WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?

[[email protected]]

Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their major
weaknesses were?

[Krztalizer]

>I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters of
>the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their major
>weaknesses were?

Their performance was affected by which weapons it carried, but in general it
was considered a classic dogfighter. About half of production was devoted to
ground attack variants, but most people think of them as fighters - the reason
they were used as ground attack is they could take incredible punishment that a
109 simply could not. Some of the Luftwaffe Experten shot down dozens of
Allied fighters in the FW 190, so I would say its the game out of true, not
some inherent weakness in the fighter of WWII.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Keith Willshaw]

> wrote in message
...
> Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
> crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
of
> the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
> weaknesses were?
>
>

They were excellent fighters, when they first appeared they
provided a nasty surprise for the RAF and outmatched
the Spitfires until the Mk IX came along.

They were certainly superior to the Soviet aircraft
of the period.

Keith

[WalterM140]

>They were excellent fighters, when they first appeared they
>provided a nasty surprise for the RAF and outmatched
>the Spitfires until the Mk IX came along.
>

One of the things that makes you wonder a bit is that many of the high scoring
Luftwaffe aces stayed with the 109 right up the end.

I've always thought the FW-190A was a pretty good dogfighter. In the flight
sims I've played, it's not much used though. People will take the FW-190D.

Walt

[The Enlightenment]

> wrote in message
...
> Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are
really
> crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other
fighters of
> the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what
their major
> weaknesses were?

Their major strength, for the FW190A was in roll rate. They could
roll and thereby execute a faster turn. They could also zoom up and
down in the vertical very well. Turning circle was a little less than
a spitfire but if the roll rate as used properly it didn't matter:
they could stay one step ahead. The BMW701 radial engine while
nearly unbeatable at low altitude suffered at high altitude hence the
FW190D was equiped with a jumo 213 water cooled engine to give the
Luftwaffe a high altitide fighter other than the Me109. It lost some
of its impressive roll rate and because of the unenlarged wing the
wing loading went up, nevertheless its performance was good.

The TA152H was a mdodifed FW190D with bigger wings for high altitude
interceptions. (nearly 50,000 feet at 480mph). The TA152C was as
for the TA152H only with clipped wings for low altitude fights.

Even the FW190A had some interesting features: a standard auto-pilot
and also a fully automatic throttle. No mixiture controls. You just
pushed the throttle forward (not backward as on allied aircraft) and
everything was taken care of.

The aircraft could also carry heavy armament.

[Dale]

In article >,
"The Enlightenment" > wrote:


> Even the FW190A had some interesting features: a standard auto-pilot
> and also a fully automatic throttle. No mixiture controls. You just
> pushed the throttle forward (not backward as on allied aircraft) and
> everything was taken care of.

The 190 had a single-lever power control that worked the throttle and
prop...not sure about the mixture.

The throttle in "allied" aircraft was pushed forward to increase power.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Dale > writes:
> In article >,
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote:
>
>
>> Even the FW190A had some interesting features: a standard auto-pilot
>> and also a fully automatic throttle. No mixiture controls. You just
>> pushed the throttle forward (not backward as on allied aircraft) and
>> everything was taken care of.
>
> The 190 had a single-lever power control that worked the throttle and
> prop...not sure about the mixture.

Mixture, too. and it also managed the blower gear shift. It was a
complicated beast, and prone to getting itself confused.
Unfortumately, there wasn't any otehr way to manipulate the engine.
If the Kommando-Gerate went stupid, you had to limp along as best you
could.

> The throttle in "allied" aircraft was pushed forward to increase power.

As was the prop (Full Increae) and Mixture (Full Rich). And, for
those airplane with turbosuperchargers as the first stage of the
supercharging system, the manual wastegate control. (Unless it had the
electronic turboregulators, (Late B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s), in which
case you had a "Volume Control" knob graduated between 1 and 10.

The P-47 had a fairly complicated throttle quadrant, with the
Throttle, Prop, Mixture, and Wastegate controls on it. Republic's
solution to provide "One Lever Control" was a pair of fold-out "ears:
on the throttle lever shaft, which engaged the Prop, Mixture, &
wastegate levers & moved them with the throttle. It worked great,
total cost was about a Quarter, and if you didn't need or want it, you
folded the ears up & worked each lever independantly.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[The CO]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters of
> >the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
> >weaknesses were?
>
> Their performance was affected by which weapons it carried, but in
general it
> was considered a classic dogfighter. About half of production was
devoted to
> ground attack variants, but most people think of them as fighters -
the reason
> they were used as ground attack is they could take incredible
punishment that a
> 109 simply could not. Some of the Luftwaffe Experten shot down dozens
of
> Allied fighters in the FW 190, so I would say its the game out of
true, not
> some inherent weakness in the fighter of WWII.

I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone had
asked the
late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was superior
to the
109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and IIRC, his
comment was
that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
needed more
attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have always
understood that
manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a balancing act,
too stable and
it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?
ISTR the F16 would be rather unstable if it wasn't for the computerised
flight control
system?

The CO

[Krztalizer]

>
>I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone had
>asked the
>late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was superior
>to the
>109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and IIRC, his
>comment was
>that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
>needed more
>attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have always
>understood that
>manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a balancing act,
>too stable and
>it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
>unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
>the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?

Lots of folks flew both and comparisons between the two are all over the board.
For some like Novotny, a 109 was an antiquated and poorly laid out has-been; he
felt the 190's brilliantly thought out "T"-shaped instrument panel made his job
far more instinctual than in the more labor intensive Messerschmitt cockpit.
Others like Rall and Barkhorn felt that the small size of the 109 led one to
feel as if they were "wearing" the Me, so movements were practically reflexive
and coordinated between pilot and airframe. I think the demarcation between
factions is frequently set at when that particular pilot began to fly German
fighters -- 1942 and earlier, the pilots generally preferred the nimble 109,
even after fighters of a better class were introduced. Conversely, the "young
lions" that came along after the 109's heyday felt no great affinity for it
when offered the technologically advanced Focke Wulf fighter. I guess once
they survived into 1944 and 45, each group were entitled to latch onto whatever
superstition had kept them alive when so many of their comrades had fallen.
Look at Rudel - that frickin' Nazi started the war in a flight of Stukas, at
one point transitioned to CAS FW-190s, then ended the war back in a flight of
Stukas - at a time in the war when daylight operations in the Ju 87 were
considered absolute suicide by Allied and most German airmen alike. Go figure.

