Good post except in many cases "runway" could be substituted for "autobahn"
Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...
- Thread starter lesofprimus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
That's a great summation Sky Chimp, you crammed a lot of good information into such a small space. 
Besides this however, I was also hoping for a listing of known FW-190 units and the types they had on hand, in whatever form that may be (by month, unit, version, numbers, ect.). I'm only interested in the last 12 months of the war or so, and primarily units that served within the confines of Germany proper. Does this data even exist, or am I asking way too much?
Lastly, I would also like someone who is fluent in the German language to help decipher these test documents:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
I think I understand most of it but would like someone to verify exactly what is being expressed because I don't want to assume anything.
Thanks in advance!
Besides this however, I was also hoping for a listing of known FW-190 units and the types they had on hand, in whatever form that may be (by month, unit, version, numbers, ect.). I'm only interested in the last 12 months of the war or so, and primarily units that served within the confines of Germany proper. Does this data even exist, or am I asking way too much?
Lastly, I would also like someone who is fluent in the German language to help decipher these test documents:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
I think I understand most of it but would like someone to verify exactly what is being expressed because I don't want to assume anything.
Thanks in advance!
I really must challenge this post. Firstly, I do not "lurk" I read posts, and this is a forum. Kill ratios are what they are, whether they are important or not becomes clear later when the war is over. In a war you have battles, you have conflicts and you have skirmishes then sometimes you have a rout.Ooops! Be very careful mentioning the dreaded "kill ratio" as there are people lurking in the shadows, ready to challenge what actually constitutes an aerial victory and whether or not it even has a place when talking about which aircraft was the "best dogfighter".
This is an aviation forum and so importance is given to aviation operation but there were only a few cases where aviation was decisive. If the Me109 had its historic kill ratio over England (as the nearest part of UK to France) and Malta then history would have been much different. It didn't, so whatever it and the FW190 did is of no importance in the western war because the LW and Germany with the Axis powers as a whole lost those critical battles, and even though Malta was an air battle it was also a sea and submarine battle too. In the Battle of Britain on Fighter versus fighter kill ratios the LW won, but they didn't win because they achieved zero. At Malta the RAF losses were high and Malta was the most bombed place on earth at the time but LW air power did not prevail. The Axis military (remember Italy was also involved) were driven out of Africa eventually while Joachim Marseilles was becoming a legend. However the LW in Africa were only ever fighting their own private war and a rearguard action, their fighters were trying to stop RAF and later USA fighters, fighter bombers and bombers.......how many bombers did the LW have in Africa, despite their high kill ratio it was just desperate defence.
For the war in the east I have my own theories and ideas, here is the gist of it, though I have not read extensively. In the Battle of Britain (and many conflicts) the majority of kills were where the victim was caught "unawares". In Operation Bagration the LW had 600 aircraft while the Russians had 7,000 aircraft on a front that was well over 1000 miles long. Below on the ground the Russians had 6000 tanks and assault guns and the Axis had about 600. It may be callous but Stalin was callous, the loss of a fighter pilot was no more significant to him than infantryman or tank commander, he was concerned with winning ground not a kill ratio.
In the war in the Pacific, although in principle the Japanese were in a losing situation before Pearl Harbour, if Midway, Coral Sea and Leyte Gulf had run differently then history would be different. Those battles were not really won or lost by the aircraft performance but by decisions made. However, if you consider that the US torpedo attacks were unsuccessful because the torpedoes didn't work, imagine what would have happened if the dive bombers bombs did not explode either? Don't laugh, that is what happened in the Falkland conflict almost 30 years later.
Hello DarrenW,
You gotta figure out which planes had lots of armour or guns and which ones just carried a lot of ordnance.
It isn't hard from the descriptions I wrote and I am sure some folks could write about a few more variants.
You really need to read what was written rather than what you want things to be.
I don't claim to know all that much about the FW 190 series but I HAVE been reading things written by people who do.
If you didn't learn anything new from my last post, then obviously you know much more than I do regarding the various configurations and missions of the FW 190 series and are coming to stupid conclusions just to prompt more discussion.
My apologies for attempting to educate you because clearly it is not working.
