# FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2018)

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum concerning the relative merits of the Focke Wulf fighter. Is this unbridled adulation based on fact or has time clouded it's true virtues and accomplishments? Was it a quality airframe or did it benefit mostly from use of proper tactics and great piloting skills?

I'd like to include all variants of this fighter, discussing each in context of the mission they were tasked to perform. 

I look forward to hearing from any and all with an understanding of this seemingly immortal aircaft. 

Thanks!


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 8, 2018)

Damn fine aircraft? Yes, without question. Immortal? please...

There are smarter guys than me here to fill in the voids, so I'll let them do that. Plus there are many threads here already that discuss the FW.

None other than Gen. Chuck Yeager had highest praise for the Dora.


----------



## GregP (Jan 8, 2018)

From what I've read, the Fw 190 radial fighters were very good aircraft with a few faults.

On the plus side, they were fast, robust, could roll very quickly at low to medium airspeed, had wide-spaced landing gear for good ground handling and high resistance to nosing over on the ground, and had relatively low control forces. The engine control was a single-lever type, meaning engine operation was made a one-hand affair. The armament was heavy and only one or maybe two hits were needed to produce some serious damage in an enemy aircraft.

On the negative side, the stall had no warning, so only very experienced pilots would pull near the turn limit. The single-lever engine control meant it was difficult to fly formation without constant attention to the throttle. The service ceiling was relatively low and performance started to fall off about 20,000 feet and the rate of climb was average, though zoom climb was excellent (much as some Allied planes). In the ETO, that was medium altitude. The forward visibility wasn't the greatest, either. it was also almost impossible to open the canopy in flight. To assist with jettisoning the canopy for bailing out, most were fitted with blank 20 mm cartridges aimed backward to help push the canopy back when fired.

Last the engines had low TBO but were reliable in field use, so that really isn't either good or bad ... just a fact. I am under the impression that the low TBO of the BMW 801 was easily "fixable," but it required supplies of metals that Germany simply wasn't going to get. Since it didn't affect operations, it is just an interesting aside. The early jet engines were also "low life" units due to lack of certain metals.

Balanced out, the radial Fw 190 series were formidable low-to-medium altitude fighters that hit hard, were fast, rolled better than almost anything else at normal speeds, had great ground handling as opposed to the Bf 109 series, were available and, when they came out, generally took the title of "best fighter in the ETO" from the Spitfire V until the Spitfire IX (2-stage Merlin) was developed. After that, they were still first-rate fighters, near the top of the heap, that demanded respect until the end of the war unless you were way up high. Most Allied pilots considered them the best of the German piston fighters.

The liquid-cooled Fw 190s lost a bit of turn rate due to the longer engine, but mostly retained the high roll rates. The Fw 190D series were widely considered to be the best German piston fighter of all. They had good speed (not great), a very good service ceiling, very good roll, decent turn, but not as good as the radial models, and retained heavy armament. The last minute Ta 152 series were superb but, with only a handful every actually flying (about 43 total delivered, never more than about 20 at any one time), they never made even a dent in combat and actually acquired a very ordinary combat record (with 2 - 4 losses and 8 - 10 victories). My own take on it was that no matter HOW good they were, a handful of fighters against 1,000-plane raids and hordes of marauding Allied fighters were bound to be reduced to hit-and-run tactics if only due to the sheer number of Allied planes over Germany most of the time. Unfortunately, the Ta 152 series came out and made it's debut in April 1945, when the Luftwaffe more of less collapsed.

Go look at the number of US ground kills in WWII. It is Table 197 in the Statistical Digest of WWII. The US didn't start having ground kills until Feb 44 when they had one! After that, they got anywhere from 150 to 400 or so ground kills per month until April 1945 when they got 3,703 ground kills! That's not a misprint. That can ONLY mean the Luftwaffe had virtually ceased operations ... right when the Ta 152 came out. Talk about bad timing!

To me the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 made up a very good, very deadly duo that complimented each other very well. Had the war continued and had the Ta 152 made it into volume production, I have no doubt that it would have risen to near the top of the piston fighter heap, where the Fw 190 was right from the day it entered combat. I don't consider it to be "best piston fighter ever" myself, but it wasn't far from it, and it should figure in the list when that subject is talked about. Let's say it deserves a solid thumbs up rating, and has a solid place in aerial warfare history when people talk about "the best." Again, and unfortunately for the Ta 152, it came out when the Me 262 was making itself known. Good as the Ta 152 was, it wasn't going to be the mount of choice when jets were available. The Ta 152s ended their careers flying top cover for the Me 262s when they had to slow down around the airfield to land. Most (but not all) Allied planes decided not to mix it up with the airfield guards since the war was winding down anyway and there was no sense getting killed for a jet victory.

Had jets not been developed, the Ta 152 would likely be VERY close to number one on the piston list, and would certainly be in the top 3 - 4 piston fighters out of the hundreds ever made. That's not bad in anybody's book.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 8, 2018)

Pointing out facts and having a different opinion cannot be referred to as unbridled adulation without some risk of terminological inexactitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 8, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Pointing out facts and having a different opinion cannot be referred to as unbridled adulation without some risk of terminological inexactitude.



There's a mouthful!


----------



## pbehn (Jan 8, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> There's a mouthful!


Famous quote of Winston Churchill.

Terminological inexactitude - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 8, 2018)

The FW 190 was a headache for a long time to the RAF, it forced the Typhoon into service early and also the somewhat forced development of the Spitfire Mk IX also the next developments of the Spitfire the Spiteful were to have stiffened wings to close the gap in roll rate, all these are compliments to the Fw 190 design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 8, 2018)

These sort of questions always become ones of opinion. Even if there was some across the board type of score sheet aircraft do not fly themselves. The pilot is an integral part of the question. A superior on paper aircraft flown by a mediocre pilot vs. an inferior on paper aircraft flown by a skilled pilot. Naturally one cannot go to far with such comparisons and one needs must consider numbers. German Industry in the middle of the war could never match the industrial might of the US safely out of the actual war. A Tiger tank could kill 20 Shermans and still loose. German desparation also led to them putting their best pilots on the front lines where they sooner or later were killed unable to pass their knowledge and skills to new pilots
That being said: 
The development of the FW-190 began with a contract in 1937 from the Reichsluftfahrtministerium for a new single-seat fighter. The new plane was designed by Focke-Wulf engineer Kurt Tank, a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot. He was chief engineer in Focke-Wulf’s design department from 1931 to 1945. He was not only responsible for the development of the FW-190, but also the Focke-Wulf Ta-152 fighter-interceptor and my model in progress the FW-200 Condor. The FW-190 was first developed as two different models, one using the water-cooled inline Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine and the other using the BMW 139 air-cooled radial. The BMW 139 was selected for development in summer of 1938. The first prototype flew on June 1, 1939. The BMW 139 produced 1,550 horsepower, attaining a speed of 370 miles per hour. Fairly soon the BMW 139 was replaced by the BMW 801, a new engine design with great potential but the new engine did have some problems. Powered by the new BMW engine, which produced 1,600 horsepower, the FW-190A-1 was armed with four wing-mounted 7.92mm MG17 machine guns.
First impressions of the new BMW 801 engine were not good. Test pilots reported: “The new twin row, 14 cylinder, air-cooled radial engine gave us nothing but misery. Whatever could possibly go wrong with it, did. We hardly dared to leave the immediate vicinity of the airfield with our six prototype machines,” reported one pilot. The project came close to being cancelled but most of the problems were corrected and the plane was cleared for service in July 1941. The FW-190A1 used the BMW 801C, 1600 horsepower engine, which powered a three-bladed variable pitch propeller that could attain a top speed of 388 miles per hour. The wide-track landing gear folded in toward the fuselage, which was extra strong to accommodate future weight growth and offered good stability on the ground. The FW-190A1 carried four rifle-caliber machine guns, two in the cowling and two in the wing roots, all of which were fired through the propeller arc. One of the major changes made by Tank and his designers was in the FW-190’s armament. They replaced the inboard MG17s with two 20mm FF cannons. The modified fighter now had the designation of FW-190 A-2 and took the Royal Air Force completely unawares with descriptions of the plane being discounted by British intelligence.
The FW-190 first saw action over the English Channel in 1941. In February 1942, it was providing cover for the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisinau and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen as they tried to reach northern German ports. In one engagement, the 190s destroyed all six attacking Royal Navy Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers. The new fighter was faster and more agile than the Spitfire. The FW-190 was a stout opponent in a dogfight with its extremely heavy armament. The FW-190 pilots tended to work in pairs, giving each other good tactical support in battle. The excellent visibility provided by the plane’s cockpit assisted the pilots in supporting one another. As time went on, the FW-190 became a severe threat to Allied aircraft in every region where the Luftwaffe was active. It inflicted huge losses on B-17 Flying Fortress and Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber crews, and was almost impossible to stop until the long-range P-51 Mustang came into service in 1944 and began escorting bombers to their targets.
The new aircraft might have had an even greater impact on the air war but for one error. In June 1942, a Luftwaffe pilot accidentally presented an intact FW-190A fighter to his enemies. Oberleutnant Armin Faber landed on what he thought was a Luftwaffe airfield on the Cotentin Peninsula that turned out to be the RAF airfield at Pembrey, Wales. As he slowly taxied to a stop, Faber was totally surprised when someone jumped on the wing and pointed a pistol at his head.
The RAF quickly transported the aircraft to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. The airframe and engine were dismantled and thoroughly analyzed before being reassembled. After being test flown the plane was delivered to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford, Cambridgeshire, where it was put through intensive performance trials and flown competitively against several Allied fighter types. The AFDU trials had proven what the RAF already knew, that the FW-190 was an outstanding development in fighter aircraft.
The detailed examination of the FW-190 had a huge influence on fighter development in Britain. It resulted directly in the specification F.2/43 to which was designed the Hawker Fury, which incorporated numerous features directly copied from the FW-190A and F.19/43, which produced the Folland Fd.118 fighter project.
In 1943, the Luftwaffe needed a fighter with better high-altitude performance. The answer was the long-nosed “D” model or “Dora.” The first production model was the FW-190 D-9 which attained production status in the early summer of 1944. The new plane’s purpose would be to face the Allied bombers, particularly the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress, which was known to be coming into service. The FW-190 D was the first production FW-190 to use a liquid-cooled engine and was a very good high-altitude interceptor equal to the North American P-51 Mustang or Supermarine Spitfire MK XIV. Deliveries of the FW-190D-9 began in August 1944. The first mission of the new fighter was to provide top cover for Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighters during takeoff when they were most vulnerable. The prevailing opinion among the FW-190D-9 pilots was that it was the best Luftwaffe propeller-driven fighter of the entire war and was more than a match for the P-51 Mustang. Experience gained with the D Model led to the development of the high-altitude Focke-Wulf Ta 152. Ta was in honor of Kurt Tank. The inline engine fighter was going to be the top version of the now famous fighter, but delays prevented them being manufactured in adequate numbers. In the final chaotic year of the Third Reich only a few Ta-152Hs and possibly a few Ta-152Cs got into combat.
One of the more important roles played by the FW-190s was in the defense of the Reich. The first month of the air campaign ended with the raid on Wilhelmshaven on February 26, 1943. In this phase of the campaign, the fighting ended in favor of the Luftwaffe, which downed 15 heavy bombers from the U.S. Eighth Air Force while it suffered seven pilots killed and one wounded. On March 4, the FW-190s played a major role in attacking a group of B-17s whose target was the marshaling yards at Hamm in North Rhine-Westphalia. Four of the five bombers were shot down in the Eighth Air Force’s first appearance over the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland. On April 17, the Eighth Air Force returned to Bremen, but this time its target was the city’s Focke-Wulf aircraft factories. These were producing the very FW-190 fighters that the Americans were fighting in the air. During this raid the Americans lost 16 B-17s with 10 falling to the FW-190s. These losses were at least part of the reason that the Eighth Air Force did not reappear over the Reich for nearly a month.
In the second half of 1943, the Eighth Air Force suffered catastrophic casualties, but the defenders’ losses would begin to escalate as the year wore on. In this period, the U.S. Army Air Forces lost 87 bombers and had more than 500 damaged mostly due to Luftwaffe attacks, many of which involved FW-190s.
The arrival of U.S. escort fighters in ever increasing numbers would dramatically change the situation. The Luftwaffe pilots would no longer have the luxury of remaining unmolested beyond the range of the bombers’ defensive fire and then deciding how to deliver the attack. Protected by their fighters, the bombers would be much more difficult to approach, and kills would become more difficult to achieve with losses inevitably becoming much higher.
The number of fighters escorting Eighth Air Force bombers would eventually exceed 500. One method which the Luftwaffe began to develop to counter the increased number of enemy fighters was to have the Me-109s keep the enemy fighters occupied while the FW-190s attacked the bombers. The Luftwaffe also transferred many of its most successful pilots closer to Germany to defend the Reich in the most critical campaign of the European air war.
By the end of 1942, the FW-190 was fighting in North Africa, on the Eastern Front, and in Western Europe. In the Soviet Union, the FW-190 was effective in low-flying ground attacks on vehicle convoys and tanks. In this theater, the FW-190 carried 250- and 500-pound bombs, either of which could knock out a tank. One major issue on the Eastern Front was keeping the FW-190s and other aircraft supplied. This was at a time when many of the planes were flying up to eight sorties a day. On the Eastern Front, the FW-190’s reliable air-cooled engine and wide-track landing gear were well suited for service in the extremely harsh conditions. Operations on the Eastern Front led to a number of changes that resulted in the FW-190F fighter-bomber designed with a special emphasis on ground attack. This particular version carried 794 pounds of armor, which included sections of steel plate located behind the pilot’s head, on the lower engine cowling, and in the wheel well doors. The F-8 version turned out to be the most important model of the “F” series. Frontline units, using kits supplied by the factory, could adapt these aircraft to carry various combinations of heavy cannons, bombs, rockets, and even torpedoes.
As the war went on, the different models of the FW-190 were in almost constant contact with enemy bombers. This led to improvements in the form of more cannons and underwing rockets. Later, bomb racks were fitted to the FW-190 airframe under the fuselage and under the wings to broaden the capability of the fighter for attacking ground targets. By the end of the war, German fighter airfields were forced back closer to Berlin for fear of being bombed, which resulted in the FW-190 becoming more of a ground attack and support aircraft as German air power dwindled in the final days of the war. The Allied bombing campaign reduced the number of FW-190s, and the added issue of pilot attrition only made the situation for the Luftwaffe much worse. The end was in sight.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 8, 2018)

