Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

*SkyChimp* · Jan 8, 2018

Well, Grumman was impressed enough with the Fw-190 that it was considered in the developement of the F8F Bearcat. Grumman engineers studied and flew the exact Fw that was used in that test.

With respect to the argument that the F6F Hellcat couldn't compete over Europe. It's a rather academic assertion, as it wasn't intended to compete over Europe. It was intended to compete well out to sea where it had to rely on carriers for a place to land. Out over the pacific, the Fw190, as it was, would not have been able to compete with the F6F.

Add to, or replace, all the stuff on a Fw190 so as to make it a sutiable aircraft out in the middle of the Pacific, and you would get a plane that would be better than it was in some categories (wing loading, stall characterisitics, etc) and worse in some (climb, speed, etc.). They would be much more equal.

To be better than either, you'd have to design a new plane, taking the best of both - F8F Bearcat.

DarrenW · Jan 8, 2018

In early 1944 the US Navy conducted comparative trials and judged the Hellcat superior to the FW 190. Anything contrary to these findings would be conjecture only. Same goes for whether or not the Hellcat would survive over continental Europe.

Peter Gunn · Jan 10, 2018

DarrenW said:
WOW, now that was a cheap shot if I ever saw one! So in essence what you are saying is that the thousands of allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen who fought and died in the Pacific theater wasn't necessary? Don't ever say that in front of someone who either served there or has family/ friends that did as well. You must think that the allied military planners were a bunch of buffoons back then, don't you?

Not to stir the pot too much, but Tomo is right, Japan was never going to be in a position to dictate anything to the United States, there never was a real chance for them after starting the war the way they did ( sneak attack ) and with the limited resources they had or could hope to garner through conquest.

Nazi Germany on the other hand, was a valid threat to the civilized world, so yes, WWII was going to be decided in the skies over Europe, not the Pacific. To say this is not belittling anyone, it's simple fact, and I say this with the full backing of two uncles ( now gone West ) that served in the Air Corps in the Pacific, one flying out of New Guinea and the other the Solomon's.

Ivan1GFP · Jan 10, 2018

DarrenW said:
In early 1944 the US Navy conducted comparative trials and judged the Hellcat superior to the FW-190. Anything contrary to these findings would be conjecture only. Same goes for whether or not the Hellcat would survive over continental Europe.

<sigh>
That isn't really what the report says.
Reading Sections K and L of the report is quite revealing:

Section K states that the pilots involved judged the Corsair and Hellcat to be "preferred in actual combat operations".
This is not a surprising conclusion for pilots that were trained on USN types.
Note however that this is qualified as "General opinion of the pilots", not a conclusion of the report.

Section L gives suggestions on tactics when facing a FW 190 in combat. This one is REALLY interesting.
You can't out run him, out climb him and probably not out dive him either or the suggestion would have been made here.
You CAN out turn and loop tighter so try to get in close and sucker him into a turning fight.
This sounds exactly like the kind of advice that one might give to a A6M pilot facing a Corsair or Hellcat.
There would be a slight problem with a turn fight in that the FW 190's roll rate is better.

Now in the interest of fairness, these folks really did not ballast the FW 190A properly for a typical fighter variant.
There was no allowance for outboard wing guns, a centerline rack was not fitted and the aircraft even had center wheel fairings according to the description of repairs. As stated earlier, this FW 190A was set up to represent an armed photo recon aircraft as the designation would suggest.

Also, if one compares the tested version (captured April 1943) against the current version (probably FW 190A-8), one gets perhaps 80-100 more HP, but also gets Take Off weights in the 4300 kg to 4400 kg range which is about 1000 pounds heavier than what was tested here,

Hello Peter Gunn,
Yes, you stirred the pot!
Another indication of priorities and performance standards is the fact that the P-40 was completely obsolete as a fighter in Europe while it was still in front line service as a fighter in the Pacific.