- Ivan.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thanks Ivan and Pbehn, I appreciate your candid opinions. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings here. No offense but maybe this forum isn't the one for me. Caring for a wife with brain cancer for the past ten years has probably hardened me a bit, so I don't sweat the small stuff anymore. I should've known better than to think others can overlook the same things that I've learned overtime really don't amount to a hill of beans.
Again, I apologize for offending anyone's view of aviation history, or for that matter threatening their established beliefs on any topic, no matter how insignificant I may or may not think that topic to be......Adios Amigos.
Again, I apologize for offending anyone's view of aviation history, or for that matter threatening their established beliefs on any topic, no matter how insignificant I may or may not think that topic to be......Adios Amigos.
Seriously?
First of all, I hope your wife is beating the cancer. My best wishes for a good outcome.
Secondly, the irony of the rest of your post. You come in here very pompous and on a high horse, and expect people to not react the way they did? You are not the only one who studies aviation history. Maybe it is you whose established beliefs are threatened...
Now it is obvious that you are a knowledgable person, but so is the majority of this forum. That however does not mean you know everything, nor does it mean that anyone else here does.
The purpose of this forum is to exchange views, ideas and information, and most of all learn from each other. It is a place to debate, but debate is only valuable when you don't try and dictate the terms to everyone else.
You come across like this: "Someone tell me about exhibit A. In reality though, it does not matter what you tell me, because I already know it all."
Lastly, debate is only functional when you don't make subtle snide, and quite honestly insulting comments, then try and play it off as it not being your intent. No, it was obvious it was your intent.
So it's up to you. You can choose to stay (I hope you do.), and be productive, or you can go find a new home and probably get the same feedback there.
If not, take care...
First of all, I hope your wife is beating the cancer. My best wishes for a good outcome.
Secondly, the irony of the rest of your post. You come in here very pompous and on a high horse, and expect people to not react the way they did? You are not the only one who studies aviation history. Maybe it is you whose established beliefs are threatened...
Now it is obvious that you are a knowledgable person, but so is the majority of this forum. That however does not mean you know everything, nor does it mean that anyone else here does.
The purpose of this forum is to exchange views, ideas and information, and most of all learn from each other. It is a place to debate, but debate is only valuable when you don't try and dictate the terms to everyone else.
You come across like this: "Someone tell me about exhibit A. In reality though, it does not matter what you tell me, because I already know it all."
Lastly, debate is only functional when you don't make subtle snide, and quite honestly insulting comments, then try and play it off as it not being your intent. No, it was obvious it was your intent.
So it's up to you. You can choose to stay (I hope you do.), and be productive, or you can go find a new home and probably get the same feedback there.
If not, take care...
Last edited:
*SkyChimp*
Airman
- 36
- Jan 7, 2018
By mid 1944 there were a few German airbases outside "Germany proper" but as time went on they were all inside Germany. They had to move as they were getting over-run by the western allies and the Russians. By 1945, there was scarcely a difference between the air forces dedicated to the eastern front and the western front, as German planes could fly to one as easily as the other. In 1945, types that were still operating successfully (somewhat) in the east, ie Ju-87, were being seen in the west because the air front in the east and west had mostly converged.
It seems in late summer 1944 deliveries of Fw-190s were still brisk, about 1,000 per month. The principal types produced appear to be late model As, Gs and Fs. As 1945 drug on, these deliveries ever decreased as the Russians began overrunning manufacturing facilities. In late 1944 on, units appears to have been operating a mishmash of Fw-190Ds, A-5 and later, Gs and some Fs. I'm not sure many units had the luxury of having single types assigned to them, with some units flying Bf-109s and Fw-190s together.
From William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich," here's the principal Fw-190 units in April 1945.
Are you still interested in those?
I am fluent in German, but unfortunately do not have the time at the moment. Sorry...
Having said that, I doubt he is still interested. He pretty much said we are not his cup of tea.
Having said that, I doubt he is still interested. He pretty much said we are not his cup of tea.
You don't have to be fluent in German to read what is on these graphs.
My German is quite poor and it is not difficult to figure out what is there.
It is hard to read the exact model designations but the weapons listed will give that information.
Regarding the recent events, I find it quite ironic that DarrenW was trying to give me a hard time for "not responding in hours" and has his own excuse for being such an a$$. Sometimes real life intrudes and takes precedence over online amusements.
My Wife and I spent basically the entire day yesterday taking my Daughter to doctors' visits and then dropping her back at school and getting her settled so no computer access until pretty late in the evening.
