I have seen the actual test report eleswhere but in this artical from warplanes of the third reich winter 2005 it sums it up quick with out going into alot of data and number crunching. It is from the prospective of a us fighter pilot (now test pilot) so some of the info is his point of view, but most all of it is accurate. I just thought some of you might be interested seeing as someone mentioned not knowing they tested the hellcat/corsair against reich fighters and enjoy the read.
The aircraft in question is a fw190A-4 (a far cry from a D-9 in the eariler descussion) but the info is still interesting. They tested the D-9 against the P-51D and the spitfire mk. XIV. The D-13 was tested against tempest V only due to engine problems. And finally ta 152 was tested against the th P-51D and spitfire XIV. I have the info (data only) on hand for the D-9, D-13 and ta 152. but there is pilot reports and data collection for every mock dogfight they did.
I like when people say no one could know for sure how well one fighter would do against another. The fact is the allies evaluated the life out of both axis and allied fighters. The allies post war knew EXACTLY how well any given allied fighter would fair againest any axis fighter in any situation and altitude. They even want as far as to create tactics to use against them. It all in black and white. hopefully some of you find this read interesting, any question you have ask away.
In a nut shell the A-4 was not really a threat to the hellcat and corsair in most situations. This is proven in actual combat as well. Keep in mind the radial engine 190’s were more a light bomber (stuka replacement) intercepter than a fighter. The corsair/hellcat were zero destroying air superiorty fighters. The D-9, D-13 and Ta 152’s would prove to be a different story all together.
However many of the late model Axis warplanes were not evaluated until the end of or after the war ended. The first flyable FW-190 D9 was not captured until Operation Bodenplatte on 1/1/45 and had to have some minor repair work done before it was flyable again. If you have a chance read Chuck Yeager’s autobiograpy. He writes about being a test pilot on captured enemy aircraft and his personal evaluations of them.
And one variable in the dogfight is the dog itself-the pilot. Putting a pilot who knows how to get the most out of his machine against one who is just learning what it can do, no matter how good he may be, is not the last word on the matter. I would wager that Pips Priller or Heinz Bar could probably get a bit more out of an FW-190A than even ace test pilots such as Chuck Yeager or George Welch.
But I must dispute the part about the radial engined 190 being more a light bomber (stuka replacement) or interceptor than a fighter. When the 190A first appeared in 1941, it was superior to ANY fighter then flown by the Allies. It was designed as a fighter that was very upgradeable in many respects due to the room left in its design. It was testament to the design that it could be used in the Stuka role which was never originally envisioned for it to do. By the time the 190A4 was fielded, it had evolved into the bomber destroyer/ground attack bird, with heavier armament, due to the need for an aircraft to do this. It continued to evolve in this role through the A8 and A9 variants.
you are right stikpusher when the 190 first came on the battle field it was a real handfull as a fighter. Even outclassing the spitfire MKV. The A-8 was still a descent fighter a low altitudes mid war. I believe the A varients were the fighter/intercepter while the F were the support/bombers. The 190’s masive firepower and good rate of climb made a better choice as a bomber intercepter then the aging 109’s. But by the end 0f 44 radial 190’s were outmatched bad by newer allied fighters and stood little chance of winning in close hairball. Most were reich defence intercepters. I should have made it clear I was talking late war. The 190’s was designed as a multi roll aircraft. Sometimes I don’t type as clear as a should.
actually I thought the Fw190 did better than it should have. given that it was really an early FW and not of the later groups. Also you must remember that the radial engined FW’s were not really the original design. Tank was sorta forced into radials via politics, and whom was in favor at the time. I think another comparison between the same aircraft and a Me109G series plane would have been interesting. Also refering to pilot’s vision restrictions and the “A” series planes, some aircraft used a slightly different cowl over the engine that would have given the pilot better vision. Also there were two different canopys used. One had much greater vision that the older one. Now here’s an interesting thought: what would have happened if the “C” model had of been further developed and went into combat.
The 190 is certainly my favorite German fighter. I just love radials on any aircraft, especially the sound of them up close in person. (Got to see a Sea Fury up close on the ground while running prior to take off at an airshow a few years back and fell in love with that bird-the ultimate radiall fighter!) The other aircraft in the article, the F4U and F6F (along with the P-47) are also big favorites of mine. Yes the 190 was far more in the end than I think Prof. Tank envisioned for it. It just was that adaptable and expandable of a design.
In the A series the only real fault was it’s high altitude performance. That was one reason the 109 was kept on bomber defense duty as well, to provide high altitude escort for the more sluggish bomber killers.The late war A’s were heavily armed and armored for taking down bombers and due to the altitude were far more sluggish against the top Allied fighters. The D series corrected this, but at the loss of some manueverabilty from what I have read according to pilots that flew both in combat.
After reading the article you posted here, I read over a chapter on the development of the 190A series. It evolved from being a pure fighter/interceptor 190A1-190A3 into the more heavily armed fighter bomber A4-A6, armored ground attack F and G series, and final heavy armament/armored bomber destroyers A7-A9. Until say early '44 the 190A with its veteran pilots was equal to anything the Allies could put up in the air. But the heavy attrition of veteran pilots along with the numbers of better trained newly equipped Allied fighters (who conversely gained their kills shooting down both new and veteran German fighters) tilted the scales.
I am currently reading a book called," To Win the Winter Sky" about the air battles during the Ardennes campaign in winter 44/45. It goes into great lengths about the numbers and experience of pilots on both sides along with engagements and losses. I would highly reccomend it to anyone interested in the European Air War of WWII.
the D bettered the A in everything but roll rate if I remember. I have read from US test the reason for poor high altitude performance in the radial was the engine did not have a perssurized ignition harness. US aircraft experienced the same problem very early on until they discovered this. I think if the radial had been set up for high altitude operation the A-8’s would have proved to be real big problem for the bombers. There more much more durable than both the 109’s and the 190D’s.
Squeakie the US did match the corsair against the 109G-6 and K-4. I haven’t look at that stuff in years bur from what I remember the corsair cleaned the G-6’s clock above 20,000. 109’s lower speed performance is about the best around. those slants give it excellent turn rate and that cannon is a killer if you get caught. Other than that all other advantages belong to the corsair I think. I don’t recall the K-4’s info right now. I’ll have to dig it up. I’m going to say the 109’s would only be a problem to a corsair if the corsair makes it the 109’s fight.
Vastly different birds, meant for vastly different needs. Hellcats and Corsairs were intended to fly over water from the deck of a ship and carry the fight to the enemy. They were also designed not to just deal with, but outclass the nimble Zero and other Jap fighters. Too, they were developed in the relative safety and peacefulness of the USA.
Butcher Birds, on the other hand were continental based and were rather rushed into production… too soon, by many accounts. Still hot off the drawing board, the FW-190 was expected to mix it with Spits and Hurri’s, the few soddy Yank designs then appearing and a never ending stream of LaGG’s and Rata’s, Migs and Yaks.
It turned out to not be in the same league as the Me-109, after all, although it was expected that it would be it’s replacement. In the end both remained in production and many missions never foreseen were added to the portfolio: Bomber intercept, multi-role support and Mustang dogfights would come in time, a few years down the line.
Like many designs of the time, the FW-190 was a solid aircraft when it first appeared in the skies of Europe. That alone is often enough, when war was is at your door, pilots are hard pressed and enough is what is needed right now. A parallel can be drawn with the P-40. Never quite as good as its adversaries, The Warhawk had enough of what was needed, WHEN it was needed to carry on the fight until something else came along. Supremely adaptable, it led to all sorts of modifications and multi use capability and many men owe their life to it’s several good qualities.
The same can be said of the Butcher Bird. Not to mention that, like the P-40, the development path that the FW-190 started cannot be left out of it’s legacy… it’s not just about whether it could keep pace with planes a world away. Few designs have been so amenable and forgiving to the pilot, while having the wherewithal to both fight the enemy effectively and still bring the pilot home. That, too, is testament to the FW-190’s capability.
Refering to the radial engine and being aircooled, I’ve always wondered how they managed to overcome cooling problems in the thin air of 30,000 ft and above. I racing engines every manufactureer sooner or later goes from being aircooled to liquid cooled just for performance reasons alone. A liquid cooled engine is much more durable, and in the end makes more power.
read an interview once from the leading German ace on the western front, and what was posted spretty much parallels what he said. But he spoke of the superior dogfighting ability of the 109 verses the 190 often. Now I don’t know if he spoke of what model 109 he was refering to, but remember very well about how he spoke of dogfighting with a Mustang or a P47. I’ll have to hunt that interview up, and scan it for a link. He was very candid in his thoughts, and never pulled a punch.
Lastly; I’ve read more than once that shear speed is not the deciding factor in a dogfight, but a combination of acceleration and climbing and diving abilities. Plus of course being able to turn well. I’ve never felt that the Corsair was a super plane, but a well designed rugged piece of eqipment. The same would hold true with the Hellcat as well. The Mustang was a better plane in everyway. Also there was one very late model Japanese fighter that was superior to the Hellcat and Corsair (don’t remember which one). It’s documented that neither of these two planes could do anything with them in a dogfight.
The problem with the poor P40 was politics limiting development. It started out life with an Allison V1710, but there were a few built with Merlins. There never was an attempt to upgrade the wing design, or add much of any performance. Look at what happened to the Mustang when they added the Merlin engine verses to V1710. The same thing holds true with the P39 and we all know what happened when the P39 evolved into the P63. Now the FW190 A-8 kinda evolved into something like a cross between the P47 and the P63. All three were really fighter bombers with two of them haveing pretty good dogfighting capabilities. The FW190F8 may have been an even better fighter bomber than the others, but 60 years later it’s almost a mute point. The one thing I see with all these designs except for one was the total reuination via politics. In reality if the politics had stayed home the FW’s would not even be discussed here, but the evolution of the ME 262 and a couple others as well. Guess many people should thank God for government politics.
The 190 was a state of the art fighter when introduced It’s only real shortcomings at that time was it’s lack of high altitude performance. This was due to the the BMW powerplant not really a design problem. The introduction of the 109A is the first time the luftwaffe had a aircraft who’s performance was better than that of spitfire. The 190 even bested the 109F-4 in most areas except the one the all 109’s did best low/mid speed tight truns. Hitler loved bombers and thus most every aircraft had to be capable of this. The 190 was actually built from the start to be a muilt roll aircraft (maybe the first). This is one reason it was so robust for just a fighter. Not many people know this but the fw190 was actually designed after the Me262. design work on the 262 actually started before the war, but for a ton of reasons did not come be until much later.
As the war went on allied fighters became faster and more maneuverable. The 190 design fell behind not being improved much. kurt tank decided to take a different approach all together and a redesigned it to become the 190D-9. The d-9 was still not completely what he wanted but the reich needed a new fighter/intercepter now. by this time the now aging 190A could not turn with new allied stuff, but the smaller 109’s were still a killer in a close quarters dogfight.
I guess what I am saying Dahut is you are right and wrong. Comparing the 190 to 109 is hard becasue these 2 fighters are almost opposite one another. What the 190 did the 109 coulden’t and vice versa.
The 190A never really had the tight turning hairball dogfight abilities of the 109’s. The 109’s didn’t have the same ability to absorbe battle damage, climb rate, firepower, and quick roll rate need to get up to the bomber, hit them with enough firepower to down them and roll out before the escort fighter could get them. The 109’s with underwing stores at altitude lost there maueuverability that made them so lethel and were easy pray for P-51’s and P-47’s. But as a one on one pure fighter the 109 was superior to 190 until the D-9 came out. Even late in the war when the P-47’s and P-51’s came down to attack what was left of the luftwaffe 109G/K’s were still able to go against the likes of the P-15D and P-47D-25 and prove if you want to get down and dirty turn and twisty hairball the 109 was the luftwaffe aircraft of choice. The only other aircraft in the luftwaffe better in a close quarters fighter vs fighter match was the TA 152H, and those were hard to come by.
Had fighters like the me262, fw190D-13/15 and TA 152 enter service eariler or on time there’s no doubt the 109 production would have been stopped. D-13/15 and ta152’s could do everything better than either the 109 or early 190’s.
Do you realize how cold it is above 25,000 feet? Cooling something at that altitude is just a matter of having sufficient airflow. The below zero temperatures of the ambient air takes care of the rest.
Descending down to low lever where the temps are warm or even down right hot in some cases was harder on the engine for cooling. At high altitude, keeping the motor warm enough to run efficiently is a challenge. Warm air entering through the carburation and lean fuel mixture help, but a tight cowl was also needed.
I’ve been told stories about Lightning pilots taking up cans of water to altitude, orbiting over their base for about twenty minutes and landing fast so the cans would still be frozen so the cooks could make ice cream or have iced tea!
Remember the scene in the movie Memphis Belle (newer) where the guy wraps the champagne bottle in an electric blanket? Took a lot to keep liquids from freezing at 30K feet.
Liquid cooled engines offer a more consistant range of operating temperature. Thats why modern motorcycles and snow mobiles have liquid cooled engines. They have a more consistance performance spectrum and deal with extremes better.
Thats one of the reasons I was able to ride my Honda VT500 Ascot 362 days one year. Even on the coldest days it started immediately. I only had to make sure the battery didn’t freeze, so it was on a trickle charger if the temps went below zero. The only days I didn’t ride it was when it either snowed the night before or we were expecting icing conditions. (In Montana it can be +70 degrees in January then -20 below the next day)
Both are mute now, with the invent of the turboprop both types of propulsion are mostly gone in high performance aircraft. Todays highly efficient and compact turboprops are being installed in everything from light general aviation aircraft to large transports. It is the most effective way to propel an aircraft that operates at low to medium altitudes and speeds less than 400 knots. They certainly don’t sound as good though!
The one thing the Russians and the Germans did was put shutters in front of their radials to keep them warm during the extreme cold temperatures they served in. Just as we do for our semi’s by putting a winter front over the radiators.
You might be refering to the Nakajima Ki 44 Tojo. To quote Greg Boyington, “a souped up version of the Zero. Though not quite as maneuverable as the original, it was considerably faster and had a greater rate of climb.”
