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

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?

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.

"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

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

Subject: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
From: nt (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

"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

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" wrote in message
...
Subject: WWII FW190's, how good were they in dogfights?
From: nt (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.

nt (Krztalizer) writes:

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

Jukka

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