Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

FW-290?

Aviation Discuss FW-290? in the World War II - Aviation forums; I am currently reading "Thunderbolt! by Robert S. Johnson and toward the end of the book he describe closing on ...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Bucksnort101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,172
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like

    FW-290?

    I am currently reading "Thunderbolt! by Robert S. Johnson and toward the end of the book he describe closing on two fighters attacking a lone Bomber. He describes them having to outline of a Fw-190 from a distance but as he closes he see's they have a "pointy nose with an in-line engine" and states they are the new FW-290. This would have been in early 1944, I think he stated it was in the month of January 1944 if I remember correctly.
    Anyone knwo to which he is referring. My first instinct is he was seeing a FW-190 D-9 series, but am not sure when those went into combat service.

    Last edited by Bucksnort101; 10-28-2010 at 09:36 AM.


    A 2006 study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study found that Americans drink an average of 22 gallons of beer a year. That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles per gallon.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    334
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Based upon my recollection, the Fw-190D didn't enter squadron service until the late summer or fall of 1944, so unless this event occurred later than you believe, it could probably not be a Dora. I supposeJohnson could have seen a developmental prototype for the B, C or D model (which were flying quite a bit earlier), but I have a hard time believing there would be two of them chasing a bomber. I suspect others can give a much better answer than I, but my guess he just misidentified a couple of Bf-109s or Fw190As.

    I wonder how Johnson came up with the "Fw290" name. I'm unaware than US intelligence ever hypothesized about the existence of such a beast.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Bucksnort101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,172
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'll look up the passage in the book tonight and see if I can get the date and description exactly as he describes it. Mr. Johnson wrote his book 15 years after then end of WWII so I suspect he may have got things mixed up a bit.


    A 2006 study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study found that Americans drink an average of 22 gallons of beer a year. That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles per gallon.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    334
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucksnort101 View Post
    I'll look up the passage in the book tonight and see if I can get the date and description exactly as he describes it. Mr. Johnson wrote his book 15 years after then end of WWII so I suspect he may have got things mixed up a bit.
    Quite likely. While very entertaining, informative, and often powerfully moving, the published reminiscences of combat pilots are among the least reliable sources for technical or historical facts about aircraft capabilities, design, or operational history.

  5. #5
    Senior Member vikingBerserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    21,855
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that aircraft makers could not have the same number in Germany. For instance there already was a Ju 290, so there could not be an Me 290 or a Fw 290.



  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,589
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by vikingBerserker View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that aircraft makers could not have the same number in Germany. For instance there already was a Ju 290, so there could not be an Me 290 or a Fw 290.
    True but the number was given by the Allies not the Germans. I would say it was a natural presumption by the Allies for example as the Me109 went to Me209 and Me309, the Ju88 went to Ju188 to Ju288 and Ju388.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Crimea_River's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    18,826
    Country
    Canada
    Post Thanks / Like
    Those would have been Doras most likely. Many pilot's bios and quotes have erroneous ID's.

    EDIT sorry guys, I misread the date. Milosh below is right and the combat report is January 1943, making it impossible to be D's
    Last edited by Crimea_River; 10-29-2010 at 08:10 AM.





  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,589
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    They certainly were not Dora 9s as the first development report was issued on Feb 23 1944. The V17 did not fly til April 13 1944. The V53 did not fly til June 12 1944. The V54 did not fly til July 26 1944.

    I am also not finding any photos of 'long nose' development Fw a/c with armament.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    325
    Country
    Finland
    Post Thanks / Like
    Almost certainly a misidentification. My guess is that Johnson saw Bf109's.

    Allied intelligence was well aware of the development of the Fw 190C from the beginning. In Hermann's book of Fw190D there is a very accurate Allied sketch of "Fw190 with DB603 engine". So it is possible that this plane was dubbed as Fw290 by some intelligence officer.

    But I'm quite sure that this plane , or any other Fw190 prototype was not what Johnson saw. They were far too valuable to be used in combat.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    334
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Timppa View Post
    Almost certainly a misidentification. My guess is that Johnson saw Bf109's.

    Allied intelligence was well aware of the development of the Fw 190C from the beginning. In Hermann's book of Fw190D there is a very accurate Allied sketch of "Fw190 with DB603 engine". So it is possible that this plane was dubbed as Fw290 by some intelligence officer.

    But I'm quite sure that this plane , or any other Fw190 prototype was not what Johnson saw. They were far too valuable to be used in combat.
    I would agree. If one accepted allied pilot accounts at face value, "He-113s" were also used operationally and shot down on occasion in 1943-44 even though we know that to be impossible.

    However, just for discussion, there were other in-line fighters used by the Luftwaffe in advanced fighter training schools, most notably as the Dewotine D-520. What is the possibility of these planes being encountered in combat situations and mis-identified as unknown German types.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    148
    Post Thanks / Like
    Iím with Timpa on this; itís simply a misidentification. They were not uncommon at the time. I believe the unit Intelligence Officers probably requested that pilots keep their eyes open for new variants and pilots saw what they expected to see. This applies to both RAF and USAAF.

    AFDU Tactical Trials such as this one from April 1944 noted ďIt is anticipated that the new FW.190 (DB.603)Ö

    Hereís Johnsonís report on that encounter:


    And the Encounter Report from 1st Lt. Joe Powers who shot down the 190:

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    334
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by vikingBerserker View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that aircraft makers could not have the same number in Germany. For instance there already was a Ju 290, so there could not be an Me 290 or a Fw 290.
    Basically true, but like all rules there are exceptions. Thus the number "162" was used both for a schnellbomber derivative of the Bf-110 concept (Bf-162) flown in prototype form in the late 1930's and later for the He-162 jet fighter. I also believe numbers were originally often assigned in blocks to manufacturers (hence the Ju-85, 86,87, 89,90), and if a certain number never led to an actual airplane, it could be freed up for use by another manufacturer at a later date.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    334
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Williams View Post
    Iím with Timpa on this; itís simply a misidentification. They were not uncommon at the time. I believe the unit Intelligence Officers probably requested that pilots keep their eyes open for new variants and pilots saw what they expected to see. This applies to both RAF and USAAF.

    AFDU Tactical Trials such as this one from April 1944 noted ďIt is anticipated that the new FW.190 (DB.603)Ö

    Hereís Johnsonís report on that encounter:


    And the Encounter Report from 1st Lt. Joe Powers who shot down the 190:
    It's great to read these. Thanks a million.

  14. #14
    Senior Member TheMustangRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    340
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by zoomar View Post
    It's great to read these. Thanks a million.
    I agree with you, specially in the last segment of 1st. Lt. Joe H. Power's report in which he includes the job well done by the other two pilots in the flight.

  15. #15
    Member CPWN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32
    Country
    Taiwan
    Post Thanks / Like
    How about Bf 109H? Some sub-variants were installed with Jumo-213.


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95