I just don't understand fanboy-ism 70-80 years after the event. To me, only the guys who flew them are allowed it, and for very obvious reasons.No I understood your post. I was just adding to it.
FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?
- Thread starter DarrenW
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello Tomo Pauk,
I would be very curious to see what was done to the La-5FN to raise the speed that much. Essentially what you are claiming then is that the laminar flow airfoil on the La-7 and the relocated oil cooler did nothing?
You are also giving the Me 109K-4 about 20-30 MPH less credit than it deserved. In fairness, the 109K had a lot more engine power but it also was not a particularly clean airframe. Neither was the P-40 in any version.
- Ivan.
And the Americans measured the wing lift coefficient of a Spitfire V, in 1942, as 1.68 in cruising flight, engine speed 2650rpm (can't find the boost figure, but it was under 200mph).
A lot of theoretical calculations, particularly of complicated wing shapes, sometimes using various airfoil sections (like the Spitfire) can be wide of the mark
Whatever the figure for the Bf 109, 'those stubby little wings, belting out a rough and altering lift gradient'* with its slats snapping in and out meant that the wing had less energy. The same, with obvious qualifications, can be said of the Fw 190. It's vicious stall was a function of this.
*Lance Cole in his somewhat biased biography of Beverley Shenstone.
Cheers
Steve
The La-7 did not have laminar-flow wing, but the old daddy NACA 23016 (root) from LaGG-3/La-5. The La-9 got laminar flow wing. 1st La-7s were tested at just 655 km/h at altitude.
Whoops, my mistake. The Bf 109G-10 and similar were as fast as the XP-40Q, the K-4 was faster.
pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 723
- May 1, 2016
When reading first hand accounts, Pilots like Bob Johnson respected the 190. I think pilot skills played a large part in who came out on top with the 190 vs a Spitfire, 38, 47 or 51
The Russians, especially in the early days, had a really rough time getting their aeroplanes to meet the projected performance numbers as was seen in the LaGG-3. I had thought that the La-7 was faster than the La-5FN primarily because of its wing but if not, then what was the real explanation? A cowl shape difference and relocated oil cooler should not have that great an effect.
On a different note, someone asked a while back for the weight of armour carried by the FW 190A.
Here are some numbers for the FW 190A-8 from a table I found in a book by Rodeike
Note that this number differs a bit from what is found in the A-8 manual which lists 137.8 KG.
- Ivan.
My take is that fit & finish of Soviet aircrat improved after 1942, and especially after 1943. For example, they measured some 15 km/h improvement for Yak fighters manufactured in 1943 vs. those from 1942, and up to 30 km/h for LaGG-3, all for same engine power.
La-7 was barely faster than La-5 where attention was paid to the fit and finish for both machines.
Incomplete translation by yours truly:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,993
- Jun 25, 2013
Underestimating an enemy tends to be a guaranteed method of losing.
Pilot skill and tactics are also critical in winning; the first-line fighters were all close enough so that skill and tactics were more important than small differences in aircraft properties.
- Thread starter
- #109
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Is this all the information you have concerning it's achievements? I already knew these facts, especially the very last one.
But seriously I am bewildered by the adulation that's been heaped on this particular aircraft. Like others have said many times before, all fighters are a compromise for a specific intention and mission. I know that it was a very good fighter but was it really as good as all the hype that proceeds it? And I'd like to think that I've been very honest and fair with my comments and questions. If you care to actually read what has been posted and discussed here I think you'll agree.
Anyway, I was told to refrain from being "snarky" and that's exactly what I intend to do. I had hoped others here would follow suit and do likewise but alas that just does not seem to be the case.....
GregP
Major
Hi Ivan1 GFP,
Regarding your post to me on the lats page, The Bf 109 had a very good CL for the slatted area, but it wasn't the entire span. In fact, it was 25% of the span or so. So, the rest of the wing was NOT of a much higher CL< and the slats were there to keep the ailerons effective near stall. not to make it turn better. All airfoils have differing CLs, as you said, but differences in the second decimal place are not much to. In fact, slight difference in the 1st decimal place is minor, too.
If one is 1.4 and another is 1.5, then the only time it really mean anything is when wing area are equal. If the one with a CL if 1.04 has 6.5% more are, the lift created is the same. So, I use wing loading as a rough measure of maneuverability. To really get into it between two individual fighter types needs a comparative flight test report, many of which are rare or nonexistent. Just calculating lift doesn't tell you how it flies.
But you know that. Nothing new here. From many reports, both sides, the Fw 190 was a delight to fly in almost any of its iterations.
Regarding your post to me on the lats page, The Bf 109 had a very good CL for the slatted area, but it wasn't the entire span. In fact, it was 25% of the span or so. So, the rest of the wing was NOT of a much higher CL< and the slats were there to keep the ailerons effective near stall. not to make it turn better. All airfoils have differing CLs, as you said, but differences in the second decimal place are not much to. In fact, slight difference in the 1st decimal place is minor, too.
If one is 1.4 and another is 1.5, then the only time it really mean anything is when wing area are equal. If the one with a CL if 1.04 has 6.5% more are, the lift created is the same. So, I use wing loading as a rough measure of maneuverability. To really get into it between two individual fighter types needs a comparative flight test report, many of which are rare or nonexistent. Just calculating lift doesn't tell you how it flies.
But you know that. Nothing new here. From many reports, both sides, the Fw 190 was a delight to fly in almost any of its iterations.
There is no adulation from me, or any of the main posters on this thread. The relevant combat reports you seek are the ones that do not exist. There are no combat reports because for long periods between the introduction of the FW 190 in France and the production of the Typhoon and Spitfire Mk IX and XII the RAF forbade any operations over France or hugely cut their numbers because of the losses. In that period the Allies, not just the RAF had no plane that could match it, That was in the period 1941 on to late 42 early 43 and it is not "adulation" it is a fact. Meanwhile you continually compare it to the F6F which first saw action in September 1943 which is 9 months before jets were introduced in Europe. The period of FW 190 superiority included the Dieppe raid which was a rout in the air and on the ground and also the Channel Dash which were major setbacks in the war in the west.. Here is the Wiki article on FW 190 operational history and another more detailed accounts of Dieppe (Operation Jubilee).Is this all the information you have concerning it's achievements? I already knew these facts, especially the very last one.
But seriously I am bewildered by the adulation that's been heaped on this particular aircraft. Like others have said many times before, all fighters are a compromise for a specific intention and mission. I know that it was a very good fighter but was it really as good as all the hype that proceeds it? And I'd like to think that I've been very honest and fair with my comments and questions. If you care to actually read what has been posted and discussed here I think you'll agree.
Anyway, I was told to refrain from being "snarky" and that's exactly what I intend to do. I had hoped others here would follow suit and do likewise but alas that just does not seem to be the case.....
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history - Wikipedia
The Air Over Dieppe: Army, Part 9 | Legion Magazine
Focke-Wulf 190s Over Dieppe
I would note that Dieppe saw the first major use by the US forces of the B 17 and saw the P 51 A (as RAF Mustang I) score its first victory and loss while the RAF had 4 Squadrons of Spitfire IX a sign of how the wind was changing.
The F6F was a great carrier borne aircraft but by the time of its introduction the conflicts course was clear, the F4U and F4F could have done the job in the far east, perhaps not so well but the hard yards had been completed in actions like Midway, Coral Sea and Leyte Gulf
- Thread starter
- #112
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thanks, I appreciate your input and the links. I just want to make clear that it would be foolish of me, or anyone for that matter, to raise any aircraft up to "sainthood" and if it seems that I did so I apologize profusely as from the very start this was not my intention. After all they were just machines, piloted by a living, breathing, human being. I agree that most of these late war fighters were so close in performance that it was up to the "human factor" to make the true difference.
Anyway, I've enjoyed this thread very much and continue to learn many facts about the FW-190 series that I did not know. I never brought up the "H" word (F6F) because I want this to be about the idiosyncrasies that made the FW-190 tick, not focus on just ONE flight test it had with the Navy fighter. I tend to always look for as much data as possible before drawing any conclusions and that's exactly what I am doing here. I'm beginning to see why it had all the right "stuff" and is still revered to this day as one of the greatest fighter aircraft of WWII.
GregP
Major
Good points, both of you. I am not in adoration of ANY plane at all, but like most of them. The losers get weeded out in the selection process, and almost every fighter that made it into production was VERY worthy of being called a fighter. Sure, some are better than others, but ANY of them could give ANY of them a nasty surprise under the right circumstances.
Largely, but not entirely, it was mostly on the pilots. There WERE top-tier fighters, and we all know them ... perhaps with some discussion about which plane belongs on the top-tier. Since we aren't in combat with them, and the war is LONG over, that may never be settled, but the Fw 190 is usually accorded a position on the top-tier of WWII fighters, along with the BF 109, the Spitfire and the P-51 in the ETO and the Zero, F6F, and P-38 in the PTO. The Med was largely comprised of second-tier fighters, but not entirely.
WE could argue the list, but we HAVE for years! I'm pretty sure the Fw 190 is ON it.
Largely, but not entirely, it was mostly on the pilots. There WERE top-tier fighters, and we all know them ... perhaps with some discussion about which plane belongs on the top-tier. Since we aren't in combat with them, and the war is LONG over, that may never be settled, but the Fw 190 is usually accorded a position on the top-tier of WWII fighters, along with the BF 109, the Spitfire and the P-51 in the ETO and the Zero, F6F, and P-38 in the PTO. The Med was largely comprised of second-tier fighters, but not entirely.
WE could argue the list, but we HAVE for years! I'm pretty sure the Fw 190 is ON it.
Last edited:
Darren, the way you refer to the F6F at times makes me think you have a dozen to sell. Everyone looks at and for different things in different ways. The only way the FW 190 is special to me is that I have seen one in the Hanover Aircraft Museum. Whereas I have seen many allied WW2 warbirds flying
Aviation Museum Hannover-Laatzen - Wikipedia
I don't get hung up in detailed discussion of flight tests, even to the people who did them and commissioned them their vagaries were known. Up to the introduction of the FW 190 the Spitfire and Me 109 were fairly even, the introduction of the 109 F prompted the Spitfire V into production and they were fairly evenly matched. However the FW 190 was completely superior, the Spitfire could possibly compete in a turning fight, but turning fights descend to the ground and that is a hopeless situation surrounded by a superior fighter over France, in any case, why would the German pilot do what the RAF wanted to, they weren't fools. For more than a whole year the Germans had a fighter that the allies, that is UK, US and Russia, had no answer to. I don't use words like adulation and revere, but I do think respect and recognition are completely appropriate.
- Thread starter
- #115
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Boy oh boy if I did I'd be one very rich man! But your point is well taken. You seem like someone who is for the most part impartial with his comments and that's why you have earned some respect from others here, and that includes me as well. I'm just hoping that the dialogue can continue in a positive direction, as this thread has been most illuminating for me indeed.
I started this thread in order to continue the dialogue from the "best dogfighter" thread because I felt it deserved a thread of it's own. I also didn't want the original thread to be "hijacked" so to speak and taken in another direction entirely. I hope that makes sense to everyone.
Thanks again for the added link and information. I hope to see more input from the others on this site because there's too many details about this fighter for just one person to know....
pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 723
- May 1, 2016
Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190
I am as partial or impartial as my interlocutor is. On the subject of WW2 fighters (for example) in the limit there are only two dogs in the fight to discuss, that is the Spitfire and Bf109 simply because they were the only two there at the start and finish. Out of the two I choose the Spitfire because it won a stalemate in the BoB and at Malta and was competitive for the most part throughout the war in terms of prop fighters. The age of prop fighters ended in 1944 and was taken over briefly by the Me 262, being contrary I would argue that Gloster got the job of producing the Meteor because Supermarine were busy with the job in hand which was fighting a war.
I think they may have (Corsair) on a raid against the Tirpitz?
Anyone sick of Eric Brown quotations? Me neither!
F6F-3 versus Fw 190A-4
This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both were very maneuverable and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the Fw 190 was a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still, the technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East, but the Fw 190A-4 was a far tougher opponent. Risk to the Hellcat would be high indeed.
Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor.
F6F-5 versus Fw 190D-9
The Fw190D-9 held all the aces in combat, even without the addition of water-methanol injection. The aircraft's rate of roll and acceleration with water methanol would get it out of any tight situation and turn the encounter rapidly to advantage.
Verdict: This would be virtually no contest. Disparity between the two aircraft in performance, handling and firepower gave the German fighter the upper hand.
F6F-3 versus Fw 190A-4
This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both were very maneuverable and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the Fw 190 was a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still, the technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East, but the Fw 190A-4 was a far tougher opponent. Risk to the Hellcat would be high indeed.
Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor.
F6F-5 versus Fw 190D-9
The Fw190D-9 held all the aces in combat, even without the addition of water-methanol injection. The aircraft's rate of roll and acceleration with water methanol would get it out of any tight situation and turn the encounter rapidly to advantage.
Verdict: This would be virtually no contest. Disparity between the two aircraft in performance, handling and firepower gave the German fighter the upper hand.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
Where did this table come from? Do you read Russian as well?
(My Russian vocabulary is really rather poor.)
Column Headers:
Year of Issue
Airplane
Wing Loading
Power Loading
Speed at Earth (Sea Level)
Speed at Altitude
Landing Speed
Time to 5000 Meters
Ceiling Practical (Service Ceiling)
Duration of Flight
Distance of Flight
Turning Time (Seconds)
As you can tell by the changing wing and power loadings, there is quite a bit more going on than just year of manufacture or fit and finish. As strategic materials became less critical, many parts formerly made of wood were replaced with metal components which were generally lighter and stronger.
- Ivan.
Last edited:
