PDA

View Full Version : Typhoon or Fw 190 A



Boemher
18-09-2005, 16:05
Both were contemporaries, both were designed to succeed the pretty boy front line fighters of Germany and Britain (Bf109 and spitfire),both had their failings - not least the fact that the 109 and Spitfire survived them and in some case out lived them.

Of these two fighters which do you think was more innovative and which one more successful? Both led to greater things : the Typhoon to the Tempest and Fury and the Fw 190 to the Dora and the Ta 152.

In my opinion I think the Fw 190 outclasses the Typhoon as a fighter and yet still compares with it in the ground attack role. Had the tables been reversed and the RAF received the Fw 190 in 1941 rather than the Typhoon and the Luftwaffe got the Typhoon how do you think it would have panned out?

The Fw was used largely in the fighter/bomber role on the Eastern front a role that the Typhoon would have fitted in to nicely. The RAF were really looking for a better Fighter and the Fw 190 woulded have provided them that.

Sorry for the ramblings , been reading about the development of the Typhoon and Tempest and its interesting to think of their exact contemporaries and how they were developed.

NS-IceFire
18-09-2005, 17:00
My favorite of the two is the Typhoon/Tempest of course. I like the FW190 but its not my favorite (although very cool).

Here's the comparison as I see it:

1) Durability
About even. The radial engine was tough but the large radiator and heavy construction of the Typhoon evens things up. Both idealy suited to ground attack and capable of withstanding some level of damage from flak.
Note: The Typhoons tail falling off during dives was the cause of a elevator imbalance and not a structural weakness, the fishplate strengthening was done as an experiment and largely continued because of pilot confidence.

2) Firepower
Again about even. The four Hispano Mark II's hit a bit harder than the MG151/20 but the two extra machine guns in the cowling on the FW190 add ever so slightly to the overall firepower. This one is hard to choose between.

3) Speed
The Typhoon is faster than contemporary FW190A models up to 10,000 feet. In the low level dash game, the Typhoon is faster by a large enough margin to catch and outstrip the FW190s that tried to run across the channel.

4) Turn
The Typhoon is slightly superior in turn. Although the two are fairly even in the turn, pilot reports generally suggest that the Typhoon, with a bit of flaps, can out turn a FW190A. This is partly pilot skill but when it comes to tightness the Typhoon is a bit better. Its really hard to choose from really.

5) Roll rate
The Typhoon is a pig in the roll. Its about even with a A6M2 Zero. The FW190 is far far superior.

6) Climb
I don't know this one. I think the two were fairly evenly matched in climb...the FW190 may have been better.

7) Cockpit visibility
With the car door style canopy, the Typhoon and FW190 are probably about the same for visibility. From 1943 onwards, the Typhoon has a far superior view of the world going on outside with the bubble canopy. Note: The canopy designed for the Typhoon inspired and was essentially fitted to the P-47 and P-51.

8) Mistaken identity
Although I've never heard of a Bf109 group shooting down FW190s by mistake, the Typhoon suffered many casualties at the hands of Allied fighter pilots (RAF and USAAF alike). The Typhoon simply looked like a FW190 from afar. The D-Day invasion stripes originated with a scheme tested on the Typhoon.

9) Pilot considerations
The FW190 had easy controls, good view, and wide tracked undercarriage. The Typhoon had more difficult controls, carbon monoxide sometimes reached into the cockpit area and the use of oxygen masks were required. The Typhoon was notoriously unreliable for at least two years due to a lack of knowledge of the Sabre engine. Although the Sabre itself was just as capable as the Merlin, many of the ground crews learned the hard way how not to do things. Poor maitenence lead to several fires, losses of airframe, runaway propellers, and the like. Although the FW190 was no trouble free, the Typhoon itself was nearly cancelled until it turned into the best fighter-bomber of its day.

Ultimately the two are fairly evenly matched. The FW190 is probably the better fighter overall but they are close together in terms of what they can put out and take in. The Typhoon was more troublesome and never became the leading RAF fighter but it excelled in the role of ground attack becoming extremely feared.

Of course, the Typhoon later spawned the Tempest which was every inch the RAF's best tactical fighter in the last year and a half of the war. While the Typhoon was essentially just as good as the opposition, the Tempest was in many ways superior to most of its opponents the areas of speed, handling, visibility and firepower.