v/r
Gordon

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 5/20/04 9:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone had
>>asked the
>>late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was superior
>>to the
>>109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and IIRC, his
>>comment was
>>that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
>>needed more
>>attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have always
>>understood that
>>manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a balancing act,
>>too stable and
>>it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
>>unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
>>the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?
>
>Lots of folks flew both and comparisons between the two are all over the
>board.
>For some like Novotny, a 109 was an antiquated and poorly laid out has-been;
>he
>felt the 190's brilliantly thought out "T"-shaped instrument panel made his
>job
>far more instinctual than in the more labor intensive Messerschmitt cockpit.
>Others like Rall and Barkhorn felt that the small size of the 109 led one to
>feel as if they were "wearing" the Me, so movements were practically
>reflexive
>and coordinated between pilot and airframe. I think the demarcation between
>factions is frequently set at when that particular pilot began to fly German
>fighters -- 1942 and earlier, the pilots generally preferred the nimble 109,
>even after fighters of a better class were introduced. Conversely, the "young
>lions" that came along after the 109's heyday felt no great affinity for it
>when offered the technologically advanced Focke Wulf fighter. I guess once
>they survived into 1944 and 45, each group were entitled to latch onto
>whatever
>superstition had kept them alive when so many of their comrades had fallen.
>Look at Rudel - that frickin' Nazi started the war in a flight of Stukas, at
>one point transitioned to CAS FW-190s, then ended the war back in a flight of
>Stukas - at a time in the war when daylight operations in the Ju 87 were
>considered absolute suicide by Allied and most German airmen alike. Go
>figure.
>
>v/r
>Gordon


Of the many German fighter pilots I spoke to in the Hofbrau Haus in Munich
shortly after the war the majority opted for the ME 109. The Emil or "E "
model seemed the number one choice. Many were saddened because the Emils were
replaced by what they considered models that were not quite as good. These
discussions were in the summer of 1945.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jukka I Seppänen]

(Krztalizer) writes:

Was there any preferences between submodels (FW190 A-x and Me-109
E-x, G-xx, K-xx)?

Jukka

[Krztalizer]

>
>Was there any preferences between submodels (FW190 A-x and Me-109
>E-x, G-xx, K-xx)?
>

Howdy, Jukka. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

I never tabulated how many flyers preferred specific models, but Galland had a
gorgeous old Bf 109 F as late as October 1944! (He used it to fly from Berlin
to Jüterbog to save Dahl from Göring's wrath the day he got his Eichenlaub to
the KC.) I think it was more a "personal transport" than his actual "war
mount" (although even short relocation hops were highly dangerous by that
time).

I have never heard of any German say they'd pick a Bf 109 G-6/R6 (the
cannon-schiffe with underwing pods), although Gustavs with traditional weaponry
seemed popular. The Erla haube made a huge difference, as did the addition of
cockpit armor. Never heard anyone mentioning a preference for any model prior
to the Emil. As Art pointed out, the Emil, particularly with the centerline
cannon, was very popular with the pilots. By the time the K-4 came out, pilots
didn't even care what model they had, the 'kites' were judged on an individual
basis: some G-6s were preferred over G-10s and Ks, if the former were
considered to be of better manufacture.

"My" guys, the Mosquito hunters stationed at Jüterbog, had access to any Bf 109
available and they tested each new acquisition for their speed - didn't matter
how new or which model it was, if it couldn't catch a Mosquito. All of their
109s were AS-engined, and although no one believes this, several pilots in the
unit claim they tested a "3-stage blower".

The fastest machine in the unit was an overall blue G-6 with cockpit armor and
wing guns pulled. It beat every other machine and the pilot had a shooting
star painted on the beule (similar to how other units had). Late in the war,
when 10./JG 300 went over to NJG 11 as its 5th and 6th Staffel, they still had
a mix of G-6, G-10, and G-14s; no one in the entire Gruppe cared one bit about
which model they were riding, as long as it got them home.

Of the very few FW 190 pilots I've talked to, the FW "could beat anything"
(cof) up to medium altitudes and they were easy to bail out of - which all of
them (5 or 6?) had done; mention 190 Ds, they just smiled. In the 190
D-series, the pilots felt they could handle any individual Allied fighter - but
the problem was, our guys never "...fought you fair, one on one - it was always
our Schwarm against 800 Indians!" Perception, I guess.

v/r
Gordon
Stormbirds.com/recon

[Jukka I Seppänen]

(Krztalizer) writes:

> Howdy, Jukka. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Howdy, but you probably mix me with Jukka O. Kauppinen?

> I have never heard of any German say they'd pick a Bf 109 G-6/R6 (the
> cannon-schiffe with underwing pods), although Gustavs with traditional weaponry
> seemed popular. The Erla haube made a huge difference, as did the addition of
> cockpit armor. Never heard anyone mentioning a preference for any model prior
> to the Emil. As Art pointed out, the Emil, particularly with the centerline
> cannon, was very popular with the pilots. By the time the K-4 came out, pilots
> didn't even care what model they had, the 'kites' were judged on an individual
> basis: some G-6s were preferred over G-10s and Ks, if the former were
> considered to be of better manufacture.

As an dogfighter most powerful, lightest and reliable engine would be preferred
option if flight characteristics otherwise doesn't decline.

Did engine upgrades happen in field also in E-, G- and K-series Me-109's and
was there a preferred engine/blower combo?

I have read that DB's (and alla others) engines quality diminish all the time,
estimated work hours dropped hundreds of hours to some dozen hours.
Thats why aces wanted to stay "old" models and engines?

Jukka

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 5/21/04 1:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>Of the very few FW 190 pilots I've talked to, the FW "could beat anything"
>(cof) up to medium altitudes and they were easy to bail out of - which all of
>them (5 or 6?) had done; mention 190 Ds, they just smiled. In the 190
>D-series, the pilots felt they could handle any individual Allied fighter -
>but
>the problem was, our guys never "...fought you fair, one on one - it was
>always
>our Schwarm against 800 Indians!" Perception, I guess.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
>Stormbirds.com/recon

Also almost all Lufttwaffe pilots I spoke to in those mid-1945 conversations
hated the "K: model. Said they were unreliable.And one even said it was
designed to beat the P-51, which it could never do. But only one guy ever said
that. Unfortunately I never persued the point and asked any of the others about
that.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "ArtKramr" == ArtKramr > writes:

ArtKramr> Of the many German fighter pilots I spoke to in the
ArtKramr> Hofbrau Haus in Munich shortly after the war the
ArtKramr> majority opted for the ME 109. The Emil or "E " model
ArtKramr> seemed the number one choice. Many were saddened because
ArtKramr> the Emils were replaced by what they considered models
ArtKramr> that were not quite as good. These discussions were in
ArtKramr> the summer of 1945.

Interesting. I had always read that the favourite model was the F,
with nicer aerodynamics than the E, a better engine, and improved
handling and performance. The armament was pretty weak though in the
early models (15mm nose cannon, and two 7.7mm cowl guns). The G
version introduced the horrible handling characteristics that killed a
lot mroe student pilots. Brute power over finess.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
>From: Gernot Hassenpflug
>Date: 5/21/04 9:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time

Of the many German fighter pilots I spoke to in the
Hofbrau Haus in Munich shortly after the war the
majority opted for the ME 109. The Emil or "E " model
seemed the number one choice. Many were saddened because
the Emils were replaced by what they considered models
that were not quite as good. These discussions were in
the summer of 1945.
>
>Interesting. I had always read that the favourite model was the F,
>with nicer aerodynamics than the E, a better engine, and improved
>handling and performance. The armament was pretty weak though in the
>early models (15mm nose cannon, and two 7.7mm cowl guns). The G
>version introduced the horrible handling characteristics that killed a
>lot mroe student pilots. Brute power over finess.
>
>--
>G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

Well I really am just recalling what these Luftwaffe pilots told me over cold
beer and wurst at the Hofbrau Haus in Munich. I have no first hand knowledge
myself on this subject. They also were down on the "K". They said it was
unreliable because they tried to get power out of that engine that it was never
designed to deliver. Of course the war had just ended and here we were, former
enemies chatting over beer only weeks after we stopped shooting at each other.
.. It was a bit strange at first but we all soon got used to it. Some of the
guys who flew bombers had some interesting comments about the Norden
bombsight and their bombsight, but that is another topic for another time.This
post is about Emils.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ron]

>
>Of the many German fighter pilots I spoke to in the Hofbrau Haus in Munich
>shortly after the war the majority opted for the ME 109. The Emil or "E "
>model seemed the number one choice. Many were saddened because the Emils were
>replaced by what they considered models that were not quite as good. These
>discussions were in the summer of 1945.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

So what was it like, to be having a beer with people, with whom you both were
fighting against each other just weeks or months earlier?


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
>From: (Ron)
>Date: 5/21/04 10:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>Of the many German fighter pilots I spoke to in the Hofbrau Haus in Munich
>>shortly after the war the majority opted for the ME 109. The Emil or "E "
>>model seemed the number one choice. Many were saddened because the Emils
>were
>>replaced by what they considered models that were not quite as good. These
>>discussions were in the summer of 1945.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>So what was it like, to be having a beer with people, with whom you both were
>fighting against each other just weeks or months earlier?
>
>
>Ron
>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>Silver City Tanker Base
>


Very strange. We were rather stand-offish at first. Damned Nazis. But as time
went on we saw they were just a bunch of guys just like us. Same age, Same
experience. After a while we became rather friendly with a select few of
them..I had a lot of talks with a German bombardier. It turned out we had a
lot in common. But I had to be careful because the anti-fraternization laws
were still in effect. But I did smuggle some food out of the mess hall for his
wife and kid. He lived in Schleissheim right outside our airfield and I got him
a job in the group photolab which helped a lot. Strange days never to be
forgotten.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Krztalizer]

>
>> Howdy, Jukka. Always a pleasure to hear from you.
>
>Howdy, but you probably mix me with Jukka O. Kauppinen?

Undoubtably :) Sorry about that. If its any help, I confused you with a great
guy.

>>some G-6s were preferred over G-10s and Ks, if the former were
>> considered to be of better manufacture.
>
>As an dogfighter most powerful, lightest and reliable engine would be
>preferred
>option if flight characteristics otherwise doesn't decline.

The greater speed of the later, more powerful models was often gained at the
expense of a piston rod flying out the hood at bad moments. Apparently,
blowing an engine in the Emil took real effort - by the time you got to a G-14
or K, the engine was likely to blow up after even a few moments at boost.
Heard that from several different pilots - two of them blew up their motors
under identical circumstances; one made a deadstick landing from 9,000 m (at
night!), the other dumped his into a lake outside Berlin. The screws were so
eager to hang him for the loss of a brand new G-14 that they went to the
trouble of fishing the 109 out of the lake - when the damage was obviously due
to defects in the blower, they let the pilot off the hook.

>Did engine upgrades happen in field also in E-, G- and K-series Me-109's and
>was there a preferred engine/blower combo?

Re: Field upgrades - Usually not, as far as I know. Everyone preferred the
AS motors once they became available.

>I have read that DB's (and alla others) engines quality diminish all the
>time,
>estimated work hours dropped hundreds of hours to some dozen hours.

Absolutely. I have a complaint letter from an NJG 11 Staffelkapitan to the
wing, gritching about engine life being ~15 hours before replacement (dated
March 45) - granted, by that time, the pilots were running scared and boost was
being selected a lot more often than the manufacturer intended.

>Thats why aces wanted to stay "old" models and engines?

That probably had a hand in it, plus wing loading got so bad the later models
were becoming real pigs. A good G-2 or G-5, sent back to the factory and
returned as a later model was almost guaranteed to come back as a handling
nightmare.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Krztalizer]

>Also almost all Lufttwaffe pilots I spoke to in those mid-1945 conversations
>hated the "K: model. Said they were unreliable.

Although its aethetically one of the more attractive of the 109s, I haven't
heard of anyone being a fan of them. You'd think with that big tail and all
the other "end-time" improvements that they'd be good ships, but by then
quality was down quite a bit.

>And one even said it was
>designed to beat the P-51, which it could never do. But only one guy ever
>said
>that.

I'm sure that was Willi's intent, but it never worked out that way - the P-51
was simply superb in a fight; add in the quality of our pilots and the K-4 was
never going to be good enough. The 109 was inadequate after 1943 and should
not have remained in production.

But, Speer didn't ask my opinion. :)

v/r
Gordon

<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 5/21/04 11:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Also almost all Lufttwaffe pilots I spoke to in those mid-1945 conversations
>>hated the "K: model. Said they were unreliable.
>
>Although its aethetically one of the more attractive of the 109s, I haven't
>heard of anyone being a fan of them. You'd think with that big tail and all
>the other "end-time" improvements that they'd be good ships, but by then
>quality was down quite a bit.
>
>>And one even said it was
>>designed to beat the P-51, which it could never do. But only one guy ever
>>said
>>that.
>
>I'm sure that was Willi's intent, but it never worked out that way - the P-51
>was simply superb in a fight; add in the quality of our pilots and the K-4
>was
>never going to be good enough. The 109 was inadequate after 1943 and should
>not have remained in production.
>
>But, Speer didn't ask my opinion. :)
>
>v/r
>Gordon
>
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR


It was clear to me just to hear these guystalk that as the war raged on they
developed a sense of hopelessness. That is a tragic way to fight a war. We were
gung ho and they were fighting but without conviction or hope of any success.
And I think it was the beer that made them relax and talk frankly about how
they felt. And they sure could hold their beer. I still remember those days in
the Hofbrau Haus in Munich 60 long years ago. Like it was yesterday. BTW, that
same Hofbrau Haus just opened a branch here in Las Vegas. Be funny if I walked
in and found those same Luftwaffe guys in there waiting for me swinging their
steins as I came in.. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[John Waters]

> wrote in message
...
> Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
> crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
of
> the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
> weaknesses were?


Well if you would ask this question at UBI forums in Olegs Ready Room you
would get some realy good answers to this, as this subject has been present
their since IL-2s release.

Best thing to do is forget everything Westren you have read on the Fw 190's
performance, and learn IL-2s Fw 190s strengths & weaknesses.

I fly the Fw 190 in IL-2 and have no problems with killing Soviet fighters
as long as I forget attempting to turn with them, do not try to turn with
La, Yak etc and dont attempt to climb away, unless you have good
seperation. Use your speed to hit & run etc.

Roll rate is the Fw 190s trump card, as well as massive firepower and level
speed, use these advantages wisely, and you will be successful.

Regards, John Waters

[Guy Alcala]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
> > crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
> of
> > the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
> major
> > weaknesses were?
> >
> >
>
> They were excellent fighters, when they first appeared they
> provided a nasty surprise for the RAF and outmatched
> the Spitfires until the Mk IX came along.
>
> They were certainly superior to the Soviet aircraft
> of the period.

The biggest problem with most computer game FW-190s is the gamers flying them,
and the nature of the game environment (assuming the flight model is decent).
The 190 is an energy fighter, and you have to fight it that way. You can't
just tug harder on the pole and tighten up your turn like you can in a Spit,
seeing who will stall/snap out first; the 190 loses that game. The FW-190A's
strengths, as someone wrote, were roll rate, cockpit visibility, good level
and dive acceleration, decent sustained and good zoom climb, good level speeds
for 1942 and still adequate for 1943, heavy armament, an easy to use power
control, good hi-g tolerance seat position, excellent control harmony, good
protection and durability. Disadvantages were poor turn radius, no-warning
clean stall, and an accelerated stall, also no warning, which would snap the
a/c over into the opposite bank and into an incipient spin if you didn't take
quick corrective measures (which didn't do anything for the 'useful' turn
rate/radius, as less experienced pilots were afraid to approach the a/c's
limits), heavy elevator at high (dive) speeds which could limit pull-out
ability, plus poor stability for instrument flying.

Fighting against relatively light Spitfires etc. the 190 could bounce them,
use their superior roll rate to stay with them through the first 90 degrees or
so of turn while shooting, and then dive away, usually rolling 180 in the
opposite direction so that the Spit was unable to follow (assuming it survived
the intial pass). Such advantages tended to disappear when facing P-47s or
P-51s, which had slower initial dive accel but would catch up if the dive were
prolonged, reasonably high roll rates, and would outzoom it as well. I'd
expect the fairly light Soviet fighters to be closer to the Spit than the
heavier American types.

The other main disadvantage for the FW-190 is the game environment itself. In
real life, the majority of fighter kills were made in the first pass, with the
target unaware of its adversary's presence until too late. Pilots could fly
hours and hours and never see an enemy a/c, so sneaking up on someone was
relatively common. But that's rarely the case in a computer game, where you
can _expect_ there to be enemies about in a short period of time, and you can
virtually guarantee that both sides will, if contact is made, initiate
combat. In such circumstances an energy fighter like the 190's advantages are
nullified.

In real life that would often not be the case -- a group of faster fighters
who were in a disadvantageous position would often just use their speed to
disengage, figuring to come back with an advantage next time.

BTW, here's some comparisions done with USN fighters against an FW-190A-5/U4:

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm

There used to be a page with various British test reports including those of a
captured FW-190A-4, but they seem to be gone:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020210232427/http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm

only gets you the home page.

Summarizing, the 190A was superior to the Spit V in every performance measure
other than turn rate/radius, essentially equal or slightly ahead of the Spit
IX at low/medium altitudes and inferior at higher altitudes, with each side
having advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation, and inferior
to the Mk.XIV in every performance measure except roll rate and dive
acceleration. Fly the 190 against Soviet fighters like it's a P-40 or F4U
flying against an Oscar/Zero.

Guy

[The Enlightenment]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
> >From: (Krztalizer)
> >Date: 5/20/04 9:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>
> >>I saw something (I think) in here not too long ago, where someone
had
> >>asked the
> >>late Adolf Galland about the fact that (on paper) the FW190 was
superior
> >>to the
> >>109. Galland gained most of his victories in the latter, and
IIRC, his
> >>comment was
> >>that the 109 was much more 'comfortable' to fly, whereas the FW190
> >>needed more
> >>attention from the pilot to just flying the aeroplane. I have
always
> >>understood that
> >>manouvreability and stability in a fighter aircraft was a
balancing act,
> >>too stable and
> >>it lacked agility, too agile and it was 'twitchy' and could be
> >>unpleasant to fly. Perhaps
> >>the 190 was on the edge of that envelope?
> >
> >Lots of folks flew both and comparisons between the two are all
over the
> >board.
> >For some like Novotny, a 109 was an antiquated and poorly laid out
has-been;
> >he
> >felt the 190's brilliantly thought out "T"-shaped instrument panel
made his
> >job
> >far more instinctual than in the more labor intensive Messerschmitt
cockpit.
> >Others like Rall and Barkhorn felt that the small size of the 109
led one to
> >feel as if they were "wearing" the Me, so movements were
practically
> >reflexive
> >and coordinated between pilot and airframe. I think the
demarcation between
> >factions is frequently set at when that particular pilot began to
fly German
> >fighters -- 1942 and earlier, the pilots generally preferred the
nimble 109,
> >even after fighters of a better class were introduced. Conversely,
the "young
> >lions" that came along after the 109's heyday felt no great
affinity for it
> >when offered the technologically advanced Focke Wulf fighter. I
guess once
> >they survived into 1944 and 45, each group were entitled to latch
onto
> >whatever
> >superstition had kept them alive when so many of their comrades had
fallen.
> >Look at Rudel - that frickin' Nazi started the war in a flight of
Stukas, at
> >one point transitioned to CAS FW-190s, then ended the war back in a
flight of
> >Stukas - at a time in the war when daylight operations in the Ju 87
were
> >considered absolute suicide by Allied and most German airmen alike.
Go
> >figure.
> >
> >v/r
> >Gordon
>
>
> Of the many German fighter pilots I spoke to in the Hofbrau Haus in
Munich
> shortly after the war the majority opted for the ME 109. The Emil
or "E "
> model seemed the number one choice. Many were saddened because the
Emils were
> replaced by what they considered models that were not quite as good.
These
> discussions were in the summer of 1945.

In a bad landing at night the pug nosed FW190A could over nose and end
up on its back. As the pilot was in a bubble canopy he could easily
be killed and frequently was.

The Me109 with its long nose, burried cockpit and famously weak
undercarriage which simply collapsed was a virtue in these
circumstances and the crews prefered it for this reason.

Several of these aircraft were fitted with neptune radars with the
intention of chasing Mosquitos. They worked well but after staring
at the phosphors the pilot lost his precious night vision and the idea
was dropped.

[John Carrier]

Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
the P-47).

The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.

R / John

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 5/22/04 12:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>In a bad landing at night the pug nosed FW190A could over nose and end
>up on its back. As the pilot was in a bubble canopy he could easily
>be killed and frequently was.
>

Ol' Willie never could design a decent landing gear.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[WaltBJ]

"John Waters" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
> > crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
> of
> > the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
> major
> > weaknesses were?

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
Walt BJ

[Regnirps]

(WaltBJ) wrote:

>Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
>Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
>accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
>ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
>small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
s>ags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
>each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
>at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.

I used to play around with FA18 Fighter and if you were in a fast chase you ran
it dry real quick. Also couldn't reach a running Russian with a Sidewinder
unless you were real close.

These days I sometimes play with Microsoft's WWII Combat Flight Sim. A friend
who flew P47's found it pretty amazing and I have compared it to the gun camera
films I have and the range and leads seem about right (except the tracers go
the same place as the other rounds, which I understand is not quite right). In
fact, I taped the computer video in black and white and edited it in among
camera film and it looks pretty darn good.

The physics models are good with the P47 feeling heavy and slugish compared to
the P51. The German planes are much different and rather twitchy. Of course,
they were supposed to be fast climbing interceptors versus the Allies need for
long range escorts.

BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a turning
radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
wonder if this reflects real conditions?

-- Charlie Springer

[Krztalizer]

>
>BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a
>turning
>radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
>wonder if this reflects real conditions?

I went about European Air War completely backwards - flying missions in Me 262s
and P-47s against essentially sitting ducks (B-24s and He 111s, respectively).
After a couple years playing it and trying nearly every aircraft, I flew a
couple campaigns set on realistic (read: landing by parachute was considered a
success) and the best fighter v fighter in the game was a Spit IX. Close
second, as far as flying a whole campaign, was the Hurricane. That thing had a
ton of guns and most of what was being fired back was light enough that, when
hit, you could bail out over friendly territory and begin again. Defending
Beachy Head from a sky full of 110s seemed pretty realistic, *for a game*. One
thing I hate about WWII flight sims is that aircraft in bomber streams never
seem to feel effects of turbulance. Formations bob ever so gently in rhythmic
patterns at a set airspeed, like perfect robots. 10+ Mosquitos fly along at
12,000' in loose groups at 280 knots, serene as nuns as you fall in astern.
Yah, that's realism.

Has anyone seen a decent nightfighter sim? Something in a Mosquito or Beau..?

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Guy Alcala]

John Carrier wrote:

> Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
> Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
> revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
> the P-47).
>
> The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
> skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
> compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.

In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three
extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the
Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote:

"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with
virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c
a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could
not be bested by the Corsair.

"Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World
War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when
rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV
number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D
(Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such
as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."

F6F-3 vs. 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 superb 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.

"Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot
would probably be the deciding factor."

*A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman
ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Regnirps wrote:

<snip>

> BTW, the Spitfires are nice till you get P51s but the Hurricanes have a turning
> radius and roll rate that seems to be an advantage in some engagements. I
> wonder if this reflects real conditions?

AFAIR it does, at least prior to the Spits getting metal ailerons (which boosted
their roll rate at high IAS). That came in starting as a retrofit on either Mk.
IIs or Mk. Vs, I forget which. IIRR, the Hurricane I could out-turn the Spit I at
low/medium altitudes, but the Spit had better speed up high so it had a more Ps
available up there, where the Hurricane was hanging on a stall while maxed out.

Guy

[The Enlightenment]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
> >From: "The Enlightenment"
> >Date: 5/22/04 12:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >In a bad landing at night the pug nosed FW190A could over nose and
end
> >up on its back. As the pilot was in a bubble canopy he could
easily
> >be killed and frequently was.
> >
>
> Ol' Willie never could design a decent landing gear.

The gear was adaquete for the Emil and Fritz (109E and 109F) if a bit
cantankerous: however by the time the heavier Gustav (which replaced
the DB601 with the more powerfull and havier DB605 engine) the
problem got worse. It was basically a problem caused by gyroscopic
precesion (the takeoff swing only on landing) that was made worse by
the narrow track of the undercarriage. A contarotating propellor
would have solved it for instance.

The undercarriage had the advantage of being pined to the fueselage,
thus saving structural weight and allowing easy disassembly of the
wings for transport. (the aircraft could stand on its undercarriage
with its wings detached)

Towards the end of the war the synthetic fuel plants started producing
higher octane fuel. This might have delayed the the need to oversize
the German engines had it come as early as supplies of high octane
came to the Allies.

I don't believe the Me 110, Me 108 or any other Me had under-carriage
problems.

The Me 262 had nose wheel collapse problems but they were due to
faulty materials.

[Lawrence Nyveen]

In article >,
(WaltBJ) wrote:

> "John Waters" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are really
> > > crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other fighters
> > of
> > > the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
> > major
> > > weaknesses were?
>
> Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
> Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
> accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
> ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
> small.

Try WarBirds. It has all that right.

You can download it and fly offline for free.

--
Laurie Nyveen
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Editor, Netsurfer Digest http://www.netsurf.com/nsd
Editor, WWII TechPubs http://www.wwiitechpubs.info
101 "Red" Squadron, Israel http://www.101squadron.com

"All we are, basically, are monkeys with car keys."
- Grandma Woody (Northern Exposure)

(Remove nada from Canada to e-mail me. Sorry)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> John Carrier wrote:
>
>> Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
>> Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
>> revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
>> the P-47).
>>
>> The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
>> skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
>> compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.
>
> In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three
> extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the
> Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote:
>
> "This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with
> virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c
> a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could
> not be bested by the Corsair.
>
> "Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World
> War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when
> rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV
> number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D
> (Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such
> as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."
>
> F6F-3 vs. 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 superb 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.
>
> "Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot
> would probably be the deciding factor."
>
> *A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman
> ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190.

Some of that may, repeat _may_ be personal preference sneaking in.
Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair much at all, in any
version. Reading his reports, I get the feeling that the Spitfire fit
him just right, and that's what he was measuring against. (But not
teh Seafire, particularly, he rates it last in "Duels in the Sky" for
carrier-based fighters, due to its poor behavior around the boat.
It would be interesting to see what his opinion was of the P-47,
which was pretty similar to the Corsair in size & performance, albeit
with better control harmony.

While he certainly is Very British, he's not a blind chauvanist.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Leopold]

Well, I dont know which flightsims you tried, but Il-2 surely can't be
blamed of having a simplyfied gunerry model. Every bullet is a vector
defined object, as well as aircraft, and collision between these objects is
what is used in IL-2 to detect hits being scored. In older sims the hit
bubble was used so it was rather easy to score hits. Now I haven't fired an
airborne weapon in my life, but IL-2 feels just about right. It also has a
state of the art flight model. I don't think you will be dissapointed if you
try it. It would also be very interesting to read what you think of it once
you've tried it.

As for jet sims, the latest thing is LOMAC which models modern jets
(F-15, A-10, Su-27, Mig-29). Jets of the '60s are soarly missed in todays
flightsim market... I'd really like a decent F-104 sim...


__/ G R E E T I N G S ! \__
\ /


"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Waters" > wrote in message
>...
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are
really
> > > crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other
fighters
> > of
> > > the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
> > major
> > > weaknesses were?
>
> Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
> Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
> accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
> ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
> small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
> sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
> each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
> at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
> Walt BJ

[Krztalizer]

>
>The Me 262 had nose wheel collapse problems but they were due to
>faulty materials.
>

I disagree - in nearly every case, the failure of the nose gear on a 262 could
be traced back to incorrect towing procedures. Putting the entire weight of an
aircraft on the axel of the nose gear and yanking it around with a Krad is a
sure recipe for an accident. Pilots that mention the fragile nose gear were
usually talking about this type of accident, not failures during landing or
takeoff.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 05:21:00 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>AFAIR it does, at least prior to the Spits getting metal ailerons (which boosted
>their roll rate at high IAS). That came in starting as a retrofit on either Mk.
>IIs or Mk. Vs, I forget which.

Officially, Mk Vs, but that didn't stop some unit commanders (e.g.
Bader at Tangmere) short-circuiting the procurement procedure to get
their Mk IIs fitted with them. They apparently weren't common on the
Mk V until late in 1941, as Neville Duke complained when his
metal-aileroned Mk V was lost on operations with another pilot that
summer. And that was when he was with 92 Squadron, the first to get
Spit Vs.

Gavin Bailey
--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

[Jukka O. Kauppinen]

> Has anyone seen a decent nightfighter sim? Something in a Mosquito or Beau..?

Nothing on that front, Gordon. There's been discussions about the
subject and while it would be quite easy to put the right planes into
night skies, everything else is way harder to make.

Radar, for example. It would be immensely hard to make a radar display
that works like the original. Having computer voice give you corrections
from "his" radar display could work, but that would lack the feeling.
Night war was so technical, that you know, it would be mostly flying in
dark sky and not seeing anything - and that would bore 99,5% of the players.

THOUGH...

We did run a three battle long night bombers campaign on WarBirds
simualtor a few years ago. It was fantastic, though very hard.

We managed to do it with a lot of tweaking. Many interesting things
"adjusted" to make a daylight air combat sim to work in a night bomber
scenario, but it worked surprisingly well. Skipping the details, the RAF
bombers did not have any radars, RAF night intruders had partial radar
picture, Luftwaffe night fighters had no radar and Luftwaffe ground
control had full radar picture. This worked in teh in flight map, little
dots moving in the map and we limited that each and every person could
see. Very rough, not like a real radar at all but best what we could do.

Most of the planes were almost correct, some changes with sub variants,
just that the Lancaster had to be replaced by B-24.

In the end, the scenarios were amazing. The pilots flying in almost
blind, relying largely on instruments, Luftwaffe interceptors listening
to ground radar comms and trying to find the bomber streams from
blackness, me as CO of one night fighter squadron plotting the map,
moving counters on tablemap, trying to guide the night fighters around
RAF intruders hunting near airfields and yelling to the guys on radio
(real time voice comms) when they were too late making a turn or druly
commenting "scharm 3, you're in middle of bomber stream". "Control, we
don't see anything..." "Scharm 3, watch again, I repeat you are in
middle of 12+ bombers, control out".

So night bombers can be simulated in some way, in at least correct
online environment, but I don't quite see much changes for a dedicated
simulator. One was in the works by hobbyists but I think that project
has died.

Here's some info/pictures on the night bombers battle:
http://vip.mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak/wb/uberfinns.htm#emc15.1

jok

[Krztalizer]

>
>Here's some info/pictures on the night bombers battle:
>http://vip.mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak/wb/uberfinns.htm#emc15.1
>

Sure looks like fun! Those online battles can be a real cool way to waste a
couple hours. Thanks for the AARs.

v/r
Gordon

[John Waters]

Walt I have no idea what sim you are refering to with F104s etc, IL-2 is an
WW2 FS, that is considered by many, to be the most realistic WW2 FS made..
As to gun ranges in IL-2 they are accurate from what I have read in WW2
pilot AARs etc.

As to gravity effects etc, thats a question better presented at:

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=400102&f=63110913

Regards, John Waters


"WaltBJ" > wrote in message

> Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
> Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
> accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
> ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
> small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
> sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
> each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
> at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
> Walt BJ
>

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > John Carrier wrote:
> >
> >> Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the
> >> Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a
> >> revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was
> >> the P-47).
> >>
> >> The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet
> >> skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when
> >> compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life.
> >
> > In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three
> > extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the
> > Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote:
> >
> > "This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with
> > virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c
> > a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could
> > not be bested by the Corsair.
> >
> > "Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World
> > War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when
> > rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV
> > number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D
> > (Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such
> > as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."
> >
> > F6F-3 vs. 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 superb 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.
> >
> > "Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot
> > would probably be the deciding factor."
> >
> > *A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman
> > ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190.
>
> Some of that may, repeat _may_ be personal preference sneaking in.

I tend to agree, although I've also talked to a navy pilot who had considerable time
in both who said that the Hellcat was superior. But like the pilot ratings at the
fighter meets, subjectivity does creep in, which allows the same a/c's features to
be rated both best of and worst of, with numerous pilots in each group. Still,
Brown was a test pilot, and presumably a bit more objective than a line pilot, at
least as far as flight characteristics went.

> Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair much at all, in any
> version.

I agree, although I don't remember if he ever flew the ones with water injection
etc. He certainly must have flown the ones with the improved oleos, raised seat,
and stall strip.

> Reading his reports, I get the feeling that the Spitfire fit
> him just right, and that's what he was measuring against.

He is a little guy, whereas Boone Guyton (Vought Corsair project pilot) was 6'4".

> (But not
> teh Seafire, particularly, he rates it last in "Duels in the Sky" for
> carrier-based fighters, due to its poor behavior around the boat.
> It would be interesting to see what his opinion was of the P-47,
> which was pretty similar to the Corsair in size & performance, albeit
> with better control harmony.
>
> While he certainly is Very British, he's not a blind chauvanist.

Defintely not, when you consider his appreciation for Grumman products. And when he
puts the Spit XIV and Mustang IV head to head, he rates them essentially equal in
the air, with the Spit having a slight advantage if he was forced to chose. I do
think he underrates the Mustang's affect on the European air war compared to the
Hellcat's effect on the Pacific air war, in arriving at his final ranking.

Guy

[Matt Wiser]

Guy Alcala > wrote:
>Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Guy Alcala >
>writes:
>> > John Carrier wrote:
>> >
>> >> Excellent post. I particularly liked the
>link to the USN tests. As the
>> >> Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively
>Japanese, it must have been a
>> >> revelation to find there was an airplane
>it could outturn (okay, there was
>> >> the P-47).
>> >>
>> >> The impact of a weapon system with an effective
>range of perhaps 1500 feet
>> >> skews the weighting of A/C performance
>characteristics quite a bit when
>> >> compared to modern machinery. But then
>as now, speed was life.
>> >
>> > In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown,
>who'd flown all three
>> > extensively, reached a different conclusion
>than this USN comparison. Re the
>> > Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips)
>vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote:
>> >
>> > "This would be a contest between a heavyweight
>and a lightweight fighter, with
>> > virtually all the advantages on the side
>of the latter. Having flown both a/c
>> > a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would
>rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could
>> > not be bested by the Corsair.
>> >
>> > "Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the
>best piston-engine fighter of World
>> > War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190
>series. Later in the book, when
>> > rating the best performing piston-fighters
>of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV
>> > number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9
>just a nose behind, and the P-51D
>> > (Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately
>ignoring operational issues such
>> > as range]. It is a clear winner in combat
>with the Corsair."
>> >
>> > F6F-3 vs. 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 superb 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.
>> >
>> > "Verdict: This was a contest so finely
>balanced that the skill of the pilot
>> > would probably be the deciding factor."
>> >
>> > *A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat
>had the typically mushy Grumman
>> > ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn
>the 190.
>>
>> Some of that may, repeat _may_ be personal
>preference sneaking in.
>
>I tend to agree, although I've also talked to
>a navy pilot who had considerable time
>in both who said that the Hellcat was superior.
> But like the pilot ratings at the
>fighter meets, subjectivity does creep in, which
>allows the same a/c's features to
>be rated both best of and worst of, with numerous
>pilots in each group. Still,
>Brown was a test pilot, and presumably a bit
>more objective than a line pilot, at
>least as far as flight characteristics went.
>
>> Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair
>much at all, in any
>> version.
>
>I agree, although I don't remember if he ever
>flew the ones with water injection
>etc. He certainly must have flown the ones
>with the improved oleos, raised seat,
>and stall strip.
>
>> Reading his reports, I get the feeling that
>the Spitfire fit
>> him just right, and that's what he was measuring
>against.
>
>He is a little guy, whereas Boone Guyton (Vought
>Corsair project pilot) was 6'4".
>
>> (But not
>> teh Seafire, particularly, he rates it last
>in "Duels in the Sky" for
>> carrier-based fighters, due to its poor behavior
>around the boat.
>> It would be interesting to see what his opinion
>was of the P-47,
>> which was pretty similar to the Corsair in
>size & performance, albeit
>> with better control harmony.
>>
>> While he certainly is Very British, he's not
>a blind chauvanist.
>
>Defintely not, when you consider his appreciation
>for Grumman products. And when he
>puts the Spit XIV and Mustang IV head to head,
>he rates them essentially equal in
>the air, with the Spit having a slight advantage
>if he was forced to chose. I do
>think he underrates the Mustang's affect on
>the European air war compared to the
>Hellcat's effect on the Pacific air war, in
>arriving at his final ranking.
>
>Guy
>
Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190
had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter
them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the
Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat
Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Peter Stickney]

In article <40b4d9c9$1@bg2.>,
"Matt Wiser" > writes:
> Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190
> had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter
> them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the
> Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat
> Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe.

No, not partiularly. Remember that at teh time that teh tests took
place, we still hadn't invaded Normandy, or Southern France, and
things were still cooking along in the Med. Since one of the salient
traits of the Navy is the mobility of their airbases, it would be
foolish to ignore the possibily of meeting 190s.

As to the 190 being a good carrier fighter. No, I don't think so at
all. It's behavior in the pattern was, for a carrier fighter, dismal
at best, (High stall speed, no stall warning, and a nasty tendency to
snap inverted when stalled in anythi8ng but straight & level flight)
with no visibility of the deck from about halfway down the base leg.
(Big engine, little canopy, with the pilot seated low down in the
fuselage. While the gear was somewhat better laid out than the 109,
it most likely wasn't strong enough to stand up to real carrier
operations.
Let's not forget that the rather small size of the German single
engined fighters means that there's no volume available for fuel, so
range/radius is dismal, and there isn't enough space to hang a lot of
stuff on the outside of the airplane. This turns out to be a real
problem with a Carrier Air Group. You've only got so much space to
carry and move airplanes around on, so you need teh most flexibility
that you can get out of an airplane.
As for the Graf Zeppelin (Seagoing version) - if the Germans had
completed her, it would have had as much effect on the War as it did
as a hulk tied up to the pier. Carriers don't operate in isolation -
they need a lot of support - Escorts for the carrier itself, a big
train of Replenishment Ships, Oilers, and other such ships following
it around and requiring excort themselves, and reliable, timely
intelligence about what's going on around them. The Kreigsmarine was
never, ever able to supply this, even if they were able to get their
heads wrapped around it. (Which is rather doubtful - look at the way
they used the few ships they had, ****ing them away in ones and twos
on solo missions that, while they produced a bit of a flap as they
were hunted down & sunk, did nothing to further German War Aims.)
After the April 1940 Norway Campaign, the Germans ended up with no
useful surface Navy at all. (Norway was nasty to the German Navy.
They came out of the Norway Campaign with 3 ships that weren't in the
yards for extensive repairs that put them out of action for the rest
of the year.
They also had some very real problems with basic technology. Their
high pressure/high temperature machinery was supposed to produce a
more compact, lighter, adn more economical power plant. They never
got them to work properly, and what they achieved as a temendous
amount of skill at rigging towlines. Their Light Cruisers, which was
the basis for the Graf Zeppelin's hull, were so structurally weak that
they couldn't be allowed out of the Baltic. Graf Zeppelin herself was
the product of a flawed concept - she combined the airgroup of an
Escort Carrier (even worse than that, since the range/radius of
the airplanes was so limited) with the armament of a small light
cruiser. Just what was it supposed to do?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[David E. Powell]

Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat in the invasion of Southern
France, in 1944?

DEP

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article <40b4d9c9$1@bg2.>,
> "Matt Wiser" > writes:
> > Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190
> > had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter
> > them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the
> > Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat
> > Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe.
>
> No, not partiularly. Remember that at teh time that teh tests took
> place, we still hadn't invaded Normandy, or Southern France, and
> things were still cooking along in the Med. Since one of the salient
> traits of the Navy is the mobility of their airbases, it would be
> foolish to ignore the possibily of meeting 190s.
>
> As to the 190 being a good carrier fighter. No, I don't think so at
> all. It's behavior in the pattern was, for a carrier fighter, dismal
> at best, (High stall speed, no stall warning, and a nasty tendency to
> snap inverted when stalled in anythi8ng but straight & level flight)
> with no visibility of the deck from about halfway down the base leg.

Pete, they would have needed to reduce the stall speed (probably by increasing
the wingspan/area, and maybe a change in flaps), but unlike its clean stall its
dirty stall behavior was good, according to Brown:

"The stall in landing configuration was quite different, there being intense
pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 120
mph [Guy: vs. 127 mph clean].

"Approach speed for the terminal phase of landing was 125mph. View on the
approach was decidely poor, because the attitude with power on was rather flat
[Guy: definitely needed more flap to steepen the approach and/or lower the nose]
and, to avoid the risk of exhaust fumes entering the cockpit, the canopy had to
remain closed. Anything less than a perfect three-pointer produced a reaction
from the nonresilient landing gear. The landing run was short and the brakes
could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over."

Clearly something would have to be done about the exhaust fumes, because lacking
an ejection seat you've got to be able to approach with the canopy open. As for
the rest, it seems no worse than a Seafire except for the approach/stall speeds,
and those would be relatively easy to decrease (with a commensurate decrease in
top speed at lower altitudes owing to drag of the larger wing, say something like
the Ta-152H, but a better ceiling). Roll rate would also decrease, but the 190's
got a lot of that to spare. The landing gear rebound ratios would also need
improvement ala' the Corsair (and Sea Hurricane, and Seafire).

> (Big engine, little canopy, with the pilot seated low down in the
> fuselage. While the gear was somewhat better laid out than the 109,
> it most likely wasn't strong enough to stand up to real carrier
> operations.

It's unlikely to be weaker than the Seafire's.



