Small wings/high wing loading of German fighters
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
It really didn't matter as long as the Swastika was painted on.
That made any airplane that displayed it unbeatable in combat.
That made any airplane that displayed it unbeatable in combat.
Shortround6
Major General
Kind of depends on when and why.
Trying to design a big wing airplane with an under 700hp engine was a problem. The 109 wasn't "designed" that way, or it was compared to biplanes but it evolved that way.
doubling the engine power by 1942 and more than doubling the weight of guns/ammo, more fuel, protected fuel and pilot protection on nearly the same wing?
109B had wing loading of about 25.5lbs/sq/ft which was high for 1935/36 but not by much.
- Thread starter
- #5
But the US and British designed fighters with big wings from the get-go....
'European' fighters were usually with small wings, though.
British and US fighters designed around the 2000+- HP engines were with similar wing loading as the 'European' fighters.
Shortround6
Major General
The Americans in 1935-37 were designing planes that held 600 liters or more of internal fuel (and 900 hp engines) and not the under 300 liters of fuel of an early 109. The American .50 cal gun also meant that the P-35/P-36 were tasked with carrying almost 1.5-2.0 times the weight of guns and ammo.
British believed that even two pitch propellers were the work of Beelzebub and the adoption would condemn the air ministry officials to the 7th layer of Hell for all of eternity. They were willing to do it for big bombers but not for fighters.
They were also trying to carry 4 times the amount of guns and abut 2 twice the ammo and use a larger, heavier, higher powered engine and get the plane to fly out of the size airfield as that Hawker Fury Biplane.
Now by the time the Fw 190 came along things were a bit different.
However there limits to even what the Germans were willing to accept. The 190 gained over 20% in wing area from the first prototype to early production models and the early production versions were not carrying very heavy gun armament (4 machine guns?)
Fw 190 went from expected 2750 kg to 3500+ kg before the pre-series 190A-0 were actually manufactured (that I don't think saw any meaningful combat, being mostly used for testing). Upping the wing area by a substantial %-age was certainly required there.
(the 190 with the small wing, 2 MGs and 2 MG 151s was to weight 3475 kg, while the same weapons and a big wing were to push the weight of the complete A/C by another 65 kg; data is for the 22th Feb 1940; both weight figures include also the armor)
The weight creep was sparked erstwhile by change of the lightweight and very troublesome BMW 139 to the much heavier and the more promising 801C.
Fw 190A-1 started out with 4 MGs and two cannons, the 1st five delivered in June 1941, and some 70-75 delivered in the next 3 months; weight went up by another ~300 kg.
The Rotol company was founded and the prop shaft of the Merlin changed specifically to have CS props. If all UK fighters had be fitted with CS props before 1940 they would need new ones when engines were allowed operate to 100 octane fuel.The Americans in 1935-37 were designing planes that held 600 liters or more of internal fuel (and 900 hp engines) and not the under 300 liters of fuel of an early 109. The American .50 cal gun also meant that the P-35/P-36 were tasked with carrying almost 1.5-2.0 times the weight of guns and ammo.
British believed that even two pitch propellers were the work of Beelzebub and the adoption would condemn the air ministry officials to the 7th layer of Hell for all of eternity. They were willing to do it for big bombers but not for fighters.
They were also trying to carry 4 times the amount of guns and abut 2 twice the ammo and use a larger, heavier, higher powered engine and get the plane to fly out of the size airfield as that Hawker Fury Biplane.
Now by the time the Fw 190 came along things were a bit different.
However there limits to even what the Germans were willing to accept. The 190 gained over 20% in wing area from the first prototype to early production models and the early production versions were not carrying very heavy gun armament (4 machine guns?)
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
A while back I posted here an article about a dogfight between a P-47 and a captured FW-190. Contrary to what "everybody knows" the P-47 could out-maneuver the FW-190, even in turns. "Experts" would tell you that when you turned a P-47 you had to schedule it week ahead. In reality a P-47 not only turned well, it had the best roll rate of just about everything until the hydraulically boosted P-38L came into service. Well, maybe the Jug was not as good at turning as a Spitfire, Zero, or even P-40, but compared to an FW-190 it was superior.
In an article in Flight Journal a few years ago a WW2 USN pilot described flying a captured FW-190 at the famous Fighter Conference at Pax River. He had flown F6F's in combat but when asked what he thought of the FW-190 his response was simple, "It's not a dogfighter. It's a hit and runner."
Erich Hartman, who was credited with 352 air-to-air kills in WW2, said the secret to his success was equally simple: "Avoid dogfighting." If an enemy fighter pilot is aware enough and capable enough to avoid you when you make a run at him, then go find one that is not so sharp, and you can bet one such will turn up shortly. The top scoring fighter pilot of all time was a Hit and Runner.
In the head-to-head battle to the end between Bud Anderson and a BF-109 pilot described at the beginning of his book, "To Fly and to Fight", they went at it until Bud nailed him. Hartman would not have bothered. But "Target Fixation" is not just diving into or through the target; it is also getting your dander up and letting your focus being beating that other guy rather than accomplishing the mission, such as protecting the B-17's or shooting down the Stukas. I guess it is male thing. As one F-15 pilot and experienced P-51 pilot pointed out, those P-51 pilots over Japan who had their Mustangs modified to enable the high speed supercharger to be turned on manually under 18,000 ft were not focusing on the mission of protecting the B-29's. If the Japanese fighters refused to climb over 15,000 ft then they were not going to be able to touch the bombers and you could let them be, confident that the mission was being achieved. But flying all that way from Iwo and not going after those tasty morsels being dangled down below was too much for some hot young pilots in ther early 20's.
In an article in Flight Journal a few years ago a WW2 USN pilot described flying a captured FW-190 at the famous Fighter Conference at Pax River. He had flown F6F's in combat but when asked what he thought of the FW-190 his response was simple, "It's not a dogfighter. It's a hit and runner."
Erich Hartman, who was credited with 352 air-to-air kills in WW2, said the secret to his success was equally simple: "Avoid dogfighting." If an enemy fighter pilot is aware enough and capable enough to avoid you when you make a run at him, then go find one that is not so sharp, and you can bet one such will turn up shortly. The top scoring fighter pilot of all time was a Hit and Runner.
In the head-to-head battle to the end between Bud Anderson and a BF-109 pilot described at the beginning of his book, "To Fly and to Fight", they went at it until Bud nailed him. Hartman would not have bothered. But "Target Fixation" is not just diving into or through the target; it is also getting your dander up and letting your focus being beating that other guy rather than accomplishing the mission, such as protecting the B-17's or shooting down the Stukas. I guess it is male thing. As one F-15 pilot and experienced P-51 pilot pointed out, those P-51 pilots over Japan who had their Mustangs modified to enable the high speed supercharger to be turned on manually under 18,000 ft were not focusing on the mission of protecting the B-29's. If the Japanese fighters refused to climb over 15,000 ft then they were not going to be able to touch the bombers and you could let them be, confident that the mission was being achieved. But flying all that way from Iwo and not going after those tasty morsels being dangled down below was too much for some hot young pilots in ther early 20's.
Shortround6
Major General
Lets also not forget that the Hawk 75 (pre P-36) was supposed to weigh 4843 lbs gross with the Wright XR-1670-5 engine for a wing loading of 20.5 lb/sq/ft with it's 236 sq ft wing.
By the time we get to the P-40E we have a gross weight 7952lbs (with 120 US gallons of fuel) and a wing loading of 33.7lbs
What goal was the "P-40" designed to
Most European countries (including the Soviet union) designed for short ranges than the US and Japan and could design smaller aircraft accordingly.
Hiding an extra 55 US gallon drum of fuel was possible inside of a fighter but it took a lot more work to squeeze it into a small aircraft (a lot of small tanks spread throughout the wing) with higher costs.
By the time we get to the P-40E we have a gross weight 7952lbs (with 120 US gallons of fuel) and a wing loading of 33.7lbs
What goal was the "P-40" designed to
Most European countries (including the Soviet union) designed for short ranges than the US and Japan and could design smaller aircraft accordingly.
Hiding an extra 55 US gallon drum of fuel was possible inside of a fighter but it took a lot more work to squeeze it into a small aircraft (a lot of small tanks spread throughout the wing) with higher costs.
- Thread starter
- #12
Who is 'you'?
- Thread starter
- #14
Use "one" instead of "you".
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Pre- and early-war the UK designed its fighters (in particular) and also most of its bombers to be able to take off from shorter (relative to late-war) grass field runways. This required a larger wing to compensate for the weight and somewhat low power (relative to late-war) combined with fixed-pitch or 2-pitch propellers. This was also true of carrier based aircraft, partly explaining the biplane attack airframes in the early war.
The US early-war aircraft (as mentioned by others upthread) required a larger wing to compensate for the heavier fuel and weapon loads - such loads also increasing the weight of the airframe structure. The larger wing was also needed to compensate for the low(ish) power engines (relative to late-war). The P-38 on the other hand, was never intended to operate from grass strips, and the wing loading was in the 45-50 lb/ft2 range.
As with the UK the USN's carrier aircraft faced similar design requirement changes as the war progressed.
For the US and Commonwealth as the war progressed, speed became more important than the ability to sustain turns, and more important than the ability to take off from shorter, often grass runways.
The Germans faced a similar situation in the early-war, and there probably would have been further changes in the late-war if they had had the time and resources. Also the need to defend the homeland from the bombing campaign pressured them into concentrating on certain aspects of performance (ie heavier armament, altitude performance, and speed needed to catch the bombers and evade fighters) - the speed maybe more so than the Allies. From late-43 to the end of the war the Luftwaffe were more concerned with taking out bombers than getting into dogfights, hence speed became a lot more important than maneuverability.
The US early-war aircraft (as mentioned by others upthread) required a larger wing to compensate for the heavier fuel and weapon loads - such loads also increasing the weight of the airframe structure. The larger wing was also needed to compensate for the low(ish) power engines (relative to late-war). The P-38 on the other hand, was never intended to operate from grass strips, and the wing loading was in the 45-50 lb/ft2 range.
As with the UK the USN's carrier aircraft faced similar design requirement changes as the war progressed.
For the US and Commonwealth as the war progressed, speed became more important than the ability to sustain turns, and more important than the ability to take off from shorter, often grass runways.
The Germans faced a similar situation in the early-war, and there probably would have been further changes in the late-war if they had had the time and resources. Also the need to defend the homeland from the bombing campaign pressured them into concentrating on certain aspects of performance (ie heavier armament, altitude performance, and speed needed to catch the bombers and evade fighters) - the speed maybe more so than the Allies. From late-43 to the end of the war the Luftwaffe were more concerned with taking out bombers than getting into dogfights, hence speed became a lot more important than maneuverability.
Shortround6
Major General
It was timing, Fedden and RR knew that the CS props worked, they knew there would soon be a demand for them, despite what the Air Ministry was saying/doing. Fedden and RR both knew that it would take time to set up mass production and when the Air Ministry finally figured out that the CS propeller was not a passing fad and they needed them by the thousands it would be too late.
And for some strange reason, they were able to refit almost 500 DH two speed props with CS pump and governor at the service fields making the story of needed new propellers sound a bit off. Granted perhaps the converted DH props didn't give quite the performance that the Rotol props did but they were very close.
Now in 1938 or very early 1939 perhaps there were budget constraints that limited the ability to order better propellers but that should have gone away in 1940. Except that there was a lack of factory capacity due to the Air Ministry not ordering up to date propellers in 1936-37-38. Which meant many British air crews were lost due to crappy propellers.
It is not just the CS props on fighters, it was better props on single and twin engine fighters. It was the lack of fully feathering props on multi engine planes.
HS had been awarded the Collier trophy in May 1934 for the controllable pitch prop being the greatest advance in aviation in 1933 but what did those colonials know.
HS introduced the constant speed prop in 1935.
HS announced the Hydromantic prop in 1937 that was fully feathering. It was adopted by 21 foreign and domestic commercial airlines in 1938-39 It was also being licensed by a bunch of countries. It was demonstrated by a DC-3 flying over NY City (Central Park) April 6th 1938. Now perhaps safety regulations were a more lax in 1938 but flying a DC-3 on one engine over central park takes a lot of confidence.
That is HS. Curtiss was building their own electric propeller instead of hydraulic.
It was indeed timing, almost all of your post is written with the knowledge of what happened when it happened in the way it happened and nothing that was planned to happen but didnt actually did. In 1940 at the start of the Battle of Britain the RAF had two monoplane fighters with CS props capable of combatting the the BF 109 at all altitudes from 0-30,000ft. Who else had? Did the Bf 109 have a CS prop in 1940? By far the greatest cause of losses in the Battle of France was the decision to send the BEF to Belgium and France in the first place, CS props would not have halted the German advance through the Ardennes forest. What were HS fitting their CS props to in 1935 to 1940? Talk of "what did those colonials know" is beneath your normal level of discussion, the British had to make their own props for their own aircraft.
Smaller wing is one way to cut the drag. Lower the drag = increase the speed.
That design philosophy was also used several times in decades after the ww2.
- Thread starter
- #19
Apparently the Germans put emphasis on "Rollwendigkeit" which means roll agility in the air applying small wings with yet relatively higher aspect ratio. It means it doesn't look broad when looked at from above.
I wonder how great the benefits really were when Allied designer wouldn't follow this design philosophy. High wing load means, longer take-off strips, higher landing speed and often more difficult handling especially for novice pilots. Add to this a worse turn radius.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Three contemporary fighter wingspans of the mid-30's:
Hawker Hurricane - 40 feet (wing area: 257.5 sq/ft)
Bf109 - 32 feet, 4 inches (wing area: 174 sq/ft)
P-36 - 37 feet, 4 inches (wing area: 235.9 sq/ft)
However, the Heinkel He112, which also falls into this group, had a wingspan of 37 feet, 9 inches with a wing area of 250 sq/ft, so it comes down to the design theory of that point in time, to be honest.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
