FW-190

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkqbUahsiHg&feature=youtu.be

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkqbUahsiHg&feature=youtu.be

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

My father originally flew the BF-109 on the Russian Front, a superior fighter that was a match and outstanding in many factors, beating the Spitfire and P51 Mustang in rate of climb. In the frigid winters it 2 radiator system was many times the difference between making it back to base.

When the FW-190 came to the Russian Front, dad said they had all sorts of problems at first, including its tail wheel retractable by wires and pulleys, which froze up. He said he hated the 190 and being a Senior pilot, got permission and pulled to get another BF109. On a recon mission, he pulled a 190 which had camera mounted, and was shot down, always said if he had been flying his BF109, he would have made it back to base. His capture and escape is already well known, so won't get into it. MT

[Leadville Lefty SASS 87631]

What a great ride, thanks for sharing

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

The P-51 beats the BF-109 in speed, service ceiling and range.

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

The P-51 beats the BF-109 in speed, service ceiling and range.

But climb rate and turn radius with and without flaps is what is used effectively in dog fights, both defensively and offensively during WW2 air combat engagements.

Were the BF-109 excelled in, were these factors. But then dad never was against a P-51. MT

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

...His capture and escape is already well known, so won't get into it. MT

 

Is this story chronicled someplace, MT? I'm sure many of us aren't aware of it, and it sounds fascinating!

 

A number of years ago I was visiting one of my young Cub Scout's family... and noticed among portraits prominently displayed a picture of a dapper young man in a flight suit. I asked the youngster's mom about it, and she said "Oh! That was my uncle! He was a pilot in the war!"

 

"Really? How cool! So what did he fly?"

 

"Stukas!"

 

 

 

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

But climb rate and turn radius with and without flaps is what is used effectively in dog fights, both defensively and offensively during WW2 air combat engagements.

Were the BF-109 excelled in, were these factors. But then dad never was against a P-51. MT

 

Speed , combat ceiling and range determine when and where a dogfight will or wont take place.

Speed is also important in a dogfight as some are not pure maneuvering events. But more like bounces.

Range also determines how long a dogfight can take place. The short legs of the BF-109 limited its impact during the battle of britain.

A battle that the luftwaffe lost.

[Charles B. Gatewood SASS #48517]

 

Is this story chronicled someplace, MT? I'm sure many of us aren't aware of it, and it sounds fascinating!

 

A number of years ago I was visiting one of my young Cub Scout's family... and noticed among portraits prominently displayed a picture of a dapper young man in a flight suit. I asked the youngster's mom about it, and she said "Oh! That was my uncle! He was a pilot in the war!"

 

"Really? How cool! So what did he fly?"

 

"Stukas!"

 

 

 

MT, I'd like to read that also.

 

CBG

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

For a good documentary on the FW-190. Talks about its comparison with the BF-109, engine, ground attack roll, manufacturing scheme, etc. Served the Nazis well during WW2.

 

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Actually when engaging an enemy aircraft the idea is to force the enemy into YOUR fight that is best suited to your aircraft. The Mitsubishi Zero was extremely nimble and could turn inside most allied fighters. So when engaged you didn't turn with them you would use your faster and more powerful aircraft to dive into them and zoom away, climb back up above and dive into them again.

 

Much the same for Mig 15 and 17's when engaging with a F-4, take the fight to the vertical and the Mig would bleed off before the Phantom and drop off, you rolled over the top and dove down after them.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

An interesting read is Hans Ulrich Rudel's autobiography, "Stuka Pilot."

 

Fascinating book. And Rudel was a hard-core Nazi... the most highly decorated German of the war. Sort of a flying German version of Audie Murphy.

 

Hans Ulrich Rudel

 

"Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat... He was never shot down by another pilot, only by anti-aircraft artillery. He was shot down or forced to land 32 times, several times behind enemy lines.

 

"...Rudel's input was used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft."

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Actually when engaging an enemy aircraft the idea is to force the enemy into YOUR fight that is best suited to your aircraft. The Mitsubishi Zero was extremely nimble and could turn inside most allied fighters. So when engaged you didn't turn with them you would use your faster and more powerful aircraft to dive into them and zoom away, climb back up above and dive into them again.

 

Much the same for Mig 15 and 17's when engaging with a F-4, take the fight to the vertical and the Mig would bleed off before the Phantom and drop off, you rolled over the top and dove down after them.

 

Exactly!

 

When ME-262s were used as interceptors and they encountered P-51s they didn't slow down and engage in a dogfight, they slashed through the formation of fighters and bombers and shot at the bombers.

 

So why would a P-51 pilot escorting bombers care to engage a bf-109 in a dogfight?

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

An interesting read is Hans Ulrich Rudel's autobiography, "Stuka Pilot."

 

Fascinating book. And Rudel was a hard-core Nazi... the most highly decorated German of the war. Sort of a flying German version of Audie Murphy.

 

Hans Ulrich Rudel

 

"Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat... He was never shot down by another pilot, only by anti-aircraft artillery. He was shot down or forced to land 32 times, several times behind enemy lines.

 

"...Rudel's input was used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft."

 

 

I read that book a long time ago, perhaps time for a return engagement.

Although I am always leary of aviators claims.

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

MT, I'd like to read that also.

 

CBG

I thought for sure I told the story here, not once but several times. It was in an issue of the German magazine Signal 1945 issue. There were couple pictures of my dad also in there. In this one he's to far right, and this was taken at Rechlin, the experimental Luft site, were he spent the remainder testing planes, and training pilots. MT

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z72/marshaltroop/dad/jw1945_zps93d72c40.jpg

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

 

 

 

Although I am always leary of aviators claims.

My father never really talked about the war, but when it came to flying, he could talk for hours. Dad was an aviator, so with said, enough said. Besides, most is memories of his conversations and love of flying, and love of the BF 109, more as an airplane and means to get aloft, rather then what it really was, a war machine. MT

[Charles B. Gatewood SASS #48517]

I thought for sure I told the story here, not once but several times. It was in an issue of the German magazine Signal 1945 issue. There were couple pictures of my dad also in there. In this one he's to far right, and this was taken at Rechlin, the experimental Luft site, were he spent the remainder testing planes, and training pilots. MT

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z72/marshaltroop/dad/jw1945_zps93d72c40.jpg

MT,

Thanks!

I've always had an interest in WWII, especially this type of personal story.

 

CBG

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Thanks for sharing that, MT...

 

A great picture! And speaking of the Ju 87...

[Subdeacon Joe]

I thought for sure I told the story here, not once but several times. It was in an issue of the German magazine Signal 1945 issue. There were couple pictures of my dad also in there. In this one he's to far right, and this was taken at Rechlin, the experimental Luft site, were he spent the remainder testing planes, and training pilots. MT

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z72/marshaltroop/dad/jw1945_zps93d72c40.jpg

Hey! I saw that photo in a book of compilations of Signal!

 

Good looking young man there.

[Knarley Bob]

My Dad told me they took the biggest engine they could wrap the smallest airplane around and came up with the 109.

 

He flew p-47's, and as many, was also shot down. He too managed to escape, and was returned to his unit by the Brits.

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

Hey! I saw that photo in a book of compilations of Signal!

 

Good looking young man there.

Here's a pic taken in April 7, 1945. MT

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z72/marshaltroop/000-1.jpg

[Subdeacon Joe]

Thanks, MT.

[Desert Pete SASS #42168]

I worked with an engineer who had been a German fighter pilot towards the end of WW II. The Germans needed fighter pilots worse than engineers. He flew so many missions in a day that he would literally fall asleep at the stick. His last mission of the war he was napping. He never saw or heard the plane that shot him down. He bailed out behind allied lines and spent rest of the war as a POW in Maine (??).

 

He and a former B17 pilot ate lunch together every day.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

My father never really talked about the war, but when it came to flying, he could talk for hours. Dad was an aviator, so with said, enough said. Besides, most is memories of his conversations and love of flying, and love of the BF 109, more as an airplane and means to get aloft, rather then what it really was, a war machine. MT

For the record, my comment about aviators claims was about those of stuka pilot's kill record, it was not directed at you nor your father.

[Harvey Mushman]

Actually when engaging an enemy aircraft the idea is to force the enemy into YOUR fight that is best suited to your aircraft. The Mitsubishi Zero was extremely nimble and could turn inside most allied fighters. So when engaged you didn't turn with them you would use your faster and more powerful aircraft to dive into them and zoom away, climb back up above and dive into them again.

 

Much the same for Mig 15 and 17's when engaging with a F-4, take the fight to the vertical and the Mig would bleed off before the Phantom and drop off, you rolled over the top and dove down after them.

 

+1 Dusty.

 

Several other factors also, including roll rate - sort of referenced with the "nimble" concept in this thread - and sustained G's (power, aerodynamic drag, etc) to maintain airspeed or altitude (kinetic energy) to convert to an advantage after the initial turn.

These were all paramount when guns or unguided rockets were the primary weaponry (both ballistic - just as our shooting).

 

These are factors are still paramount, but guided missiles (and countermeasures) have somewhat changed the increased the complexity of the dynamics significantly, especially with "beyond visual sight" capabilities, and "over the shoulder", close-in dogfight missile capability.

 

Today's best fighter pilots are very aggressive (yet calm) nerds with concert pianist dexterity and great three dimensional relative motion visualization and judgment.

 

I taught this stuff till well beyond my own level of actual performance - and I'm in awe of what our modern machines will do, but more so, what today's young pilots can do with them!

 

At the same time, these youngsters are more dependent on fly by wire, heads up displays and automated navigation, and many have serious problems with the basics of the 20h century flying machines.

 

All that said, my dream machines to fly are the WWII tactical birds (particularly the radial engined), and of them, the F-4U Corsair.

 

Complex subject - requires abundant adult beverage and 3d hand manipulation for adequate discussion!

[Litl Red]

The Germans developed two types of 190s as the war progressed. The 190s design was flexible enough that they created the Stuka's replacement out of it. Considering how vulnerable the Stuka was to US, British, and later Russian fighters, that wasn't much of a hurdle. The ground attack 190 however, ranked closer to the P47 and Corsair as a quality ground pounder than to the Stuka. And the fighter version was even better. The Russians were said to have developed the La-5 in an attempt to copy the enemy fighter they considered their most deadly opponent. The Lavochkin design was improved and was competitive through Korea and up to Viet Nam, something the 190 probably could have done.

 

It is interesting how useful the round engine designs were. And how long they stayed around. No doubt the 190s could have too.

[Tom Bullweed]

I grew up studying books like the Ballantine series and going to airshows to see the WWII warbirds and talk to the pilots.

Two factors not mention here that made the P-38, P-47, F-4U, Hellcat and P-51 fighters the greatest fighters of WWII:

* we constantly made improvements including the rate of production (Japan, Germany and even GB could not do so).

* the Browning .50 machine gun

My $.02 worth....