warfarehistorynetwork.com is a good site

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2018)

Good points: capability to accept big & powerful engines without much of problem, usualy heavy firepower, very good rate of roll, before late 1942 Allies have had nothing comparable performance-vise. By late 1943 was still a competitive fighter at all altitudes, capability for carrying heavy load under fuselage and wings despite a small wing, fighter-bomber versions were very useful and as survivable as it gets.
Bad points are mostly related to the engine choice, or lack of it. The BMW 801C was unreliable to the point of RLM canceling the whole Fw 190 project. The 801 series were as heavy as the R-2800, and used almost 50% more fuel than the contemporary DB 601/605 engines, with bigger drag & weight and just barely better altitude power. When BMW 801 worked well (roughly from late 1942 on) it was excellent engine, though, especially the mid- and low-alt power was very good. RLM/LW dropped the ball with not inisting on V12 powered variant from day one. The non instaling of Jumo 213 or/and DB 603 on the Fw 190 by late 1943 was another grave mistake. That BMW 801 never got a two-stage supercharger was again a mistake, too much of resources went into BMW 802/803 projects, so even the 801E and 801S were missed opportunities and too late, respectively.
Thus, RAF equaled the Fw 190 with Spitfire IX/VII/VIII/XII and Typhoon (at low- and mid-altitudes), while USAF introduced P-47 that was a far better fighter above 20000 ft. In the same time, the Fw 190 gained drag and weight, with no increase in altitude power. So once the P-51B was introduced, things went from bad to awful for the Fw 190s since there was not enough left of German aerospace to retreat to.
The Fw 190D-9 and A-9 were introduced too late, not being capable to really challenge the Allied best mounts even on one-on-one basis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2018)

Wow guys this is awesome stuff! I need to find a little time to sitdown and digest it all.

Any and all responses concerning it's development, operational use, flying characteristics, prominent and minor strengths and weaknesses throughout it's career, and how it may have stacked up to the competition is greatly appreciated and welcomed....


----------



## taly01 (Jan 8, 2018)

Galland (who was a plane tech geek) prefered the Fw190 over the Bf109 for himself to fly! 

I think the multi-role capability of the Fw190 was what made it great, It was a great fighter-bomber and bomber-interceptor that replaced the Stuka and Bf110 for ground work and was a much better bomber killer than any Bf109.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2018)

After taking in what everyone has said so far about the FW-190, an underlying theme is beginning to emerge. Roughly two years after it's introduction the FW-190 was being tasked more and more as either a bomber interceptor or ground attack machine and mind you performed quite well at both of these tasks.

Be that as it may, I was wondering how many here feel that this takes away some of the credibility and luster that it garnered over the years, seeing that the general consensus on this forum is that shooting down lumbering bombers is a somewhat "easier" task than mixing it up with fast, agile enemy fighters (although I didn't actually crunch the numbers concerning opinions, just something I've noticed after reading assorted threads).

If this is actually true than shouldn't the BF-109 get way more credibility as a fighter, being forced to handle the enemy's more lethal adversaries, i.e. single-seat fighters, while the FW-190 got all the "gravy" by being able to target the slower, more vulnerable bombers? Opinions?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 8, 2018)

The Focke wulf was a dangerous opponent , heavily armed, with plenty of power and well protected. ive read it was competitive in the manouvre, and a good climber and diver. 

It was defeated by numbers and rising abilities of the allied pilots, and corresponding fall in the ability of the average german aircrews. 

In my opinion it was a superior mount to the Me109, though most of the LW aces gained their status flying the 109. Figure that one out if you can!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jan 8, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The Focke wulf was a dangerous opponent , heavily armed, with plenty of power and well protected. ive read it was competitive in the manouvre, and a good climber and diver.
> 
> It was defeated by numbers and rising abilities of the allied pilots, and corresponding fall in the ability of the average german aircrews.
> 
> In my opinion it was a superior mount to the Me109, though most of the LW aces gained their status flying the 109. Figure that one out if you can!!!



I suspect that the Fw 190 was more like a British or American fighter than was the Bf 109, in that it seems to have been a machine that responded well to the average pilot. The Bf 109 was cheap, and superb in the hands of an _experte_. Thus the very elite of Luftwaffe aces flew the 109, because they could ultimately wring more out of it. But for the average pilot, the 190 has a better weapon.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2018)

The Bf 109 has a very strong claim to the title of best fighter of the war, if you decide victories over enemy aircraft are worth counting. Most of the great aces made their mark in the Bf 109. Notably, the top 3 aces shot down just over 900 aircraft flying the Bf 109. It was truly great airplane that ended up on the losing side, but that doesn't either detract from it's accomplishments or solve it's weaknesses.

As a pure fighter, particularly an offensive fighter, the Bf 109 is probably and arguably better than the Fw 190 ... at least the radial models. Maybe not the Fw 190D / long nose series. As an all-round military aircraft asked to be fighter, fighter-bomber, interceptor, and ground attack plane, the Fw 190 is, hands down, the better of the two.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> After taking in what everyone has said so far about the FW-190, an underlying theme is beginning to emerge. Roughly two years after it's introduction the FW-190 was being tasked more and more as either a bomber interceptor or ground attack machine and mind you performed quite well at both of these tasks.
> 
> Be that as it may, I was wondering how many here feel that this takes away some of the credibility and luster that it garnered over the years, seeing that the general consensus on this forum is that shooting down lumbering bombers is a somewhat "easier" task than mixing it up with fast, agile enemy fighters (although I didn't actually crunch the numbers concerning opinions, just something I've noticed after reading assorted threads).
> 
> If this is actually true than shouldn't the BF-109 get way more credibility as a fighter, being forced to handle the enemy's more lethal adversaries, i.e. single-seat fighters, while the FW-190 got all the "gravy" by being able to target the slower, more vulnerable bombers? Opinions?


The Fw 190 was introduced in late 1941 at a time that must have been viewed later as its golden age. It outclassed the Spitfire MkV in the West and had no real competition in the East. However that changed very quickly. Barbarossa ground to a halt in the east and the war with Russia became a war of attrition with fronts not a Bltzkrieg war of fast manoeuvre. Just as the Fw190 was a new design so the allies had their new designs. The Typhoon was rushed forward in development, it was a match at low levels for the Fw. The Spitfire Mk V had the latest Merlin engine put into it this became the Mk IX which was actually less advanced than the Mk VII and VIII, this was superior to the FW190 in most respects. The Mustang Mk I had been ordered by the British and would arrive in 1942. Then the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Germany declared war on the USA. Soon P38s were arriving then P47s and later P51s along with four and twin engine bombers. In the east the Russians started introducing their own updated fighters like the Yak 7 and 9 which by the end of the war were formidable at low level where most fighting took place. 

To survive attacking a bomber formation or ground target required increased armour and the FW 190 was more suited than the Me 109 due to its air cooled engine. However this becomes a disadvantage when escort fighters appear around the bombers or the air is full of enemy fighters near the ground. Shooting down a bomber requires a different weapon to that required for a fighter, the return fire and presence of escorts meant they had to be travelling so fast that they needed a weapon that destroyed the bomber with just a few hits, like large calibre cannon or rockets. 

By 1944/45 the FW 190 had to deal with P47s,Tempests, Spitfires and Yak 9s at low level, P38s, P51s Spitfires P47s at high level while trying to attack 4 engine bomber formations bristling with 0.5 calibre guns or ground targets surrounded by soldiers with machine guns and dedicated AA guns. Whether it was better or worse than any or all of these in some or all situations became immaterial, it may have been able to shoot down a Sturmovik at will but there were 36,000 of them, same for the P39 with 9,600 made. When the P51 arrived it arrived with pilots too so the P47 didn't go away it went from escort fighter to ground attack.

The only two "weaknesses" I have read frequently about the Fw190 are the engines drop of in performance at high altitude and the aerodynamics of the wing resulting in a snap stall under heavy loading.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> After taking in what everyone has said so far about the FW-190, an underlying theme is beginning to emerge. Roughly two years after it's introduction the FW-190 was being tasked more and more as either a bomber interceptor or ground attack machine and mind you performed quite well at both of these tasks.
> 
> Be that as it may, I was wondering how many here feel that this takes away some of the credibility and luster that it garnered over the years, seeing that the general consensus on this forum is that shooting down lumbering bombers is a somewhat "easier" task than mixing it up with fast, agile enemy fighters (although I didn't actually crunch the numbers concerning opinions, just something I've noticed after reading assorted threads).
> 
> If this is actually true than shouldn't the BF-109 get way more credibility as a fighter, being forced to handle the enemy's more lethal adversaries, i.e. single-seat fighters, while the FW-190 got all the "gravy" by being able to target the slower, more vulnerable bombers? Opinions?



Both Bf 109 and Fw 190 were tasked to kill both fighters and bombers. Fw 190 was usually carrying much bigger firepower, so it will be more suitable to go after bombers, being also better protected. The Bf 109 with extra cannons (= about equal the firepower of run-on-the-mill Fw 190) was not a single bit better performer than the Fw 190, while the Fw 190 still featuring better visibility and rate of roll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Jan 9, 2018)

Late 41- middle 42 very good, very dangerous
Middle 42- middle 43 Average
Middle 43 -middle 44 out classed
Middle 44- VE day shooting target

The Fw 190 is overated. The airframe was not particulary bad , but certain features crippled its performance
a)The BMW 801 was a terrible engine. Heavy, required c3 fuel and even then had a poor power to weight ratio, and above 6000m was tragic.
b) The wing was small for the weight of even the earlier versions. It suffered from deformation under stress giving violent high speed stall. It s airfoil was obsolete by 1943.No internal fuel tanks untill the very end
c) The armament in later versions was overkill and its weight further crippled performance
d) The surfaces building quality caused further performance loss. Heavy armor again reduced performance. Heavy radio/navigation equipment did not help . Inferior fuels did not help either. 
e) The operational requirement that ,essentially a single air frame(A/F/G-8), perform every single mission, from high altitude combat to ground support , very naturally created an aircraft simply inferior.

The D series tried to restore some performance , but did not succeed. The wing was still the same, the engines were still single stage,C3 fuel was not available, and essential aerodynamic features of the aircraft could not be produced.Additional weight and drag was caused by the requirement for the "power egg", in order to make production easier

The Ta152 versions were again crippled by unreasonable requirements for heavy armament, still more armor, plus more fuel ,and still on B4 fuel.

In my opinion the Fw190 was not a good fighter after 1942 and does not deserve its fame

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 9, 2018)

.... the above argument ignores the truth that in war you work with what you got ... or as George Patton said “the Best is the enemy of the Good”. 
Fw-190s were good enough to influence fighter AC design in the US, GB and the USSR. In the hands of determined German pilots they exacted serious punishment on the Soviet ground forces in the East and US heavy bomber fleet in the West.
Could _you_ have done better with the young inexperienced pilots that were flying them by 1944? They could have been issued Mustangs and these young pilot would have suffered _the same_ casualty rate, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2018)

dedalos said:


> Late 41- middle 42 very good, very dangerous
> Middle 42- middle 43 Average
> Middle 43 -middle 44 out classed
> Middle 44- VE day shooting target
> ...



Heretic!!!


What was an average fighter in 'mid 42-mid 43'? One to two cannons + LMGs, or perhaps 4 to 6 heavy MGs (nod for Fw 190). Rate of roll - nod Fw 190. Outright speed at 2, 5, 7 km - again nod Fw 190. Ability to shrug to too heavy enemy fire - again Fw 190 was good there. Airfoil choice - not the cutting edge, but not that obsolete either. The average fighter in that time frame was perhaps Spitfire V, Lagg-5, Yak-1 and -9, P-40F, M and N, P-39L and N, P-51 (no letter). There is no Merlin Mustang, no Tempest, the P-47C is better above 7km but it still needs plenty of improvement on fuel system and powerplant to be really better all-arounder. P-38 offers range and hi-alt climb & perhaps speed but has it's host of serious problems, Japanese can't compete unless for CV duties. Italians - no chance. 
The drag of the powerpant was favorable, the armored oil cooler was a trade off - lets recall that late US radial fighter/bombers (FM-2, AU-1, F8F, F7F) went to hide and armor the oil coolers, a step that acknowledged the real danger of oil system being a weak spot on their earlier designs.

So the Fw 190 is right there as a top dog, together with new Spitfire marks as all-altitude adversary.

From mid 1943, yes, the situation gets worse. That RLM though it would've been a good idea not to improve the powerplant of the Fw 190 in a timely manner helped for things to go downhill. It certainly was no fault of design that the big firepower and armor suite was installed without much of problems.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2018)

Interesting points, dedalos. I will have to consider them. While I disagree it was a target in 1944 and later, you do make some points.

The Ta 152 series showed very good performance, despite any extra armor or armament, but there were never very many of them. Most Allied pilots considered the Fw 190D to be the best German fighter of the war. Tough to argue with them this many years later, at least with any authority. Maybe most of the good German pilots flew them after they came out, but the Fw 190D DID get the attention of the Allies and we DID tend to skip over the Ta 152 airfield guards for the jet airfields. The combination of the Ta 152s and the flak made hunting jets in the landing pattern a dicey affair, assuming decent Ta 152 pilots and veteran flak gunners.

Cheers.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 9, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> They could have been issued Mustangs and these young pilot would have suffered _the same_ casualty rate,



Most exactly so, and this is exactly what I posted initially. As the war wore on the German ability to wage war declined as they suffered from the lack of just about everything. Look at post #19 and consider all its implications. Increasingly poor fuel in short supply, an ever decreasing supply of well-trained pilots, an ever decreasing supply of nre aircraft and replacement parts, 8 or more sorties flown per day - it placed a severe toll on both men and machines,
On the allies side it was the exact reverse situation...fleets of bombers escorted by 500 or more fighters. One simply cannot defend against such numbers no matter how superior your machines are to your opponents.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2018)

Tip and run raids started in March 1942. Initially very successful against shipping and seaside towns. It required standing patrols of Typhoons and Spitfire Mk IX and XII (first griffon variant). In October 1942 Approximately 70 Fw 190s hit Canterbury dropping 30 bombs with the loss of one aircraft to AA fire and possibly 1 more to a Spitfire, 36 civilians were killed. While this was a successful raid in some respects it was using 70 pilots engines/airframes and fuel loads to damage houses with a bomb load that could be carried by two Lancasters. Mounting losses resulted in switching to night raids on the 16 April 1943 4 FW190s raided London but got lost 3 attempted landing at West Malling while the other crashed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2018)

dedalos said:


> Late 41- middle 42 very good, very dangerous
> Middle 42- middle 43 Average
> Middle 43 -middle 44 out classed
> Middle 44- VE day shooting target
> ...



A little unfair to blame the aircraft for outside failings, it may have needed C3 fuel but how would any allied fighter have performed on 85 octane? The armament later was not overkill it was needed to take down bombers. Build quality was not really the designers fault, I doubt he thought they would end up being built by slave labour. Fitting armour is a choice based on losses, if you don't fit it you suffer more losses, by the end of the war more P51s had been lost to ground fire than enemy aircraft.

The highlighted point e) sums up the FW190 dilemma, it needed heavy armour and it needed heavy weapons and still needed to be a competitive aircraft at all altitudes, it needed to be a wonder weapon but it wasn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 9, 2018)

The FW-190 does have a small wing. Almost too small to be stable I think. That aspect definitely wasn't good for wing loading, which only got higher as they added more and more armor and even heavier weapons. Could this have been it's Achilles heel?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> The FW-190 does have a small wing. Almost too small to be stabile I think. That aspect definitely wasn't good for wing loading, which only got higher as they added more and more armor and even heavier weapons. Could this have been it's Achilles heel?


This is a good read.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Lednicer_Fighter_Aerodynamics.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This is a good read.
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Lednicer_Fighter_Aerodynamics.pdf



Dave — I used to work with him at Sikorsky — is probably one of the best aerodynamicists in the business. He’s published papers on the same topic in the professional journals.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 9, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This is a good read.
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Lednicer_Fighter_Aerodynamics.pdf



Thanks, that looks like a very interesting analysis, I look forward to seeing what it has to say....


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thanks, that looks like a very interesting analysis, I look forward to seeing what it has to say....


I recommend reading it three times, with a week between each reading.



swampyankee said:


> Dave — I used to work with him at Sikorsky — is probably one of the best aerodynamicists in the business. He’s published papers on the same topic in the professional journals.


To me it was well written and written so I could follow most of what it said..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> The FW-190 does have a small wing. Almost too small to be stabile I think. That aspect definitely wasn't good for wing loading, which only got higher as they added more and more armor and even heavier weapons. Could this have been it's Achilles heel?



Wing indeed was small once the weight went that high up, from initial ~3500 kg to ~4400 kg by 1944 (all for 'clean' configuration). The problem was more present at high altitudes, and as good as non-existent at low altitudes, we know that Fw 190 was capable to carry a torpedo, or a 1800 kg (almost 4000 lb) bomb, or assorted weight of bombs and drop tanks. There was several big wings in the works, probably also tested, however none was never used on the series Fw 190. Area was to be increased from 18.3 m^2 (span 10.5m) to 20.3 (span 12.4m), with the Fw 190B as intended user (remained just a project). Later also 22.5 (span 14.8m) for the proposed Fw 190H, while the Fw 190A-10 was to receive a wing of 20.5^m (as well as another pair of outboard cannons, thus bringing the total to up to 6 cannons + 2 HMGs).
As we know, th Ta-152 got a bigger wing, that made hi-alt flight a more manageable affair, but it decreased both rate of roll and G limit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2018)

The long-wing Ta 152H had very good span loading for a fighter. Span loading is a good general indicator of high-altitude maneuverability, and also indicates the amount of vortex generation as the aircraft moves through the air. Lower span loading generates less vortex, losing less energy.

It is somewhat related to wing loading, but wing loading alone does not indicate maneuverability directly. But since the fighter designers were trying to optimize for mostly the same things, it is a very good indicator. Lower span loading indicates generally better high-altitude maneuverability, but not in all cases. There ARE a few where it fails to help as an indicator. 

I don't think the long-wing Ta 152 was one of those. It SHOULD have been a VERY good plane way up high, despite not really being used there.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2018)

It is impossible to be all things in all places. The Spitfire had clipped wings in some cases to cope with the FW 190 roll rate at low altitude and extended wings to cope with high altitude recon aircraft.

Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types — Variants & Technology | Reference


----------



## Denniss (Jan 9, 2018)

Ta 152s were not used as top cover for Me 262s, those units had Fw 190 D-9 and some rare D-10 to D-12s (dunno exact model, one of them should be in a US museum)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2018)

The one in the US Museum (National Air and Space Museum) is an Fw 190D-9, Werksnummer 601088.

I have heard otherwise about the Ta 152s, particularly the Ta 152Cs, but have no particular primary source for it. Heard it YEARS ago, unsubstiatiated. I have no issue one way or the other with their last assignments.

I have also read that when the war ended, there were exactly two Ta 152s still operational of 43 or so the delivered aircraft, both Ta 152Cs. That from several sources, including William Green (and others, probably quoting Green). Sounds about like the right number remaining operational for what was essentially an unsupported (logistics-wise) run of brand new models that were not yet released for operational use. I bet there quite a few with little wrong with them, but no spares to fix them with.

Glad some survive and wish one or more were able to fly today. We have an Fw 190 replica flyable at the museum, but it is a radial engine unit, with an R-2800 in it. Very pretty, I must say. And the oil cooling issue was fixed with decidedly non-stock under-wing radiators. Minor, but noticeable to an Fw 190 fan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 9, 2018)

That was a very informative article. I definitely do need to read it again, but as from what I could gather, the small wing area did in fact cause the airplane to stall harshly at a relative high rate of speed (compared to it's contemporaries), even in a clean condition.

What exactly were the designers looking for when they chose that particular airfoil/wing layout?


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2018)

I see the words “small wing” used in here and want some clarification. The issue is wing loading, or normal gross weight divided by wing area. The ratio of the numbers doesn't change whether metric or English, so:

The Spitfire V had a normal gross weight of 6,784 lbs and a wing area of 242.0 sq ft, for a wing loading of 28.0 lbs/ sq ft.

The Fw 190 A3 had a normal gross weight of 8,530 lbs and a wing area of 197 sq ft, for a wing loading of 43.6 lbs/ sq ft.

While the Fw 190 A might SEEM like it has a high wing loading, the opposite is true; the Spitfire V has a very LOW wing loading. For comparison, the Bf 109E-3 had a wing loading of 31.7 and the Bf 109G-6 has a wing loading of 39.9 lbs/sq ft., so the 109G wasn’t very far from the Fw 190. The P-51D had a wing loading of 39.5 lbs.sq ft., and the P-47D has a wing loading of 48.3 lbs/sq ft. The Fw 190 A3 falls right in the middle, and the P-47D did NOT have bad stall characteristics at all. The P-38J had a wing loading of 65.8 lbs/sq ft and turned very well, better than some single-engine fighters, if you believe the reports from combat pilots. It ALSO stalled quite benignly.

I see nothing strange about the wing loading of the Fw 190 series at all.

