Fw 190: the good, the bad and the ugly

Shall we go to the ones with rockets?



The G-6 got 13mm cowl guns why?
They were running out of 7.9mm ammo?

They started putting in MK 108 cannon, why?

It was a lousy gun for fighter to fighter combat.

The Basket said:

Here a mind teaser. Why was the 109 produced until the end?
A)good enough
B)nothing else

And if the Fw190 was so much better then why not shelve the 109 for the 190?

Click to expand...

From another thread:

Generalleutnants Galland and Schmid during postwar interrogation;

"Our technical development program was not planned far enough into the future ... This was a mistake of tremendous scope. For example, the Me 262, the further development of the Fw 190, the gyro computing sight, engines of more than 2000 hp and many other developments were thus all delayed.

In the effort to raise production figures of items in series production, new developments were not forced into series models with the necessary pressure ... In addition, there was a certain dangerous (and partly unwarrented) self-satisfaction at every new technical advance.

For this reason the Me 109 was not taken out of series production for years, although this was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on. Similarly the beginning of the new series of Fw 190 and of the Ta 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective."

In their ideal scenarios there would have been a faster conversion to the Fw 190 and less use of the Me 109 in 1942, replacement of the Me 109 introduced in 1943, and complete phase out by 1944.

Once the Bf 109 had the cannon and 13 mm MGs, it really didn't need much more unless going after heavy ground targets or targeted specifically at heavy bomber streams. The Bf 109's fitted with the cannon gondolas were much easier targets for escorting Allied fighters than the standard Bf 109s were.

Good shots of cannon-gondola-equipped Bf 109s. They could certainly throw some lead. The Fw 190 started life with six 7.92 mm MG and wound u with 20 mm and 30 mm cannons! There was a marjed difference in handling, but the all-cannon Fw 190s could get evena grazing hit and put a plane down. Doing a head-on pass with an all-cannon Fw 190 was virtual suicide.

The Bf 109 didn't have the ability to gracefully carry all that weight. A G-model Bf 109 was already a ton heavier than an E or F-model. The E-7 was 2,767 kg and the G was in the vicinity of 3,660 kg depending on variant. Adding more weight for cannons and ammunition was a desperate measure to stop bombers or attack tanks and resulted in the loss off even MORE Bf 109s.

The G-model was the most-produced, but was also very heavy and most all the top 109 Aces preferred the F-model as long as they could get one.

I think ANYONE can answer why they'd fit Mk 108s, and it din't have anything to do with fighter vs. fighter combat. It also was rather unsuccessful unless they intercepted unescorted bombers or came across tanks and other ground pieces with no air cover and little or no AAA.

You might as well ask why they fitted Bazookas to an L-4 Grasshopper. It wasn't for spotting purposes.

With the advent of the Fw 190, we forget just how effective the Bf 109F was over France and the UK between early 1941 and when the '190 appeared in autumn '42. Fighter Command was commencing its leaning into France policy and its fighters were suffering heavily at the hands of the Friedrich; it was more than a match for the Spitfire V with the exception of turning circle. It was largely reasponsible for the high losses of fighters in the first six months of 1941. Even the British themselves tacitly recognised its superiority; a minute at the time (don't have a date) from the Air Staff stated "...the aircraft [BF 109F] has a superior initial climb and dive to that of the Spitfire [V], but it is considered that the Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me 109F, especially at high speed."

Turning to the Fw 190, I do like the quote by an unknown observer to the activities of the operational evaluation squadron at Rechlin and its Fw 190A-0 pre-production aircraft, stating that the fighters flew back and forth, "...smoking and stinking like bees with their backsides on fire!" Hans Sander stated that flying the prototype was "...like sitting with both feet in the fire place..."

GregP said:

You might as well ask why they fitted Bazookas to an L-4 Grasshopper. It wasn't for spotting purposes.

Click to expand...

Did the German's try to attempt anything like that with their Storch's? It seems like it could have potential with Panzerschrecks/R4M rockets.

I was thinking of Charles Carpenter ...

Charles Carpenter (lieutenant colonel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GregP said:

I was thinking of Charles Carpenter ...

Charles Carpenter (lieutenant colonel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but I thought I read somewhere that the German's tried that as well.

bobbysocks said:

what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with. did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?[/b

Click to expand...

8 over 100
4 with 90-99
Several Dozen scores 50-80

All on the western Front.

