A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old May 21st 04, 07:37 PM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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?


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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing zxcv Military Aviation 55 April 4th 04 07:05 AM
Good Ad! WWII Pilot Joe Military Aviation 0 January 11th 04 09:37 PM
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality ArtKramr Military Aviation 131 September 7th 03 09:02 PM
FA: WWII B-3jacket, B-1 pants, Class A uniform N329DF Military Aviation 1 August 16th 03 03:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.