The stall speed is when the wing stops producing enough lift to keep the aircraft in the air. The analysis linked was done on the Spitfire MkIX which could out turn the Fw190, however this had identical wings to the MkV which was lighter and could only out turn the Fw 190 in instantaneous not sustained turn. The more powerful engine of the Mk IX made it not only faster and better climbing but it also turned better too because a turning aircraft has a massive increase in drag. The P 51 also stalled fairly harshly in heavy turns but was helped by using a few degrees of flap.
FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?
- Thread starter DarrenW
- Start date
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,308
- Jun 25, 2013
Going through all the writings about the FW190, I think it's fair to say it was, overall, a better aircraft than the Bf109, and possibly the best fighter in Europe during its first year or so of operation. Then the Allies starting getting better aircraft into service, and the FW190 was in that cloud of "sometimes better, sometimes not, maybe better on Tuesday, but not Thursday" cloud of fighters. The problem is that any "best fighter" question cannot be answered, as its confused by difficult to measure qualities, many of which are outside the realm of engineering. One rather obvious one is pilot quality, and it's widely held that German pilot quality decreased during the war, while that of Allies did not. Another is build quality, and the slave labor used by most, if not all, of the German defense contractors had strong incentive to perform subtle (mis-drilling rivet holes) and not so subtle (urinating in V-2 guidance modules) acts of sabotage. A third is fuel quality and availability.
My primary point is that at the end of the war, with two evenly matched pilots, one-on-one, the FW190 in its various incarnations, would not dominate vs a late-mark Spitfire, a P-51D, a P-47, a Typhoon, Tempest, Corsair, or Hellcat, that is the FW190 would fall somewhere in that range, but no one would make money betting on the outcomes. Those same Allied aircraft, with adequate logistical support, pilots of better average quality, and numerical advantage would make the putative superiority of individual aircraft somewhat moot. In 1940, the Luftwaffe had tactical and operational advantages that made comparisons of aircraft quality moot; in 1944, the Allies had tactical and operational advantages that made comparisons of aircraft quality moot.
My primary point is that at the end of the war, with two evenly matched pilots, one-on-one, the FW190 in its various incarnations, would not dominate vs a late-mark Spitfire, a P-51D, a P-47, a Typhoon, Tempest, Corsair, or Hellcat, that is the FW190 would fall somewhere in that range, but no one would make money betting on the outcomes. Those same Allied aircraft, with adequate logistical support, pilots of better average quality, and numerical advantage would make the putative superiority of individual aircraft somewhat moot. In 1940, the Luftwaffe had tactical and operational advantages that made comparisons of aircraft quality moot; in 1944, the Allies had tactical and operational advantages that made comparisons of aircraft quality moot.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,308
- Jun 25, 2013
Which proves precisely nothing. There were cases where P-40s beat FW190s in combat. There are simply too many uncontrollable variables in picking "best fighter."
GregP
Major
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:
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.
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:
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.
If this aircraft is really a D-13 then it s engine is a jumo 213 F. That means absolutely unique piece of history.It would be a terrible risque flying such a unique aircraft. The D13 and the Ta 152H were the absolutely best ww2 axis fighters in production.
The D13 if properly built and with c3 fuel, was not very far behind the latest western fighters despite it s terrible wing. I believe it was a d13 that was tested against a Tempest and defended itself decently. But it appears that the german pilot was an extremely experienced ace, CO of JG53. so we can not make conclusions , the Dora was also without ammo and reduced fuel so less weight than normal
p.s. Carburetor parts? I thought jumo 213 used injection
GregP
Major
OK, it is missing some injection parts then. Either way, the idle circuit works and the rest doesn't. It have heard it start and idle and the sound is different from what I normally hear, but very good. That's part of hearing it run; the sounds of German hardware are different from the sounds of Allied hardware. Japanese planes are mostly radial and a 14/18-cylinder sounds like a 14/18-cylinder, not matter who makes it, unless they do funny things with the exhaust stubs.
Dedalos, we'll have to disagree about flying; we've probably done so before. If it were mine, I'd fly it. I belong to a museum that flies WWII aircraft; it's part of the mission of the museum to display them in the air for all to see. Since I/we don't own that one, maybe it won't fly, but don't bet on it. Paul Allen flies his planes mostly and, if it can be restored, it will likely fly.
There are two schools of thought. I say that if you own it, do as you see fit; otherwise enjoy what is out there doing whatever it does, sit static or out flying. But don't even try to tell me I can't fly it if I own it. Fortunately, we CAN fly ours.
I mostly don't bother with static museums unless I really want to see some particular aircraft. If it isn't flyable, then pictures will do just fine. If it flies, I want to be there when it does. Most museums don't fly, so it's only when we manage to rescue a plane from static display that we can commit aviation with it. Otherwise, they just look pretty, sitting there waiting to fly.
I'm glad we can both have it our own way whenever we want to. We should both be happy.
Cheers.
Dedalos, we'll have to disagree about flying; we've probably done so before. If it were mine, I'd fly it. I belong to a museum that flies WWII aircraft; it's part of the mission of the museum to display them in the air for all to see. Since I/we don't own that one, maybe it won't fly, but don't bet on it. Paul Allen flies his planes mostly and, if it can be restored, it will likely fly.
There are two schools of thought. I say that if you own it, do as you see fit; otherwise enjoy what is out there doing whatever it does, sit static or out flying. But don't even try to tell me I can't fly it if I own it. Fortunately, we CAN fly ours.
I mostly don't bother with static museums unless I really want to see some particular aircraft. If it isn't flyable, then pictures will do just fine. If it flies, I want to be there when it does. Most museums don't fly, so it's only when we manage to rescue a plane from static display that we can commit aviation with it. Otherwise, they just look pretty, sitting there waiting to fly.
I'm glad we can both have it our own way whenever we want to. We should both be happy.
Cheers.
GregP
Major
I always enjoy reading your stuff, Tomo. Plug away anytime. 
Report, in German, pdf: here (pg. 5 specifies armor)
Translation of the table ('Attack fighter' is the anti-bomber armored fighter, many times the cowl guns were deleted form those) :
GregP
Major
I have seen in print that there is a 5 mm plate around the oil radiator in the cowl, 3 mm plate in the aft cowl, 2 1/4 inch thick bulletproof glass in the windscreen, and an 8 mm armor plate behind the pilot, with a 14 mm plate behind the pilot's head.
... but no definite weight.
I DO have the weight of all guns and weapons (Nowarra), but that isn't armor weight.
A quote from a 1942 article:
"
Performance range of the 190 is limited, its most effective altitudes being above 15,000 ft and below 25,000 ft. Its top speed at 4,500 ft, for example, is but 326 mph compared with 375 at 18,000 ft. It can, however, do 390 mph at 20,000 ft for one minute by means of a booster. Reports from American bomber crews indicate the Focke-Wulf does not perform well near its reported service ceiling of 37,000 ft. British fighters are understood to be able to turn inside the 190, even at its most effective altitudes.
Specifications and performance data are as follows:
Wing span … 34 ft 5 in
Length … 29 ft 4 in
Wing area … 203 sq ft
Wing loading … 42.2 lb/sq ft
Power loading … 5.3 lb/hp
Gross weight … 8,580 lb
Weight empty … 6,240 lb
Maximum speed (18,000 ft) … 375 mph
Landing speed … 110 mph
This article was originally published in the October, 1942, issue of Aviation magazine, vol 41, no 10, pp 233, 306, 308.
This article is included in the Fw-190 PDF. It includes 2 photos and 2 detail drawings, and the data table above.
Photos credited to International News.
"
I have no comment on the quote above because during wartime, what are they going to say? "O shit, it's an Fw 190? We're in trouble!"
I don't think so!
Cheers.
I might have guessed Tomo would have it right away ...
... but no definite weight.
I DO have the weight of all guns and weapons (Nowarra), but that isn't armor weight.
A quote from a 1942 article:
"
Performance range of the 190 is limited, its most effective altitudes being above 15,000 ft and below 25,000 ft. Its top speed at 4,500 ft, for example, is but 326 mph compared with 375 at 18,000 ft. It can, however, do 390 mph at 20,000 ft for one minute by means of a booster. Reports from American bomber crews indicate the Focke-Wulf does not perform well near its reported service ceiling of 37,000 ft. British fighters are understood to be able to turn inside the 190, even at its most effective altitudes.
Specifications and performance data are as follows:
Wing span … 34 ft 5 in
Length … 29 ft 4 in
Wing area … 203 sq ft
Wing loading … 42.2 lb/sq ft
Power loading … 5.3 lb/hp
Gross weight … 8,580 lb
Weight empty … 6,240 lb
Maximum speed (18,000 ft) … 375 mph
Landing speed … 110 mph
This article was originally published in the October, 1942, issue of Aviation magazine, vol 41, no 10, pp 233, 306, 308.
This article is included in the Fw-190 PDF. It includes 2 photos and 2 detail drawings, and the data table above.
Photos credited to International News.
"
I have no comment on the quote above because during wartime, what are they going to say? "O shit, it's an Fw 190? We're in trouble!"
I don't think so!
Cheers.
I might have guessed Tomo would have it right away ...
- Thread starter
- #56
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
This thread is everything I was hoping for and much, much more. I appreciate all the input so far and although I've been checking in periodically, I haven't yet had a change to look at the links provided, nor draw any conclusions of my own about the machine, but that will come eventually.
Greg: that Dora is definitely a beautiful aircraft, even when just going by the picture you've posted. I'm sure it's an unbelievable sight when you're up close and personal.....
Greg: that Dora is definitely a beautiful aircraft, even when just going by the picture you've posted. I'm sure it's an unbelievable sight when you're up close and personal.....
GregP
Major
The prop is unbelievable. Looks like 3 wings from a small plane stuck together. REALLY wide chord.
drgondog
Major
Greg - I would take slight exception to remark that Allies 'tended to skip over Me 262 based airfields protected by TA 152 (or FW 190D)" simply because ANY fighter was immediately attacked. At that stage of the war I suspect that All German aircraft were considered targets
drgondog
Major
Greg - I agree with the general comments as 'span loading' is largely tied to Aspect Ratio which as you know is a major component of Induced Drag.
The key factors for Climb and Turn remain W/L and Power Available over Power Required.
drgondog
Major
The P-51D Gross Weight with full internal fuel load out (incl 85 gallons of fuse tank) is 10,200 pounds ----> Wing Area 233 sq ft ----> W/L nearly 44#/sq ft
When the FW 190 and P-51D meet in combat over target, the 51D may have burned 60 gallons of internal fuel for take off and climb out to trim the ship for stable CG.. so drop external tanks and enter combat with 10,200-360 = 9840#GW -------> W/L = 42.2. Similarly the FW 190A has burned a fair amt of internal fuel. They should both be entering combat with about the same W/L, and same HP available vs HP Required with the nod going to P-51D because of lower drag.
At altitudes below 20,000 feet the FW 190A6/7 with good pilot is a real handful - as attested by Many 8th AF pilots.
IIRC - curiously the FW 190 did not have wash out the last 20% of 1/2 Span - a source of heated debate between me and Soren back in the day. Lednicer has the data in his WWII Fighter Comparison Report that I uploaded so many eons ago.