LeVola
18-09-2005, 20:28
Pierre Closterman says that belly landing with Typhoon was a suicide.
It turns in to a fireball maybe because metal alloy, radiator hits the gound or something.

norrismcwhirter
18-09-2005, 22:00
The Big Show described a lot of mutual respect for the Tempest/Typhoon and 190D.

I think it will be an interesting matchup but the lack of roll is going to cause the Typhoon some real problems against the 190.

It's a shame Oleg and co don't spend a little more time giving blue some ground attack weapons (Panzerfaust) so that a real (well, in game) comparison can be made.

Ta,
Norris

NS-IceFire
18-09-2005, 23:21
Pierre Closterman says that belly landing with Typhoon was a suicide.
It turns in to a fireball maybe because metal alloy, radiator hits the gound or something.
Well his experiences were with the Tempest mostly (he flew the Typhoon once to get himself checked out on the series).

Typhoons were actually pretty good at doing the crash/belly landing. The fuselage was fairly tough and it could take a good beating. That worry that most Typhoon pilots had regarded being shot down or having an engine fail over the channel as the radiator scoop would suck in alot of water very quickly and the plane would sink extremely fast.

I think two or three crash landings with a Tempest are described in Clostermans book. The first was a pilot he had to direct in. The plane hit the ground hard, bounced into the air, flipped over and crashed again on its back and then burst into flames. The second was his own crash landing where he twisted the plane at the last moment so that the wing would absorb a slight skid into the ground and it kept the plane from flipping.

LeVola
19-09-2005, 09:25
Thanks Ice, by the way very good books both of them.

NS-IceFire
19-09-2005, 22:22
See the thing with the bubble canopy definately gives advantage to forward view. Even the USN test reports indicated that while the FW190 (was essentially an A-5) had a great view out the side and rear the forward view was somewhat constricted compared to USN birds like the Hellcat and Corsair.

The Typhoon has a generally better view than both Hellcat and Corsair forwards...or rather there are less large obstructing canopy struts to get in the way. This is only true of the 1943 bubble canopy versions...the earlier versions with the car door style cockpit entry aren't quite as nice in the surround view.

In general, while the FW190 has generally been considered pretty good (in terms of flying) in visibility, the Typhoon was considered excellent with the bubble canopy. I think we'll see the distinct difference when the Tempest is flyable. Another example would be the comparison of the P-51D with the FW190. The FW190 is better than the P-51C (with bubble canopy) but not quite as good as the 51D which offers a near panoramic view despite the engine infront.

On the issues of durability and firepower...although there is a size difference, I'd say the Typhoon is a bit tougher than the FW190 and they aren't that much larger so my opinion is still an overall draw when all things are considered. The heavy construction of the rear areas, the spar configuration of the very thick wing, and the radiator and engine block making fuel tank hits difficult present a slight advantage. Not as tough as a P-47 but in that sort of category of construction.

Grey_Mouser
20-09-2005, 01:24
I think I'd be in a Fw if I had to tangle between the two...I've read, but don't know for sure, that the edge in speed generally went to the Typhoon...I say this because in real life, no matter what books you read, Typhoons could and would chase down Fw's across the channel...now what version of Fw, did they have bomb racks, overheated engines etc...but the Fw was much better in rate of roll and I think had an edge in climb...guns had to be equal...neither was going to survive a salvo of 4 20mm's so I don't see this as being a big deal.

I'd say down low, the advantage goes to the one with a tactical advantage and the Fw is more escapable due to roll rate...up high, no doubt Fw, not even a contest. I'd think that if a Fw got behind a Typhoon, it was curtains for sure, if it were the other way around, the Fw might escape.

Scrappy_D
20-09-2005, 02:19
We all talk about this from our own IL2 perspective ... I think to be honest no-one who has flown IL2 for a period of time can really see things in the right perspective .... There were so many different factors to it, too many to list here ... like fuel (At that time during the war, Axis forces were struggling for it!), Axis were targeting bombers and ground targets not fighters, axis parts were bad in quality (they couldnt get the supplies they needed so they compromised on parts etc) and so on .... Also the Typhoon was a ground attack plane (although it could catch and destroy the fastest axis fighter bombers!(This being what kept it in favour, else it would have been scrapped!!!)) .. it knocked out 175 tanks in one day in the Falaise gap .. impressive :)



~S~

TigerTalon
20-09-2005, 18:14
2) Firepower
The wing root mounted cannons of the Focke Wulf are more effective over a larger range. Considering the MG shell I'd say the advantage again is with the FW.


Yep, agree with your points JtD. Would just like to add the ammo duration: while Typhoon had 140 rpg for all guns, Fw had 250 rpg for inner and 125 rpg for outer cannons.

On Typhoon IIRC there it wasn't an "ammo counter", you just ran out at a certain point. On Fw, you had a feeling about your ammo, because you had a counter and because you ran out of outer first. And when you ran out of everything, you still had some mg bullets. Those were more of psichological aid, but they were there.

Ah, and not to forget the option of removing outer cannons if additional weight was unnecesary, or installing gunpods or 108s if mission required.

So, in barrel armament Fw has a great advantage IMO.

Boemher
24-09-2005, 13:51
Good posts guys ,

I tend to agree with much of what JtD posted.

I think that visibilty was far better in the Fw Anton's when compared to the pre-bubble canopy Typhoon and its worth noting that it was infact the Fw 's clear view hood that influenced designers in to modifying existing types ie the Spitfire, Thunderbolt, Mustang ect to having a bubble hood. All of those fighters were designed as razorbacks initially. Whereas the early Typhoon canopy had more in common with the P39 than it did with the later bubble type. Also the gunsight view from what I have read would seem to be better in the Fw. RAF pilots noted that its sighting view was superior to that of the Spitfire, I think that the short nose of the Fw combined with the nose down flying attitude would aid sighting considerably over any comparable inline engined types.


Survivability of the BMW 801 was renowned - maybe not as widely acknowledged as the US big radials, but maybe that is because it was not as widely publicised ;) On the eastern front there were amny accounts of Fw's rtb with complete cylinder heads removed by enemy cannons and AAA. Problem with almost all inlines is that one hit will usually knacker them. Towards the end of the war most Typhoon, Tempest and Mustang losses resulted from suffering engine damage while strafing ground targets. Where as the Jug suffered less in comparison.

Manuverability, this always puzzles me as if we read most test pilot accounts of the Fw they state it to be a very manuverable aircraft. This is a general praise for the handling of the AC even the RAF decreed that the Fw was more manuverable than the Spitfire except in a sustained turn. These comments were never followed by ' as long as you keep inictated airspeed above 500km/h '. Yes the Fw was a high speed fighter that excelled at speeds other fighters tended to stiffen up at but from a pilot account perspective there is no real evidence to suggest the Focke was a bus at slower speeds. The plane I fly in IL2 seems to hate flying at combat speeds ie where most of the actual dogfighting manuvers occur. It snap stalls, it hates high AoA it cant pull a loop at anything under 500Km/h entry speed and its speed bleed is legendary. So the Fw's notional high speed turn rate ' I can out turn this Yak at over 500Km/h' is only effective for 45deg of a turn then all of your speed is blown away then you have absolutely no choice but to run away. So I think that in real life the Fw held a considerable manuverability advantage over the Typhoon - maybe even the Tempest yet in game I think it will be at a considerable disadvantage.

Firepower - this is close. We all know Hispanno had a KE advantage over the Mg151 yet the actual destructive power may be shaded by the German cannon due to its chemical qualities. It also would appear it would be easier to hit with the Typhoons guns yet that doesnt take in to account their wing positioning or the inherrant convergence issues. The Fw's gun layout offers the pilot an easier aiming solution and also more rounds to miss with. Apparently the nose cowling machine guns were used to aid aiming of the cannons. Dont know the real life advantage of that as It would probably be wiser to fire with all guns all of the time to maximise your chances of a hit.

Size - The Fw has almost the same length and wingspan as the Bf109 while being much heavier and stockier. The Typhoon is a monster of a fighter more akin to a P47 than a Spitfire. Size is important in dogfighting smaller is better in most cases. The important factor of visually idenifying your target first comes in to play as does being a more nimble target making it tougher to hit. From a designers point of view the various systems and capabilities that were crammed in to the Fw's small size make it stand out from most other fighter designs of the period. The Hawker design on the other hand is much more conservative - only really the engine was an advance. For an aircraft with similar capabilities the Fw pulls performs a similar role (and in my opinion outshines the Typhoon) in a smaller airframe with less HP while offering great development potential also.

For you theorists I ask the question again how do you think the RAF would have liked/employed the Fw 190 in 1941/5 had the Fw been a British creation, and how would the Luftwaffe received/operated the Typhoon had Hawker been German?

NS-IceFire
24-09-2005, 15:24
Manuverability, this always puzzles me as if we read most test pilot accounts of the Fw they state it to be a very manuverable aircraft. This is a general praise for the handling of the AC even the RAF decreed that the Fw was more manuverable than the Spitfire except in a sustained turn. These comments were never followed by ' as long as you keep inictated airspeed above 500km/h '. Yes the Fw was a high speed fighter that excelled at speeds other fighters tended to stiffen up at but from a pilot account perspective there is no real evidence to suggest the Focke was a bus at slower speeds. The plane I fly in IL2 seems to hate flying at combat speeds ie where most of the actual dogfighting manuvers occur. It snap stalls, it hates high AoA it cant pull a loop at anything under 500Km/h entry speed and its speed bleed is legendary. So the Fw's notional high speed turn rate ' I can out turn this Yak at over 500Km/h' is only effective for 45deg of a turn then all of your speed is blown away then you have absolutely no choice but to run away. So I think that in real life the Fw held a considerable manuverability advantage over the Typhoon - maybe even the Tempest yet in game I think it will be at a considerable disadvantage.

This is definately a contentous point in terms of the FW190 debate but from what I can gather from people like Faustnik, who is an avid FW190 fan and collects all sorts of details and information regarding the aircraft, the latest FM is very accurate in terms of how the FW190 handled in manuevers. In 4.01, the FW190 does not have the same twitch and the same high AoA nastyness that previous versions did.

You STILL feel the highly wingloaded low drag wing and you still feel the inherent instability but I can dogfight with early model FW190s (the A-4 notably) quite well actually. More than most people would expect to be able to dogfight. The trick is once again that you don't really dogfight in the traditional TnB sense but you form a hit squad with a few guys and dash in and out turning for position on a vertical plane more often than horizontal. (i've heard this recently called eggshaped maneuvering).

I think the RAF would have rejected it as a fighter in the original state that it was in. The appearance of the FW190 and its fighting style employed by Luftwaffe pilots really kicked the RAF into gear accepting other attributes as important. The Spitfire still retained an excellent turn throughout its career (even the XIV was a pretty good turner and didn't loose much in terms of what it could do in a turn - although it took increasingly more talented pilots to get the same move out of the plane due to torque and stability) and yet was just as fast as the FW190 with the right type of engine and tuning. The Spitfire still shows itself to be a very clever design having both a very efficient wing in terms of drag but also being large enough and loaded properly enough to be able to turn exceptionally well or to hold onto thin air at high altitudes.

The Typhoon was sort of the opposite of the Spitfire in that it didn't have that genious level of design when it came to being and out and out fighter. The Tempest on the other hand did...the maturation of the Hawker design philosophy ultimately (this comment gets made alot) drew some inspiration from the Spitfire design. Sydney Cam said jokingly that the Air Ministry would probably not accept a new fighter if it didn't look like a Spitfire (and thus the semi-elliptical wings on the Tempest).

When you look at the Tempest or Typhoon and the FW190 there are some similiarities and some differences. I once posed the question on comparison between these two and got a very detailed answer on how power, wing design, wing shape, and drag would influence the difference between a Typhoon, a Tempest, and a FW190.

The FW190 came out somewhat hindered in some ways by its design. The short wing, highly loaded, with a low drag profile and poor high AoA performance was a problem. But its smaller size, excellent aerodynamics and good engine power in relation to its weight made up for some of those problems. The Typhoon and Tempest were considered nearly equal for manueverability in some respects. The Tempest rolled alot better, the wing was just better designed from the ground up. The Tempest in theory was better in the turn...although the wing was a laminar profile, it was still better high AoA than the FW190 (apparently). What kills the Tempest in its turn performance was overall weight and the radiator causing some drag in a high angle turn. So while the turn was better, I'm told the drag was also higher.

For the Typhoon, it was much the same. One pilot story of a FW190 vs Typhoon fight had the two pilots going around and around in a old style turn fight (this was 1942). The Typhoon pilot knew that once he could get the speed down a bit and kick out some flaps he had the FW190. When he did get the speed down, he started to gain...the FW190 pilot panicked, snap stalled and flew straight into the Channel.

So manueverability between the types is obviously weighted differently.

I'm still of the mind that the two were fairly close as fighters in some respects but the FW190 had a bunch of things that made it a better fighter and a more feared foe in the air. Many of those features of the FW190 that were better than the Typhoon as a fighter were later incorporated as part of the Tempest design (notably wing design and visibility). They are still interesting contemporaries with similar philosophies but different executions.

One achieved fame as a fighter and as a very good fighter-bomber in the face of overwhelming odds. The other achieved fame as a tank buster (in the Typhoons case) and an elite top of the line tactical fighter (in the Tempests case). But its still Spitfire Mark IX VS FW190 fights that most people dream off...

Boemher
24-09-2005, 15:53
Problem with the Spitfire IX and other later Spitfires was that at high speed their handling suffered. So a spitfire at 400mph was not the sme threat a Spitfire at 270mph was. This is fine for chasing down an enemy but if it is in a 2 vs 2 scenario fought a higher speed the picture changes to favour the fighter that handles better at 400mph.

Interestingly enough in IL2 I find that the Spitfire VIII has a superior rate of roll that the Fw A5 at speeds around 600Km/h. A good map to test this on is Schweinfurt. I hopped in to the Spitfire last time that map was on and appart from the fact I couldnt for the life of me work out the cannons for reliable hitting I did very nicely. It was diving in on targets from above that shocked me because I was still very controlable. Now either the Spitfire performs better than it did in WW2, or the Fw has been toned down more than it should be in this 4.01 patch for high speed roll or the Spitfire VIII rolls as historic but nobody told the RAF this during WW2.

Spit 9 vs Fw A4/5/6 is a great match up. The way I look at any matchup in the Fw Antons is that whatever AC is above you is superior and you have little choice but to evade but if you enter the engagement co E or slightly higher altitude you stand a great chance of winning.

NS-IceFire
24-09-2005, 16:24
The Mark VIII is generally regarded as being the nicest handling Spitfire of all the variants ever produced so its not surprising that you feel that its handling really nicely. The roll rate should be about the same as other versions.

The FW190 may be a bit slow in roll rate at high speed...I think that was the feeling on the forums since 4.01.

NS-IceFire
24-09-2005, 17:22
Ice, the Spit's wing wasn't that particularly clever. It was just bigger than the Fockes - and produced more drag.
I've read lots of fairly impressive stuff to the contrary :)

norrismcwhirter
24-09-2005, 17:35
I've read lots of fairly impressive stuff to the contrary :)

Yep. I think the pilots who relied upon the stall warning from the inner wing (that meant the wing was difficult to manufacture) would vouch for that at the very least.

Ta,
Norris

Xiola
24-09-2005, 17:52
The clipped wing Spits should roll better but not have as good turning circle I think...

NS-IceFire
24-09-2005, 18:27
Okay, I give some downsides that come to my mind:

- elliptical wing: heavier than conventional wings
- elliptical wing: more expensive/laboursome/time consuming to produce
- wing tips: reducing roll rate
- wing tips: producing a lot of drag for little lift
- wing twist (washout): producing unnessesary drag
- large size: extra drag, extra hit area

And now - what are the good things?
Well basically that elliptical wing has advantages and disadvantages.

I don't remember all of them but there's a bunch.

1) For the size of wing, the ellipticial wing and very specific NACA profile gave it excellent aerodynamics
2) Better stall characteristics than most contemporary aircraft thanks again to the wing design. Spitfire pilots joked that the difference between a 109 and a Spitfire was "any idiot could fly a Spitfire."
3) The larger wings were an advantage at higher altitudes, particularly as engines became more powerful, as they gripped the thin air much better than any FW190 could
4) The overall combination meant a fighter that was as fast as its contemporaries but generally could turn better

I'm a firm believer in the energy fight and you should all know that I really like flying the FW190 as a fighter. When on blue and given the choice, I will chose 190 over 109 every time. But when I'm on red...and its 1943 or 1944 and I want the best rounded fighter to fly in...the Spitfire is it.

The combination of design factors including the ellipitical wings give the Spitfire a rare advantage that most planes do not have: speed and horizontal manueverability.

When you come down to it...the FW190 and Spitfire are basically the opposites of each other. Which makes them quite fun to fly each other against. Roll, climb, dive, firepower, and turn are all quite opposite on these planes lending a different style of fighting.

I'd also like to point out that years after the last Spitfires were used in WWII, the Spitfire wing was used for mach speed trials as the wing was amongst the best for high speed mach profiles. It wasn't actually used in the end...but it was the testing ground used as a basis for further testing.

Anyways, I think we we're talking about the famed Typhoon. The supposed replacement for the Spitfire that never was.

TigerTalon
25-09-2005, 02:09
The combination of design factors including the ellipitical wings give the Spitfire a rare advantage that most planes do not have: speed and horizontal manueverability.

Are you talking about RL or IL2 here?

NS-IceFire
25-09-2005, 04:55
Are you talking about RL or IL2 here?
Real life...

But Il2 pretty much has it close.

Grey_Mouser
25-09-2005, 15:45
All designs were nothing but tradeoffs...I've read before that elliptical wings can be unstable, but that the Spitfire, overall, benefited from them.

Yes the spit did not have a good rate of roll and look at the top end speed difference between the Mustang and Spit...both with similar critical altitudes and the same engine! The spit gained from high lift/rate of climb, stability (hence low rate of roll), and great turning ability even at high altitude...coupled with the Merlin, it was a great plane....if the Spitfire had been able to carry more fuel, who knows how it would be regarded today...and yes, had one of the highest, if not the highest Mach rating of any fighter.

Tradeoffs...planes that lack those tradeoffs are the ones that have issues in this game....do you know of any planes that climb great, turn great, have very high speed, high rate of roll, stable gun platform, tough as nails with controls that are light as a feather, great slow speed handling qualities as well as high speed handling qualities, dive great with high terminal velocity and uber weapons to boot??? I do but I won't go there. If you think about it, there are a couple that come to mind...those are the ones that need attention...there was no plane that I know of that acted like high wingloading and low wingloading...combined strength of design with lightness of airframe, no plane that handled great at low speeds and high speeds...etc etc etc

NS-IceFire
25-09-2005, 15:50
Thats definately it...all of these designs were tradeoffs and the vast majority of WWII fighters we see represented were excellent designs no matter what. Even the Zero, flawed as it may be, represents an excellent design with a very clear set of tradeoffs that proved to be disasterous in the long term but nonetheless clever in the short.

With all of that in mind, I see the Spitfire in many ways being the best of tradeoffs. Not perfect and certainly not without flaws but they KNEW what they wanted and they KNEW what they were trading away to achieve what was wanted and it was overall a very effective setup. But similarly, Kurt Tank knew what he was doing with the Focke Wulf as well...an extremely well engineered design, very compact, very potent...

If you want to compare how quickly the Typhoon and Focke Wulf designs matured...Kurt Tank got it right the first time while Syndey Camm did a better job on the second run (i.e. the Tempest). If the Typhoon had entered service more or less as the Tempest...things would have been different I think. But it took time to re-engineer and solve the problems that they ran into. Plus they had guts going with Napier's 2000hp H block engine when everyone else was playing it safe.

Boemher
25-09-2005, 21:45
If Hawker want to really go against the establishment it should have gone ahead with a the centaurus Typhoon instead of waiting for the Fw to show them how its done with a radial, I think British companies were convinced radials were old hat :)

On a more serious note wonder why the Hercules was never used as a fighter engine? The Hercules was producing near 2000hp by the end of the war and is a contemporary of the BMW 801. It would have been nice to have seen an indigenous radial carrier fighter although im sure it would have ended up huge and a 5 seater fighter/Torpedo bomber/ turret fighter like most of the FAA's other dedicated fighter designs.

Image the Hurricane converted to take a Hercules Lagg3 to La5 style who would need Typhoon then? Heck why not make Hurri out of bamboo instead of aluminium too?

Grey_Mouser
25-09-2005, 22:10
There were a few things working against the Typhoon when it entered service, one being an unreliable engine. The second, although more mysterious, was failing of the tail section which was theorized as being related to flutter and compressibility.

The most important shortcoming of the Typhoon was its wing design...way too thick...not the rate of roll. The wings precluded it from ever being able to take advantage of the low drag, thin air. Had the Typhoon had better wings, it is likely its rate of roll would have improved as well as its medium and high altitude performance and the plane might have had a different history.

I have always felt like the Mustang was the best plane in terms of trade offs and the radiator configuration, combined with its low drag design was truly innovative. The Mustang was average in terms of climb, acceleration, rate of roll, turning radius, strength of construction but it was tops in class in terms of speed, altitude performance, stability, and drag/E retention, diving ability and the D model brought with it tremendous visibility. The thing about the Mustang that made it great was that it was great in some of the most important characteristics needed for the tactical mission and had virtually no vices or things it was bad at...ie no weak points....except in the role of ground attack...there it had a weakpoint as did all inline engined aircraft.

BTW, I'm not a big Mustang fan either but I just feel like it was the definitive design of the war...the one that every aircraft built afterwards would be compared to....it is hard to find mention of an aircraft built after the Mustang without a reference to how it performed relative to the Mustang....that says a lot in my book...

Now I'm talking about real life, not game. E retention, compressibility, control effectiveness, stability, visibility, and dive modelling don't translate well in this game or in this plane so it is good but not great in game...things that are modelled well are rate of climb, turning circle, rate of roll, acceleration, weapons and damage modelling....saying that, I find that planes that are historically good in those aspects enjoy an advantage (if properly modelled) against aircraft whose strengths lie in the other catagories....this of course is my opinion and should be taken as such...and not as gospel.

The Spitfire was great at some things and also did not have any vices. Its rate of roll got slow at high speed and it did not enjoy super fast speed, but neither did its contemporary enemies... The Typhoon on the other hand, had major achilles heels that kept it from ever reaching its potential. Most failed and/or limited designs have those kinds of flaws...Airacobra, Zero, Warhawk, Ki-61, Whirlwind, Defiant, Me-210 etc are planes that come to mind that had major flaws that precluded them from ever becoming a player....even the 109 had a couple of flaws that cost the Germans the Battle of Britian...if the Luftwaffe would have had drop tanks, that battle might have ended differently.

NS-IceFire
26-09-2005, 01:49
FYI...most of the unreliable engine problems were due to poor maintence and lack of experience on sleeve valved engines. The Napier Sabre design was slightly tempermental but it was also radically different than the Merlin. The ground crews initially treated it as a big Merlin...and that ended in disaster more than a few times.

Boemher
27-09-2005, 19:48
If Luftwaffe had Fw 190 BoB wouldhave been bloody different !

Scrappy_D
27-09-2005, 19:49
If Luftwaffe had Fw 190 BoB wouldhave been bloody different !We would not be here now, playing this wonderful game and having such great discussions!

So thank whoever that it was not there ;)

Scraps.

Boemher
27-09-2005, 20:56
We would not be here now, playing this wonderful game and having such great discussions!

So thank whoever that it was not there ;)

Scraps.

Damn right Scrappy, thank goodness, they can keep their ice cold beer, good quality cars, good looking women, excellent consumer products and lack of sense of humour to themselves :D

Wait a minute..... we did win the war didnt we :)

TigerTalon
28-09-2005, 02:46
If Luftwaffe had Fw 190 BoB wouldhave been bloody different !

Many historians and pilots (also British ones) agree that if Germans would use droptanks on their emils during BOB, they would win the BOB and invade GB... Scarry.

NS-IceFire
28-09-2005, 03:20
Many historians and pilots (also British ones) agree that if Germans would use droptanks on their emils during BOB, they would win the BOB and invade GB... Scarry.
On the other hand...some historians argue that Hitler would only invade if he knew that he could win it quickly. Although he didn't have a grand plan, he wanted so dearly to invade Russia by 1941 that Britain had to be done with quickly or not at all.

Also from what I read in A Man Called Intrepid, there were quite a few plans to make the invasion attempt a bloody massacre. Some thoughts of lighting the beaches on fire with oil slicks and other thoughts about tossing the entire Royal Navy Home fleet into the fray...although airpower would make it costly, the landing craft would have potentially been torn to pieces.

They weren't nearly as well prepared for a landing on the beaches as the Allies were four years later during D-Day. The German invasion may have looked more like Dieppe...although the comparison is hard to make.

Grey_Mouser
28-09-2005, 03:30
I agree with you on that point...no matter what happened in the airwar, I just never saw the resources available for an invasion...at best, Hitler would have had to make the decision quickly say by the end of September and I think there would have been a good chance that the invasion might have been repeled. If Hitler would have waited till spring of 41, I have a feeling US carriers would have been present... who knows what would have happened and fortuanately we'll never know...I just find it hard, based on the US experience with Japan, Normandy, Monte Cassino etc, to believe that Hitler would have been successful in that invasion.

~DasRaVeN~
28-09-2005, 07:03
Any invasion would have been stopped dead at Warmington-On-Sea :thwak: