FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?

[Night Fighter Nut]

The Bf 109 has a very strong claim to the title of best fighter of the war, if you decide victories over enemy aircraft are worth counting. Most of the great aces made their mark in the Bf 109. Notably, the top 3 aces shot down just over 900 aircraft flying the Bf 109. It was truly great airplane that ended up on the losing side, but that doesn't either detract from it's accomplishments or solve it's weaknesses...

If I'm not mistaken, weren't the top German aces on the Eastern front going against planes that were inferior to the German planes, ie., the aiming sites were painted on (not zeroed to the aircraft guns) as well as being flown by inexperienced fighter pilots. German pilots gained experience in the Spanish civil war. The unusually high kill numbers at the start of the Eastern campaign reflected this as well as the decline in kill numbers as Russian aircraft got better and their pilots gained more experience.

 

[Milosh]

When your fighter air force is mostly composed of one type of a/c, the Bf109, it is not surprising to have most of the enemy a/c shot down by that one type.

 

[GregP]

The early Russian planes and pilots were quite inferior to the Germans in Bf 109s. However, Erich Hartmann flew his first combat mission in Oct 42. He scored the bulk of his victories when the Russians had improved and were worthy adversaries. So, exceptions are there, too.

By mid-1943, that wasn't exactly the case, and the Yak-1 and La-5 were out in numbers along with better tactics.

By mid-late 1944, the sky over the Russian front was controlled by Russians. The Yak-3 and La-5FN / La-7 were out, as was the T-34 tank. The Germans had been depleted, their logistics were a mess, and their airfields were just cleared dirt strips. In the Russian spring, on the steppes, everything turned to mud. In the winter, the Russians were used to operating from snow in bitter cold and the Germans weren't.

It was a decidedly different situation from the earlier years on the Russian Front.

 

[Barrett]

I've known or met three FW 190 pilots: Eric Brown (knew him pretty well), Oskar Boesch of JG3 (knew him somewhat) and Grumman test pilot Bob Hall (one conversation.) Hall flew one of the captured birds in '43, I believe, and went straight back to Bethpage. Knocked on Roy's door and said "Boss, if we put an R2800 on that airframe we'd have a world beater." Result: Bearcat.

Eric was a big 190 fan for all the reasons noted in this illuminating thread. Oskar like most combat pilots loved what brought him back. He said that from early 44 the 190 was an advantage for the low-time pilots entering combat, and the rugged airframe was an obvious bonus. I quoted him in the 15th AF book: "You are 20 years old and think you are rough and tough. You can drink all night and please the girls, and when the sun comes up you climb in your 190, turn the oxygen to 100%, and when you take off to engage 1000 Viermots...you are immediately sober!"

Some commentators have assumed that roll rate = maneuverability (turn rate) and they're not the same. The more appropriate term is "agility" which means ability to point the nose in the desired direction.

I was involved in Doug Champlin's second restoration of his Dora, helping with documentation on the Jumo. We did run it satisfactorily but Doug never-ever considered flying it. Now belongs to Paul Allen in his Everett, WA museum. The 190 cockpit was well designed with decent visibility in marked contrast to the 109. In those days I was 5 ft 7 or 8, and 150 lbs, fairly typical of a WW II aviator. Even then the 109 was a bit cramped for me.

Just FWIW.

 

[Greyman]

Oskar like most combat pilots loved what brought him back.

I know only too well how easy it is to get emotionally involved with an airplane in which you have fought and survived and to regard it with the same uncritical affection as a mother has for her child. But when you've flown a wide range of other fighters and become more analytical, your views are soon tempered by reason. - Eric Brown on not being 'overly impressed' with the 109

 

[GregP]

Hi Barrett,

I was at an Art Show gathering at Doug's in Mesa in the early-mid 1980s (when I lived locally there), probably 1984-5 or so. They had the Fw 190 and the VERY low-time P-40 sitting there nose to nose and started both. I bought a print signed by Erich Hartmann and still have it, and one signed by Saburo Sakai, and still have it, too. They took Saburo Sakai for a ride in Bill Hane's P-51D (Ho Hun) and he was delighted. To me, the Fw 190 D-13 in Doug's (now Paul's) collection was the best warbird I ever saw. Doug's P-40 only had some 40 - 45 hours on it since it came off the production line. It was one of those flown from the line straight to storage!

Perhaps Paul will let the Fw 190 D-13 fly. That would be something. I would if it were mine, but only after engine/prop overhaul and several test hops that stay on the runway to verify powerplant/fuel system functions. There is no need for flight test type flights to find max performance, but airshow performance is something else and safe. We have been flying warbirds at the Planes of Fame for 50+ years without airshow issues other than minor inconveniences. Our only loss was an old North American O-47 that was landed gear-up accidentally and caught fire at a small airstrip with no firefighting equipment locally. We have had another loss, but not at an airshow. It was during unwise plane movement in marginal weather a LONG time ago. Now, they fly only in severe clear.

Regarding the Fw 190 D-13, the canopy looked VERY narrow to me; almost too narrow to turn your head around in. But that could easily have been just external perspective. I remain impressed by the very WIDE-chord prop. Looks like it pulls hard way up high, just from blade area.

I had a very good friend, Curtis Earl, who displayed a MiG-15 bis there for some years, and we occasionally flew over from Falcon Field in his T-6 for a visit. That was a neat place, but Doug gradually grew less current in warbirds and stopped flying them one by one out of lack of currency, mostly. If you are NOT current in one, and you don't know the emergency procedures cold from memory, you don't belong in the cockpit. He was smart to stop when the demands on his time precluded currency. Just my opinion.

Cheers.

 

[drewwizard]

I am a major fan of the FW-190 & TA-152, but even I would not say any one aircraft was the best for the entire war or even most of the war. The big accomplishment for the FW-190 is that it was in among the top fighters since it was introduced early in the war through the final days. There were variants planed which would have used the Jumo 222 (if the air ministry would ever release it for production) probably making it the most powerfully engined fighter of the war. The problem with the late war TA-152 was it was simply too late and too few in number. It was only a stop gap until the other jet designs were put into production. Even FW had a jet design TA-183 (which eventually was produced in Argentina and a fairly successful aircraft). Horten had a good fighter concept, Heinkel had the HE-163. There was the push pull DO-335. The big paddle bladed P-47 made a huge leap, the Dehaviland Hornet, Spitfire XX1 and up, Tempest, Fury, late model P-51, super corsair

The pilot reports and stories on FW-190D pilots showed a very high likely hood of being shot down by German flack, with many FW-190D pilots killed by trigger happy flak crews who shot at anything before it could shoot back. One of the best airplanes in an impossible situation, flown by demoralized pilots, and forced to use tactics dictated by superiors who never flew an airplane. Not sure if a F-86 or Mig-15 would do much better under those circumstances.

Now what plane was best in say 1943 when all the nations were deep in the war and the war's outcome was in debate? Pilot skill about equal?

or what planes evolved to keep up with competition throughout the war? What plane would you choose if you could only fly one plane from 1941 through 1945 (with updated models) That narrows the choices down.

 

[DarrenW]

One of the reasons I started this thread was to get a general consensus about whether or not the FW-190 series really deserves all the accolades thrown at it here and elsewhere. I know that a lot of you are aware of how anything associated with the Third Reich or the German military in general tends to garner great amount of interest and in some cases an air of supposed greatness or superiority, even when it's unfounded or flat out undeserving. But of course there's also cases where there might be a general dislike of anything German or that which was part of the Nazi war machine, which would certainly unduly hurt the reputation of a well-engineered aircraft like the FW-190.

Was the FW-190's legacy tainted by this or has there been enough critical examination over the years to excluded it from a good portion this sort of bias?