The stall-without-warning is another story entirely. THAT could easily have been changed. Most of the aerodynamic decisions regarding the Fw 190 were spot-on and correct, and I think that the wing could have been slightly larger, but it would not have materially changed the flight characteristics unless the stall warning were to be addressed. If so, the aircraft would have telegraphed an impending stall, allowing pilots to pull hard more consistently close to the limits in a safer manner.

Can't have everything, I suppose, and will always regard the Fw 190 as a VERY GOOD fighter for the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2018)

GregP said:


> I see the words “small wing” used in here and want some clarification. The issue is wing loading, or normal gross weight divided by wing area. The ratio of the numbers doesn't change whether metric or English, so:
> 
> The Spitfire V had a normal gross weight of 6,784 lbs and a wing area of 242.0 sq ft, for a wing loading of 28.0 lbs/ sq ft.
> 
> ...



I see your points Greg and they are well taken but in general doesn't wing loading have an effect on stall speed? Let's say you normally fly your FW-190A-8 in a "clean" configuration but you suddenly get orders and are tasked to carry a 500KG bomb on your centerline mount. Wouldn't that raise the stall speed of the machine? I'm just thinking basic physics here, but maybe I'm missing something with how the shape of the airfoil and it's loading effects when an aircraft enters a stall. I was also under the assumption that with any given airfoil shape more wing area = more lift = lower stall speed (weight of the machine being unchanged). Am I out in left field on this one too????


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2018)

Absolutely. The stall speed at any weight is easy to calculate. It varies as a known stall speed times the square root of the new weight divided by the old weight. The same is true for ANY aircraft. Any wing has a coefficient of lift. More area produces more lift, as you say. The Fw 190 A3 has only 10% more wing loading than the P-51D does. In the real world, that isn't much and the "g-available"varies with weight, airspeed, altitude, and temperature. The P-51D driver could pull nearer his stall than the Fw 190 A3 driver could because the P-51D will give a stall warning buffet before departing "most of the time." That assumes coordinated flight.

Now, I'm SURE there were expert and just "good" Fw 190 A3 pilots out there who could turn with a P-51D, or even out-turn one. But there were a lot who weren't expert, especially as the war got into and past mid-1944. I'd say, given good pilots in both airplanes, the Fw 190 would be dangerous right up until war's end. A good pilot in either one with a rookie in the other SHOULD be victorious almost all the time, other things being equal.

The Fw 190 itself is NOT what one would call a "flawed" airplane in WWII combat. It was superb. Read the combat, flight test, and post-war flight reports. EVERYONE who flew it liked it, after the initial faults were ironed out, for the most part. Probably the worst things were that the pilot needed oxygen ALL the time because exhaust leaked into the cockpit, and the cockpit was HOT. If you HAD oxygen and were USING it, no problem. If it was summer or good weather, the thing was a HOT ride.

Saying it has a "small wing" doesn't change those or other faults, and does nothing whatsoever to dim the really good flight reports by combat pilots of the day.

It was a good fighter, fighter-bomber, and attack plane with heavy armament, a decent engine, and great ground handling. Not really a LOT more to ask for, is there?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jan 10, 2018)

One will never know what happend with Ta 152C prototypes and the 2 or so 0-series aircraft but due to their design they may have been used as top cover. The more numerous Ta 152H were not use in this role.
Paul Allen's Flying Heritage collection should have the sole D-13 survivor, a D-9 on "steroids"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I see your points Greg and they are well taken but in general doesn't wing loading have an effect on stall speed? Let's say you normally fly your FW-190A-8 in a "clean" configuration but you suddenly get orders and are tasked to carry a 500KG bomb on your centerline mount. Wouldn't that raise the stall speed of the machine? I'm just thinking basic physics here, but maybe I'm missing something with how the shape of the airfoil and it's loading effects when an aircraft enters a stall. I was also under the assumption that with any given airfoil shape more wing area = more lift = lower stall speed (weight of the machine being unchanged). Am I out in left field on this one too????


The stall speed is when the wing stops producing enough lift to keep the aircraft in the air. The analysis linked was done on the Spitfire MkIX which could out turn the Fw190, however this had identical wings to the MkV which was lighter and could only out turn the Fw 190 in instantaneous not sustained turn. The more powerful engine of the Mk IX made it not only faster and better climbing but it also turned better too because a turning aircraft has a massive increase in drag. The P 51 also stalled fairly harshly in heavy turns but was helped by using a few degrees of flap.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 10, 2018)

Going through all the writings about the FW190, I think it's fair to say it was, overall, a better aircraft than the Bf109, and possibly the best fighter in Europe during its first year or so of operation. _Then_ the Allies starting getting better aircraft into service, and the FW190 was in that cloud of "sometimes better, sometimes not, maybe better on Tuesday, but not Thursday" cloud of fighters. The problem is that any "best fighter" question cannot be answered, as its confused by difficult to measure qualities, many of which are outside the realm of engineering. One rather obvious one is pilot quality, and it's widely held that German pilot quality decreased during the war, while that of Allies did not. Another is build quality, and the slave labor used by most, if not all, of the German defense contractors had strong incentive to perform subtle (mis-drilling rivet holes) and not so subtle (urinating in V-2 guidance modules) acts of sabotage. A third is fuel quality and availability. 

My primary point is that at the end of the war, with two evenly matched pilots, one-on-one, the FW190 in its various incarnations, would not dominate vs a late-mark Spitfire, a P-51D, a P-47, a Typhoon, Tempest, Corsair, or Hellcat, that is the FW190 would fall somewhere in that range, but no one would make money betting on the outcomes. Those same Allied aircraft, with adequate logistical support, pilots of better average quality, and numerical advantage would make the putative superiority of individual aircraft somewhat moot. In 1940, the Luftwaffe had tactical and operational advantages that made comparisons of aircraft quality moot; in 1944, the Allies had tactical and operational advantages that made comparisons of aircraft quality moot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 10, 2018)

Did not the 2 remaining original 190Ds have their wings swapped at one time but now have the correct wings?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 10, 2018)

Read somewhere that a late model Spit (XIV?) and a 190D had a mock combat and the Fw won.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 10, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Read somewhere that a late model Spit (XIV?) and a 190D had a mock combat and the Fw won.


Which proves precisely nothing. There were cases where P-40s beat FW190s in combat. There are simply too many uncontrollable variables in picking “best fighter.”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2018)

That particular airplane will start, but cannot fly because some carburetor parts are missing and only the engine idle circuit is working. It starts up about half the times they try it. If they had a complete carburetor for the Jumo 213, it could fly. Perhaps they are looking and will find one sometime. It is a beautiful airplane up close.

Regarding the Ta 152H, it SHOULD have been somewhat of a pig down low due to the long wings when compared with the shorter-winged versions, but contemporary flight reports say otherwise. They say it retained good roll even with the long wings. To me, that is very interesting as most long-wing planes are not good rollers.

Here it is: 







Altogether a beautiful plane. Seems a real shame it can't fly occasionally. But, that is just my opinion. Many would not fly it even if they could. The two schools of thought aren't likely to get together anytime soon.


----------



## dedalos (Jan 10, 2018)

GregP said:


> That particular airplane will start, but cannot fly because some carburetor parts are missing and only the engine idle circuit is working. It starts up about half the times they try it. If they had a complete carburetor for the Jumo 213, it could fly. Perhaps they are looking and will find one sometime. It is a beautiful airplane up close.
> 
> Regarding the Ta 152H, it SHOULD have been somewhat of a pig down low due to the long wings when compared with the shorter-winged versions, but contemporary flight reports say otherwise. They say it retained good roll even with the long wings. To me, that is very interesting as most long-wing planes are not good rollers.
> 
> ...



If this aircraft is really a D-13 then it s engine is a jumo 213 F. That means absolutely unique piece of history.It would be a terrible risque flying such a unique aircraft. The D13 and the Ta 152H were the absolutely best ww2 axis fighters in production.
The D13 if properly built and with c3 fuel, was not very far behind the latest western fighters despite it s terrible wing. I believe it was a d13 that was tested against a Tempest and defended itself decently. But it appears that the german pilot was an extremely experienced ace, CO of JG53. so we can not make conclusions , the Dora was also without ammo and reduced fuel so less weight than normal

p.s. Carburetor parts? I thought jumo 213 used injection


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2018)

GregP said:


> That particular airplane will start, but cannot fly because some carburetor parts are missing and only the engine idle circuit is working. It starts up about half the times they try it. If they had a complete carburetor for the Jumo 213, it could fly. Perhaps they are looking and will find one sometime. It is a beautiful airplane up close.
> ...





dedalos said:


> ...
> 
> p.s. Carburetor parts? I thought jumo 213 used injection



There is/was no carb on the Jumo 213.


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2018)

OK, it is missing some injection parts then. Either way, the idle circuit works and the rest doesn't. It have heard it start and idle and the sound is different from what I normally hear, but very good. That's part of hearing it run; the sounds of German hardware are different from the sounds of Allied hardware. Japanese planes are mostly radial and a 14/18-cylinder sounds like a 14/18-cylinder, not matter who makes it, unless they do funny things with the exhaust stubs.

Dedalos, we'll have to disagree about flying; we've probably done so before. If it were mine, I'd fly it. I belong to a museum that flies WWII aircraft; it's part of the mission of the museum to display them in the air for all to see. Since I/we don't own that one, maybe it won't fly, but don't bet on it. Paul Allen flies his planes mostly and, if it can be restored, it will likely fly.

There are two schools of thought. I say that if you own it, do as you see fit; otherwise enjoy what is out there doing whatever it does, sit static or out flying. But don't even try to tell me I can't fly it if I own it. Fortunately, we CAN fly ours.

I mostly don't bother with static museums unless I really want to see some particular aircraft. If it isn't flyable, then pictures will do just fine. If it flies, I want to be there when it does. Most museums don't fly, so it's only when we manage to rescue a plane from static display that we can commit aviation with it. Otherwise, they just look pretty, sitting there waiting to fly.

I'm glad we can both have it our own way whenever we want to. We should both be happy.

Cheers.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2018)

(a shameless self plug)
A 10 page thread about the Fw 190, mainly: link

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2018)

I always enjoy reading your stuff, Tomo. Plug away anytime.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2018)

Does anyone have any information on the weight of armour fitted to the FW 190, Wiki states that the Typhoon was fitted with 370Kgs under the pilot and around engine and radiator.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Does anyone have any information on the weight of armour fitted to the FW 190, Wiki states that the Typhoon was fitted with 370Kgs under the pilot and around engine and radiator.



Report, in German, pdf: here (pg. 5 specifies armor)
Translation of the table ('Attack fighter' is the anti-bomber armored fighter, many times the cowl guns were deleted form those) :

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2018)

Thanks Timo


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2018)

I have seen in print that there is a 5 mm plate around the oil radiator in the cowl, 3 mm plate in the aft cowl, 2 1/4 inch thick bulletproof glass in the windscreen, and an 8 mm armor plate behind the pilot, with a 14 mm plate behind the pilot's head.

... but no definite weight.

I DO have the weight of all guns and weapons (Nowarra), but that isn't armor weight.

A quote from a 1942 article:

"
Performance range of the 190 is limited, its most effective altitudes being above 15,000 ft and below 25,000 ft. Its top speed at 4,500 ft, for example, is but 326 mph compared with 375 at 18,000 ft. It can, however, do 390 mph at 20,000 ft for one minute by means of a booster. Reports from American bomber crews indicate the Focke-Wulf does not perform well near its reported service ceiling of 37,000 ft. British fighters are understood to be able to turn inside the 190, even at its most effective altitudes.

Specifications and performance data are as follows:

Wing span … 34 ft 5 in
Length … 29 ft 4 in
Wing area … 203 sq ft
Wing loading … 42.2 lb/sq ft
Power loading … 5.3 lb/hp
Gross weight … 8,580 lb
Weight empty … 6,240 lb
Maximum speed (18,000 ft) … 375 mph
Landing speed … 110 mph

This article was originally published in the October, 1942, issue of _Aviation_ magazine, vol 41, no 10, pp 233, 306, 308.
This article is included in the Fw-190 PDF. It includes 2 photos and 2 detail drawings, and the data table above.
Photos credited to International News.
"

I have no comment on the quote above because during wartime, what are they going to say? "O shit, it's an Fw 190? We're in trouble!"