- Ivan.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 10, 2018

A poster complained about this discussion being civil yet I see some pretty snarky remarks being thrown around. I'm watching this closely and if it continues I'll shut this thread down and send folks to the beach. I hope I'm coming through crystal clear!

Ivan1GFP · Jan 10, 2018

pbehn said:
No dog ever got close to a US bomber formation

Hi pbehn,

I can confirm that this is in fact not true:
My neighbor flew B-26 Marauders mostly in Italy during the war.
He told me that his dog sat behind his seat during missions. I suppose that this was an "Allied" dog and thus not a threat, though the dog's name was "88".

This discussion came about when I was building a model for him and found an object the size of a watermelon behind he pilot's seat and could not identify its purpose. He told me there was nothing there in his plane because his dog sat there.
It turns out that it was supposed to be an oxygen tank but apparently they never flew with it.

- Ivan.

pbehn · Jan 10, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Hi pbehn,

I can confirm that this is in fact not true:
My neighbor flew B-26 Marauders mostly in Italy during the war.
He told me that his dog sat behind his seat during missions. I suppose that this was an "Allied" dog and thus not a threat, though the dog's name was "88".

This discussion came about when I was building a model for him and found an object the size of a watermelon behind he pilot's seat and could not identify its purpose. He told me there was nothing there in his plane because his dog sat there.
It turns out that it was supposed to be an oxygen tank but apparently they never flew with it.

- Ivan.

What type of dog? Snauser? Alsatian? Dachshund? Was it Italian? Can foreign dogs be trusted on a mission?

DarrenW · Jan 10, 2018

Peter Gunn said:
Not to stir the pot too much, but Tomo is right, Japan was never going to be in a position to dictate anything to the United States, there never was a real chance for them after starting the war the way they did ( sneak attack ) and with the limited resources they had or could hope to garner through conquest.

Nazi Germany on the other hand, was a valid threat to the civilized world, so yes, WWII was going to be decided in the skies over Europe, not the Pacific. To say this is not belittling anyone, it's simple fact, and I say this with the full backing of two uncles ( now gone West ) that served in the Air Corps in the Pacific, one flying out of New Guinea and the other the Solomon's.

Ivan1GFP said:
<sigh>

That isn't really what the report says.
Reading Sections K and L of the report is quite revealing:

Section K states that the pilots involved judged the Corsair and Hellcat to be "preferred in actual combat operations".
This is not a surprising conclusion for pilots that were trained on USN types.
Note however that this is qualified as "General opinion of the pilots", not a conclusion of the report.

Section L gives suggestions on tactics when facing a FW 190 in combat. This one is REALLY interesting.
You can't out run him, out climb him and probably not out dive him either or the suggestion would have been made here.
You CAN out turn and loop tighter so try to get in close and sucker him into a turning fight.
This sounds exactly like the kind of advice that one might give to a A6M pilot facing a Corsair or Hellcat.
There would be a slight problem with a turn fight in that the FW 190's roll rate is better.

Now in the interest of fairness, these folks really did not ballast the FW 190A properly for a typical fighter variant.
There was no allowance for outboard wing guns, a centerline rack was not fitted and the aircraft even had center wheel fairings according to the description of repairs. As stated earlier, this FW 190A was set up to represent an armed photo recon aircraft as the designation would suggest.

Also, if one compares the tested version (captured April 1943) against the current version (probably FW 190A-8), one gets perhaps 80-100 more HP, but also gets Take Off weights in the 4300 kg to 4400 kg range which is about 1000 pounds heavier than what was tested here,

Hello Peter Gunn,
Yes, you stirred the pot!
Another indication of priorities and performance standards is the fact that the P-40 was completely obsolete as a fighter in Europe while it was still in front line service as a fighter in the Pacific.

- Ivan.

This has been a great discussion guys, but when it's all said and done we will just have to agree to disagree. And it's probably a better idea to start another thread concerning the importance of the Pacific War because it has no place in this thread. I think we all can at least agree on that point, right?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 11, 2018

DarrenW said:
Please create another thread if you are hell-bent on starting another debate that has nothing to do with the thread's original purpose....

