Fw better then Me-262?

[Soren]

Thats a possibility

[zebraa51]

Hello: ( All ) did you know that the FW190 was the world`s first Electric Plane??? That didn`t happen again Until the Likes of the X-15 & F-16`s were Built, But over-all the FW190`s and The Me262`s were both Very Very good at what they were designed for Killing ...... . ~ZeB~

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by zebraa51

Hello: ( All ) did you know that the FW190 was the world`s first Electric Plane??? That didn`t happen again Until the Likes of the X-15 & F-16`s were Built, But over-all the FW190`s and The Me262`s were both Very Very good at what they were designed for Killing ...... . ~ZeB~

Define electric.

[lesofprimus]

Yea, thats what Id like to know...

[bigZ]

I wonder how many 262 jockeys wished they where in a FW190 on taking off/landing, with the skies dominated by the allies?

For all the 262's potential it was just to little and far too late. You can have the best plane in the world but without fuel, trained pilots, ground crew its just a heap of ali.

[Erich]

I can bet strongly that KG (J) 51, 54 and JG 7 wishes they would of had a high protection flight of at least gruppe strength of Fw 190A-9's or Bf 109G-10's but they did not

RAF fighters made mince meat out of the Dora 9's of III./JG 54 while trying to protect Kommando Nowotny but am sure much was learned by the survivors as they went into JG 26

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The list of problems with the Me-262 can go on and on.

Was she a step in the right direction? Absolutely. Could she have been the best? Yes but this is not about could have should have...

I would rather have 100 reliable Fw-190s which were good eneoght o tangle with the allies than 1 flying Me-262. And therefore the Me-262 is not the best in my opinion.

That doesn't make sense: you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262. That's turning it into a joke. The Me 262 wasn't less reliable than the Ta 152. Erich pointed out how rare the flaming out of the engines really was. The Jumo's could fly for 25 hours if properly maintained. That means 15 to 20 missions. If the pilot didn't make an error in handling the engine thrust, he could fly a month with the same engines.

The Fw 190A/D and Bf 109G weren't better than the allied fighters, or at least not by any margin. Given the small amounts of decent pilots and limited fuel amount, they should better have produced less fighters but which were superior to the allied fighters. Besides, the fuel for the jet fighters could be more easily produced what also means more missions.

I still would like to know what makes the Fw 190 a better fighter than the Me 262. More reliable, I'll give you that, but is that all? Especially the Fw 190 was outdated in 1944 as its performance didn't improve from 1942 to 1944 with the arrival of the A-9 and D-9 which were hardly an improvement.

The German's at the end of the war needed numbers of reliable aircraft (such as the 190 and 109) rather than small numbers of complex unreliable next generation aircraft such as the Me-262.

Totally wrong. They produced 14,000 reliable bf 109s and 10,000 reliable Fw 190s in 1944. What did it bring them? It's mathematics: if the enemy can produce more planes than you, you need better planes. I also see no reason why the Me 262 couldn't be produced in the same amount as the Fw 190 as the Me 262 was designed with mass production in mind.

Kris

[lesofprimus]

Especially the Fw 190 was outdated in 1944 as its performance didn't improve from 1942 to 1944 with the arrival of the A-9 and D-9 which were hardly an improvement.

Huh??? What??? Ur saying there was hardly an improvement from the Fw190A-8 to the D-9???

Ur taking Adlers comments too litterally...

I also see no reason why the Me 262 couldn't be produced in the same amount as the Fw 190 as the Me 262 was designed with mass production in mind.

Its called round the clock bombing operations... If the 262 projest was started earlier in the War, u might have some reason for argument, but as it stands, Germany was doomed, and neither more 262's or 190/109's was not going to change anything without pilots and fuel for em...

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Huh??? What??? Ur saying there was hardly an improvement from the Fw190A-8 to the D-9???

Yep, that's what I'm saying. The only improvement was that it could retain its power higher up. Remember that the Fw 190D-9 of 1944 flew without the MW 50 which makes its maximum speed similar to that of the Fw 190A-8 and less than that of the A-9. What's worse, the Fw 190D-9 lost the best thing about the Fw 190A, its roll rate. No other WW2 fighter rolled like an Anton could!

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Ur taking Adlers comments too litterally...

I know, but just to be one the safe side...

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Its called round the clock bombing operations... If the 262 projest was started earlier in the War, u might have some reason for argument, but as it stands, Germany was doomed, and neither more 262's or 190/109's was not going to change anything without pilots and fuel for em...

Of course. But that makes many of these 1944/1945 discussions moot, doesn't it?

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

That doesn't make sense: you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262.That's turning it into a joke.

No I did not say that. Now you are putting words in my mouth. That is something that pisses me off when people do that. I never said there were 100 Fw-190s for every operational Me-262. I said I would rather have 100 Fw-190s than 1 Me-262.

Again do not put words in my mouth or change the meanings of the words that I right!

Originally Posted by Civettone

The Jumo's could fly for 25 hours if properly maintained. That means 15 to 20 missions.

And do you know how much maintenace goes into a combat aircraft for every hour of flight? I have some experience in this area because I flew combat aircraft and maintained them. I guarantee you the Me-262's mainteance was more intensive and required more time than a prop aircraft that had allready been in service for many years and had the bugs worked out. So that 15 to 20 missions becomes less if you dont have the time to do proper maintenance on them between missions.

Originally Posted by Civettone

If the pilot didn't make an error in handling the engine thrust, he could fly a month with the same engines.

And that is made into months with a radial engined Fw-190.

Originally Posted by Civettone

The Fw 190A/D and Bf 109G weren't better than the allied fighters, or at least not by any margin.

Again never said they were absolutely better. Dont put words in my mouth...

I said they were just as good and could tangle with any allied fighter.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Given the small amounts of decent pilots and limited fuel amount, they should better have produced less fighters but which were superior to the allied fighters. Besides, the fuel for the jet fighters could be more easily produced what also means more missions.

Wrong! If you put small numbers in the air of superior aircraft they are going to be overwelmed by the superior numbered allied aircraft and will be lost just as well. Better to have a more fighing chance with large numbers of equal aircraft. I would rather have 100 Fw-190s in the air to fight against 100 P-51s than 5 Me-262s to fight 100 P-51s.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I still would like to know what makes the Fw 190 a better fighter than the Me 262.

Again you are completly missing the point of this thread. Wespe said the 262 was more versatile than the Fw-190. This thread was to prove him wrong.

No one here is saying that 1 Me-262 was better than 1 Fw-190.

Originally Posted by Civettone

More reliable, I'll give you that, but is that all? Especially the Fw 190 was outdated in 1944 as its performance didn't improve from 1942 to 1944 with the arrival of the A-9 and D-9 which were hardly an improvement.

It was not outdated. It was still on par with most allied fighters.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I also see no reason why the Me 262 couldn't be produced in the same amount as the Fw 190 as the Me 262 was designed with mass production in mind.

Kris

Read up on the history of the Me-262. Lack of engines and delays in engine production.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Ur taking Adlers comments too litterally...

Putting words in my mouth and changing the meaning of my words to suit his arguement is what he is doing.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Civettone

More reliable, I'll give you that, but is that all?


Kris

As I have said before, good reliability is force multiplier, poor reliability is a force divider (I guess a force subtractor is a better term). A plane on the ground being worked on is more than worthless.

The U.S. government spends millions and millions of dollars to improve reliability and maintainability.

Reliability is a big deal.

[Civettone]

Adler, chill man, don't take this so personal. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth though I understand it can appear that way. I think that's common in discussions, at least I often get irritated when people take out a specific thing I said, take out of context and make it into something it's not.
For instance, I know this thread is about the versatility of the Fw 190 but I asked the question if we can agree that the "Me 262 was a better fighter than the Fw 190 if all things were working ok." So that's what this discussion is about.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I never said there were 100 Fw-190s for every operational Me-262. I said I would rather have 100 Fw-190s than 1 Me-262.

Again do not put words in my mouth or change the meanings of the words that I right!

I still don't see what the sense is in what you said. So I interpreted the way I did. I may have been wrong but I still don't understand what the point is in what you said. Have a 100 Fw 190s for 1 Me 262???
So I said: you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262. That's turning it into a joke. The emphasis is on the last bit, I have the feeling you're turning the reliability of the Jumo 004 into a joke, as if it flamed out almost every time it flew. It was rare, like Erich pointed out!

Again never said they were absolutely better. Dont put words in my mouth...

That was not a response to anything you said. That's why there was an open line between that and my previous text block which was a reply to your post. If you have an idea on how I could make this clearer, please do. (I can hardly mention each time that it is no longer a reply to...)

But back to topic, I'll try to say it like this. The Luftwaffe built over 20,000 Fw 190 and Bf 109 fighter aircraft in 1944, and they got beaten. I totally agree that the Fw 190 (and Bf 109) could 'handle' most allied opponents. But that wasn't good enough. After May 1944 there was only enough fuel for a part of the missions. So then you have less missions with average fighter aircraft. Wouldn't it be better to fight those missions with the Me 262 even though it required more maintenance and still had some bugs?

I guarantee you the Me-262's mainteance was more intensive and required more time than a prop aircraft that had allready been in service for many years and had the bugs worked out. So that 15 to 20 missions becomes less if you dont have the time to do proper maintenance on them between missions.

I don't want to put words into your mouth but isn't this always the case with new aircraft types? If you use that logic, you'll be using the Fw 190 until 2525.
When the British encountered the Fw 190 they immediately recognized that it was the best fighter in the world. Yet, the Fw 190 was still experiencing engine problems and other bugs, wasn't it? What's the difference with the Me 262??

Wrong! If you put small numbers in the air of superior aircraft they are going to be overwelmed by the superior numbered allied aircraft and will be lost just as well. Better to have a more fighing chance with large numbers of equal aircraft. I would rather have 100 Fw-190s in the air to fight against 100 P-51s than 5 Me-262s to fight 100 P-51s.

Again, that sounds like you're saying there would be 5 Me 262s for a 100 Fw 190s... What would be closer to the truth is that there would be enough fuel for 50 Fw 190s against a 100 P-51s but also 50 Me 262s. Perhaps you don't believe there would be enough Me 262s:

Read up on the history of the Me-262. Lack of engines and delays in engine production.

Yet, from 1945 onwards there were more than a 1000 Jumo 004s being produced each month! This quotum could have been achieved sooner but instead they went for more inferior Fw 190s. Just multiply the number of kills by JV 44.

Originally Posted by davparlr

As I have said before, good reliability is force multiplier, poor reliability is a force divider (I guess a force subtractor is a better term). A plane on the ground being worked on is more than worthless.

I know. It's a big issue! But my point is that I don't believe the Me 262 was as unreliable as it is portrayed by some. Reminds me of those ghost stories of the Me 163 which I was battling in another thread.

Kris

[Morai_Milo]

Why did the Dora 9 have less of a roll rate than the Antons? Both had the same wing.

Volume deliveries to Messerschmitt began in October and by the end of the war approximately 6,000 had been built of which about half had gone to Messerschmitt. The balance had been used for test purposes, for spares and for the Arado Ar 234 airplane for which expectations were high.

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Aircraft Division Industry Report

Read up on the history of the Me-262. Lack of engines and delays in engine production.

Seems there was more than enough 004 engines for the 1433 Me262s produced.

[Yakpilot]

This sh*t is just like bench racing.....but for airplanes instead.....