusual thing to happen in prototype aircraft.




Shooter8 said:


> It was too heavy and they almost universally removed two of the four 20 mm guns to aid the rate of role and rate of turn.



Too heavy? Compared to what?

Apart from a small number of Mk Vs, and the later 20-series models (with new wings) none of the Spitfires were equipped with 4 20mm cannon. The usual armament was 2 x 20mm plus 4 x 0.303" at the start of production and later it was 2 x 20mm plus 2 x 0.50" when the E-wing came along (also used in the IX and XVI).

The Spitfire could give away quite a bit turn radius and still be comfortably turn inside a 109 or 190. The Spitfire XIV didn't roll as fast as a Fw 190A, but not much did. It was comfortably faster in roll rate than the Bf 109 and could out-roll most other allied aircraft up to 350mph IAS.




Shooter8 said:


> Most actual Spitfire pilots of the war claimed that either the Mk-V was the best of the lot in terms of how it flew, or they preferred the faster and more powerful Mk-IX even with it's snaking and poor pointability. The -IX's four bladed prop started the round of increasing the area of the tail to cure stability problems and the five bladed prop on the XIV made it down right dangerous until the "Spitful" tail was installed.



Dangerous?

The XIV required change of rudder trim with throttle changes.

Snaking? Poor pointability?

You are aware that the P-51B and -D suffered problems with lack of fin/rudder area too? Solved with the larger tail of the -H.




Shooter8 said:


> Then there is the fact that nearly, or more than, one year elapsed between the Mk-XIV's entry into service and it's first kill! If it was so great, why was that? How many pilots made Ace in the Mk-XIV? I mean during that exact same period of time that the -XIV was in service AFTER it's first kill and getting fixed, there were fifteen or twenty times as many new pilots who made Ace in the older types of Spit! IIRC only 22, or maybe 28 pilots made ace in the Mk-XIV? I've got the Osprey book on it someplace.



You better get your old Osprey book out and start quoting.

The Spitfire XIV became operational in January 1944.

It's first enemy aircraft kill was in 1944, but after they were used against the V-1s. I don't have the actual date, but it wasn't more than a year.

In any case, the lack of success speaks more to the lack of opportunity than any issues with the ability of the aircraft.




Shooter8 said:


> So, we have the opinion of a test pilot, with how many kills on the side of the Mk-XIV Spit, Vs the Opinion of Major General, IIRC, Chuck Yeager who thought the P-51 was the Cat's Meow, Vs America's top ace who thought the P-38 was it and Russia's top ace who thought the Yac-3, or P-39 was the best, or the Top Jap who shot down 86+- planes in a Zero and the top 300 Aces of all time who like the Me-109 for some unknown and totally mysterious reason! ( Given that it had less of almost everything than any of the other choises above!)



Dick Chuck Yeager fly a Spitfire XIV? Eric Brown flew P-51s.
Did Bong fly a Spitfire XIV? Eric Brown flew a P-38.
Brown didn't fly a Yak-3, but he flew a Yak-1, a Yak-9 and a Yak-11. Did the Russian ace fly a Spitfire XIV?
Brown did also fly the P-39.
And he flew several variants of the Bf 109. 

He may have known a thing or two about the qualities of fighters.
List of aircraft flown by Eric "Winkle" Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw the reason that the Bf 109 scored so many more kills than any other aircraft was simple opportunity. They were built in more numbers than any other fighter of WW2, flew more combat sorties than any other WW2 fighter, had more engagements than any other WW2 fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2016)

Good reply, but, in the nicest possible way, I don't know why you bothered. I'm certainly not going to 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 20, 2016)

stona said:


> Good reply, but, in the nicest possible way, I don't know why you bothered. I'm certainly not going to
> Cheers
> Steve



I probably shouldn't have, but couldn't help myself.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2016)

stona said:


> Good reply, but, in the nicest possible way, I don't know why you bothered. I'm certainly not going to
> Cheers
> Steve


 I, for one, will take your advice and use the ignore option


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> No book, I played golf with him three times on my first tour in Germany.



After several months of this shooting across turn nonsense, now you say Erich Hartmann told you this while you were playing golf with him !!!
Do you really expect anyone on this forum to believe anything you say ?


----------



## alex33 (Aug 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> So, I would say that before we can judge a plane from the past, you must ask what criteria do we use to score it?



I don't judge the plane at all. It's just that in most things that you read online it says "the D-9 is considered to be the best German fighter of the war" and so i thought this was true. but after reading the wright airfield report i became sceptical of it's performance and so i wondered if it actually was a good fighter plane after all

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 20, 2016)

I only ever went shooting and playing tennis with Hartmann, he said he hated golf.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2016)

I played 'keepy uppy' with Rudel....he was rubbish, I can't imagine why

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Aug 21, 2016)

I suppose a good definition of best might be "able to carry out it's design function the most effectively", but that probably opens a whole new can of worms.


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2016)

Ascent said:


> I suppose a good definition of best might be "able to carry out it's design function the most effectively", but that probably opens a whole new can of worms.



There was and is no 'best'. There were many capable aircraft. Throughout the entire war the most successful air forces were those that could maintain a significant core of experienced pilots and reinforce losses with pilots well enough trained to survive long enough to gain that experience. The pilot factor was far more important than any aircraft type.
The demise of the Luftwaffe and the Japanese air forces is directly linked to their inability to do this. 
In the context of this thread, a Luftwaffe 'expert' would likely get the most out of his new D-9, but was unlikely to be any more successful in it than in his previous aircraft. He would fight either type to its strengths, knowing the relative weaknesses of his opponents. A new and inexperienced pilot was just as likely to die in a D-9 as in his previous aircraft.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2016)

Ascent said:


> I suppose a good definition of best might be "able to carry out it's design function the most effectively", but that probably opens a whole new can of worms.


It may, but some other criteria also open up cans of worms.
Using a score board (for example) may favor early aircraft over later ones in a 6 year war. Later ones has less opportunity to post scores.
Early ones may have totally ineffective in original job in the last year/s of the war.

Greatest and Best may not be the same thing. Or highest scoring and best.

Some planes were definitely better than others. But it takes a very careful look at the figures to figure out the actual difference. For instance the perennial Spitire vs Hurricane in the BoB debate. The Spitfire shot down more German planes _on average _but since there were many more Hurricanes the Hurricanes shot down more in total. New pilots posted to squadrons survived longer in Spitfires than in Hurricanes _on average, _plenty of new Spitfire pilots were shot down on their first few missions and the difference was only few days (less than a week).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 23, 2016)

stona said:


> Maybe the Kiwis hope that by naming everything the black this or that, something of the aura of the mighty All Blacks will rub off!



Doubt It! Don't ask about the badminton team name... : Badminton: Black Cocks name reconsidered - Sport - NZ Herald News

Haaa haaa haa!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------

