Mid-late war Luftwaffe mixed units?

[Original_Uwe]

As we look more and more at DCS I'm curious if there were any units that flew both the 109 and 190.

I thought I read some references to jg300 or 301 having both the Dora and Kurfurst, but I'm not entirely sure if the sources.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

JG 11 operated Fw-190s and Bf-109s together from its inception. In 1943 each squadron was mixed, while from 1944 onwards you had the staff flying Fw-190D, one squadron flying Fw-190A and the rest flying Bf-109G/K.

 

Not sure how accurate the information is but I hope it helps.

[csThor]

Truly mixed units - meaning a Staffel flying 109s and 190s at the same time - was not something that makes sense. It was common to have a full Geschwader (meaning a major unit of about 120-140 planes paper strength) to have one or two Gruppen flying the 109 while the rest flies the 190. That mixed setup was intentional for units of the Reich Defense as the 109 were supposed to tangle with the escorts while the more heavily armed 190s attacked the bombers.

[Crump]

Truly mixed units - meaning a Staffel flying 109s and 190s at the same time - was not something that makes sense. It was common to have a full Geschwader (meaning a major unit of about 120-140 planes paper strength) to have one or two Gruppen flying the 109 while the rest flies the 190. That mixed setup was intentional for units of the Reich Defense as the 109 were supposed to tangle with the escorts while the more heavily armed 190s attacked the bombers.

 

Sturmstafflen (R7/R8 variants), Bomben(G-series), and Schlacht units(F-series) did receive escort of whichever fighter type was available so we agree on that part.  

 

AFAIK, There was never Luftwaffe doctrine for Bf-109's to escort FW-190A despite the fact the FW-190A performance did fall off considerably at typical B-17 raid altitudes.  

 

 

I have also heard of pressurized Bf-109 variant units taking on high cover for the Gruppes.  Now, most of those units did not necessarily fly the pressurized variants but they were assigned the mission of being a designated high altitude fighter unit.  The top cover assignment was more to do the fact they were pressurized and designated as a high altitude fighter unit.

 

Personally, I would not want to be in a pressurized aircraft with bullets flying around.  Seems like a great way to end up as aluminum confetti.  Think of a balloon and a pin.

 

Here is the Luftwaffe doctrine for 1944-45:

 

 

 

There is no doctrine that supports FW-190A fighters being escorted.  All of their SE fighters were to ignore escorts and engage bombers with no distinction between FW-190A's and Bf-109's.

 

Once more, the Luftwaffe control system relied upon the Gruppe as the largest unit with staggered engagement of the individual Gruppes.  Despite several successes, they simply were not set up to coordinated multiple Gruppe attacks or simultaneous operations at the tactical level.  

 

The ability to control multiple large units in coordinated attacks was one of the major advantages the Allies had over the Luftwaffe. 

 

 

 

 

 

You are absolutely correct in that there was not mixing of FW-190 and Bf-109 Stafflen.  Both were considered SE fighter units and assigned the SE fighter missions.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Crump

[MiloMorai]

Look here, http://www.ww2.dk/

 

JG300 flew 109Gs, and 190As. JG301 flew 109Gs, 190A/Ds and Ta152. No 109K-4s.

 

Only Stab JG11 flew with mixed types and was in Dec 44 and Jan 45 when it was transitioning to D-9s.

 

Personally, I would not want to be in a pressurized aircraft with bullets flying around. Seems like a great way to end up as aluminum confetti. Think of a balloon and a pin.

[Edited]

Edited May 26, 2016 by Bearcat

[Crump]

Look here, http://www.ww2.dk/

 

JG300 flew 109Gs, and 190As. JG301 flew 109Gs, 190A/Ds and Ta152. No 109K-4s.

 

Only Stab JG11 flew with  mixed types and was in Dec 44 and Jan 45 when it was transitioning to D-9s.

 

 

 

 

yawn

 

What is the point of your "yawwn" except to provoke with childish behavior.  

 

 

You simply posted to repeat what CsThor has already said.

 

There were no mixed Gruppes in the fighter units outside of stabs and jabo units.

[MiloMorai]

On July 13, 2009, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-300 (Flight 2294) depressurized after a one-foot hole appeared in its upper fuselage (an accident investigation is under way). The aircraft, en route to Baltimore from Nashville, was diverted to Charleston, West Virginia, where it landed safely. The cabin depressurized about 30 minutes into the flight at 34,000 feet, and no injuries were reported, although the NTSB noted “The damage left a hole measuring approximately 17 inches by 8 inches.”

 

According to the aviation expert who posts on this board this airplane should have ended up as aluminum confetti raining down from the sky.
 

[MiloMorai]

Actually crump III./JG26 flew a mix of 109G/Ks and 190Ds from Nov 1944.

[Crump]

 

On July 13, 2009, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-300 (Flight 2294) depressurized after a one-foot hole appeared in its upper fuselage (an accident investigation is under way). The aircraft, en route to Baltimore from Nashville, was diverted to Charleston, West Virginia, where it landed safely. The cabin depressurized about 30 minutes into the flight at 34,000 feet, and no injuries were reported, although the NTSB noted “The damage left a hole measuring approximately 17 inches by 8 inches.”

 

According to the aviation expert who posts on this board this airplane should have ended up as aluminum confetti raining down from the sky.

 

 

 

1.  Huge difference in a modern large transport category aircraft pressure vessel construction and a World War II fighter in the dawn of pressure vessel construction.

 

Absolutely not comparable  BTW, I am sure that Southwest B-737 did not start out with a one foot diameter hole.  The escaping pressurized air created the much larger hole which is typically what happens.  Now put that one foot diameter hole on the side of a small World War II fighter and your chances of that escaping pressurized air creating damage that cause structural failure increases considerably.

 

 

2.  Use some common sense.  I was not implying that the aircraft would instantly explode.  You obviously have no experience with explosive decompression.  It is both physically and psychologically disorientation.  It can also be potentially lethal.  Nitrogen in the blood stream coming out of solution can cause serious debilitation and death.

 

Flying around in a pressure vessel while folks shoot at you is not a great idea.  That is why you find very few pressurized aircraft used in combat applications. Most Bf-109's even in the high altitude units where not the pressurized variants for a good reason.

 

 

 

Actually crump III./JG26 flew a mix of 109G/Ks and 190Ds from Nov 1944.

 

They did not fly on any combat sorties I am aware of as a mixed schwarms or stafflen.

 

III/JG26 did  transition too and performed the operational testing of the FW-190D9.  They certainly had both aircraft on the books at that time which is common to find on transitioning units.  

Edited May 25, 2016 by Crump

[Crump]

 

The faster the rate of ascent to altitude, the greater the risk of developing altitude DCS. An individual exposed to a rapid decompression (high rate of ascent) above 18,000 ft. has a greater risk of altitude DCS than being exposed to the same altitude but at a lower rate of ascent.

 

 

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/dcs.pdf

 

BTW, the risk of structural failure during a rapid decompression event is why you do not increase your airspeed in the resulting emergency descent.  Aircraft have lost the cabin and then broken apart in the emergency descent due the weakened structural integrity caused by the pressurized air leaving the pressure vessel.

 

That is all part of your basic pilot training when you get to ATP level, Milo.

[MiloMorai]

 

 

2.  Use some common sense.  I was not implying that the aircraft would instantly explode.

 

 

 

Think of a balloon and a pin.

 

What ever you say crump.

[Crump]

 

 

When the immediate problem of hypoxia has been overcome, the crew may still be faced with the possibility of developing symptoms of Decompression Sickness (DCS), especially so if there is a need to continue the flight at a cabin altitude greater than 7,500 m (25,000 ft). Susceptible individuals might develop DCS even at an altitude as low as 5,500 m (18,000 ft).

 

 

 

Depending upon the size and position of the defect in the cabin structure, cold may also limit sustained flight at altitude after a rapid decompression. If for example, the canopy has been lost or the windscreen shattered, there would be extremely severe wind chill effect, which could be debilitating and life threatening.

 

http://www.avmed.in/2011/10/cabin-pressurisation-%E2%80%93-hazards-of-rapid-decompression/

 

 

 

Rapid depressurisation may have been caused by, and/or result in structural damage to the aircraft. If structural damage is suspected, the crew should consider limiting the speed and avoid high manoeuvre loads.

 

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Emergency_Depressurisation:_Guidance_for_Flight_Crews

 

http://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_jan-feb00.pdf

[MiloMorai]

yawn

[Crump]

Next time keep your mouth shut and you will not catch so many flies.....

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Next time keep your mouth shut and you will not catch so many flies.....

 

I like you and I generally accept your superior knowledge (to my own) in aviation design and application but that one is a little inappropriate, buddy. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Crump]

What should be a good response to someone who "yawns" after being wrong?

I thought what my grandmothers used to tell me was perfect!

[MiloMorai]

Wrong? I'm not the one who mentioned a balloon and a pin.

 

 

And then goes on one of his typical spiels to deflect the conversation away from what he said.

[Crump]

What do you think happened here Milo?

 

 

 

 

Decompression can occur due to structural failure of the pressure vessel, or failure of the compression system itself.[1][2] The speed and violence of the decompression is affected by the size of the pressure vessel, the differential pressure between the inside and outside of the vessel and the size of the leak hole.

Flight Attendant C.B. Lansing was blown from Aloha Airlines Flight 243 when a large section of cabin roof (about 18 by 25 feet (5.5 m × 7.6 m)) detached; the report states she was swept overboard rather than blown through the hole. The Air Crash Investigation documentary report on Flight 243 (season 3, 2005) notes that the 'tear line' construction was supposed to prevent such a large slab failure. Working from passenger accounts (including one report of the hostess' legs disappearing through the roof), forensic evidence including NTSB photographs, and stress calculations,[8] experts speculated that the air hostess was blown against the foot-square hole initially permitted by the tear strips, blocking it: this would have caused a 10 atmosphere pressure spike, hence the much greater material failure.[9] One corrosion engineer takes the view that the tear straps could also have been defeated by the airstream impact through Lansing's body.[10]

 

http://real-life-villains.wikia.com/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression

 

Now that is a modern airliner with tear strips in the pressure vessel to prevent catastrophic failure.

 

 

 

United Airlines Flight 811 was a regularly scheduled airline flight from Honolulu, Hawaii to Auckland, New Zealand that experienced a cargo door failure in flight on February 24, 1989. The resulting explosive decompression blew out several rows of seats, resulting in the deaths of nine passengers. The aircraft returned to Honolulu, where it landed safely.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

 

That is the big one you get in your initial airline pilot training ground school when this subject is discussed.

 

Yes, another modern airliner with tear strips designed to prevent catastrophic failure of the pressure vessel should it be breached under the right conditions.  You can see the borders of the tear strips....

 

 

You need more proof or do you still think the pin and ballon analogy was not correct.  Funny because that is the same one they use to train us pilots!!  Maybe you can write the FAA and correct them?

[MiloMorai]

The B767 flying at 39,000ft (~2.7psi) has a cabin pressure for 6900ft (~11.3psi). A pressure difference of ~8.6.

 

The Spitfire VII had a cockpit pressure differential of 2psi. The F-86 had a cockpit pressure differential of 2.5psi.

[Original_Uwe]

So this all has exactly what to do with the OP?

Thanks so much for the input, but please take the nit-pickery to PM

[Crump]

The B767 flying at 39,000ft (~2.7psi) has a cabin pressure for 6900ft (~11.3psi). A pressure difference of ~8.6.

 

The Spitfire VII had a cockpit pressure differential of 2psi. The F-86 had a cockpit pressure differential of 2.5psi.

 

Ha ha ha!!  The cabin differential is set to 2 psi for combat.  In otherwords, you have turned your pressurized airplane into an unpressurized airplane.  Why do you think they do that???  (Think pin and a balloon...)

 

2psi does nothing useful in terms of pilot physiology.

 

See....you do not know even how a pressurized aircraft cabin is maintained.   The differential is a regulator and the pilot selects the pressure differential he wants to achieve the desired CABIN Altitude....

 

 

 

It is not my fault if you misinterpret things because you do not have practical experience but stop trying to correct those that do.   PM me if you want to know how pressurized cabin's work.

 

So this all has exactly what to do with the OP?

Thanks so much for the input, but please take the nit-pickery to PM

 

 

It does not have anything to do with the OP. My original comment about designated high altitude Bf-109 equipped stafflen being used in the high cover mission was directly addressing the topic.  They were used as top cover for every SE fighter and not specifically for the FW-190A fighter variant equipped stafflen. 

 

You are correct and the nitpicking is monumental!  Milo can take it PM if he has any questions.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Crump