I don't think so!

Cheers.

I might have guessed Tomo would have it right away ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2018)

This thread is everything I was hoping for and much, much more. I appreciate all the input so far and although I've been checking in periodically, I haven't yet had a change to look at the links provided, nor draw any conclusions of my own about the machine, but that will come eventually.

Greg: that Dora is definitely a beautiful aircraft, even when just going by the picture you've posted. I'm sure it's an unbelievable sight when you're up close and personal.....


----------



## GregP (Jan 11, 2018)

The prop is unbelievable. Looks like 3 wings from a small plane stuck together. REALLY wide chord.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2018)

GregP said:


> Interesting points, dedalos. I will have to consider them. While I disagree it was a target in 1944 and later, you do make some points.
> 
> The Ta 152 series showed very good performance, despite any extra armor or armament, but there were never very many of them. Most Allied pilots considered the Fw 190D to be the best German fighter of the war. Tough to argue with them this many years later, at least with any authority. Maybe most of the good German pilots flew them after they came out, but the Fw 190D DID get the attention of the Allies and we DID tend to skip over the Ta 152 airfield guards for the jet airfields. The combination of the Ta 152s and the flak made hunting jets in the landing pattern a dicey affair, assuming decent Ta 152 pilots and veteran flak gunners.
> 
> Cheers.



Greg - I would take slight exception to remark that Allies 'tended to skip over Me 262 based airfields protected by TA 152 (or FW 190D)" simply because ANY fighter was immediately attacked. At that stage of the war I suspect that All German aircraft were considered targets


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2018)

GregP said:


> The long-wing Ta 152H had very good span loading for a fighter. Span loading is a good general indicator of high-altitude maneuverability, and also indicates the amount of vortex generation as the aircraft moves through the air. Lower span loading generates less vortex, losing less energy.
> 
> It is somewhat related to wing loading, but wing loading alone does not indicate maneuverability directly. But since the fighter designers were trying to optimize for mostly the same things, it is a very good indicator. Lower span loading indicates generally better high-altitude maneuverability, but not in all cases. There ARE a few where it fails to help as an indicator.
> 
> I don't think the long-wing Ta 152 was one of those. It SHOULD have been a VERY good plane way up high, despite not really being used there.


Greg - I agree with the general comments as 'span loading' is largely tied to Aspect Ratio which as you know is a major component of Induced Drag. 

The key factors for Climb and Turn remain W/L and Power Available over Power Required.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2018)

GregP said:


> I see the words “small wing” used in here and want some clarification. The issue is wing loading, or normal gross weight divided by wing area. The ratio of the numbers doesn't change whether metric or English, so:
> 
> The Spitfire V had a normal gross weight of 6,784 lbs and a wing area of 242.0 sq ft, for a wing loading of 28.0 lbs/ sq ft.
> 
> ...


 
The P-51D Gross Weight with full internal fuel load out (incl 85 gallons of fuse tank) is 10,200 pounds ----> Wing Area 233 sq ft ----> W/L nearly 44#/sq ft

When the FW 190 and P-51D meet in combat over target, the 51D may have burned 60 gallons of internal fuel for take off and climb out to trim the ship for stable CG.. so drop external tanks and enter combat with 10,200-360 = 9840#GW -------> W/L = 42.2. Similarly the FW 190A has burned a fair amt of internal fuel. They should both be entering combat with about the same W/L, and same HP available vs HP Required with the nod going to P-51D because of lower drag.

At altitudes below 20,000 feet the FW 190A6/7 with good pilot is a real handful - as attested by Many 8th AF pilots.

IIRC - curiously the FW 190 did not have wash out the last 20% of 1/2 Span - a source of heated debate between me and Soren back in the day. Lednicer has the data in his WWII Fighter Comparison Report that I uploaded so many eons ago.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jan 11, 2018)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 has a very strong claim to the title of best fighter of the war, if you decide victories over enemy aircraft are worth counting. Most of the great aces made their mark in the Bf 109. Notably, the top 3 aces shot down just over 900 aircraft flying the Bf 109. It was truly great airplane that ended up on the losing side, but that doesn't either detract from it's accomplishments or solve it's weaknesses...



If I'm not mistaken, weren't the top German aces on the Eastern front going against planes that were inferior to the German planes, ie., the aiming sites were painted on (not zeroed to the aircraft guns) as well as being flown by inexperienced fighter pilots. German pilots gained experience in the Spanish civil war. The unusually high kill numbers at the start of the Eastern campaign reflected this as well as the decline in kill numbers as Russian aircraft got better and their pilots gained more experience.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 11, 2018)

When your fighter air force is mostly composed of one type of a/c, the Bf109, it is not surprising to have most of the enemy a/c shot down by that one type.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 11, 2018)

The early Russian planes and pilots were quite inferior to the Germans in Bf 109s. However, Erich Hartmann flew his first combat mission in Oct 42. He scored the bulk of his victories when the Russians had improved and were worthy adversaries. So, exceptions are there, too.

By mid-1943, that wasn't exactly the case, and the Yak-1 and La-5 were out in numbers along with better tactics.

By mid-late 1944, the sky over the Russian front was controlled by Russians. The Yak-3 and La-5FN / La-7 were out, as was the T-34 tank. The Germans had been depleted, their logistics were a mess, and their airfields were just cleared dirt strips. In the Russian spring, on the steppes, everything turned to mud. In the winter, the Russians were used to operating from snow in bitter cold and the Germans weren't.

It was a decidedly different situation from the earlier years on the Russian Front.


----------



## Barrett (Jan 11, 2018)

I've known or met three FW 190 pilots: Eric Brown (knew him pretty well), Oskar Boesch of JG3 (knew him somewhat) and Grumman test pilot Bob Hall (one conversation.) Hall flew one of the captured birds in '43, I believe, and went straight back to Bethpage. Knocked on Roy's door and said "Boss, if we put an R2800 on that airframe we'd have a world beater." Result: Bearcat.

Eric was a big 190 fan for all the reasons noted in this illuminating thread. Oskar like most combat pilots loved what brought him back. He said that from early 44 the 190 was an advantage for the low-time pilots entering combat, and the rugged airframe was an obvious bonus. I quoted him in the 15th AF book: "You are 20 years old and think you are rough and tough. You can drink all night and please the girls, and when the sun comes up you climb in your 190, turn the oxygen to 100%, and when you take off to engage 1000 Viermots...you are immediately sober!"

Some commentators have assumed that roll rate = maneuverability (turn rate) and they're not the same. The more appropriate term is "agility" which means ability to point the nose in the desired direction.

I was involved in Doug Champlin's second restoration of his Dora, helping with documentation on the Jumo. We did run it satisfactorily but Doug never-ever considered flying it. Now belongs to Paul Allen in his Everett, WA museum. The 190 cockpit was well designed with decent visibility in marked contrast to the 109. In those days I was 5 ft 7 or 8, and 150 lbs, fairly typical of a WW II aviator. Even then the 109 was a bit cramped for me. 

Just FWIW.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 11, 2018)

Barrett said:


> Oskar like most combat pilots loved what brought him back.



_I know only too well how easy it is to get emotionally involved with an airplane in which you have fought and survived and to regard it with the same uncritical affection as a mother has for her child. But when you've flown a wide range of other fighters and become more analytical, your views are soon tempered by reason_. - Eric Brown on not being 'overly impressed' with the 109

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 11, 2018)

Hi Barrett,

I was at an Art Show gathering at Doug's in Mesa in the early-mid 1980s (when I lived locally there), probably 1984-5 or so. They had the Fw 190 and the VERY low-time P-40 sitting there nose to nose and started both. I bought a print signed by Erich Hartmann and still have it, and one signed by Saburo Sakai, and still have it, too. They took Saburo Sakai for a ride in Bill Hane's P-51D (Ho Hun) and he was delighted. To me, the Fw 190 D-13 in Doug's (now Paul's) collection was the best warbird I ever saw. Doug's P-40 only had some 40 - 45 hours on it since it came off the production line. It was one of those flown from the line straight to storage!

Perhaps Paul will let the Fw 190 D-13 fly. That would be something. I would if it were mine, but only after engine/prop overhaul and several test hops that stay on the runway to verify powerplant/fuel system functions. There is no need for flight test type flights to find max performance, but airshow performance is something else and safe. We have been flying warbirds at the Planes of Fame for 50+ years without airshow issues other than minor inconveniences. Our only loss was an old North American O-47 that was landed gear-up accidentally and caught fire at a small airstrip with no firefighting equipment locally. We have had another loss, but not at an airshow. It was during unwise plane movement in marginal weather a LONG time ago. Now, they fly only in severe clear.

Regarding the Fw 190 D-13, the canopy looked VERY narrow to me; almost too narrow to turn your head around in. But that could easily have been just external perspective. I remain impressed by the very WIDE-chord prop. Looks like it pulls hard way up high, just from blade area.

I had a very good friend, Curtis Earl, who displayed a MiG-15 bis there for some years, and we occasionally flew over from Falcon Field in his T-6 for a visit. That was a neat place, but Doug gradually grew less current in warbirds and stopped flying them one by one out of lack of currency, mostly. If you are NOT current in one, and you don't know the emergency procedures cold from memory, you don't belong in the cockpit. He was smart to stop when the demands on his time precluded currency. Just my opinion.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drewwizard (Jan 11, 2018)

I am a major fan of the FW-190 & TA-152, but even I would not say any one aircraft was the best for the entire war or even most of the war. The big accomplishment for the FW-190 is that it was in among the top fighters since it was introduced early in the war through the final days. There were variants planed which would have used the Jumo 222 (if the air ministry would ever release it for production) probably making it the most powerfully engined fighter of the war. The problem with the late war TA-152 was it was simply too late and too few in number. It was only a stop gap until the other jet designs were put into production. Even FW had a jet design TA-183 (which eventually was produced in Argentina and a fairly successful aircraft). Horten had a good fighter concept, Heinkel had the HE-163. There was the push pull DO-335. The big paddle bladed P-47 made a huge leap, the Dehaviland Hornet, Spitfire XX1 and up, Tempest, Fury, late model P-51, super corsair

The pilot reports and stories on FW-190D pilots showed a very high likely hood of being shot down by German flack, with many FW-190D pilots killed by trigger happy flak crews who shot at anything before it could shoot back. One of the best airplanes in an impossible situation, flown by demoralized pilots, and forced to use tactics dictated by superiors who never flew an airplane. Not sure if a F-86 or Mig-15 would do much better under those circumstances.

Now what plane was best in say 1943 when all the nations were deep in the war and the war's outcome was in debate? Pilot skill about equal?

or what planes evolved to keep up with competition throughout the war? What plane would you choose if you could only fly one plane from 1941 through 1945 (with updated models) That narrows the choices down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 11, 2018)

One of the reasons I started this thread was to get a general consensus about whether or not the FW-190 series really deserves all the accolades thrown at it here and elsewhere. I know that a lot of you are aware of how anything associated with the Third Reich or the German military in general tends to garner great amount of interest and in some cases an air of supposed greatness or superiority, even when it's unfounded or flat out undeserving. But of course there's also cases where there might be a general dislike of anything German or that which was part of the Nazi war machine, which would certainly unduly hurt the reputation of a well-engineered aircraft like the FW-190.

Was the FW-190's legacy tainted by this or has there been enough critical examination over the years to excluded it from a good portion this sort of bias?


----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2018)

The Fw 190 was and IS a good bird. To me, the Ta 152 has been blown way out of proportion to the increase in performance over the Fw 190 D series, but that's my opinion. The Bf 109 was very good, if the flaws were taken into account by the pilot. Together, they were a great team, no overstatement.

I believe the BMW 801 has been talked up a lot, and that when operational, at least early if not even into mid-life and later, had flaws. All engines and planes have flaws, so that's not unique to the 801. Still, it was good enough to make the Fw 190 a very good fighter in general. At that's not an overstatement ... good plane all around. NO plane is best at everything, but the Fw 190 came as close as any of the time to being what was needed WHEN it was needed, and in numbers able to make a difference.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> In my opinion it was a superior mount to the Me109, though most of the LW aces gained their status flying the 109. Figure that one out if you can!!!



Maybe because the Bf 109 was in service many years before the Fw 190, including many wartime years. Some Luftwaffe 'experten' opened their accounts on the Bf 109 in Spain.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 12, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> One of the reasons I started this thread was to get a general consensus about whether or not the FW-190 series really deserves all the accolades thrown at it here and elsewhere. I know that a lot of you are aware of how anything associated with the Third Reich or the German military in general tends to garner great amount of interest and in some cases an air of supposed greatness or superiority, even when it's unfounded or flat out undeserving. But of course there's also cases where there might be a general dislike of anything German or that which was part of the Nazi war machine, which would certainly unduly hurt the reputation of a well-engineered aircraft like the FW-190.
> 
> Was the FW-190's legacy tainted by this or has there been enough critical examination over the years to excluded it from a good portion this sort of bias?



In regard to the last two sentences, it frequently seems that the hardware of the nazi war machine gets preferential treatment, that is its performance is exaggerated: everything German was better and the Allies only succeeded because they so vastly outnumbered the German _ubermenschen. _The reality Is that no country had a monopoly on best from a technical point of view. There is no arguing with the statement that the FW190 was a very good fighter, probably the best one Germany had in extensive service, and possibly better than anything the Allies had in widespread service before 1944. There's also no arguing that it did not have flaws: a nasty stall (a common problem with fighters, though) a power-robbing cooling system (aircraft cooling system design is _hard; _the best cooling system was probably North American's P-51, with everybody else coming second) being two.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> Hi Barrett,
> 
> I was at an Art Show gathering at Doug's in Mesa in the early-mid 1980s (when I lived locally there), probably 1984-5 or so. They had the Fw 190 and the VERY low-time P-40 sitting there nose to nose and started both. I bought a print signed by Erich Hartmann and still have it, and one signed by Saburo Sakai, and still have it, too. They took Saburo Sakai for a ride in Bill Hane's P-51D (Ho Hun) and he was delighted. To me, the Fw 190 D-13 in Doug's (now Paul's) collection was the best warbird I ever saw. Doug's P-40 only had some 40 - 45 hours on it since it came off the production line. It was one of those flown from the line straight to storage!
> 
> ...




The wide-chord prop is probably one of the few instances German engineers gave priority to producibility over performance. A three-bladed prop will have higher induced losses than one with four; induced losses scale roughly to 1/n, where n is number of blades. Of course, it's possible the Germans couldn't build four-bladed fighter props, as blade chord is usually dictated by vibratory loads during takeoff, perhaps German prop makers couldn't produce blades from materials strong enough to use a better number of blades.


----------



## stona (Jan 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The wide-chord prop is probably one of the few instances German engineers gave priority to producibility over performance. A three-bladed prop will have higher induced losses than one with four; induced losses scale roughly to 1/n, where n is number of blades. Of course, it's possible the Germans couldn't build four-bladed fighter props, as blade chord is usually dictated by vibratory loads during takeoff, perhaps German prop makers couldn't produce blades from materials strong enough to use a better number of blades.



They also needed to fire a couple of heavy machine guns through the propeller disc. Using wider three blade propellers to absorb the increasing engine power, rather than increasing the number of blades may have made the armament more effective, and the interrupter system simpler or more reliable.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 12, 2018)

> What was an average fighter in 'mid 42-mid 43'? One to two cannons + LMGs, or perhaps 4 to 6 heavy MGs (nod for Fw 190).
> Rate of roll - nod Fw 190. Outright speed at 2, 5, 7 km - again nod Fw 190. Ability to shrug to too heavy enemy fire - again Fw 190 was good there.
> 
> There is no Merlin Mustang, no Tempest, the P-47C is better above 7km but it still needs plenty of improvement on fuel system and powerplant to be really better all-arounder. P-38 offers range and hi-alt climb & perhaps speed but has it's host of serious problems, Japanese can't compete unless for CV duties. Italians - no chance.



I pretty much agree with Tomo here. In 1942-43 Fw 190 was a formidable opponent: heavy armament, good overall performance, excellent rate of roll, ease of maintenance, top visibility, stable diving characteristics... it also had a good internal fuel capacity (~30% higher than Bf 109/Spitfire).

The Soviets were impressed with the type when they got access to one. If you use google translate and have a bit of patience you can read the evaluation and an article here:

FW-190A-4 на испытаниях в НИИ ВВС
Немецкие самолеты. Фокке-Вульф-190. Часть 1.

Regarding performance at high altitudes, I don't think many people were expecting air to air combat with escort fighters at +6,000 meters. Kurt Tank did work in improved versions (C version). The prototype reached 724 km/h at 7000 meters, but other aircraft had priority (Me 401) and RLM stated that Fw 190 A performance was good enough.



> Airfoil choice - not the cutting edge



Can you say a but more here? Are you comparing it to a laminar type?


----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2018)

I believe the Germans used 3-bladed props mainly because they favored fuselage-mounted armament over wing-mounted armament, and they needed rate of fire. The Bf 109 had 3 fuselage-mounted guns. If more were desired, two were mounted in the wings, but the fuselage units were primary. Likewise the Fw190 had two cannons in the fuselage. If you had four wide-chord props, the rate of fire would be much smaller for those guns.

I read that somewhere YEARS ago, and it seems like it came from the German aces having many conversations with the aircraft manufacturers, who ... rather unusually, listened. I recall that Willy Messerschmitt and Kurt Tank had frequent conversations with the top aces about their desires. That reading was some 40+ years back and it could be otherwise, but it makes sense, at least to me.

Cheers.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 12, 2018)

Shouldn't that be 2 wing root mounted cannon Greg?

Have seen photos of Fw190s with 4 bladed props so definitely the Germans could make them.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> I believe the Germans used 3-bladed props mainly because they favored fuselage-mounted armament over wing-mounted armament, and they needed rate of fire....



With their inherently slower cyclic rates I'm very surprised that the FW-190 had cannons placed inside the propeller arc, which obviously reduced the firing rate even further. With the advanced optics available at the time to these pilots, would placing the guns outside this arc really have hurt the overall convergence and effected target aquisition that much?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> With their inherently slower cyclic rates I'm very surprised that the FW-190 had cannons placed inside the propeller arc, which obviously reduced the firing rate even further. With the advanced optics available at the time to these pilots, would placing the guns outside this arc really have hurt the overall convergence and effect target aquisition that much?



The MG 151/20 were not that much with 'inherently clower cyclic rate' - 700 rds/min (per Ta-512 spec sheet),or 100 more than for Hispano II, and not that much worse than US .50 M2 with 800 rpm. With that said, the Ta-152, with prop rpm of 1300 rpm, the rate of fire was 650 rds/min for synchronised MG 151/20s.

Placing the cannons outboard will mean that wing twist is more of an issue when firing the guns in high G maneuver, while there would've been a need to additionally armor the ammo boxes, so the weight goes up, and rate of roll down. The gun heating requirement also increases. Some pilots prefered the guns/cannons being as close as possible to the centreline, and when ever possible people were trying to install guns as close to centreline as possible.
But again, the outboard cannons worked just fine indeed on the Allied aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 12, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The MG 151/20 were not that much with 'inherently clower cyclic rate' - 700 rds/min (per Ta-512 spec sheet),or 100 more than for Hispano II, and not that much worse than US .50 M2 with 800 rpm. With that said, the Ta-152, with prop rpm of 1300 rpm, the rate of fire was 650 rds/min for synchronised MG 151/20s.
> 
> Placing the cannons outboard will mean that wing twist is more of an issue when firing the guns in high G maneuver, while there would've been a need to additionally armor the ammo boxes, so the weight goes up, and rate of roll down. The gun heating requirement also increases. Some pilots prefered the guns/cannons being as close as possible to the centreline, and when ever possible people were trying to install guns as close to centreline as possible.
> But again, the outboard cannons worked just fine indeed on the Allied aircraft.



Those are all very good points, things make a little more sense to me now.....


----------



## pbehn (Jan 12, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> One of the reasons I started this thread was to get a general consensus about whether or not the FW-190 series really deserves all the accolades thrown at it here and elsewhere. I know that a lot of you are aware of how anything associated with the Third Reich or the German military in general tends to garner great amount of interest and in some cases an air of supposed greatness or superiority, even when it's unfounded or flat out undeserving. But of course there's also cases where there might be a general dislike of anything German or that which was part of the Nazi war machine, which would certainly unduly hurt the reputation of a well-engineered aircraft like the FW-190.
> 
> Was the FW-190's legacy tainted by this or has there been enough critical examination over the years to excluded it from a good portion this sort of bias?


Some people are undoubtedly biased in favour of one particular country, others are fan boys of a particular marque and the Fw 190 has many. To me it was an outstanding aircraft, it had no rival when first introduced. If the engine had been developed in the same way as its rivals it would have remained a competitive fighter but that is only on a one to one basis. It was introduced in the west in late 1941, it was introduced in the east in September 1942, its peak strength was in June 1943. By 1944 with Big Week and the daylight bomber offensive, Operation Bagration and D Day the situation was beyond hopeless. Operation Bagration was opposed by 600 LW fighters, at the time of D Day the LW had 140 serviceable aircraft in France while defending Germany the LW struggled to get more than 200 of all types in the air. Many of the thousands produced were made after there were pilots fuel or indeed even airfields to get them operational.


----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2018)

When they needed more guns than available in the cowling, the Germans went to in-wing or under-wing guns. When they didn't, they seemed to me to prefer fuselage-mounted guns first. The reality could be different, and I am aware that the Fw 190 had wing armament, but putting a wide-chord, 4-blade prop on the Fw 190 would seriously detract from the fuselage gun rate of fire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2018)

It might. I don't KNOW one way or the other. However the Germans used electric synchronization. Electric currant feed through the bolt ignited an electric primer in the cartridge. 
I think the theory was that it allowed tighter control of when the cartridge fired vs mechanical or hydraulic synchronization (which operated a sear that released the firing pin to hit the primer. more "dead time"? or variation? 
In any case a DB engine turning 2700rpm and using a 0.53 reduction gear had a prop turing 23.85 rpm per sec while a MG 131 machine gun fired at 15 rounds per second. Or on shot every 1.59 revolutions of the propeller. This seems a bit odd and perhaps the gun fired every 1.66 revs ( between the 5-6 propblade to pass by?) Gun firing speed can vary due to spring tension and temperature so things get screwed up even more which is why positive control of the instant of firing is so important. 
With a 20mm cannon the prop might make two full turns for each time the gun fires. 

Granted 4 blade props give less "opportunity" but I don't really know if they fired the guns when ever the gun was loaded and space came up between blades or if the gun just fired an a certain spot in the crankshaft rotation. I don't know how the Germans did it but the Allison used synchroniser drives off the camshafts.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It might. I don't KNOW one way or the other. However the Germans used electric synchronization. Electric currant feed through the bolt ignited an electric primer in the cartridge.
> I think the theory was that it allowed tighter control of when the cartridge fired vs mechanical or hydraulic synchronization (which operated a sear that released the firing pin to hit the primer. more "dead time"? or variation?
> In any case a DB engine turning 2700rpm and using a 0.53 reduction gear had a prop turing 23.85 rpm per sec while a MG 131 machine gun fired at 15 rounds per second. Or on shot every 1.59 revolutions of the propeller. This seems a bit odd and perhaps the gun fired every 1.66 revs ( between the 5-6 propblade to pass by?) Gun firing speed can vary due to spring tension and temperature so things get screwed up even more which is why positive control of the instant of firing is so important.
> With a 20mm cannon the prop might make two full turns for each time the gun fires.
> ...


Why don't they put all the prop blades together to leave more space to shoot through?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2018)

One thing that everyone here has overlooked with regards to the Fw 190 was how advanced technologically it was. Most of its systems were electrically actuated, which was a major step forward and had been attempted before only in bomber designs (such as the Avro Manchester), by pushing a button. Not to forget the 'Kommandgerat' incorporated into the engine management system, which electrically governed the power output, boost and fuel flow automatically, thus requiring only one lever on the throttle console and negating the need for a separate fuel mixture lever. Propeller pitch was also done electrically by a button on the side of the power lever. This tech was in advance of every other front line fighter in service when the Fw 190A first flew.

It was also maintenance friendly; easy to work on and good access to internal spaces. This is very helpful in the front line, of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2018)

Here is some text from an article I wrote for an aviation magazine some years ago and was published. The article was called 'The RAF's Bogeyman, the Fw 190 Butcher Bird Goes To War'. I won't quote the whole thing, just snippets. Being a general thing, it's not overly long nor detailed, so don't expect too much, but it outlines a little of the Fw 190's early history.

"An Unexpected Arrival 

At 8:35 pm on 23 June 1942, Oberleutnant Arnim Faber, Gruppen-Adjutant of III/Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' inadvertently landed his Fw 190A-3 single-seat fighter at at RAF Pembry in Wales. Having mistaken the Bristol Channel for the English Channel, he followed a reciprocal heading and ended up in enemy hands. The implications of his error immediately dawned on him once Pembry's duty pilot for the day, Sgt Jeffries leaped on the wing of his taxying fighter and waved a Very signal pistol in his face; Faber had just delivered an intact example of the much vaunted Focke Wulf Fw 190 to the British. 

This sudden and unexpected arrival was a stroke of good fortune for the RAF, whose fighter squadrons were suffering at the hands of this new Luftwaffe fighter. Since its first combat with Spitfires in September 1941 it was ominously apparent that the German machine was more than a match for the RAF's premier front line fighter; the Fw 190 was superior to the Spitfire Mark V in every respect except turning circle. As one exasperated pilot exclaimed when this quality of the Spitfire was pointed out to him; “turning doesn't win battles!” 

Tank's Masterpiece 

Conceived by Dipl-Ingenieur Kurt Waldemar Tank in 1937, the Fw 190 was to the Luftwaffe “ein zweites eisen im feuer” – a second iron in the fire to Willi Messerschmitt's famed Bf 109. Widely regarded as one of history's greatest combat aircraft, the Fw 190 saw use in every theatre the Luftwaffe found itself fighting in. A masterful example of the designer's art, it combined pleasing aesthetics with functional simplicity and technical excellence; it was at the time of its development the most advanced fighter in the world. Its principal systems were electrically actuated with the push of an array of button switches, which caused British test pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown to muse over the fact that the aircraft's designers; “...never had to think in terms of those massive leather flying gauntlets issued as standard to British pilots and guaranteed to convert their hands into bunches of bananas...” At the heart of its engine management system was a device called the _Kommandgerät_, which combined the functions of altering fuel mixture, boost and RPM into one simple lever, with propeller pitch actuated by a push-button on the side of its handle. 

An outstanding trait of the best combat aircraft of the World War Two era was versatility of purpose and the _Würger _or “Butcher Bird”, as Tank named his fighter after a species of shrike, was no exception to this. Tank's intent was to produce a versatile fighter that was easy to build and maintain; 

“The Fw 190 was designed to be built by a great number of small sub-assemblers. We designed it with ease of maintenance in mind, plus quick replacement of entire sections. It was a sturdy machine and extremely versatile. Although conceived as a fighter, it did double duty as an attack bomber and, in fact, throughout most of the war, was the only reliable light attack bomber we possessed in numbers.” 

The decision to power the Fw 190 with a radial engine set it apart from its contemporaries and Tank initially had difficulty convincing technical staff in the _Reichsluftfahrtministerium_ (RLM; German Air Ministry) of the wisdom of his decision; 

“When we designed the Focke Wulf 190 in the summer of 1937, there were many in the RLM who believed our fighter had little chance against the concepts then coming from Messerschmitt. But because we chose a radial engine that would not conflict with the short supply of the liquid cooled powerplants earmarked for aircraft then in production, yet one that promised a great deal more horsepower than available at the time, several of our friends in procurement persuaded the technical bureau to give us a chance.” 

Initially however, the fighter's manufacturers had much difficulty with cooling its tightly cowled 14 cylinder radial engine. On the prototype's first flight on 1 June 1939, Focke Wulf's Chief Test Pilot Flugkapitän Hans Sander described his experience as “...like sitting with both feet in the fireplace”, having experienced temperatures as high as 55 degrees Celsius. Both airframe and engine manufacturer blamed the other for the over-heating engines and the decision by the Bayerische Motoren Werk to discontinue production of the under-performing BMW 139 engine almost brought about the promising little fighter's premature demise. 

Fortunately for Tank and his team, after a demonstration in front of senior RLM staff, including Reichsmarschall Herman Göring, an order for pre-production airframes was placed in early 1940. Despite the installation of the new 1,660 hp BMW 801 engine, the over-heating issue persisted, even once a cooling fan had been fitted ahead of the engine. Pilots test flying the Fw 190A-0 pre-production aircraft from Rechlin rarely strayed from within eyesight of the airfield and as one witness to the activities of the _Erpobungsstaffel_ (Operational Test Squadron) 190 put it, the fighters flew back and forth, “...smoking and stinking like bees with their backsides on fire.” Nevertheless, those that had flown the Fw 190 were convinced of its future by its exceptional performance and pleasant handling characteristics. 

The RAF's Bogeyman 

With their BMW 801 engines still overheating, the first Fw 190A-1 production models equipped II/JG 26 at Le Bourget, Paris in August 1941. Although impressed with their new fighter's superb control harmony and excellent performance, the former Bf 109 drivers still regarded them with some caution, particularly their tendency to catch fire. Less than a month after re-equipping however, JG 26's Butcher Birds were in action against RAF Spitfires. 

The new fighter's ascendency over its enemy began almost immediately, with Luftwaffe units equipping with Fw 190s devising tactics to take full advantage of their superior performance over the Spitfire V. Since the Spitfire's tight turning circle was well known, engaging the British fighter in the horizontal plane was dangerous and to be avoided. With superior dive and climb speed to the Spitfire, the Fw 190 was best flown in the vertical plane, diving upon enemy aircraft from altitude in high speed slashing attacks, followed by zoom climbs back to altitude. Best of all was the Fw 190's ability to out run its opponent, which gave its pilots the advantage of breaking off from combat at will. 

With the RAF's first encounter with Fw 190s in September 1941, which were tentatively misidentified in combat reports as a “Curtiss Hawk”, Fighter Command's fortunes reached a low ebb; the previous six months of cross-channel operations had seen losses soar to as many as 416 fighters during 20,495 sorties flown. Some 700 enemy aircraft were claimed in that period, but actual Luftwaffe losses were as low as 103 fighters. 

Occupying the job of Fighter Command C-in-C since Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh 'Stuffy' Dowding was ousted after the Battle of Britain, Air Marshal William Sholto Douglas had initiated his squadrons' offensive charges into enemy territory, carrying out 'Circusses' and 'Rhubarbs', quaint code names for luring enemy aircraft into combat by attacking random targets of opportunity on the ground. Despite favourable reports however, losses suffered during these dangerous missions were taking their toll and the RAF was forced into the disagreeable situation of maintaining a more defensive stance by curtailing cross-channel ops. Once the Fw 190 arrived on the scene, the Air Staff issued a Directive on 13 November 1941 halting all RAF operations over northern Europe. 

Aircrew morale within Fighter Command plummeted. News of successful enemy action, such as the “Channel Dash” of 12 February 1942, where the Kriegsmarine battleships _Scharnhorst_ and _Gneisenau_ and their destroyer escort steamed brazenly through the English Channel in broad daylight gave them even more reason to fret. 

Operation _Cerberus-Donnerkeil_ was the first combined operation the Fw 190 was engaged in. Organisation of air cover was the responsibility of celebrated German fighter leader Oberst Adolf 'Dolfo' Galland, who had relinquished command of JG 26, the first Luftwaffe unit to convert to the new fighter, to become _Inspecteur der Jagdflieger_ (Fighter Pilot Inspector). Paltry attacks by Royal Navy Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers, gallantly led by Lt Cdr Eugene Esmonde were violently opposed by JG 26's Butcher Birds, whose pilots found themselves frantically pushing buttons to lower flaps and undercarriage to slow their fighters to attack the antiquated biplanes. Sadly, all of Esmonde's charges were shot down and not a single torpedo struck home. Esmonde was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his unfailing courage during the hopeless attack. 

“What would be the result if a Merlin 60 was installed in a Spitfire?” 

Throughout the first half of 1941, the Spitfire Mk.V fitted with a 1,230 hp single-stage supercharged Rolls Royce Merlin 45 proved a tractable fighter that was believed to be able to counter the new Messerschmitt Bf 109F adequately, despite the latter's superior altitude performance. It was minuted by the Air Staff that, "The aircraft has a superior initial climb and dive to that of the Spitfire, but it is considered that the Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me 109F, especially at high speed.". In practise however, the 'F model Messerschmitt was proving a headache and was largely responsible for the high losses of fighters in the first six months of 1941. The appearance of the Butcher Bird changed attitudes toward Fighter Command's failing cross-channel campaign, however. 

Three weeks after the Fw 190 entered service, on 27 September 1941 Spitfire Mk.III N3297 took to the air powered by a new variant of the Merlin engine. The Merlin 60 was originally intended for the Vickers Wellington Mk.VI, a high altitude version of the famous bomber fitted with a pressurised cabin. With two modified single stage blowers coupled together, fitted with an intercooler and mounted on a basic Merlin 45, the new 60 Series offered greater power at height compared to the earlier engine. It was Lord Hives of Rolls-Royce who asked the pertinent question as to whether one could be fitted to a Spitfire.

Following successful trials with N3297, enthusiasm for a production 60 Series Merlin Spitfire was high within the Air Staff, which prompted the Air Ministry's Director of Technical Development Air Cdre Reynell Verney to minute on 6 November 1941; 

“I want to recommend to the Air Staff for adopting a new version of the Spitfire engined with the Merlin 61. The airframe is essentially the Spitfire Mk.III. It is essential that the immediate aim would be to transfer all Spitfire production by Supermarine from the Spitfire Mk.V to the new aircraft and production deliveries could begin by mid-1942.” 

Three new Spitfire variants were immediately investigated by the Boffins at Vickers-Supermarine's. These were the high altitude HF.VII, fitted with extended wing tips and a pressurised cockpit, and the aircraft intended as the next standard production variant, the Spitfire Mk.VIII; essentially a Mk.VII without a pressurised cockpit. The third was the machine prompted by Verney in his minutes to the Air Staff; a stop-gap specifically to counter the Fw 190 by fitting a 1,280 hp Merlin 61 to Mk.V airframes currently occupying Spitfire production lines. This was the Spitfire Mk.IX, which, although intended as an interim until the Mk.VIII entered service, was built in greater numbers than any other Spitfire variant and according to its pilots, was the nicest of all Spitfires to fly."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

stona said:


> They also needed to fire a couple of heavy machine guns through the propeller disc. Using wider three blade propellers to absorb the increasing engine power, rather than increasing the number of blades may have made the armament more effective, and the interrupter system simpler or more reliable.



