Fw 190: the good, the bad and the ugly

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I was wrong here ... I was thinking of the Steppes .... and wrote Siberia. It still won't make a hell of a lot of difference when you impact something whether it is trees or grassy dirt. A stall out of a steep turn isn't gliding in for a forced landing, it is a nose-low impact, at speed, with the wings a LONG way from level. The point was low-altitude turning fights with either the Fw 190 or the Bf 109, not terrrain.

Maybe we could concentrae on the point as it applies to aircraft combat. I couldn't care less what the terrain is like, though I am sure there are non-wooded grassy meadows scattered in Siberia. They might have disppeared and been replaced with all trees, and it is meaningless to the discussion.

I've wandered off-subject before, but never so far as what the proper shrubbery is. This is like pushing a cat into a bag ... ergo no further interest.
 
Heavy armament was definetly needed. More guns heavier guns.
Remember most rounds fired missed. So its a simple case of throwing as much as you can at the enemy.
Attacking a bomber formation means you have to stay outside it's lethal range so you cannot fly up its exhaust pipes as you can a fighter.
 
GregP said:
...
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. ...
Click to expand...

The performances need to be looked within context and within a strip of the time. The typical Bf 109 that bettered the Fw 190 will carry maybe half of firepower as the typical Fw 190A. Once we equalize the situation a bit (say, cram 2 gondola cannons on the 109), the Bf 109 will not look that sprinty. Toss in the fact that BMW 801D was fully rated from Oct 1942 on, while the DB 605A was not, the Fw 190A-4 will offer 660 km/h at 6.3 km, vs. 632 km/h at 6.6 km for the 109G-2 with 3 cannons (granted, Soviet tests give better performance for that version of 109)


I'd again suggest that we attach gondola cannons on the 109 and then check flying qualities. Not many pilots were fond on 'Kannonevogel's' handling.


The bolded part is why I've said that ram air intakes were 'not that good' on the Fw 190A. The DB 605A will gain circa 1300m when on full power high speed level flight (5.7 km 'static' rated height, 7 km with ram on the Bf 109), while the BMW 801D will gain only 600 m (5.7 km vs. 6.3 km on Fw 190A flying with full power, high speed, level flight). The external intakes were tested for the BMW, with favorable results (rated height climbed at and above 7 km for high speed Fw 190A), but were not pursued with, maybe the loss of low level performance due to greater drag looked to great in LW eyes.
 

Agreed.
We can also remember that 'our' fighters will also encounter other tough aircraft. Eg. the LW fighter will need to down a B-25, Beaufighter or Il-2. This is where 'throwing as much as you can' applies too.


The problem with DB605A being not restricted for quite some time will hamper the '605 Fw 190' capabilities? Though, an LR fighter powered by DB 601/605 engine might be a good bet? The earlier implementation of external air intakes on the BMW 801 (hopefully in a more streamlined fashion) would push the Fw 190A beyond 670-680 km/h, depending on the number of cannons. With a working DB 603, it would be is close to 700 km/h (no cowl guns, for less drag).


The Jumo 211 family was already well suited for low level work, bar the Jumo 211R (with 'faster' S/C gearing?) that never went into series production (the Jumo 213A took over instead).

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

Kampfleistung (thick lines) of the 211F (black) vs. my additions, 211J (red; also for TO power) and DB 601E (green; TO power is not greater than 1200 PS in most/all of 1941); neither the 211J nor 601E are in service in early 1941, of course. The difference in power between 2 and 5.5 km of altitude is marked, 211F vs. 601E.



The switch from BMW to Jumo 213 meant 10% less drag (for high speed) for the Fw 190 line, much of Fw 190D-9 extra performance came out from that. With a (lighter) V-12, the Fw 190 still retain it's advantages as an airframe vs. Bf 109.
 
