Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So consider how the aircraft is loaded and it's mission.I agree with you that under this guise it was configured as a bomber interceptor but once airborne the added weight of additional armor and heavy cannon could not be removed (even the jettisonable rocket tubes left some drag provoking hardware still in place), which would leave them much more vulnerable to the accompanying escort fighters.
By "flat plate" do you mean drag area?
So consider how the aircraft is loaded and it's mission.
View attachment 479255
View attachment 479256
"Flat plate" is the area of a square, flat plate with the same drag as the aircraft. I tend to think it's a lousy measure, because a small aircraft with the drag profile of a barn door will have a smaller equivalent flat plate area than an efficient, larger aircraft.
As with a "stock" Fw 190.Those are very sexy pictures, thanks for posting them!And yes, the Hellcat could be configured as a ground attack aircraft but it still carried the same armor plating as one that wasn't. But after "disposing" of it's bombs and rockets during flight it would be in it's more familiar guise as a pure air superiority fighter, with no added weight or drag, and able perform as such.
Yes, without these devices, but again the Luftwaffe pilot didn't have the same luxury because he couldn't dispose of the added weight accorded to the extra armor and weapons in flight like that Hellcat pilot, or for that matter most allied fighters, could.As with a "stock" Fw 190.
Yes, without these devices, but again the Luftwaffe pilot didn't have the same luxury because he couldn't dispose of the added weight accorded to the extra armor and weapons in flight like that Hellcat pilot, or for that matter most allied fighters, could. If he were jumped he'd be a sitting duck.....
Hello DarrenW,
The Hellcat was in service at the right time against the right enemy. Even toward the end of the war the latest Japanese fighters were performing better.
At the end of the war, the Corsair remained in service while the Hellcat did not. In fact many of the F6F-3s were expended as target drones and guided missiles.
- Ivan.
I think the point that Flyboy is making is that those Fw 190s with additional armour were specialised variants built for a specific task.
The regular variants could be configured to carry the same weapons, but with less armour, and would obviously perform better than the specialised variant once the weapons were expended.
It's OK to use a regular fighter for the occasional ground attack mission, but if it was to be the primary use for the aircraft additional armour would have to be a good thing. After all, anti-aircraft defences could have substantially more firepower than is carried in an average WW2 fighter.
I agree with all this.
Toward the end of the war, the Japanese were producing some very competent fighters that equaled or exceeded some of the performance attritbutes of the F6F. These were fighters that were just being placed into service in 1945 when the F6F had been fighting since mid 1943. The Japanese never had enough of them, and certainly didn't have the pilots that could exploit the capabilities of their new planes.
The F6F was the right plane at the right time. Easy to fly, fast enough, rugged as hell, low stall speed, great deck handling characteristics. The Navy had a metric sh*t-load of them, and a huge quantity of pilots able to fly them. It met the Navy's need until the end of the war. So there was no need, like the Germans and Japanese had, to rush better and better planes into service. But there is no denying the F6F was obsolete in August 1944 when the first XF8F flew. Indeed, its obselence was anticipated in 1943 when the requirement for the F8F was issued.
As far as the F6F not remaining in service after the war, except in the roles you mentioned - It's true. There was no future in the F6F except as a reserve aircraft, trainer, or drone. It shouldn't have remained in service. Its replacement, the F8F, was already a developed fighter and making its way to more and more squadrons. The F8F is arguably the best piston engined fighter to see service with any nation. But even it couldn't compete with the F4U in meeting the Navy's need. The F4U-4 was as fast or faster, carried a larger load further.
Maybe Grumman didn't know it then, but once the F4U flew, the handwriting was on the wall for Grumman piston engined fighters.
Yes, without these devices, but again the Luftwaffe pilot didn't have the same luxury because he couldn't dispose of the added weight accorded to the extra armor and weapons in flight like that Hellcat pilot, or for that matter most allied fighters, could. If he were jumped he'd be a sitting duck.....
Ivan, how the heck are you!Hello DarrenW,
Actually you are incorrect as several folks have already pointed out.
There were specialized variants with a LOT of armour and different weapons that Wuzak mentioned.
Those were made to cruise right up behind a B-17 formation and getting shot at all the way in.
Those were the Sturmbock aircraft. Regardless of armour protection, survival rate was not very high.
They were pretty useless in fighter versus fighter combat and required protection from enemy fighters.
There were the fighter bomber or Jabo / Jabo-Rei. Jabo-Rei was the term for the "Long Range" versions.
The captured FW 190A-5 that we have been discussing was probably one of those, most likely a FW 190A-5/U8 in original configuration.
They were not "fast" when carrying a lot of ordnance and carried a bit more armour than the fighters but once the ordnance was dropped, they were quite credible low altitude fighters. In fact, because of the lesser gun armament, they were typically lighter than the equivalent fighter.
The engines were tuned a bit differently than for fighters which is why there was not as much performance at altitude.
There were other bomber interceptor versions or ground attack versions that carried such heavy loads of cannon as to compromise maneuverability and Aufklarer (reconnaissance) that carried reduced armament and probably a zillion other versions for very specific purposes.
The there were the pure fighter versions which were pretty comparable in equipment to those from the United States.
- Ivan.
... My favorite was the F4F Wildcat. No one would ever pick that plane as best at anything. But it fought the Japense and achieved something like a 6-7:1 kill ratio in the Pacific.
The regular variants could be configured to carry the same weapons, but with less armour, and would obviously perform better than the specialised variant once the weapons were expended
And just to clarify, ALL aircraft will normally perform better once their weapons are expended. This includes heavy bombers, such as the B-17, B-24, and B-29. The FW-190 didn't have the monopoly on this feature.
You misrepresent what I said.
An equivalent for the B-17 would be the YB-40.
The YB-40 performance was similar to the regular B-17 when heading to the target, when the regular B-17s had their bombs and the YB-40s had their ammo. But when the B-17s had dropped their bombs and the YB-40s shot off their ammo, the YB-40s could not keep up with the B-17s.
If someone could fill in some of the blank spaces regarding the primary roles played by the FW-190A series during the latter half of 1944 until VE day we would have a better understanding of the FW-190As abilities as a pure air-to-air fighter during this period. This in a nutshell is what I'm after. Maybe this isn't the best place to find it, but I was hoping that the collective knowledge found here on this forum may hold that answer to this question.