- Ivan.
My German is quite poor and it is not difficult to figure out what is there.
It is hard to read the exact model designations but the weapons listed will give that information.
Regarding the recent events, I find it quite ironic that DarrenW was trying to give me a hard time for "not responding in hours" and has his own excuse for being such an a$$. Sometimes real life intrudes and takes precedence over online amusements.
My Wife and I spent basically the entire day yesterday taking my Daughter to doctors' visits and then dropping her back at school and getting her settled so no computer access until pretty late in the evening.
- Ivan.
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Best wishes for your daughter's recovery and her remaining school term. The graphs are well drawn and detailed, and I tend to think they detail performance curves. Many websites offer translation services at no charge- the only exception being Russian, with the cryllic (sic) alphabet. Viel gluck..
Firstly best wishes to your wife and family including yourself at a difficult time.
Secondly I am not offended, I do get slightly irritated when emotive language like "unbridled adulation" and "lurking" are used on this forum. There are well read posters here who could easily be described as historians themselves as there are experts in air combat and aerodynamics, I am not one of them but I do enjoy their posts. When these posters give you their opinion and the facts that support them you still disagree and ask for more detailed information including translations, but a summary is too short and a full explanation is too long, and in any case you may consider the topic you introduced to be insignificant.
Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
Thanks for the good wishes. Actually the doctors' visits were just routine (orthodontist and allergist) so she is basically well. It was a matter of seeing the doctors now because the next time she will be back will be Spring break.
Both graphs are for FW 190A-8 and A-8/R-something variants.
The R number isn't very readable but the armament in the last column (outer wing position) gives an indication as to what variant is described.
I also can't read about half of the entries for number of rounds per gun under the weapons descriptions in the last column.
First graph gives climb rates and times (as one might gather from the file name).
All values are with "Steig u. Kampfleistung" or Climb and Combat Power - 2400 RPM & 1.32 ATA
Second graph gives Horizontal Speed (Maximum Speed)
All entries in the tabular data are for "Start u. Notleistung" or Take-Off and Emergency Power - 2700 RPM & 1.42 ATA
Note that at 8,000 meters altitude, there is a jag and an additional higher performance curve that seems disconnected and I do not know what that means. FWIW, the maximum speed with that short curve works out to about 409 MPH @ 26,250 feet for the FW 190A-8 which seems to be around the typical listed maximum speed in books but is at a much higher altitude.
Perhaps someone here knows the meaning of this short curve which exists in both graphs for all models?
- Ivan.
The 'jag' is for GM1 use.
Thanks for the explanation. That might explain why the weights are a bit lower than expected for A-8 with the Aft Fuel Tank installed.
I was thinking that this table for 1943 was early enough in the A-8 production that although there was provision for the third fuel tank, it was not installed by default. I believe the GM1 tank would have been in the same place as the fuel tank so it was one or the other.
That brings up a few more questions though:
The Emergency Power setting is still listed as 1.42 ATA and maximum level speed for the clean A-8 is not quite 400 MPH at 6200 meters (20,340 feet). I did not believe that the power adders were mutually exclusive.
- Ivan.
Yes, it was either the 3rd fuel tank or GM1 tank (item 50):
*With regard to the altitude of use*, power adders - GM-1 vs. MW 50 - were mutually exclusive. GM-1 was used when supercharger was inable to provide enough of boost, ie. at very high altitude. At 8 km, the supercharger of the BMW 801D was providing barely above 1 ata of boost ('Laderdruck', link), pilot was to activate GM-1 system that provided extra oxygen to the engine. At lower altitudes, the supercharger was providing plenty of boost (= plenty of air), indeed too much for engine to withstand unless means of supressing detonations were used. Those will be high octane fuel, or water spray, or both.
Fw 190A-8 performance with overboost (shaded, used under the rated altitudes) and GM-1 (at high altitude):
*edited part*
Last edited:
Hello Tomo Pauk,
Perhaps my terminology "power adder" was incorrect. I was actually thinking of either C3 Injection or Erhoehte Notleistung though I don't remember when each was available. It was already clear that either a Fuel Tank or a Water Methanol Tank or a Nitrous Oxide Tank could be carried behind the cockpit and that only one could be mounted. Neither C3 Einspritzung or Erhoehte Notleistung should have needed equipment located in the same position as a GM1 tank.