Tomo,

It was the Germans themselves who claimed that "one gun in the fuselage was worth two in the wings." The Bf 109 was adequately armed once it got to a 20 mm cannon and 13 mm MG. The is no need to equalize anything. What you need to do is look at typical loadouts. You don't load a combat plane to match some rival, you load it for it's designed loadout and missions. The Bf 109 was, far and away, the more successful fighter in the war as a whole as well as on the Soviet Front.

The Fw 190 was VERY good at medium altitudes, but that's typically not where bombs came from in the ETO.

On the Soviet Front, the fighting was at low to medium altitudes except for occasional forays into higher altitudes. Down low the Fw 190, as well as anythig else with speed usually quoted at best height, wasn't nearly as fast as the "top speed" numbers might indicate. The planes were in the open and were full of mud and dirt, suffered with only "field" maintenance, and the later Soviet types were more a match or better for it. I'm thinking Yaks and Lavochkins, not necessarily MiGs.
 
Not all the Germans claimed that 'one gun in the fuselage is worth two guns in the wings' - it was what Werner Moelders claimed. Adolf Galland disagreed, and wanted (and got) his 109F having 3 times the firepower vs. what other 109Fs carried. So whom do we believe - one German ace or another? Further, had it been so, we wouldn't see any Bf 109s with performance-stealing gondola cannons, and those were used on MTO and Eastern Front.

The is no need to equalize anything. What you need to do is look at typical loadouts. You don't load a combat plane to match some rival, you load it for it's designed loadout and missions.
Click to expand...

Going by that - the 109 with gondola cannons is to go hunting enemy planes, the extra guns will mean the enemy aircraft will be downed easier if the pilot got a good aim, or that some shells will hit the target even if the aim is a bit off.
Equalization is necessary, it levels the playing field. The Fw 190 with just 2 cannons and external intakes will be as fast or faster than Bf 109F4 or G2, it will retain fast roll rate, far better visibility, ruggedness, will improve at high altitude, with improved service ceiling, maneuverability, RoC, it will even sport a bit more firepower than those.

The Bf 109 was, far and away, the more successful fighter in the war as a whole as well as on the Soviet Front.
Click to expand...

Think you're mixing the achievements of an airforce with real capabilities of an aircraft. That is not to say that Bf 109 was not a fine fighter.

The Fw 190 was VERY good at medium altitudes, but that's typically not where bombs came from in the ETO.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that Fw 190 was an ideal fighter. But - how many B-17/24 were shoot down by Fw 190, how many by Bf 109? What about the Schweinfurt disaster?


Let's cram an extra pair of cannons (even though that borders on impossible) on Yaks or Lavotchkins and see how well they go. Let's also try to install drop tank facility on those. Any takes on why the La-7 produced in 1944 was 20 mph slower that the one of 1945? It took until 1944 for the Soviets to introduce 400 mph fighter in service units, the goal post moved from 1941. I love very much the MiG-3, but I cant defend it in the light of it's own flaws.
There was a reason why Soviets loved the P-39.
 
I think the "one in the fuselage is worth two in the wings" guys were right.

You can't please everyone all the time ... ask any U.S. citizen ... our government is trying to do that very thing, spectacularly unsuccessfully. Since the Bf 109 shot down more airborne enemy aircraft than any other aircraft in history, the argument seems to be demonstrably correct.

That said, I'd much rather have a cannon-armed Fw 190 if I were attacking ground targets since it had more cannons and even shells that miss a small bit and would ineffective in the air will hit the ground around the target, explode, and cause damage. More shrapnel in the air around ground targets is better than less.

Hey, if you think the Fw 190 was a better fighter than the Bf 109, you have made a great choice. I just don't happen to make the same choice and, fortunately, the war is long over and it won't make the slightest bit of difference to anyone but you and me. I really like your choice; it's my second-favorite German fighter. I just think the Bf 109 demonstrated better air-to-air success during the war, so it gets my vote.

If you are winning the boxing match hands down and manage to get caught with a left hook in the last round, you may wind up losing the fight while ahead on the score card. The Fw 190 and it's late variants, partcularly the Ta 152, had overtaken the Bf 109 at the end of the war in terms of performance, but the Bf 109 was still around and fighting in good numbers when the war ended, and it won a LOT of rounds in the fight.

The Ta 152 never got out of the corner to demonstrate it's capabilities with so few delivered. With something like 10 total victories to its credit against 2 - 4 losses, it has no combat claim to much of anything even though the performance was there and it COULD have made a huge difference had things gone on and had it been available in numbers. But things didn't go on and it was never available in numbers. Only 43 of about 150 airframes were delivered to combat units, and they had no spare parts! Your first major writeup was your last ride in it unless they canabalized another one to fix yours.
 
Juha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Without further context it's hard to use this as a metric for things. There's monetary cost, man hours, materials, and then other variables for the armament and engine used. (I'd think the BMW 801 would be more costly to manufacture than the DB 601, 605, or Jumo 211 -perhaps not the 213 or especially 603)

Then there's time scales and the context of production volumes, tooling, refining of production lines, among other things. The 109 was in production much earlier and expanded much sooner.

A DB (or Jumo) powered 190 would also conceivably have entered production before the 801 version, been at least somewhat cheaper from the start, and certainly easier to maintain. There'd be greater differences between a smaller/lighter 190 based on the original V1 airframe too, and that may have been cheaper to manufacture on top of better performing with the V12 engines, but there's obviously no comparable statistics for that airframe in mass production.


There would still be the reliability and maintenance advantages of the alternate engines, likely cost as well, but aside from that there was the context of just being better all around than 109s using the same engines.

The Jumo 211 family was already well suited for low level work, bar the Jumo 211R (with 'faster' S/C gearing?) that never went into series production (the Jumo 213A took over instead).
Click to expand...
Yes, but I'd meant more something along the lines of tuning the low supercharger speed for maximum power at 0 m and the high speed for considerably lower than it was. (at least for low-level/ground attack specific aircraft, optimized closer to the AM38's best altitudes)

With the gains from the 211F to J from the intercooling, similar gains seem likely at lower altitudes with the reduced charge heating of the lower supercharger speeds. (possibly slightly better gains given the reduced power consumed by the supercharger itself)

Was the 211F available earlier than the 601E? That might be moderately significant to note. (the 601N already had competitive/better performance, but required C3 fuel)



Not quite the same argument, but the 190's wing root guns should pretty well count as 'in the nose' as well. And with a V12, it could have had 3 MG 151s all on the centerline too. (at least around the same time as the A-2 got the wing root 151s, initially it might be MG-FF/Ms in the nose and outer wings -or possibly omitting the outer wing guns in some configurations to save weight, leaving the 4 MG 17s and single MG-FF/M -likely with the larger capacity drum)

I'm also not sure whether the smaller wing on the V1 prototype (or the slightly larger small wing on the later prototypes and initial A0s -before the full sized wing entered production) could accept cannons in the outer wings, but given the 109 managed it and the 190 saved on some complexity/space consumption by lacking the LE slats, it seems plausible to assume at least. (certainly less room for fuel tanks in the wings though)
 

Let's see the power chart for Jumo 211F only:



The 'Start' part of 'Start und Notleistung' power setting was used in bombers, ie. the 1.4 ata 2600 rpm was used for 1 minute, take off only. For the fighter's use, the engine need to be tested and rated for 'Notleistung', say 5 minutes at 1.4 ata and 2600 rpm in this case. It gives (for v = 0 km/h, ie. no ram) ~1400 PS at 1.3 km, and ~1190 PS at 5 km. With 400 km/h worth of ram, the rated height for the 1st S/C speed is at 2.8 km, the power is supposed to be 1420 PS there. So we have the Jumo 211F pretty well matched as-is with any low-level Soviet machine; the AM 38 is a bit better, but at cost (bulk, weight), and it does not have 2nd S/C gear to help out above ~3,5 km.

The gain in power, 211J vs. 211F, is not that great in 1st S/C gear as it is in 2nd, but it can still give an increase in power at low level. Looking at the data, we should have ~1450 PS at 1000m, Notleistung, no ram.


Was the 211F available earlier than the 601E? That might be moderately significant to note. (the 601N already had competitive/better performance, but required C3 fuel)
Click to expand...

IIRC the 211F was in use from early 1941, the 601E from June 1941.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the chart, that should be 1.8 km, not 2.8, for 1420 ps with 400 km/h ram. (though for flat-out speed in a Fw 190 derivative, the 1440 ps at 2.4 km with 600 km/h ram would also be relevant)

And yes, I wasn't so much expecting to match the AM38's power, but more optimize for the same peak performance range (distributed between 2 supercharger speeds rather than 1), but in this case the gains might not be worth it given the reduced utility at higher altitudes (when needed -or simply for standard production).

In addition to that, I'd forgotten to consider in my previous posts that, had the 211F indeed been implemented on fighters, there might have been some precedent for ratings specific to C2 or C3 usage and increased maximum boost without use of the intercooler. (and also without the compression ratio increases typical of C3-specific engine models) You wouldn't have the same charge cooling/density improvements of the 211J, but also no added drag from the intercoolers. (more important if a specialized low-drag radiator arrangement is used rather than the standard jumo annular one -given the intercooler radiators fit into that same cowling without increasing the frontal area)

Any higher power settings on the 211F would obviously require additional testing, so at very least probably seeing some delay akin to the 601E in 1941. In any case, the 211 would make more efficient use of that C3 fuel than the same resources going to the thirstier 801. (less fuel hungry for B4 as well, of course)

Of course, with both C3 fuel AND the 211J's intercooler, you might be capable of even greater boost so long as the rest of the engine is strong enough for it. (which it very well might not be -managing 211J power levels on the 211F without modifications other than changing fuel type and manifold pressure limits seems far more likely)

IIRC the 211F was in use from early 1941, the 601E from June 1941.
Click to expand...
This might be another attractive point for adapting the Fw 190 to the Jumo 211. At least for the earlier part of 1941 it would be the most powerful German V12 in service and continue to be so until the 601E was cleared for 1.42 ATA. (albeit with slightly weaker altitude performance than the 601N -more so with the coarser power curves)

That coupled with the greater availability of the 211 (genuine shortages of DB engines on top of the RLM distribution preference for Bf 109 and 110 use) and other advantages over the 801C would seem to make it a very attractive fighter engine for a complement or replacement for the 109. (besides that, had the Jumo 211 been pressed for use as a fighter engine, it might have seen more developments for optimizations catering to that mission profile -though the 'Notleistung' and potential C3 usage would both be part of that line of thought)

That would also make the 211 somewhat compelling to use on the 109, but given the 190 was a new design and avoiding interruption of 109 production was a major concern, that would be one more thing in favor of the Jumo 211F + Fw 190 airframe combination. (be it something closer to the Fw 190V1 or a heavier airframe much closer to the Production A1 -though almost certainly including a motor cannon in either case)

And while this would remove some of the 211s going to bomber production in 1941, it could also mean applying most/all of the BMW 801Cs to bombers and night fighters rather than day fighters. (Do 217s and Ju 88s in particular)


On another note, had the Fw 190 indeed performed well adapted to the Jumo engine, that would be one more practical reason the Fw 187 would be less attractive using the same engines. (aside from being more attractive in roles more specific to the Bf 110 -especially with the 801 powered Ju 88 likely performing better as a night fighter at least until compact enough radar could be applied to the Fw 187 itself)
 
How accurate of a comparison of the stalling characteristics of the 109 and 190 is this? I seem to recall the spitfire also having problems with snap stalls at high speed but was generally regarded as easier to fly than the 109. The 109's slats also gave an unusual feel for stall and given some anecdotal accounts, not all pilots seem to have been trained to properly use them. (some descriptions of the 109 tending to 'stall without warning' seems more like not understanding the difference between pulling into high angle of attack and forcing the slats to pop open and actually pushing further into the stall range)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moreRketqek

I was rather confused watching this a few months back given the description of handling characteristics that contradicted much of which I'd read and seen discussed about the 109 and spitfire. (and totally omitted any mention of the slats)
 
kool kitty89 said:
Looking at the chart, that should be 1.8 km, not 2.8, for 1420 ps with 400 km/h ram. (though for flat-out speed in a Fw 190 derivative, the 1440 ps at 2.4 km with 600 km/h ram would also be relevant)
Click to expand...

Whoops - my bad, it is indeed 1.8 km for 400 km/h


The Jumo 211F should be able to provide both power down low to match AM 38, and enough of power to compete with AM 35A high up, let alone the M 105 on all altitudes.


The Jumo engines were with low CR (6.5:1) and indeed it should be less of a problem to implement higher boost levels with C3 fuel. Granted, the BMW 801D with no increase of the CR vs. the 801C should be also interesting in that regard, while implementation of more streamlined external intakes will improve altitude performance, while not making that of a dent on low-altitude performance.


The early V-12 powered Fw 190 should make a better LR fighter than what would be reasonably expected from the Bf 109 in any iteration

We might recall that Ta 154 have had issues with Jumo 211 engines, with 3 prototypes crashing because of engine problems - so yes, the caution and good testing is needed. Ironically, Germany have had reliability problems on all of it's main engines mid-war.

In 1941, the Fw 190/211F should be performing better than any Allied fighter, with exception of Spitfire V?


I'd go with the normal, big wing, it is still fairly a small wing compared with Spit, P-40, P-51 or Zero. The further adoption of heavier powerplant would not favor the initial, small wing.


The Fw 190/801 will be far more attractive with BMW 801C running at 2700 rpm also in second S/C gear, along with both 801C and 801D having streamlined, but external intakes. At least in ETO, where the altitude performance is needed, and long range (at least when in defense) is not that attractive thing. Also - ditch the fuselage MGs.
 
Hi Kool Kitty,

The flight reports I have read were German, British, and U.S.A. . All commented that the fighter flew very well, had excellent ailerons, and very little aerodynamic stall warning. The aircraft was supposed to flick one way or the other if you got into a deep stall in a tight turn. That means it would roll to the outside of the turn if slipping and roll to the inside if skidding, ending up upside down in either case.

Some planes did that. It didn't make them especially dangerous, but it WOULD give you pause at low altitudes if you were not quite famailar with the aircraft and needed to pull hard into a turn.

How accurate? I've never flown one.

The only guy I know personally who has is Steve Hinton, and he wasn't exploring the stall characteristics, he was exploring the FLIGHT charachertistics. He described the flight characteristics as wonderful and said you could feel a BIG difference between the real bird and the Flugwerk replicas. He said there was no doubt you were in a thoroughbred fighter when you were in a real Fw 190.

So ...if you believe the flight reports from the time, then you do. If you don't, you have no frame of reference. I personally don't believe the WWII flight reports were fake; they flew like the guys at the time SAID they flew.

Also keep in mind that any captured planes were operated by people who were essentially unfamiliar with them and their maintenance requirements and specifications. So, they might not quite match the flight tests carried out by the people who invented and manufactured the captured planes.
 
Last edited:
A more riskier earlier (with regard to the service use) approach to the Fw 190 engine might be pressing on with BMW 139. The installation will certainly need more louvers so it can be cooled better, along with cooling fan (instead of ducting spinner), as it was the case with reworked V1 prototype.
The BMW 139 was to make 1410 PS at 4500 m (5 min rating) and 1270 PS at 4900 m (30 min rating), weight 800 kg bare engine, but with cooling fan.
 