And you can let the moderators do the moderating.

Play nice...

DarrenW · Jan 11, 2018

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
And you can let the moderators do the moderating.

Play nice...

Yes, my comment was only a suggestion, yours is what counts...

DarrenW · Jan 12, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Oops. Almost forgot to mention:
If anyone has a clear photograph of the FW 190A used for this test, it is fairly easy to tell whether this was a A-4 or A-5 variant.
The A-5 is 15 cm longer and this can be seen at the junction of the Cowl and Wing Root.
I have a very very grainy photograph on the first page of my report but can't tell without doing a bunch of comparisons with other photgraphs and even then I may not be so sure.

- Ivan.

Will these do? Not sure if it is the actual aircraft mentioned in the report but it's referenced as one that was flown by the US Navy in 1944.

tomo pauk · Jan 12, 2018

The 1st photo is excellent, it shows the 'insert' between te engine cowl and wing root, so it should be and A-5 or later model. Also note how the side of fuselage, right in front of air slots is longer sheet metal. Comparison of Fw 190A-4 and A-5: picture
The front Dzus fasteners are also tell-tale signs.

DarrenW · Jan 12, 2018

After looking closely at the photo I thought that was the difference but thanks for confirming it.

What would be the latest model of FW-190 in use by late '43/early '44?

tomo pauk · Jan 12, 2018

I've also noted the doors for the radio compartment feature vertical pair of fasteneres, so again pointing to A-5 (or later).
The latest in 1943 was probably the A-6 (main difference that all canons are of same type, bar the anti-bomber versions). By early 1944 the A-7 is there, main visible difference switch from cowl LMGs to HMGs for negligible increase in total firepower, and increase in drag.

DarrenW · Jan 12, 2018

Good observations. So would you say then that the apex of the A series as a pure air-to-air fighter was with the A-5, after that the airplane was increasingly engineered as a heavy bomber destroyer and ground attack machine?

Ivan1GFP · Jan 12, 2018

Hello DarrenW, Tomo Pauk,

I agree with Tomo Pauk that this is certainly a FW 190A-5 or later.
Between the A-4 and A-5 there are perhaps 2.5 fairly prominent differences:
1. The Leading Edge of the Wing Root Fairing has an extension. This can be seen by the two scalloped panel lines on the A-5 as versus one panel line as on the A-4.
2. The Front Latch on the cover for the Cowl Armament Bay is much closer to the cowl edge on the A-4 than on the A-5.
3. On the A-4 and earlier, the vents to the engine accessory area were simple slots. On the A-5 and later, the vents are covered by adjustable plates. This feature I call the 1/2 recognition feature because this is right behind the engine exhausts and often so grimy that it is hard to tell exactly what is there and because I have also heard that some of the last A-4s had the type of vent usually seen on later aircraft.

Of the FW 190A series, this was probably one of the better performing models made even more so by the light ballasting as I mentioned earlier. It is ballasted as a Photo Recon while a real "Fighter" would have had a couple 20 mm MG FF cannon in the outer wing.

Characterizing later variants as all fighter bombers and bomber killers doesn't really do them justice.
There were quite a few fighter variants as well. The problem was that additional equipment added quite a lot of extra weight.
The cowl guns were changed from 7.92 mm to 13.2 mm and outboard cannon were changed to MG 151/20 and an extra fuel tank was added behind the cockpit bringing the normal loaded weight up to around 4380 KG or 9652 pounds.
Note that this number varies from 4300 KG to 4400 KG depending on the reference.

Note also that although the engine designation remained BMW 801D-2, there were improvements that brought take-off / sea level power up to about 1750 HP and increased Emergency Power and power at altitude.