>
> Let's not forget that the rather small size of the German single
> engined fighters means that there's no volume available for fuel, so
> range/radius is dismal, and there isn't enough space to hang a lot of
> stuff on the outside of the airplane. This turns out to be a real
> problem with a Carrier Air Group. You've only got so much space to
> carry and move airplanes around on, so you need teh most flexibility
> that you can get out of an airplane.

The FW-190 had considerably more internal fuel than the Seafire II/III, 140.8
imp. gallons vs. 85, and seems to have had slightly better range. Even the
Seafire, with 85 Imp. gal. internal plus a 90 gallon drop tank, is credited with
an escort radius (initial climb, combat and landing reserves) of 265nm @ 182 kts
(81nm radius without the drop tank). In addition to all the fighter bomber
versions, the Germans were looking to hang a torp on the carrier version of the
190, turning it into the strike fighter par excellence.

Of course, if the Graf Zeppelin would have entered service earlier the attack a/c
would have been the Stuka, which not only outperformed the Skua and Barracuda and
had comparable performance with the SBD and Val, but carried a far heavier
payload (with torps planned for the Ju-87C). In 1940/41, even the Stuka, used as
a fighter, would run rings around a Swordfish or Albacore, and outgunned and
out-armored them both. Fulmars could catch them and the Skua could just do so
(if the Stuka was loaded; clean, it was faster). It's prowess as a dive bomber
against ships was demonstrated from Norway on, and the presence of the GZ with
the Bismarck/PE might have saved the Bismarck (not to mention sinking damaging
other British capital ships/carriers/cruisers that were chasing/shadowing her).
If they'd had ME-109Ts on board, then the Fulmars/Skuas are toast, at least until
the last 109s are lost in landing accidents (judging by the Seafire's problems,
this would only take a few days of intensive ops, although the Graf would have
been a lot bigger and faster than the CVEs that suffered the worst Seafire crash
rates).

> As for the Graf Zeppelin (Seagoing version) - if the Germans had
> completed her, it would have had as much effect on the War as it did
> as a hulk tied up to the pier. Carriers don't operate in isolation -
> they need a lot of support - Escorts for the carrier itself,

Bismarck and Prince Eugen would have been adequate in 1941.

> a big
> train of Replenishment Ships, Oilers, and other such ships following
> it around and requiring excort themselves,

Not on a raiding mission. B and PE as well as the earlier raiders managed with
replenishment ships that hid out and operated solo. Most were eventually tracked
down due to ULTRA, but an American level fleet train wasn't a necessity.

> and reliable, timely
> intelligence about what's going on around them.

Sure would help if the surface raiders had a carrier that could do all-around
searches out 100-300nm (never mind attacks) in most weather, instead of a few
floatplanes that couldn't be used in moderately heavy seas. And the German
B-dienst was quite effective up until 1943 or so.

> The Kreigsmarine was
> never, ever able to supply this, even if they were able to get their
> heads wrapped around it.

And having a carrier would have helped their tactical intelligence considerably.

> (Which is rather doubtful - look at the way
> they used the few ships they had, ****ing them away in ones and twos
> on solo missions that, while they produced a bit of a flap as they
> were hunted down & sunk, did nothing to further German War Aims.)

Many of these missions due to Hitler's restrictions, especially the one that
imposed restrictions on the Tirpitz if a british carrier were thought to be in
the anywhere near the area (this after a failed attack on Tirpitz by a dozen
Albacores from Victorious).

> After the April 1940 Norway Campaign, the Germans ended up with no
> useful surface Navy at all. (Norway was nasty to the German Navy.
> They came out of the Norway Campaign with 3 ships that weren't in the
> yards for extensive repairs that put them out of action for the rest
> of the year.

Sure did. Of course, having a carrier would have limited their losses and
increased those of the British, who only had Furious, Glorious and Ark Royal, not
all available simultaneously.

> They also had some very real problems with basic technology. Their
> high pressure/high temperature machinery was supposed to produce a
> more compact, lighter, adn more economical power plant. They never
> got them to work properly, and what they achieved as a temendous
> amount of skill at rigging towlines. Their Light Cruisers, which was
> the basis for the Graf Zeppelin's hull, were so structurally weak that
> they couldn't be allowed out of the Baltic. Graf Zeppelin herself was
> the product of a flawed concept - she combined the airgroup of an
> Escort Carrier (even worse than that, since the range/radius of
> the airplanes was so limited) with the armament of a small light
> cruiser. Just what was it supposed to do?

Pete, I'll have to disagree. GZ would have had at least as much to do as the
British fleet carriers did. Graf Zeppelin's proposed operational air group (40
IIRR) was larger than Furious, Glorious, or the Illustrious class, and her flight
deck would have been larger than any of them. Only Ark Royal would have been
noticeably better in designed capacity, but GZ could have deck-parked more a/c,
assuming she had the necessary barriers. And her a/c would have been
equal/superior to the British ones, at least up until 1943 or so.

As to the separate surface/AA armament, it was quite common in the first
generation carriers, especially those of the Europeans (cf. Hermes and Eagle),
and for good reason pre-radar. They were far more likely to run into surface
ships by accident when not flying (as did Glorious, although that was more
negligence) than enemy carriers, but mostly they would have been chased by
cruisers. GZ, Furious and her half-sisters could outrun almost everything else
except a few battlecruisers and the fastest new treaty battleships, so they
needed anti-cruiser armament (just as the Lexingtons had, and even the Midways
almost had 8" guns -- Mitscher among others wanted them). Undoubtedly GZ's 5.9"
battery would have been progressively reduced/replaced by more 4.1" and 20/37mm
as time went on, just as every other combatant modified their CVs. But her
initial planned medium AA armament wasn't bad for the era; IIRR 12 (6 x 2) 4.1"
guns.

In short, assuming (a really big if) that the Germans had completed GZ in time
for Norway or the Bismarck breakout and been able to work her up to a useful
operational level, she might well have played an important/decisive role, causing
Hitler to authorize more of them. Or she might have been lost to mishap early on
( say a sub torp like Courageous), and things would have progressed as they in
fact did. But given my caveat above, I think there's no question how useful she
_could have been_ to the Germans, considering the large positive effect the
possession of quite limited carriers had for the BB-based British fleet in the
same period. Always assuming the Germans used her properly, of course; the
british had already demonstrated a couple of ways (Courageous and Glorious) -Not-
to use CVs.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

"David E. Powell" wrote:

> Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat in the invasion of Southern
> France, in 1944?

Checking John Winton's "Find, Fix and Strike," it appears that there was little
German reaction, and the only combat was between a few Do-217s and Ju-88s and
some Seafires and Hellcats. There dont appear to have been any Corsairs
involved, just Seafies, Martlets, and one squadron of Hellcats (800 Sq. on HMS
Emperor). Corsairs and Hellcats participated in the series of attacks on the
Tirpitz in 1944, but air combat seems to have been limited.

Guy

[Matt Wiser]

"David E. Powell" > wrote:
>Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat
>in the invasion of Southern
>France, in 1944?
>
>DEP
>
>
Only Air-to-Air the Hellcats in ANVIL-DRAGOON were against Ju-52s, Ju-88s,
and He-111s.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!