Shortround6 said:
Might not work very well In the DO 217 or later Ju-88s though
Click to expand...

In case cooling is improved, it might be a decent engine. The power levels are comparable with BMW 801C, or the 801A on the earlier Do 217s - 1500 PS for take off vs. 1560.

Turning it into a production could delay or cancel the 801 leaving the Germans..................
Click to expand...

Produce the 139 in 1940-43, with 801 introduced in winter of 1942/43?
 
The 139 was built using 132 components, I doubt these would be suitable for higher power levels than ~1500PS.
The 801 had multiple improvements to enable further power increases.
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
If you have enough engineers/man power for two design teams.

We don't know why they stopped the BMW 139 do we? Or the RPM, Boost it was operating at?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the BMW 801 was basically a developed BMW 139. Improvements included a two speed supercharger and mechanical refinements. The often seen statement that the BMW 139 had 18 cylinders is almost certainly incorrect. FWIW, there was an 18 cylinder development (BMW 140) that never materialized.
 
Shortround6 said:
If you have enough engineers/man power for two design teams.

We don't know why they stopped the BMW 139 do we? Or the RPM, Boost it was operating at?
Click to expand...

To a certain extent BMW did have two design teams: There was BMW itself, based in Munich, and then Bramo which was the BRandenberg MOtor works, based near Berlin and itself once known as Siemens Schuckert and in many ways more illustrious. BMW absorbed Bramo. I believe the 139 was a BMW project development and the 329 bramo. This is why the firm appears to have licensed both the Mercury from Bristol and the Hornet from Pratt and Whitney. BMW took over and so its programs were preeminent.

The 801 was numbered as the RLM, German air ministry, issued a new block of numbers to the "merged" firm.

The treaty of Versailes and allied commission all but wiped out German aircraft and engine manufacture with severe rules restricting engine horsepower and airframes size, at one point to only 100hp. Firms like Junkers survived by shifting operations to Sweden and Dornier by shifting across the border to Switzerland just across the other side of Lake Constance.

It's likely the German aviation industry would have wiped the floor in post WW1 civil aviation globally with the mastery of aluminium construction that was fully developed by 1918 but for these allied restrictions. (Claudius Dornier learned has smooth plate aluminium construction craft at the Zeppelin Works also on Lake Constance in Frierichshaven)

These all metal monoplanes could operate in storm that grounded biplanes.

The trimotors that Junkers developed such as the G24 (and latter Ju 52) were originally designed as economical single engined aircraft that had to be built in Germany as trimotors so as not to be regarded as fighters, they were then to be shipped to Sweden and the idea was to remove the wing mounted engines for overseas customers and substitute a single large engine. Twins of the day could not keep themselves in the air if an engine failed and were thus no safer, hence Lindbergh choice of a single, but a trimotor could. Hence through the use of gyroscopic artificial horizons and radio navigation beacons Lufthansa was able to begin the worlds first scheduled night time passenger services using G24s since a single engine failure did not lead to a crash landing since a open field could not be seen at night.

Obviously with these restrictions German engine manufacturers fell behind in investment and BMW resorted to liscence production when restrictions were finally lifted. Daimler Benz did not deign to do so. Hirth and Argus, roughly Auto Union or Audi, developed its own inline air cooled technology that might have matched the liquid v12 and air cooled radials in performance had it been pursued.

Bramo/Siemens used 300 series numbers eg Bramo 323 with a Jupiter heritage while BMW used 100 series numbers eg BMW132 with a hornet heritage. The merged firm received a new block of numbers beginning at 800.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
9K
GregP
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
Replies
14
Views
717
elbmc1969
E
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
5K
Jabberwocky
J
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
7K
Denniss
D
S
Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
z42
Z
Menu
Log in
Register