As for the hottest pure air superiority version of the FW 190A, my vote goes to the FW 190A-9. It had a significantly more powerful engine and often deleted the two outboard wing cannon but unfortunately there were very few built. The FW 190A-9 still was not quite as good as the FW 190D which had even more power, a better supercharger and weighed less.

- Ivan.

swampyankee · Jan 13, 2018

Is this becoming a paean to the FW190?

It was a good fighter, but not quite so superior as some seem to think.

Ivan1GFP · Jan 13, 2018

Hello Swampyankee,

Just attempting to answer a question that was posted.

Just like any other fighter of the time, the FW 190A was a balance of characteristics.
In my opinion it was a great all around fighter for the time, but had its weaknesses.
Many of the Russian fighters had better low altitude performance and maneuverability.
Most of the US and British fighters in Europe had better high altitude performance.

I already commented that my own vote in this Poll was for the Spitfire XIV, but that aeroplane hat its faults as well.

- Ivan.

tomo pauk · Jan 13, 2018

DarrenW said:
Good observations. So would you say then that the apex of the A series as a pure air-to-air fighter was with the A-5, after that the airplane was increasingly engineered as a heavy bomber destroyer and ground attack machine?

My vote for the apex will probably go to the A-6, it sported more firepower than earlier versions (and cannon fire was of same muzzle velocity), while not as draggy as the A-7 and later. Though I'd delete the cowl MGs and install the external air ram intakes to improve high alt performance, that was an easy expedient.

Ivan1GFP said:
...
Note also that although the engine designation remained BMW 801D-2, there were improvements that brought take-off / sea level power up to about 1750 HP and increased Emergency Power and power at altitude.

As for the hottest pure air superiority version of the FW 190A, my vote goes to the FW 190A-9. It had a significantly more powerful engine and often deleted the two outboard wing cannon but unfortunately there were very few built. The FW 190A-9 still was not quite as good as the FW 190D which had even more power, a better supercharger and weighed less.

- Ivan.

Thanks for the pic, it is a handy reference.
The D-9 have had less power at altitude than A-9, it's supercharger was not better. The weight was less if it didn't sported outboard cannons. The hi-alt power of the BMW 801D2 remained the same from late 1942 to late 1944 (unless GM1 was used), by what time the 801S entered production.

swampyankee said:
Is this becoming a paean to the FW190?
It was a good fighter, but not quite so superior as some seem to think.

It as a very good fighter, superior was perhaps between late 1941 to mid 1943, with Spitfire IX and Typhoon sharing the accolade in that time, plus P-38 in some instances. That is before we account for reliability problems and other issues of all the named A/C. After mid 1943, Allies were coming in with better mounts that degraded Fw 190s into average class.

swampyankee · Jan 13, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Swampyankee,

Just attempting to answer a question that was posted.

Just like any other fighter of the time, the FW 190A was a balance of characteristics.
In my opinion it was a great all around fighter for the time, but had its weaknesses.
Many of the Russian fighters had better low altitude performance and maneuverability.
Most of the US and British fighters in Europe had better high altitude performance.

I already commented that my own vote in this Poll was for the Spitfire XIV, but that aeroplane hat its faults as well.

- Ivan.

No aircraft was perfect, but their relative superiority can't be quantified unless a lot of externals are factored out, like pilot quality and tactics.

Bluntly, a lot of the critcism of the tests of the FW190 vs Allied aircraft shrieks of special pleading. And don't get me started about the "brilliant fan-cooled engine." If everybody else manages without a power-sucking fan, why is it so smart to add one?

Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

Best Dogfighter Between 15,000 - 35,000 feet......

Tempest Mk V

F6F-3 Hellcat

P-47D Thunderbolt

A6M Zero

P-51D Mustang

Me-262A Schwalbe

P-38L Lightning

Me-109E/F

Spitfire Mk IX / XIV

Fw-190D-9

F4U-1D Corsair

Yak-3M

La-5FN

Hayate Ki-84-IA

Kawanishi N1K2-J

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Attachments

Creator of Interesting Threads

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads