Why Was The Fw-190A So Fast? 

Late reply, but thank you for this. This is off topic but hopefully close enough. My father was a B-24 pilot in the 15th and regularly encountered 109s and 190s. The 109s bounced the formations, groups, squadrons and forced them to break up. Dad said these were very pro pilots, knew just what they were doing. Even while being attacked, he had to admire their skill and bravery. That alone scared the bejesus out of everyone. Formations broken up, the 190s attacked often head on in lines up to ten or so. My father, a low key man, never one to be dramatic or given to hyperbole, said the 190s chewing thru planes all around him was the scariest part of the war for him. Sorry to prattle!

Wow, four hours to go until the video premiers and already one thumbs down! I seriously enjoy seeing that. It insures me that thumbs down are not really content based, and are often not legit criticisms.

An engineering masterpiece designed around needs instead of wants is a testament to the skill of the engineers.

That armored oil cooler arrangement that relies on the pressure differential of the boundary layer and the fan pressure is ridiculous and brilliant. We take if for granted what these engineers had to do without CAM/CAD, and that they made relatively safe high performance aircraft.

Back in the 70s I attended a scale model aircraft event and sitting in the grass was a model FW-190 with a 72 inch wing span with incredible detail, including wear and weathering. It looked to have been in its share of battles. It was the most intimidating aircraft I have ever seen. An absolute work of art and I will never will forget it.

Greg, I pretty sure you already know this but the community is infinitely grateful for your hard work on these beautiful war birds. I feel like you are doing important preservation of the details and explanation of these planes that the vast majority of the people wouldn’t have a clue about. You really go a step further than even the other best creators on the subject. Thanks again!

When the P47 appears over Europe: German pilots: "It's a flying tank!" Kurt: "They stole my radial concept AND my name!"

A lot of good thinking, experimentation, and engineering went into the air-cooled Fw-190 to bring its drag down to an acceptable level. It's quite amazing what the Germans were able to with the limitations they experienced with poor fuel, the need to import metal during wartime, and many other shortages that war brought to Germany. Good upload, Greg.

In a way I hate to say this but by all appearances the Engineers and Physicists had all the fun during the war. The explosion of ideas and development must have been intoxicating. Wonderful focused reporting. I look forward to more.

I remember reading Kurt Tank stating how his feet felt when flight testing the FW-190 for the first time "Like a blow torch set to my feet, beyond that great potential" . Soon after the coned cowling soon disappeared. Obviously this is my favorite Axis AC. Even the "D" and Ta versions. The only in-lines I can stomach. I don't comment much because your work is so in-depth and precise, It's just more of a pleasure to listen and learn. Thanks

17:04 the full sentence says: below the full-pressure-altitude the performance(s) with the internal air inlets are better. Servus from a German friend aus München!

Hey Greg, great video. Keep up the good work. But as a German speaker, I have to chime on the translations of the oil cooler system. :D Number 3 "Behaelterpanzer" means reservoirs armor and 4 "Ringoelbehälter" is the ring shaped oil reservoirs, literal ring oil reservoirs. Regarding the external air scoops. There is a german publication with actual pictures of 190s with these scoops. One is an A4 flown by Wilhelm Galland, Commander of the II./JG26 in 1943 in France. According to this publication these where more or less field modifications for the high level interceptors as the RLM did not want to diversify the production more.

Just want to take a minute to say that these videos are absolutely fascinating. I don't think there's any other RU-vidr who can hold my attention, uninterrupted for over half an hour. Thanks for putting these together Greg!

Hi, I’m Cindy’s husband, Dwight. Totally fascinating. When things get “technical” I usually zone out but you are able to keep me riveted and absorbing your content. I really appreciate that, because it is a talent you have to communicate to a less then technical person like me. Good job Greg, IMO. Thanks again.

The 190 is what made me love warbirds its shape always reminded me of a great white (not the kinda thing you wanna find behind you suddenly as well)

Thanks for the kind words. I really enjoyed your video and learned a good bit about the Fw 190.

I learned to fly when I was stationed at AFCENT at Brunnsum in the Netherlands. My training was done on Cessna 150s and 172s. The flyng club at Beek Airport in Limburg in South Netherlands also had a Piper Cub. I looked over this plane and though that I wouldn't be caught dead in it. After I got my PPL I was asked by the club management if I could ferry a 150 to Beerse in Belgium for maintenance. They reassured me that there would be a flight back, and thatv I wouldn't have to walk the 60 -70 miles back. Thus reassured, I said OK. When I arrived at Beerse I found that the only plane that was returning to Beek was the Piper Cub. So, now I had a choice, climb into the Piper or walk home. Of course I flew home. It was a revelation for me. Flying in the Piper was what I had always imagined flying to be - seat of the pants, and just wonderful. I just wish that everyone who flies or who wants to fly could have that experience. I think your videos are great. It's a pity that you can't do a video on the TSR2, given the dearth of information.

Thank you so much for dropping in some metric conversions for those outside the USA. It really helps the rest of us get a perspective on things.

Greg, great video about a plane I wish I had more knowledge of. However, my father, who worked at Hamilton Standard after the war did say that the German propellers were great. The VS111 used on the TA-152 seemed to be a high point. The VDM 9-12159 and 12199 were good as well. The 159 was used on the Me-109K and 109-G10. Wish my father was still alive to have him give you the particulars. Merry Christmas. I'll join your PATREON channel soon!

Watching this again after 3 years 😂 I just love your very VERY detailed reports on this (or all WW II planes) Sidenote: I now drive a Mini F56 Cooper S (192hp turbocharged) a car that has a pseudo inlet in the front of the engine hood which does literally NOTHING, zero zip cause it’s blocked on the inside !! Pseudo-Ram-Air-drag-enhancer for „styling“ or „visual pleasure“ , soooo not my thing… One could add a hilariously expensive eventuri conversion that opens it up and directs the air into the inlet, but then I wonder how much Ram air actually would help a turbo (not a supercharger) even when I do 200-230 km/h on the German autobahn… if I created a cover that shuts that hole I would probably gain more…

Always a pleasure hear someone so knowledgeable, yet very open about what they do not know. Also enjoyed the vignette of your flying career. Wishing you a great Christmas and a very happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

Your explanations of aerodynamics and engineering have greatly helped someone like me, with no background in them, to understand these aircraft in a way I never could in decades of reading about their history. Thank you for your work and your style of interpretation.

You're a 757 captain? Excellent! My favorite airliner (as a passenger). Keep 'em flying!

My Grandfather flew the 190 A-1, he had 5 confirmed kills.

Amazing video! Again, learned a lot. Your videos truly stand out from all the other warbird talks that are on youtube. Have a great day Greg!

As a Aircraft Automobile and Motorcycle enthusiasts I’m appreciative of your efforts to drill down into the many technical areas you present and the related history. Thanks again and I look forward to future topics.

10:30 3 is tank armor (Behälter means tank (like fuel tank)) 4 is the ring(shaped) oil tank

Let the haters hate. Your review of this plane shows good aerodynamic design on a engine style that many pre WW2 engineers/ designers thought was obsolete but from out of left field this comes along. Just wow!! Thank you!!

Amazing report and explanation. The personal final commentary is one of the most sincere I've heard here in YT. Thank you

Greg, From what I am hearing about the F-35 is that it is designed to be a stand off long range bomb/missile truck. Never designed to be a knife fighting fighter. Reminds me of when they decided that a fighter did not need a gun. Time will tell.

Another great video,FW190's have got to be the toughest looking aircraft from ww2. Already waiting for the next one,Greg,no pressure,of course.

A very interesting video, you can see that the FW190 employs a lot of small ideas to reduce drag. Experience from having captured FW190s led Hawker to design the Hawker Sea Fury using the Bristol Centaurus engine, this is arguably the fastest piston-engined aircraft of WW2 and was fast enough to shoot down Mig 15s in Korea.

I just have this fascination with the FW 190 A lines and proportions, that makes it one of my favourite WWII planes, that perfect balance is broken with the inline engine+circular radiator od the Dora version, just that little bit and the beauty is gone!

This is really fascinating! I love the Focke Wulf 190. It has an long, elegant , stocky look sitting on the ground with its wid landing gear. And with a good paint scheme it looks absolutely fabulous!

Honesty and integrity are things of the past. I'm not up to grasping all the information but was impressed by the way you were completely transparent about your experiences and lack of experiences. It's not easy to respect words these days as the people are often scared and insecure about who they are and what they feel they're worth. You have a past worth being prpud of, certainly more than I've ever accomplished.

Great presentation on how design and engineering affects desired outcomes

Nice video! I am surprised by that induced drag comparison being nearly equal between the Spitfire and the Fw190. Everything except aspect ratio favors the Spitfire in terms of induced drag, which is mostly a function of weight (lift). The higher aspect ratio of the Fw190 is probably roughly compensated for the better Oswald coefficient of the Spitfire, and then we're left with the Fw190 having significantly more weight than the Spitfire, and induced drag is proportional to weight^2. Lower wing area (higher wing loading) is an effective way of increasing the top speed of an aircraft indeed.

Greg, I think most people don't realise that at high speed, wing area is a BIG component of total drag; often bigger than the improvements due to cleaner fuselage from less bits sticking out. If you do the detailed drag maths, you will find the bigger Spit wing is the main (though not only) culprit for its greater drag compared to the FW190

I worked with a pilot who was also an aeronautical engineer who walked me through the calculations regarding radial vs inline horsepower and drag etc. It was very eye opening since most people "assume", as I did, that the more aerodynamic looking inline would be faster but there is much more to it. Then you have to consider ease of manufacturing, number of parts and the supply chain before you can get a clear picture of engine choice.

Love these tech videos, thanks. Means alot to me since my uncle flew a P-47 with 9th Air Force in the war.

J-3 Cub owner and former Stearman owner here. You are right about the performance of a 220 horse stock airplane. I like my Cessna 180 much better. Always great stuff on your channel!

I love your videos man. Been a fan of WW2 warbirds for over 30 years now, I've collected an extensive library on the subject, and your videos absolutely *never* fail to disappoint. I appreciate (and praise) your dedication to the subject. You would be a *fantastic* flight museum docent if you aren't already.

Greg, i have watched this video at least five times and learned something every time. Such great content. I can only imagine how much work it takes to produce such amazing content. Thanks for doing the work! The video with David Lednicer is really interesting. Thanks for that tip. Keep up the great work.

Well done, Greg - again - as usual. Excellent explanations of technical stuff for those of us who are literate, but don't speak "engineer" or "aeronautical engineer." Look forward to the next one. I'd love to see one in the future on prop design - many of the 190s (and some 109s, as well) I've seen in photos have a big paddle-bladed prop, and I've even seen a few Mustang photos with a 4-paddle prop, but the contemporary U.S. Navy planes never seem to have used them, at least not until we get to the F8F. Anyway, "prop efficiency" and the importance of "supersonic blade tip" are mystery terms to me. And of course, I'm waiting, patiently I hope, for you to do a video on the F6F, since that's what my dad few in combat in 1944.

Very well done video and commentary. I am always amazed at the ability of WWII era engineers to design such aircraft (whether British, American, German, Russian or Italian) without the present day design tools such as computers and 3D modeling. Slide rules, drafting boards and a lot of test flights, that's it. Extremely impressive. Thanks for these videos.

This channel is pure quality.

Your releases are so informative and educational. Favourite channel on aviation👍🏼 I made a report about the 190 ten years ago, during my education as a aircraft mechanic. It was mainly discussing structural integrity of airframe, whether it was fail-safe og safe-life design. And ever since then, ive been in love with this airplane. Simply a beauty and a beast. Like Gina Carano of the skies.

Man, regarding your feedback to the your F35 request I must say I really like your truthful and respectful answer to your subscribers. That indicates your serious approach to us and the subjects you presents. My full respect sir to your honesty.

For some reason growing up I never liked the 190, now it’s one of my favorite planes for some reason over the past year or two.

Hi Gregg,the FW 90-A has got to be one of the neatest and rugged ww2 aircraft,a brilliant design becoming a Jack of all trades when adapted in the field,it is also one my favourite aircraft of that period.Thank you so much for putting in the research time and effort to produce these videos .cheers Roly🇬🇧.

Really great historical facts! Even guys who drag race today, and depend on a powerful turbo charger could learn a thing or two from this.

I saw the werk nr. 2219 - Fw-190 A-3/U3 at the Norwegian Aviation Museum in Bodø this summer. It was restored and such a beauty.

You're exactly right about the "Ram Air" induction on cars, the fact is their real benefit is from being a cool air inlet more than actually having a true ram air effect, that was basically nothing more than marketing.

It may be interesting to compare this to the Curtiss XP-42. Curtiss engineers failed at producing an appreciable speed increase by trying to streamline the frontal radial area with many tight cowling configurations with external ram air for the radial engine. Curtiss felt that they could design away the inherent drag of the frontal area of the radial engine. Curtiss never incorporated a fan in 1939, thus insurmountable cooling problems persisted, and even when the airplane could be flown, it’s top speed was only 315 mph. And before any of these modifications were made by various engineers, the first man to think about and help design cowlings to reduce radial engine frontal area drag was Howard Hughes with his 1935 Racer, which smashed all speed records, notably his 1937 dash from Burbank to Newark in 7 hours and 28 minutes. Superb presentation and analysis.

I really appreciate these videos. I love the "engineer" viewpoint (yes...I'm an engineer!) which so complements and illuminates the historian's view of things. But also, I really enjoy the delivery style. Open, natural and extremely well structured. Thank you.

An excellent video! Many thanks for putting this together.

You monster this is scheduled to release directly on top of my fluid dynamics final, and I would have learned more from this!

Factual and rich in information, no frills but very entertaining.

Greg, I'm happy that I waited for this video. I went out and had dinner and drinks and came home for this masterpiece. My favorite WWII fighter plane and my favorite RU-vid channel.

I really love your way of present things, really nice, and the voice. The voice is golden, you could make audiobooks or podcasts without ends!

So, who's going to the first to say "I was on flight so and so, and the pilot came over the speaker, and said 'Greetings, this is Greg, your pilot for this flight.'"

Just found you / your channel...you did a spectacular job covering this plane and its design features !! As a WW2 aircraft and tank aficionado , I love any person who can understand we love these individual craft SOLELY for their design features , beauty and function...NOT the purposes or beliefs of those who commanded them !! It's such a joy and a relief to share this history with those mature and intelligent enough to realize this is our perspective...thank you for all the research and hard work you do to make these vids possible for us to enjoy.

These are so incredibly well made, with such good information in them.

I always wondered why those bumps were on the FW 190 cowling. Thanks for the education Greg.

I'm with the 2nd group regarding the F-35. Worked with some F-35B guys a few years ago who had transitioned from Harriers or F-18s and they were categorically pro-Thunderbolt II for the reasons you mention (or don't mention).

You are doing a fantastic work to preserve much of the knowledge which otherwise would have been lost. In the civil life I'm a engineer and I have been working a couple of years in the civil aircraft industry. The fact you discuss with us are very interesting. Thank you!

Stay for the F-35 Post-credit scene, you wont want to miss it Greg I would love to see you do some Vietnam war era stuff (sorry if you already have and I haven't noticed) Personally I'm a big fan of the F-105 Thunderchief

Damn your videos are so well put together and jammed full of hard to find information. You produce the best aircraft videos.

Favorite fighters: 1. Corsair 2. FW190 Radials for the win.

The "Free" RAM-AIR "boost" to increase intake manifold pressure and the armor-protected Oil Cooler are clever design aspects and help make the FW-190 "cleaner" and less drag and pretty slick! Other things like MW-50 for Emergency "Dog-Fight" Power is pretty cool too!

Your discussion of the need for pressurized cockpits caught my attention. Having been a Navy (A7) pilot in the late '60s, I was exposed to all the training around pilots' oxygen needs. In our advanced jet trainer, the old Cougar F9 and TF9, we had a diluter-demand regulator and high pressure gaseous oxygen. As its name suggests, it supplied oxygen as required to your mask as altitude increased (the cockpit was pressurized). In the A7 (also pressurized of course) we had a liquid oxygen system which supplied undiluted pure O2 all the time. I believe that was common among that era of military combat planes. It is my recollection, which at this date is not too accurate, that there is a certain maximum altitude at which one can function, unpressurized breathing 100% O2, of around 33,000 feet. I have always been puzzled at how fighter pilots and bomber crews in unpressurized aircraft were able to operate at altitudes above that.

Liked the dialogue on the Cub and Stearman. I just completed my taildragger endorsement in a 1941 J5 Cub, and really enjoyed it. Unlike you, I am also having an absolute blast in the Stearman, and don't have any significant performance regrets, however, the one I am flying has a 275hp engine, so maybe the extra 50 hp is a big differentiator. Seems to fly almost exactly where I intuitively 'think' it should go. It is completely different than the Cub, has much more inertia, and landings dealing with the sight picture and height/function of landing gear (springs vs. oleos) makes for a new challenge. But I am loving it nonetheless, and look forward to moving into some light acro in my next set of instruction.

That's pretty cool about how the exashut adds around 100lbs of thrust. I never knew that about prop aircraft.

Drawing at 10:17 3 Behaelterpanzer, better translation: container armour 4 Ringoelbehaelter, better translation: ring oil container Incredibly detailed video!

If anyone actually wants to learn more about F35, highly recommend the fighter pilot podcasts episode on the plane. Really informative and I think it really hit home just how far ahead it is when the pilot said they don't need an AWACS anymore because their onboard sensors give them more information than legacy methods. It's a beast of a plane and it's just going to get better.

A note on the last portion of the video (about the F-35): The F-35 is not designed to be a full-on air-superiority fighter, unlike it's predecessors. It's designed to integrate and make use of all different kinds of weapon systems to their full potential. Modern war isn't about "fighter X versus fighter Y", it's about the speed of information transmission across different branches and with different weapon systems. No it's not a stealth fighter, but it has stealth elements to get that small step ahead it needs. It then gathers all possible information necessary about enemy X and this is shared with all other weapon systems. A flight of multiple F-35's will distribute the workload of information gathering, share crucial information among each other and then send it to whichever weapon system or branch of military needs this information. Information sharing is crucial in this age and for the coming years of warfare. It's like they say: information is key.

Greg, thank you for this upload. You're a excellent researcher and teacher! I especially like the way you always deliver the therms and information you use for backing up your conclusions.

Love your videos. You don't dumb things down to a 3rd grade level, it's great content.

One of my favorite channels ;)

Greg, it's another fascinating video. I don't want to overrun you with long comments, but I cannot help but respond to your brief end comments on the F-35. I hope you will do a video on it as it is a very interesting and important subject. Pierre Sprey said the main mission of the plane is to generate profit and that it would be unlikely to prove to be a great fighting machine. The guy was a genius and the ultimate straight shooter, but his preference for austere fighters first formed in the 1960's that was no doubt true then could become less valid in the face of advancing sensors and electronics. They are usually over-hyped in the beginning for military applications, but due to Moore's Law they eventually get there with higher performance and lower cost, as I have continually witnessed and been involved in during my 40 year career as an electrical engineer. Though a heavy fighter (it's a little heavier than the F-15), the F-35 has the cost and maintenance virtues of being single engine without unnecessary thrust vectoring, and the program has been designed to take maximum advantage of economies of scale. If they can really hold its cost in the $80 mil range, then they have done a great job with that. Its stealth is designed to support the element of surprise (at least at BVR ranges), and its situational awareness to get inside the opponent's OODA loop supports surprise also. In the past whiz bang radar missile fighters like the F-4 and F-14 in their day proved disappointing, partly because of standard heavy fighter failings and partly because the radar missiles had such low Pk in their early years. But, those radar guided missiles have gotten a lot more reliable in the last few decades. Modern AESA radar lets those missiles be used without giving away surprise, so they have become quite practical. So, the F-35 as a relatively efficient heavy fighter has some good things going for it. But it may be that its very long and behind schedule development and fielding lead it to missing the window where it could have been a solution that might possibly have outperformed larger numbers of lower cost modern light fighters like the Gripen. Even if it was fielded earlier, it is not a given the F-35 could outperform the Gripen (or a similar U.S. fighter) per budget, as a Gripen-like fighter could be $50mil in volume production with economy of scale, it has about one quarter the operating cost of the F-35, and apparently it can really fight. As to the networked warfare argument, the Gripen is no slouch on electronics, radar and practical stealth itself--it has sophisticated electronic warfare abilities, data linking to act as its own AWACS, AESA radar, and only has a radar cross section of about 1.5m^2 compared to 20m^2 for the F-15. The Gripen to my knowledge has about a 20-1 victory score over the F-15, F-16, and F-18 in various trials such as Red Flag. This was apparently achieved with the combination of its light fighter virtues (an even better rendition than the F-16), strong electronic networking and situational awareness, which is reportedly at least in the ball park of competitive to the F-35, and outstanding pilots. The Gripen is also far superior in an austere war environment, like the Fw-190 was designed to be. It can disperse to roads wherever 800 meters of straight road exists to serve as a runway, making it much harder to find and kill on the ground. It can maintain a high sortie rate with a ground crew of 5, of which most can be briefly trained conscripts, compared to over twice that needed for the also efficient F-16. So, it makes a great example of spreading the available budget over a larger number of smaller planes designed for low cost as the best strategy to win, as history has generally confirmed. But, whether an efficient heavy or even more efficient light fighter wins out with manned fighters in a BVR networked era, it may be a moot argument. The time is coming fast where drone fighters will outperform any human flown fighter, and for much less cost (likely 50% to 70% the procurement cost per plane, perhaps 10% the operating cost, and no need to train pilots for 4-5 years until they are really ready to fight well). Over the history of air combat, less than 10% of pilots have scored 60% to 80% of the kills. With AI drones, every single drone will have that kind of ace grade "pilot"--even better as each AI pilot will be more aware and able to make decisions in less than 1% of the human "orient and decide" time in the OODA loop. It will make mathematical and statistical decisions in milliseconds on how to best deploy its weapons for maximum effect, and it will very seldom make a mistake. By itself, that increases the combat effectiveness of an Air Force by more than a factor of 10 (maybe a lot more). And, that drone does not have to fly 300 hour a year for its pilot to maintain skill, so the airframe lasts longer (it will become obsolete before it wears out) and maintenance and fuel costs are very low. You just store the thing with periodic software updates and occasional test/maintenance, and maybe one or two modular electronics upgrades over its life, until it's rolled out for action like a super-computing flying version of the Terminator. It will be the end of a great era in aviation. But, in war reality must be faced and a nation has to make the best use of its resources to survive and win. That is the foundation of the light fighter concept, and of drone fighters as well.

make a video about airplane start ups. mainly the startup method (hand crank flywheel with a clutch, electric starter, etc) time it would take to get a an airplane started from stone cold (with full tanks internal and external) to up in the air. might as well throw in how a cold engine performs.

I recently watched a video by an F-35 pilot about the critics. He said that one issue, when they say how an F-16 can beat an F-35 is that they're comparing an airframe that's been iterated in design for almost 50 years with some pilots having thousands of flight hours in it against a new airframe still undergoing development flown by pilots who haven't quite figured out all it can do. Anyway, the F-35's greatest strength is its avionics and sensors. Fighting it old-school in traditional scenarios doesn't show that. When it shoots you in the back before you even know it's in the same time zone, will. And, the Wurger is about the best looking aircraft of WWII. The Germans did know how to make good looking gear.

4:37 that is the only Spitfire in Denmark. RAFs/n MA298. She is on static display at the Danish Vintage Aircraft Museum in Stauning(EKVJ) just 40km north of where I live

This is a beautiful story and told so well. I can relisten to this and relisten to it. Big fan of the 190, and that makes it more appealing. Thanks Greg.

Always good to watch and listen to you explain and expound on various types of a/c. Thanks.

When you think back to around 1900 and just starting to take to the air, 40 years later 2.000hp to 3.000hp engines with Superchargers just amazing!

I guess bumps adds a lot to drag. Tank and team were going for "as smooth as possible" and got some excellent results. I don't know why there are thumbs down for this video. Like all you video's it is very fact based and really explores the engineering of these aircraft. Your insights are great. The 172 performs better than the old Stearman? I now have a new respect for the Cessna. No wonder there are about 1 billion of them around. :-)

Just a really good listen! Your assesments of all things aviation are appreciated and enjoyed.

190 was a beauty. Had many advantages and overall improvements over the 109, just not high altitude performance because of the radial.

your content & commentary are spot on. i applaud your efforts and enjoy every single thing you post, thanks & merry christmaa! Im an army vet & your disclosure\honesty was much appreciated, you are a stand up fella

Really enjoying the FW190 videos. Hoping in your BMW801 discussion,you talk about fuel quality, and perhaps speculate on that engines potential if 100/130 fuel had been available.

On the topic of the F-35, from what I understand as a civvie relying on publicly available information, The F-35's advantage lies primarily in the fact that it affords its pilots an unprecedented level of SA while simultaneously denying SA to its adversaries by merit of being low observable. Its ability to disseminate a much more comprehensive and clear picture of a field of battle to friendly assets is what makes it a "force multiplier". TLDR: It's a flying supercomputer in a stealthy package. I used to be skeptical of it, but learning more about its capabilities and hearing pilot testimony, I am confident that it the most capable tactical aircraft in service in the world today. I should mention I fall into the younger category. I am 22

I love your work! I only wish I could have watched these videos in my early teens (15 years ago), I wanted so badly to have such good information in such a digestible format. Keep it up!

You flew a actual "Candy Bomber" that was used during the Berlin Airlift.....very cool

I would love to hear something more about Kommandogerat than it can be found on the web in the next episode. It was a feature on BMW 801 engines that simply did most of the job of today's FADEC systems, as early as during WWII!!!

Damn, i miss great quality well researched videos like this in youtube! Thanks sir 🍻

One of my favorite airplanes, I especially love its unique electrical set up being an electrician by profession.

Brilliant presentation Greg! It's so refreshing to hear someone go into such detail!

Great video Greg, I can't wait to see more episodes on the 190!

Der Butcher Bird is the best looking WW11 plane. I love Em all but this has something extra? Great study Greg, the internal an dynamic Ram Air is just so Kraut.Awesomeness.