The Fw 190A1 was introduced in August 1941, the A2 with 20mm canon armament in October 1941. Those dates need to be remembered when comparing it against types such as the La 5 (Late 1942) and La 7 (Late 1944). By the time of the Fw 190A3 its production was in full swing, training programs had been developed and it was a usable aircraft compared to aircraft making a tentative introduction. In 1944 it showed a new lease of life with the introduction of the D variants with powerful new liquid cooled engines that gave increased performance at all altitudes, the Fw 190D13/R25 with the Jumo 213 EB engine was expected to reach 488mph and able to be armed with 3 x 20mm revolver canon or even a 30mm motor canon. Such variants would have migrated to the ground attack role as the Ta 152 with their larger wing area and both largely based on the Fw 190 and sharing more than 50% of its parts took over. Even the radial engine variants were on the verge of receiving the BMW 801F engine which could generate over 20% more power (2400hp, potentially 30% more with MW50) and offered a 3 speed supercharger to smooth out delivery of speed and power. The Fw 190A10 would also have received a slightly increased wing area (as had happened several times to the Fw 190 variants)

One is reminded of willy Messerschmitt's rhetorical question to Hermann Goering "What happens when the highly manoeuvrable fighter meets the fast bomber"

The Basket said:

Here a mind teaser. Why was the 109 produced until the end?
A)good enough
B)nothing else

And if the Fw190 was so much better then why not shelve the 109 for the 190?

Click to expand...

Not enough 190s to go around. Be it lack of engines or airframes (or related planning/resource allocation) there simply weren't enough 190s of any type to replace the 109.

In 1941, with the same DB-601N and E engines, you've got the potential to produce the Bf 109F, He 100 (had it continued development), and the 190 airframe lighter and adapted to the sleeker engine. (also without reliability problems, yet retaining at very least the maneuverability advantage and likely improving forward visibility, motor cannon, reduced torque, longer range/endurance, and better dive acceleration) And unlike the 109 or (especially) He 100, the 190 airframe should be easier to adapt to the Jumo 211F and J. (or possibly more compelling in low altitude rated 211F models with more power down low useful for ground attack and air combat on the Eastern Front)

Getting a DB 603 powered 190 in production as soon as possible would be an obvious concern as well.

nuuumannn said:

Turning to the Fw 190, I do like the quote by an unknown observer to the activities of the operational evaluation squadron at Rechlin and its Fw 190A-0 pre-production aircraft, stating that the fighters flew back and forth, "...smoking and stinking like bees with their backsides on fire!" Hans Sander stated that flying the prototype was "...like sitting with both feet in the fire place..."

Click to expand...

That, of course, applied to the early V1 prototype fitted with the BMW 139 with serious cooling problems. (on top of being placed too close to the cockpit)

The initial, smaller V1 prototype might also have mated much better to the DB-601, though would have been a rather different aircraft on the whole and possibly not as easy to adapt to heavier armaments without an enlarged wing. (quite possibly a more direct replacement for the 109 and with more direct advantages over the He 100) Again, a Jumo 211 version would have merit as well. (in the case of the smaller, lighter airframe, perhaps enough to be the 109F's better in spite of the weaker engine)

An aircraft more closely based on the V1 might also have managed to reach production sooner while the larger 801, 603, and 213 powered variants could still follow later.

Koopernic said:

The Fw 190A1 was introduced in August 1941, the A2 with 20mm canon armament in October 1941.

Click to expand...

The A-1 also featured 2 20 mm MG-FF/M cannons in the outer wings. The A2 added the MG-151/20 cannons to the wing roots, replacing 2 of the MG-17s.

Re. for the supposed 'one cannon in nose equals two in the wings' - not all LW pilots thought so, and not all LW pilots were Moelders' caliber (just like not all USN aviators were of Thach's caliber). Galland's 109F was outfitted with 2 MG FFM in the wings, and MG 17s were replaced by MG 131s.
As kool kitty stated, the 190A-1 was outfitted with two MG FFM, the A-2 received two MG 151/20 in the wing roots (instead of MG 17s installed there). Wiki list is rather complete on the subject of Fw 190A (here, here).

GregP said:

Once the Bf 109 had the cannon and 13 mm MGs, it really didn't need much more unless going after heavy ground targets or targeted specifically at heavy bomber streams. The Bf 109's fitted with the cannon gondolas were much easier targets for escorting Allied fighters than the standard Bf 109s were.

Good shots of cannon-gondola-equipped Bf 109s. They could certainly throw some lead. The Fw 190 started life with six 7.92 mm MG and wound u with 20 mm and 30 mm cannons! There was a marjed difference in handling, but the all-cannon Fw 190s could get evena grazing hit and put a plane down. Doing a head-on pass with an all-cannon Fw 190 was virtual suicide.

The Bf 109 didn't have the ability to gracefully carry all that weight. A G-model Bf 109 was already a ton heavier than an E or F-model. The E-7 was 2,767 kg and the G was in the vicinity of 3,660 kg depending on variant. Adding more weight for cannons and ammunition was a desperate measure to stop bombers or attack tanks and resulted in the loss off even MORE Bf 109s.

The G-model was the most-produced, but was also very heavy and most all the top 109 Aces preferred the F-model as long as they could get one.

I think ANYONE can answer why they'd fit Mk 108s, and it din't have anything to do with fighter vs. fighter combat. It also was rather unsuccessful unless they intercepted unescorted bombers or came across tanks and other ground pieces with no air cover and little or no AAA...

Click to expand...

Hello Greg
where you got that tank fixation? I cannot recall a photo of a 109 ground-attack plane with under wing gondolas and MK 108 wasn't a tank killing weapon, MK 101 and 103 were, but they were entirely different cannons.

109G MTOWs varied between 3,050 kg and 3350 kg in normal fighter configuration.

Hartmann claimed 15 Il-2s, Rall the same and Barkhorn some 33 while Kittel claimed 94 (JG 54, some 220 of his 267 accepted claims achieved while flying 190As), Brendel 88 (JG 51, got a bit under ½ of his 189 accepted claims while flying 190, the rest while flying 109)and Wiese 70+ (JG 52). Finns though that 109G-6/R6 was good against Il-2s but the HQ ordered the gondolas removed, partly because they were wanted for the proposed night fighter 109G-6s and partly because their effect on the manoeuvrability and speed of 109G-6. A few FiAF pilots continued to fly with gondolas because of the extra firepower they gave and they also though that the effect on handling wasn't marked.

Not fixated on tanks. Read that one.

I have also not read any reports of the pilots liking the gondolas. But I also didn't look specifically for that, either. I read most of the combat reports that I ever read on the Bf 109 some 10 - 12 years ago. I'm not even sure I could find them today.

There was a discussion on merits of a V-12 powered Fw 190, in early years. Perhaps this graph could mean something, both to proponents and opponents The original (black lines) is from the manual for the DB 601E-G engines, the colored lines are for the BMW 801C for Notleistung (red) and Kampfleistung (pink), from this table. There are some caveats to it, however.


Caveats - the Notleistung was not available for the DB 601E during 1941; from December 1941/January 1942 the BMW 801C should be able to use 2700 rpm also in second S/C gear (per tests linked before; that would mean at least 1400 ps at 5 km? no ram). Then we have the question of ram air intake - we might call it 'very good' for the DB 601E, and 'not that good' for the vast majority of the historical BMW 801 installations (and for all BMW 801C installations); the importance is that better layout of ram air intake will benefit the engine 'breathing', hence more power is gained at altitude.
Next - the engine-related drag. The Fw 190A8's equivalent flat plate for fuselage was 0.156 sq m, and for the cooling it was 0.073, for the ram air intakes it was 0.003 = total of 0.232 sq m. For the Jumo 213A, we have 0.1393 sq m for fuselage, 0.039 for cooling, and 0.019 for ram air intake = total of 0.1973 sq m. Granted, not all liquid-cooled engines' installations are created equal, but we can be sure that a V-12 will make a tad less of drag than, even a well executed, radial engine installation. (the equivalent flat plate, for high speed, was 0.485 sq m for the 190A-8 A-9, and 0.444 for the 190D-9)

At the end of the day - looks that whatever the BMW 801C offers in raw power, the DB 601E can compensate in the drag, weight and consumption reduction, except for low level capabilities.

A couple of other things to note about the "not enoiugh 190's to go around" quip above.

The Bf 109 was always a better high-altitude fighter than the Fw 190 ever was. It had better climb and a WAY better ceiling than the radial models. I don't want to even talk about the 43 Ta-152's that were deployed ... that number isn't enough to make a dent in Aluminum foil. There were a reasonable number of Fw 109D's around, but if you wanted to get high, the Bf 109G still had a higher service ceiling than even the Fw 190D-9. So combat at high altitude was a good point for the Bf 109.

Also, at least on the Soviet front, the main targets were usually right in the best dogfight speed range of the Bf 109. It was almost ideally suited for the Soviet front where targets were typically going 190 - 300 mph. The Bf 109 had really good stall characteristics, with plenty of aerodynamic warning and gentle stall breaks. If you just released the back pressure, you were flying again with little altitude loss. Of course, "little" is relative. A 150-foot loss at 20,000 feet is nothing; a 150-foot loss at 90 feet above the trees is fatal. Edit: There probably aren't too many trees in Siberia, but the tundra will kill you just as dead.

So if you were in a low-level digfight (Soviet Front), would you rather be in an Fw 190 with great handling characteristics while it was flying but a vicious, no-warning stall or in a Bf 109 where the plane buffeted gently, then more severely, then shook like a mouse in a cat's mouth before the stall broke? If you DID stall, the Bf 109 was much more recoverable than the Fw 190, though neither one was likely to live from a fully-developed stall at 100 feet out of a steep turn.

Speaking for myself only, I'd take the 109 on the Soviet front or for ccombat at high altitudes, and probably the Fw 190 everywhere else. The thing is, you usually didn't get to choose. You flew what your group was assigned. I'm sure the group leaders had some say their equipment type, and most of the leaders beame fledglings and went from rookies through leadership position in the Bf 109.

So, the guys who were assigned Fw 190s probably had them rammed down their throats involuntarily to a large degree. They then were left to discover their good fortune through getting familiar with their new mounts, and were usually happy with what they were assigned after a few hours. From all accounts I read, nobody wanted the Fw 190D models until they started actually flying them. THEN they discovered they had inherited a pretty good bird after all.

When the word got out, people wanted the "long nose" Fw 190s, but it took a while ... it wasn't "overnight."

Thanks for the information Blueskies, the ambiguity of the He 100's development is why I was more seriously pursuing the Fw 190's potential. The landing gear troubles are also good to note. (it would still be nice to have any sort of comments on handling qualities on the ground or in the air)

tomo pauk said:

At the end of the day - looks that whatever the BMW 801C offers in raw power, the DB 601E can compensate in the drag, weight and consumption reduction, except for low level capabilities.

Click to expand...

There's also the reliability and production volume of the DB-601. Even the 605 may have had advantages over the 801 in that sense ... numbers if not reliability. More C-3 fueled DB engines and more B4 fueled 801s (relegated to Ju 88s and Do 17s) could make a bigger difference as well.

With the serious night bombing threat, it might even be more useful to relegate the limited supply of DB-603s to those instead and keep the 190 powered by the smaller, sleeker, lighter, less fuel hungry DB engines. (especially if they'd implemented the larger supercharger sooner)

A low altitude DB-601/605 or Jumo 211 powered Jabo/Eastern front optimized variant might make sense too. (low altitude supercharger gearing would probably narrow some of the performance gaps between similarly tuned DB and Jumo engines -including power curves being smoother in both cases)

For that matter, how does the maximum power rating on the existing 211F compare to the 601E in 1941?


In any case, even in the worst case of having an airframe just as heavy as the Fw 190A, performance over 20,000 ft should be equal or better to the 801 powered variant with considerably longer range/endurance. A modest amount of weight should be saved by the lighter engine (even with radiator) and possibly reducing armament to just 3 20 mm cannons on the centerline should shift that discrepancy in the DB powered model's favor. (and obviously, time to altitude would be much improved once emergency rating was allowed)

GregP said:

There probably aren't too many trees in Siberia, but the tundra will kill you just as dead.

Click to expand...

There are quite a lot of trees in Siberia.

OK Milosh. Of all the points to pick, this is the least important to the discussion, but whatever you say.

The pics I see are mostly of tundra and I wouldn't want to bet my life on one being softer than the other in an airplane crash. The difference isn't likely to be very drammatic after the post-stall impact.

Hello Greg
Google Taiga, most of Siberia belongs to Taiga forest zone, as did almost all of Finland and most of Canada.

Hello KK
190 was appr. twice as expensive to produce than 190A that was one of the reasons why 109 was kept in production after 190 got past of its initial problems.

Fw 190A had the problem of power loss from supercharger speed change between 1 and 3km altitude. This is an area where many dogfights on the eastern front were probably made.
DB 605A reached its max power at somewhat above 2km.
All this is from static engine data, rammed air influx may raise this by ~200-300m for the BMW 801 and ~500m for the DB 605.