Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Aircraft (WW-II) Message-ID: <10146@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 12 Oct 89 03:18:56 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 55 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Hugh A. Huntzinger" (CCL-S) FW-190 vs. ME-109: If I recall correctly, the FW was developed as a lightened up fighter aircraft because the ME was getting too big/heavy, probably very applicable to how the F-16 is a smaller/cheaper F-15 today. The ME was around for quite awhile. A souped-up "production fighter aircraft" version held the piston speed record for awhile and the design went to fairly high revision levels...many plastic models are of "G" or higher letters. Both the FW & ME had lousy landing gear & I think the FW was the worse of the two for pulling to the side upon takeoff's engine torque. [mod.note: From William Green's _Warplanes of the Third Reich_: The FW-190 was designed as a "second iron in the fire", an eventual replacement for the Me-109, even though the latter was greatly esteemed. "While weight consciousness and simplicity were design keynotes, the underlying theory was the creation of a fighter which, offering greater structural integrity than any of its predecessors, demanded the minimum of field maintenance time and could be produced through the widespread use of dispersed factories and sub-contractors." I have also read (but cannot reference at this point) that the Me-109 had little interior room for niceties such as armament, so that later additions caused protrusions in the outer skin, leading the the plane being knicknamed "Bulge". Me's carried 2 7.9mm MG's and one or two 20mm cannon, typically, while FW's were able to carry two 7.9mm MG's and two or four 20mm's. The last version of the Me to be produces was the Me-109K. - Bill ] P-40 vs. Zero: I think "God is my Copilot" was my source for this info; it's been years. The success of the P-40 vs. the Zero has been greatly attibutable to the Japanese NOT knowing their opponent - the general strategy for a Zero to escape aerial combat was to dive, gaining airspeed & thus distance. Unfortunately, the P-40's heavier weight accelerated it faster in dives and could catch up & overtake Zero's trying to escape. The "proper" thing for a Zero to have done was to climb away, as the lower wing loading gave it a better climb rate than the P-40. BTW, A little known fact is that the low wing loading was a Japanese design criteria that caused them to reject an early ME-109 design that was offered from their ally, Germany. Also BTW, the "Flying Tigers" played a lot of games with Japanese intelligence by painting different ID markings on their P-40's between each sortie. After the war, it was found that they had fooled them greatly, with some estimates being off by factors of ten or more (the one I'm thinking of was something like they estimated that the Tigers had ~75 aircraft during a particular week that they only had, like 4!). -hummer