I read that its guns jammed when attacking V-I rockets. was that a persistent problem?Underpowered and unreliable emerging technology, compared to the Spitfire IX, or P-51B.
I read that its guns jammed when attacking V-I rockets. was that a persistent problem?Underpowered and unreliable emerging technology, compared to the Spitfire IX, or P-51B.
Good point, matching the FW190C with say a supercharger in P-51 configuration would be deadly.IE, a fighter that uses only existing technology but can use said technology without any care for nationality or procurement politics or anything like that.
I read that its guns jammed when attacking V-I rockets. was that a persistent problem?
snip
matching the FW190C with say a supercharger in P-51 configuration would be deadly.
Yes, because the aircraft wasn't specifically the reason for the success of Erich Hartmann. Arguably the 109G was worse than the 109F aerodynamically.To whom?
How would a mish-mash of two belligerent nations technologies be better than a proven weapon system, that's actually shot other aircraft down?
How would it be qualitatively 'better' than the Bf109G, for example, in which one pilot shot down 352 aircraft, and another pilot from a different country shot down 58 aircraft?
Using a P-51D style intercooler in place of the existing plumbing for the FW190C's supercharger (it would actually be significantly smaller) would help improve performance without adding additional equipment to make it possible, though it would require some modification of the engine layout.Stanley Hooker of Rolls Royce, to improve the performance of Merlin engine developed two-speed two-stage supercharging with aftercooling with a successful application on the Rolls Royce Merlin 61 aero engine in 1942. Horsepower was increased and performance at all aircraft heights. Hooker's developments allowed the aircraft they powered to maintain a crucial advantage over the German aircraft they opposed throughout World War II despite the German engines being significantly larger in displacement.[18][17] Two-stage superchargers were also always two-speed. After the air was compressed in the low-pressure stage, the air flowed through an intercooler radiator where it was cooled before being compressed again by the high-pressure stage and then possibly also aftercooled in another heat exchanger. Two-stage compressors provided much improved high altitude performance, as typified by the Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 powered Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX and the North American Mustang.
Yes, because the aircraft wasn't specifically the reason for the success of Erich Hartmann.
Who were they shooting down in droves? The Soviets when they were no where near their full force; the Eastern Front though was always easier in the air than in the West, so 'easterners' could score heavily and survive for a long time, while 'westerners' were getting slaughtered from 1943 on.And your evidence for that assertion is...what?
For every person who claims the Bf109G was a comparatively poor aircraft, there's ten pilots who shot down more 100 enemy aircraft actually flying it.
And twenty pilots who shot down more than fifty enemy aircraft flying it![]()
He claimed, and was credited with, shooting down 352 Allied aircraft—345 Sovietand 7 American—while serving with the Luftwaffe.
He was posted to Jagdgeschwader 52 (JG 52) on the Eastern Front and was fortunate to be placed under the supervision of some of the Luftwaffe's most experienced fighter pilots. Under their guidance, Hartmann steadily developed his tactics
And your evidence for that assertion is...what?
For every person who claims the Bf109G was a comparatively poor aircraft, there's ten pilots who shot down more 100 enemy aircraft actually flying it.
And twenty pilots who shot down more than fifty enemy aircraft flying it![]()
Ah the Luftwaffe Cult of the Super Star
The Bf109G was fine for shooting down undertrained Soviet pilots.
No, not particularly. They had to add all sorts of gun and rocket pods to make it possible to shoot down a heavy bomber.Pretty good for shooting down American four engined bombers, too
But then, you could do that in an IAR-80, or a Bf110, or a Ju88.
he Bf 110 served the Luftwaffe extensively in various roles, though no longer in its intended role as a heavy fighter. Another role the Bf 110 took on was as a potent bomber-destroyer. The extreme power of the Bf 110's weaponry could cripple or destroy any Allied bomber in seconds. Without encountering an Allied escort, it was capable of wreaking immense destruction. When encumbered with a total of four 21 cm (8 in) Werfer-Granate 21 (Wfr.Gr. 21) rocket tubes, with two of these under each outer wing panel, and additional armament, the 110 was vulnerable to Allied escort fighters, partly from the development of a major change in American fighter tactics at the end of 1943, rendering them increasingly vulnerable to developing American air supremacy over the Reich.
In place of internal wing armament, additional firepower was provided through a pair of 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons installed in conformal gun pods under the wings. The conformal gun pods, exclusive of ammunition, weighed 135 kg (298 lb);[32] and 135 to 145 rounds were provided per gun. The total weight, including ammunition, was 215 kg.[32] Installation of the under-wing gun pods was a simple task that could be quickly performed by the unit's armourers, and the gun pods imposed a reduction of speed of only 8 km/h (5 mph).[32] By comparison, the installed weight of a similar armament of two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon inside the wings of the FW 190A-4/U8 was 130 kg (287 lb), without ammunition.[33]
Although the additional armament increased the fighter's potency as a bomber destroyer, it had an adverse effect on the handling qualities, reducing its performance in fighter-versus-fighter combat and accentuating the tendency of the fighter to swing pendulum-fashion in flight.[31][34]
And the Finns
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilmari_Juutilainen
58 kills in Bf109Gs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wind
36 kills in Bf109Gs
And the Romanians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Cantacuzino_(aviator)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Șerbănescu
And the Hungarians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dezső_Szentgyörgyi
They had to add all sorts of gun and rocket pods to make it possible to shoot down a heavy bomber.
Oh hell the Finns managed to get Aces flying Brewster Buffalos against the Russians!
That I'd really like to see some sourcing on given the limited numbers of the LL aircraft deployed to the front and the redeploying of the Luftwaffe west by the time they showed up in numbers. The Yak-1s probably did, the others I'd be surprised by.The Russians shot down thousands of German aircraft (including Bf109Gs!) in P-39s, Yak-1s, Hurricanes, P-40s
That I'd really like to see some sourcing on given the limited numbers of the LL aircraft deployed to the front and the redeploying of the Luftwaffe west by the time they showed up in numbers. The Yak-1s probably did, the others I'd be surprised by.
Which add up to how many aircraft?You've not heard of Alexander Ivanovich Pokryshkin? Nikolay Gulaev? Highest scoring P-39 ace Grigori A. Rechkalov with 50 kills ?
Probably just Soviet Propaganda
Seventeen Soviet aces flew the Hurricane.
There'd be no point in doing this if the Meteor was really no faster than a piston-engined aircraft - eg the P47M - so it's likely that the Meteors at this stage would have to be doing ~500 mph to make the whole thing worthwhile.
Sorry, you made the claim. You do the leg work. But even just by a quick glance that is well short of 'thousands of aircraft shot down'.