Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited... (1 Viewer)

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

So consider how the aircraft is loaded and it's mission.

 

[swampyankee]

By "flat plate" do you mean drag area?

"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.

 

[DarrenW]

So consider how the aircraft is loaded and it's mission.

View attachment 479255

View attachment 479256

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 to perform as such.

 

[DarrenW]

"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.

Ah, I think I read something like that before somewhere. I understand that the P-51 had a larger "flat plate" drag than your average piston-engine Luftwaffe fighter but of course it was aerodynamically superior to them all, as far as most other measurements of drag were concerned anyway....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

As with a "stock" Fw 190.

 

[DarrenW]

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.

 

[wuzak]

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.....

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.

 

[*SkyChimp*]

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 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.

 

[DarrenW]

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.

Fair enough. I guess the next question would be is how many were configured for a fighter vs fighter role and how many as interceptors? I suspect the answer is hard to determine but as the war progressed the German High Command correctly realized that enemy bombers, not fighters, were the primary threat and started to focus their energy on bringing as many of them down as possible. Hence they selected the poorer altitude performing FW-190 as bomber "killers" and left the lighter and more maneuverable Bf-109 to handle the escort fighters.

Didn't mean to the focus so much on the skies over Germany. Are we also including the Eastern Front in our discussion as well???

 

[DarrenW]

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.

Very well put. But I just want to add that all fighters eventually become obsolete. The Hellcat wasn't the only casualty of time....

 

[*SkyChimp*]

Yep, they all do. These polls about what's best usually devolve into "what's your favorite" type discussions. For all our favorites, there is almost always something better. 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.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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,

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.

 

[DarrenW]

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.

Ivan, how the heck are you! Haven't heard from you in hours and was worried but I'm much better now. Yes, I knew you'd pounce on the opportunity to prove me wrong. There's strength in numbers so who could blame you?

Anyway you're just regurgitating what myself and others have been discussing while you took a break. We all understand the different "packaging" allotted to the FW-190 so you're a little late for the show as they say.

There is one thing you could help us with though. Did you happen to see my latest question, asking about the numbers of FW-190As that were dedicated fighters and dedicated bomber killers? Have any factoids to add that would enrich the discussion? I surely hope so because I've thoroughly enjoyed today's lessons and hope that tomorrow will bring even more sharing of knowledge amongst like minded people.....

 

[DarrenW]

The FW 190 with additional armor and extra heavy weapons was a formidable bomber killer indeed.

 

[DarrenW]

... 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.

It was a fairly competitive fighter once the right tactics were employed.

 

[DarrenW]

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

Aircraft will normally perform better once their weapons are expended.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Someone needs to stop being so damn pompous...

 

[wuzak]

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.

 

[DarrenW]

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.

I respect what you are trying to say here and I'm sorry if you feel misrepresented. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. My point from the beginning has always been not that there weren't different versions of the FW 190A which carried varying weapons and equipment, but that those configured for the bomber interceptor role were becoming increasingly vulnerable to allied fighter attacks. And once they left the ground they remained vulnerable as the added equipment for this mission couldn't be removed until after it landed. This meant that the pilot was flying an aircraft of reduced performance and was at a greater disadvantage throughout the flight.

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.

 

[*SkyChimp*]

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.

In the west? Primary role played by the Fw-190A during the latter half of 1944 to VE day? Easy. Target.

By this time, there were no safe airfields in Germany. All airfields in Germany from which any Luftwaffe fighters operated were being ravaged by ranging P-51s. Germany couldn't even train its pilots at this time without them being shot out of the air. What planes could get into the air were sent to intercept bombers. Others acted as fighter bombers. Bodenplatte was the Luftwaffe's last gasp and after that the Luftwaffe ceased to exist as a credible fighter force in the west. Whatever attibutes the Fw-190A had couldn't be exploited in the west at this time. Life expectancy of an experienced German pilot in the west was a fraction of what it was in the east. They had next to no fuel and some fighters had to be pulled to the runway for takeoff by horses so they wouldn't use fuel taxing. Some units were experiencing more that 100% aircraft losses per month. The Luftwaffe was desperate at this point and used their fighters almost exclusively to attack bombers. In fighter-on-fighter combat, German pilots were, by and large, simply trying to stay alive. The Fw-190A was dead as a credible defense against western fighters at this time.