Since the boost pressures are specified on your performance graphs, this graph would appear to cover at least the case of Erhoehte Notleistung. It surprises me that even with the increased boost pressure of 1.58 ATA / 1.65 ATA, the maximum level speed was only about 405 MPH with the A-8s. I had thought they were a bit faster than that.
Contrast that with the A-5 Jabo-Rei that reached 410 MPH with 1.46 ATA in the USN test we have been discussing and the G-3 that was tested at 415 MPH at Wright Field. Neither was a fighter variant as I presume these A-8 tp be. Both US tests had the aircraft ballasted to much lighter Take-Off weights than a typical A-8 but that should not make this much difference. Could the test protocols be that different?
- Ivan.
Perhaps my terminology "power adder" was incorrect. I was actually thinking of either C3 Injection or Erhoehte Notleistung though I don't remember when each was available. It was already clear that either a Fuel Tank or a Water Methanol Tank or a Nitrous Oxide Tank could be carried behind the cockpit and that only one could be mounted. Neither C3 Einspritzung or Erhoehte Notleistung should have needed equipment located in the same position as a GM1 tank.
Since the boost pressures are specified on your performance graphs, this graph would appear to cover at least the case of Erhoehte Notleistung. It surprises me that even with the increased boost pressure of 1.58 ATA / 1.65 ATA, the maximum level speed was only about 405 MPH with the A-8s. I had thought they were a bit faster than that.
Contrast that with the A-5 Jabo-Rei that reached 410 MPH with 1.46 ATA in the USN test we have been discussing and the G-3 that was tested at 415 MPH at Wright Field. Neither was a fighter variant as I presume these A-8 tp be. Both US tests had the aircraft ballasted to much lighter Take-Off weights than a typical A-8 but that should not make this much difference. Could the test protocols be that different?
- Ivan.
You are right, of course. My line of thinking was that GM-1 was to be used where, ie. at what altitude, where the MW50 or simple over-boosting ('Erhoehte Notleistung') could not. I'll edit the previous post accordingly.
The A-8 was, along with A-7 and A-9, draggiest of the Antons. The over-boosting will add good deal of under the rated height(s), but since that includes flying at lower altitudes, the gain in max speed will not be that great. We can compare Spitfire I, II or V with emergency boost vs. normal boost. Granted, speed & climb gains will be noticeable at lower altitudes.
There was a reason why people went on with ever better superchargers - those improve boost (thus improve power) at higher altitudes, where the air is thinner so gains in speed will be also higher.
Jabo Rei ('Jagdbomber mit vergrößerte Reichweite', or 'fighter-bomber with increased range') were armed just with a pair of guns (MG 151/20), so in clean state they will be faster than an usual 6-gun Fw 190A.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
I notice you started your list of "draggiest" with the A-7.
The big difference between A-7 and earlier was the MG 131 substitution for 7.92 mm cowl guns.
By eyeball, that looked to be a fairly clean installation.
The ETC 501 rack also became standard at about that time which would have cost something.
Besides those two external changes, there should have been very little difference between A-8 and earlier versions.
Weight was increased (about 400 pounds from the A-5 and 200 pounds from the A-6) but that should not have cost 15 MPH in maximum speed.
- Ivan.
I notice you started your list of "draggiest" with the A-7.
The big difference between A-7 and earlier was the MG 131 substitution for 7.92 mm cowl guns.
By eyeball, that looked to be a fairly clean installation.
The ETC 501 rack also became standard at about that time which would have cost something.
Besides those two external changes, there should have been very little difference between A-8 and earlier versions.
Weight was increased (about 400 pounds from the A-5 and 200 pounds from the A-6) but that should not have cost 15 MPH in maximum speed.
- Ivan.
One test result pointed into 10 km/h loss when MG 131 installation (replacing MG 17 installation) was tested on the A-5 (link). The belly rack will cost some speed, indeed. You might check out illustration on your post #516.
Cost was not 15 mph between fighter versions powered with 801D engine, but 15 km/h from A-3 to A-8 (and probably already with A-7, that I don't have firm figures) 660 km/h down to 645 km/h. In clean condition, Jabo Rei versions should be faster than fighter versions due to lower weapon-related drag.
