FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?

Milosh · Mar 20, 2018

Yes the rack interfered with the operation of the inner doors.

DarrenW · Mar 20, 2018

Milosh said:
Yes the rack interfered with the operation of the inner doors.

Thanks for the quick response and verification.

wuzak · Mar 20, 2018

DarrenW said:
Also, could the lower portion of the rack be readily removed in order to decrease drag, or was it permanently attached to the top fuselage mounting?

I would imagine it rather pointless to carry the lower portion, the stabilizing arms, as the aircraft could not then carry a bomb or fuel tank on the carrier. Simpler to remove the rack altogether if it was not required.

DarrenW · Mar 20, 2018

wuzak said:
I would imagine it rather pointless to carry the lower portion, the stabilizing arms, as the aircraft could not then carry a bomb or fuel tank on the carrier. Simpler to remove the rack altogether if it was not required.

True, I was just assuming that removing the stabilizing arms was a quick affair, much like the TERs that are mounted on aircraft hard points today (the wing rack is considered an integral part of the airframe and not normally removed). But if the entire rack is easy to remove, than that would definitely be the best course of action.

DarrenW · Mar 20, 2018

So my next question is, how prevalent was it for German fighters to have this device installed on their fighters? I know that the F6F-5 would at the very least carry a single bomb rack inboard on it's right wing, as this was considered a normal "combat" configuration for the airplane. Was the ETC Rack also considered a combat necessity for the FW-190 or Me-109? It would seem that many had this rack installed, if only going by the numerous photos that I have seen up to this point.

mstennes · Nov 30, 2019

GregP said:
The one in the US Museum (National Air and Space Museum) is an Fw 190D-9, Werksnummer 601088.

I have heard otherwise about the Ta 152s, particularly the Ta 152Cs, but have no particular primary source for it. Heard it YEARS ago, unsubstiatiated. I have no issue one way or the other with their last assignments.

I have also read that when the war ended, there were exactly two Ta 152s still operational of 43 or so the delivered aircraft, both Ta 152Cs. That from several sources, including William Green (and others, probably quoting Green). Sounds about like the right number remaining operational for what was essentially an unsupported (logistics-wise) run of brand new models that were not yet released for operational use. I bet there quite a few with little wrong with them, but no spares to fix them with.

Glad some survive and wish one or more were able to fly today. We have an Fw 190 replica flyable at the museum, but it is a radial engine unit, with an R-2800 in it. Very pretty, I must say. And the oil cooling issue was fixed with decidedly non-stock under-wing radiators. Minor, but noticeable to an Fw 190 fan.

The D13 is at The Flying Heritage Museum, supposedly it is airworthy but will not fly as it's the only one, they do from time to time taxi it around.

GregP said:
That particular airplane will start, but cannot fly because some carburetor parts are missing and only the engine idle circuit is working. It starts up about half the times they try it. If they had a complete carburetor for the Jumo 213, it could fly. Perhaps they are looking and will find one sometime. It is a beautiful airplane up close.

Regarding the Ta 152H, it SHOULD have been somewhat of a pig down low due to the long wings when compared with the shorter-winged versions, but contemporary flight reports say otherwise. They say it retained good roll even with the long wings. To me, that is very interesting as most long-wing planes are not good rollers.

Here it is:

View attachment 478723

Altogether a beautiful plane. Seems a real shame it can't fly occasionally. But, that is just my opinion. Many would not fly it even if they could. The two schools of thought aren't likely to get together anytime soon.

It's fuel injection as noted, but what is missing and incomplete is the throttle control, it can taxi but that's it. They say it won't fly because it's the only one, but they restored a ME262 with original Jumo's that they plan on flying, and are working on their JU87 to fly. So who knows?

Reluctant Poster · Dec 1, 2019

alejandro_ said:
Many thanks Shortround6. I will have a look to the P-38 data to update the chart. I also plan to create another with the climb performance.

I made a typo when mentioning the P-47, as you say it is end of 1942.

The P40F isn't appear until 1942

FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?

More options

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

DarrenW

Staff Sergeant

wuzak

Captain

DarrenW

Staff Sergeant

DarrenW

Staff Sergeant

mstennes

Airman

Reluctant Poster

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads