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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
The La-5FN, once the wartime emergency passed and fit & finish improved, was clocked at 680 km/h, or same as the La-7.
I never said that NACA 2200 series were low drag airfoils, but that thickness chosen was an excellent move. BTW - the XP-40Q was clocked at 420+ mph, or about as same as the much smaller and lighter Bf 109K-4, so the 2200 was not that draggy either. Granted, new profiles will improve streamlining.
Difference when going from 13% to 15% represents increase of thickness by 15%. The Fw 190 was with a 15.6% thick wing at root - it's thickness to chord ratio was 20% bigger than with Spitfire.
Yakovlev fighters used the Clark YH profile.
Hello GregP,
Many times the CL was close because the majority of designs used the NACA 23000 series airfoils. Of course there will be differences depending on the actual planform and other interference issues.
As an example though, sometimes maximum CL makes a difference: The P-51 Mustang's maximum CL is around 1.45 from the documentation I have seen. As a contrast, the maximum CL for the FW 190 is 1.58 and that difference is not trivial. The maximum CL of the wing on the Me 109 is even higher IIRC.
...
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.
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.
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.
...
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
There was a report summing up the service of the FW190, it was very brief.
20,000 produced, in service from 1941 to 45, not as good as the F6F.
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.....
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).
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
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 flyingThanks, 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.
Darren, the way you refer to the F6F at times makes me think you have a dozen to sell...
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....
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.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....
I think they may have (Corsair) on a raid against the Tirpitz?Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190
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:
View attachment 479126