 

[GregP]

The Fw 190 was and IS a good bird. To me, the Ta 152 has been blown way out of proportion to the increase in performance over the Fw 190 D series, but that's my opinion. The Bf 109 was very good, if the flaws were taken into account by the pilot. Together, they were a great team, no overstatement.

I believe the BMW 801 has been talked up a lot, and that when operational, at least early if not even into mid-life and later, had flaws. All engines and planes have flaws, so that's not unique to the 801. Still, it was good enough to make the Fw 190 a very good fighter in general. At that's not an overstatement ... good plane all around. NO plane is best at everything, but the Fw 190 came as close as any of the time to being what was needed WHEN it was needed, and in numbers able to make a difference.

 

[stona]

In my opinion it was a superior mount to the Me109, though most of the LW aces gained their status flying the 109. Figure that one out if you can!!!

Maybe because the Bf 109 was in service many years before the Fw 190, including many wartime years. Some Luftwaffe 'experten' opened their accounts on the Bf 109 in Spain.
Cheers
Steve

 

[swampyankee]

One of the reasons I started this thread was to get a general consensus about whether or not the FW-190 series really deserves all the accolades thrown at it here and elsewhere. I know that a lot of you are aware of how anything associated with the Third Reich or the German military in general tends to garner great amount of interest and in some cases an air of supposed greatness or superiority, even when it's unfounded or flat out undeserving. But of course there's also cases where there might be a general dislike of anything German or that which was part of the Nazi war machine, which would certainly unduly hurt the reputation of a well-engineered aircraft like the FW-190.

Was the FW-190's legacy tainted by this or has there been enough critical examination over the years to excluded it from a good portion this sort of bias?

In regard to the last two sentences, it frequently seems that the hardware of the nazi war machine gets preferential treatment, that is its performance is exaggerated: everything German was better and the Allies only succeeded because they so vastly outnumbered the German ubermenschen. The reality Is that no country had a monopoly on best from a technical point of view. There is no arguing with the statement that the FW190 was a very good fighter, probably the best one Germany had in extensive service, and possibly better than anything the Allies had in widespread service before 1944. There's also no arguing that it did not have flaws: a nasty stall (a common problem with fighters, though) a power-robbing cooling system (aircraft cooling system design is hard; the best cooling system was probably North American's P-51, with everybody else coming second) being two.

 

[swampyankee]

Hi Barrett,

I was at an Art Show gathering at Doug's in Mesa in the early-mid 1980s (when I lived locally there), probably 1984-5 or so. They had the Fw 190 and the VERY low-time P-40 sitting there nose to nose and started both. I bought a print signed by Erich Hartmann and still have it, and one signed by Saburo Sakai, and still have it, too. They took Saburo Sakai for a ride in Bill Hane's P-51D (Ho Hun) and he was delighted. To me, the Fw 190 D-13 in Doug's (now Paul's) collection was the best warbird I ever saw. Doug's P-40 only had some 40 - 45 hours on it since it came off the production line. It was one of those flown from the line straight to storage!

Perhaps Paul will let the Fw 190 D-13 fly. That would be something. I would if it were mine, but only after engine/prop overhaul and several test hops that stay on the runway to verify powerplant/fuel system functions. There is no need for flight test type flights to find max performance, but airshow performance is something else and safe. We have been flying warbirds at the Planes of Fame for 50+ years without airshow issues other than minor inconveniences. Our only loss was an old North American O-47 that was landed gear-up accidentally and caught fire at a small airstrip with no firefighting equipment locally. We have had another loss, but not at an airshow. It was during unwise plane movement in marginal weather a LONG time ago. Now, they fly only in severe clear.

Regarding the Fw 190 D-13, the canopy looked VERY narrow to me; almost too narrow to turn your head around in. But that could easily have been just external perspective. I remain impressed by the very WIDE-chord prop. Looks like it pulls hard way up high, just from blade area.

I had a very good friend, Curtis Earl, who displayed a MiG-15 bis there for some years, and we occasionally flew over from Falcon Field in his T-6 for a visit. That was a neat place, but Doug gradually grew less current in warbirds and stopped flying them one by one out of lack of currency, mostly. If you are NOT current in one, and you don't know the emergency procedures cold from memory, you don't belong in the cockpit. He was smart to stop when the demands on his time precluded currency. Just my opinion.

Cheers.

The wide-chord prop is probably one of the few instances German engineers gave priority to producibility over performance. A three-bladed prop will have higher induced losses than one with four; induced losses scale roughly to 1/n, where n is number of blades. Of course, it's possible the Germans couldn't build four-bladed fighter props, as blade chord is usually dictated by vibratory loads during takeoff, perhaps German prop makers couldn't produce blades from materials strong enough to use a better number of blades.

 

[stona]

The wide-chord prop is probably one of the few instances German engineers gave priority to producibility over performance. A three-bladed prop will have higher induced losses than one with four; induced losses scale roughly to 1/n, where n is number of blades. Of course, it's possible the Germans couldn't build four-bladed fighter props, as blade chord is usually dictated by vibratory loads during takeoff, perhaps German prop makers couldn't produce blades from materials strong enough to use a better number of blades.

They also needed to fire a couple of heavy machine guns through the propeller disc. Using wider three blade propellers to absorb the increasing engine power, rather than increasing the number of blades may have made the armament more effective, and the interrupter system simpler or more reliable.

Cheers

Steve

 

[alejandro_]

What was an average fighter in 'mid 42-mid 43'? One to two cannons + LMGs, or perhaps 4 to 6 heavy MGs (nod for Fw 190).
Rate of roll - nod Fw 190. Outright speed at 2, 5, 7 km - again nod Fw 190. Ability to shrug to too heavy enemy fire - again Fw 190 was good there.

There is no Merlin Mustang, no Tempest, the P-47C is better above 7km but it still needs plenty of improvement on fuel system and powerplant to be really better all-arounder. P-38 offers range and hi-alt climb & perhaps speed but has it's host of serious problems, Japanese can't compete unless for CV duties. Italians - no chance.

I pretty much agree with Tomo here. In 1942-43 Fw 190 was a formidable opponent: heavy armament, good overall performance, excellent rate of roll, ease of maintenance, top visibility, stable diving characteristics... it also had a good internal fuel capacity (~30% higher than Bf 109/Spitfire).

The Soviets were impressed with the type when they got access to one. If you use google translate and have a bit of patience you can read the evaluation and an article here:

FW-190A-4 на испытаниях в НИИ ВВС
Немецкие самолеты. Фокке-Вульф-190. Часть 1.

Regarding performance at high altitudes, I don't think many people were expecting air to air combat with escort fighters at +6,000 meters. Kurt Tank did work in improved versions (C version). The prototype reached 724 km/h at 7000 meters, but other aircraft had priority (Me 401) and RLM stated that Fw 190 A performance was good enough.

Airfoil choice - not the cutting edge

Can you say a but more here? Are you comparing it to a laminar type?

 

[GregP]

I believe the Germans used 3-bladed props mainly because they favored fuselage-mounted armament over wing-mounted armament, and they needed rate of fire. The Bf 109 had 3 fuselage-mounted guns. If more were desired, two were mounted in the wings, but the fuselage units were primary. Likewise the Fw190 had two cannons in the fuselage. If you had four wide-chord props, the rate of fire would be much smaller for those guns.

I read that somewhere YEARS ago, and it seems like it came from the German aces having many conversations with the aircraft manufacturers, who ... rather unusually, listened. I recall that Willy Messerschmitt and Kurt Tank had frequent conversations with the top aces about their desires. That reading was some 40+ years back and it could be otherwise, but it makes sense, at least to me.

Cheers.

 

[Milosh]

Shouldn't that be 2 wing root mounted cannon Greg?

Have seen photos of Fw190s with 4 bladed props so definitely the Germans could make them.

 

[DarrenW]

I believe the Germans used 3-bladed props mainly because they favored fuselage-mounted armament over wing-mounted armament, and they needed rate of fire....

With their inherently slower cyclic rates I'm very surprised that the FW-190 had cannons placed inside the propeller arc, which obviously reduced the firing rate even further. With the advanced optics available at the time to these pilots, would placing the guns outside this arc really have hurt the overall convergence and effected target aquisition that much?

 

[tomo pauk]

With their inherently slower cyclic rates I'm very surprised that the FW-190 had cannons placed inside the propeller arc, which obviously reduced the firing rate even further. With the advanced optics available at the time to these pilots, would placing the guns outside this arc really have hurt the overall convergence and effect target aquisition that much?

The MG 151/20 were not that much with 'inherently clower cyclic rate' - 700 rds/min (per Ta-512 spec sheet),or 100 more than for Hispano II, and not that much worse than US .50 M2 with 800 rpm. With that said, the Ta-152, with prop rpm of 1300 rpm, the rate of fire was 650 rds/min for synchronised MG 151/20s.

Placing the cannons outboard will mean that wing twist is more of an issue when firing the guns in high G maneuver, while there would've been a need to additionally armor the ammo boxes, so the weight goes up, and rate of roll down. The gun heating requirement also increases. Some pilots prefered the guns/cannons being as close as possible to the centreline, and when ever possible people were trying to install guns as close to centreline as possible.
But again, the outboard cannons worked just fine indeed on the Allied aircraft.

 

[DarrenW]

The MG 151/20 were not that much with 'inherently clower cyclic rate' - 700 rds/min (per Ta-512 spec sheet),or 100 more than for Hispano II, and not that much worse than US .50 M2 with 800 rpm. With that said, the Ta-152, with prop rpm of 1300 rpm, the rate of fire was 650 rds/min for synchronised MG 151/20s.

Placing the cannons outboard will mean that wing twist is more of an issue when firing the guns in high G maneuver, while there would've been a need to additionally armor the ammo boxes, so the weight goes up, and rate of roll down. The gun heating requirement also increases. Some pilots prefered the guns/cannons being as close as possible to the centreline, and when ever possible people were trying to install guns as close to centreline as possible.
But again, the outboard cannons worked just fine indeed on the Allied aircraft.

Those are all very good points, things make a little more sense to me now.....

 

[pbehn]

One of the reasons I started this thread was to get a general consensus about whether or not the FW-190 series really deserves all the accolades thrown at it here and elsewhere. I know that a lot of you are aware of how anything associated with the Third Reich or the German military in general tends to garner great amount of interest and in some cases an air of supposed greatness or superiority, even when it's unfounded or flat out undeserving. But of course there's also cases where there might be a general dislike of anything German or that which was part of the Nazi war machine, which would certainly unduly hurt the reputation of a well-engineered aircraft like the FW-190.

Was the FW-190's legacy tainted by this or has there been enough critical examination over the years to excluded it from a good portion this sort of bias?

Some people are undoubtedly biased in favour of one particular country, others are fan boys of a particular marque and the Fw 190 has many. To me it was an outstanding aircraft, it had no rival when first introduced. If the engine had been developed in the same way as its rivals it would have remained a competitive fighter but that is only on a one to one basis. It was introduced in the west in late 1941, it was introduced in the east in September 1942, its peak strength was in June 1943. By 1944 with Big Week and the daylight bomber offensive, Operation Bagration and D Day the situation was beyond hopeless. Operation Bagration was opposed by 600 LW fighters, at the time of D Day the LW had 140 serviceable aircraft in France while defending Germany the LW struggled to get more than 200 of all types in the air. Many of the thousands produced were made after there were pilots fuel or indeed even airfields to get them operational.