Gentlemen,
I believe there is a serious misconception about how guns are fired through a propeller arc.
First of all, there is a difference between an "interrupter" and a "synchronizer" mechanism.
The interrupter may have been used in the early days of he Great War, but in general not much later.
It works by "interrupting" the firing cycle of the gun which would be firing free between the propeller blades.
The synchronizer is much different. It triggers the gun to fire. If the gun is ready to fire and if the trigger is pulled, the gun fires.
A typical synchronizer would trigger the gun once in each gap between blades.
For some typical (and simple) numbers, figure that an engine might be turning 2500 RPM with a reduction ratio of 0.500:1 to the propeller.
For a 3 blade propeller that would be 1250 x 3 = 3750 times per minute that the synchronizer would attempt to fire the gun.
We know of course that a typical MG / Cannon cyclic rate is much lower than that, so many times when the synchronizer connects, the gun is not ready to fire.
The reduction in firing rate happens because sometimes the gun IS ready to fire but the synchronizer has not reached the proper position yet.

There are plenty of aeroplanes with synchronized guns and 4 blade propellers, especially in Japanese service. Think N1K1-J and Ki 84.

Part of the reason for picking a propeller with fewer blades might be the belief in the theory that a propeller with more blades is less efficient. As for why the FW 190D had such wide chord propeller blades, one must keep in mind that the JuMo 213 was a fairly high powered engine and turned a relatively small diameter propeller and thus its Propeller Power Coefficient was much higher than most comparable aircraft of the time. In other words, it needed a "high activity factor" propeller to absorb all that torque.

Another factor that I do not believe I have seen mentioned in this discussion thus far is the that often Wing Area and Wing Loading are not telling the entire story. The real factor to consider is Lift Loading: The maximum Coefficient of Lift and shape of the CL graph are quite important and are dependent on the Airfoil selected. (I am sure some of you already know what I will be attempting to describe.)
The Spitfire used a NACA 2200 series airfoil which meant that it had decent lift and gentle stall characteristics but unfortunately also generated more drag than most.
The Yakovlev fighters typically used a Clark-Y with pretty similar characteristics to Spitfire.
The Mustang used a NACA Laminar Flow section (I forget the exact designation) that was excellent for drag but a little lacking in maximum Coefficient of Lift relative to the others.
The FW 190, Hellcat, Corsair and many other WW2 Fighters used a NACA 23000 series airfoil. CL was very good, Drag was fairly low, but the stall was fairly harsh and the center of pressure would tend to move with changes in Angle of Attack
Some of the unfavourable stall charateristics were addressed by using washout to cause the root sections of the wing to stall first so that buffeting would warn the pilot while the wing tips and ailerons still had not stalled.
Some other aircraft took an entirely different approach by using a different airfoil at the root than the one at the tip.
Although the AoA was the same for the entire wing, the airfoil at the root would stall first. The P-38 used such a system.
This description because of its brevity (and my lack of in depth knowledge) is a bit simplified but hopefully gives an idea of other factors besides just wing loading.

- ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2018)

We all know about CL. Yet the WWII designers were all trying to optimize their pet fighter, and the CLs were often very close. So, wing loading is a good indication of general maneuverability. Doesn't tell the whole story, to be sure, but can serve as a good indicator. If CL didn't matter, then maneuvering flaps and-or slats would not have been effective. But they were.

As for synchronizing guns though a 4-blade prop, the Germans had a VERY wide blade at the cowl arc. A 4-blade would cover a significant portion of the prop arc. Had they employed a more conventional-looking prop (more narrow at the hub), then maybe sure. Even a 5-blade, as in the late Spitfires (with narrow hubs).

Let's look at the MG 151 (15x96). The cyclic rate of fire is 700 rpm, or one every 85.7 msec. The blades pass by, as you said, every 16 msec, so you'd shoot once every 5.36 blades, or between the 5th and 6th blade pass. Unfortunately, the wide-chord hub might seriously interfere with that, causing you to miss that window and have to wait another blade. That's one shot about every 96 msec or so, plus the time to move to empty space. Call it one shot every 100 msec. That's about 10 shots per second in an ideal world and doesn't SEEM like it would affect the cyclic rate much (700 down to 600). The reality was that real gun synchronization rates made it MUCH slower, due to mechanical constraints and spring return rates.

The guns may have been electrically fired, but they weren't computer operated. Solid state components were decades away. It was done with cams and springs that have mechanical constraints. They got really slow with wide chord and more than 3 blades. Since the fuselage guns were the German pilot's primary weapons, that was not acceptable to the pilots or the Luftwaffe. At least, I have heard that.

In the end, I don't care how many blades it had. The Fw 190D was a good fighter. I doubt going to 4 blade would have changed that, but I wasn't making the aircraft buying decisions at the time, either. The real reasons for the decisions at the time are probably lost to time and the death of the people who really knew. All I know for sure is that production Fw 190s had 3-blade props, with experimental models using a 4-blade that was never adopted en masse. I believe the 4-bladers mostly went on the turbocharged units that were not selected for production. There are pics.

Fw 190 V32/U2: 






Fw 190c:





The last one doesn't look so wide-chord to me.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 13, 2018)

> Part of the reason for picking a propeller with fewer blades might be the belief in the theory that a propeller with more blades is less efficient.



I discussed this many years ago in another forum. More blades give an more even distribution of the power, but apparently they perform less well when it comes to compresibility in the blade tips. I never researched the subject more, maybe someone can provide more information.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> The Spitfire used a NACA 2200 series airfoil which meant that it had decent lift and gentle stall characteristics but unfortunately also generated more drag than most.
> The Yakovlev fighters typically used a Clark-Y with pretty similar characteristics to Spitfire.



Spitfire used the wing that was 13% thick at the root, it's wing was as of low drag as realistically possible on military aircraft designed in late 1930s. There was several posts and thread here where Spitfire was measured with highest dive speeds for non-jet aircraft.
Things that were slowing down Spitfire were items like external BP glass, not covered U/C, bad carburetor, bad layout of exhust stacks, presence of rear wiev mirror, sometimes sloppy fit and finish. As time went on, those things were rectified. The radiator system was to wait until the advent of Spiteful.
Yakovlev's fighters were small, this is where from the reasonable performance came from. Does not equate with low-drag wing.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 13, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Spitfire used the wing that was 13% thick at the root, it's wing was as of low drag as realistically possible on military aircraft designed in late 1930s. There was several posts and thread here where Spitfire was measured with highest dive speeds for non-jet aircraft.
> Things that were slowing down Spitfire were items like external BP glass, not covered U/C, bad carburetor, bad layout of exhust stacks, presence of rear wiev mirror, sometimes sloppy fit and finish. As time went on, those things were rectified. The radiator system was to wait until the advent of Spiteful.
> Yakovlev's fighters were small, this is where from the reasonable performance came from. Does not equate with low-drag wing.


Great post Tomo but it should be borne in mind that some of these were choices. The original prototype Spitfire had covered wheels, they reverted to covered wheels with the Mk 22. The prototype also didn't have an armoured windscreen, whereas the angle of the windscreen is known to be poor from a drag point of view we must remember you also have to see through it. The mirror was introduced and then removed. The finish of aircraft improved as things progressed but there is a financial and time cost associated, for example flush rivets are better but cost more and take more time. The fit up of panels became increasingly important but this is frequently part of the basic design and system of manufacture.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 13, 2018)

alejandro_ said:


> I discussed this many years ago in another forum. More blades give an more even distribution of the power, but apparently they perform less well when it comes to compresibility in the blade tips. I never researched the subject more, maybe someone can provide more information.



I used to do prop aero for a division of UTC once called Hamilton Standard. The choice of number of blades has a number of considerations:

Diameter is set by external factors, like the aircraft's geometry. 
Total blade area -- prop designers use activity factor, which ignores the inner 15% of the blade, and is the integral of (chord divided by diameter) times (r divided by tip rqdius) cuved with respect to r -- is set by thrust. Again, prop designers use a thrust coefficient, which is a dimensionless number. 
Constant speed props operate with large areas stalled during takeoff. This causes high vibratory loads, which dictates blade root dimensions, and minimum blade chord
Since the induced drag_ per blade _is proportional to the lift squared on that blade, increasing the number of blades reduces the propeller's total induced drag, _e.g., _going from three to four blades reduces induced drag by 25%.
Compressibility effects are difficult to quantify as the flow near the blade tips is very three-dimensional. Tip sweep, airfoil thickness, and thickness distribution all affect it. At the time NACA's 66-xxx series airfoils probably had the best behavior at high subsonic Mach numbers
A prop with more blades will be more expensive, as each blade needs a pitch change bearing, and the general pitch change mechanism will be more complex and costlly
Narrower chord blades will tend to have poorer damage tolerance
Generally, more blades is aerodynamically better but more expensive, possibly lighter as the individual blades may be lighter, but the parts count is greater and some parts are more complex and more difficult to manufacture, and the prop is less tolerant of FOD and has tighter repair limits.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

Hello GregP,



GregP said:


> We all know about CL. Yet the WWII designers were all trying to optimize their pet fighter, and the CLs were often very close. So, wing loading is a good indication of general maneuverability. Doesn't tell the whole story, to be sure, but can serve as a good indicator. If CL didn't matter, then maneuvering flaps and-or slats would not have been effective. But they were.



Many times the CL was close because the majority of designs used the NACA 23000 series airfoils. Of course there will be differences depending on the actual planform and other interference issues.
As an example though, sometimes maximum CL makes a difference: The P-51 Mustang's maximum CL is around 1.45 from the documentation I have seen. As a contrast, the maximum CL for the FW 190 is 1.58 and that difference is not trivial. The maximum CL of the wing on the Me 109 is even higher IIRC.



GregP said:


> As for synchronizing guns though a 4-blade prop, the Germans had a VERY wide blade at the cowl arc. A 4-blade would cover a significant portion of the prop arc. Had they employed a more conventional-looking prop (more narrow at the hub), then maybe sure. Even a 5-blade, as in the late Spitfires (with narrow hubs).
> 
> Let's look at the MG 151 (15x96). The cyclic rate of fire is 700 rpm, or one every 85.7 msec. The blades pass by, as you said, every 16 msec, so you'd shoot once every 5.36 blades, or between the 5th and 6th blade pass. Unfortunately, the wide-chord hub might seriously interfere with that, causing you to miss that window and have to wait another blade. That's one shot about every 96 msec or so, plus the time to move to empty space. Call it one shot every 100 msec. That's about 10 shots per second in an ideal world and doesn't SEEM like it would affect the cyclic rate much (700 down to 600). The reality was that real gun synchronization rates made it MUCH slower, due to mechanical constraints and spring return rates.
> 
> The guns may have been electrically fired, but they weren't computer operated. Solid state components were decades away. It was done with cams and springs that have mechanical constraints. They got really slow with wide chord and more than 3 blades. Since the fuselage guns were the German pilot's primary weapons, that was not acceptable to the pilots or the Luftwaffe. At least, I have heard that..



By my understanding, wide chord or narrow chord blades really does not matter as long as there is enough time between blades so that the gun has time to fire before the next blade arrives. It will only fire ONE shot anyway. If lock time is known to be slow then the adjustment is made to trigger the gun earlier relative to the propeller blade.
The mechanical delays and electrical switching delays, spring rates and other mechanical constraints are what the timing is all about in a manner pretty similar to engine ignition timing.
The only problem is that often the cyclic rate of the gun is not constant. Guns have a tendency to cycle slower for their first shots than for following shots because the first cycle is driven by spring pressure alone while each shot after the first is driven by springs AND by the rebound action of the preceding shot.
With the numbers you are using, 100 milliseconds give 600 rounds per minute and 96 milliseconds gives 625 rounds per minute which sounds about right.
There is of course the slight lag between when the pilot pulls the trigger and when the gun actually fires.
First there is the lock time as I mentioned but there is also the random position of he propeller when the trigger is pulled. It will be somewhere between 0 milliseconds to 16 milliseconds before the propeller is in line to fire for an average delay of 8 milliseconds, but note that this delay only happens once per burst of fire.
Perhaps that is what you were describing?

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Spitfire used the wing that was 13% thick at the root, it's wing was as of low drag as realistically possible on military aircraft designed in late 1930s. There was several posts and thread here where Spitfire was measured with highest dive speeds for non-jet aircraft.
> Things that were slowing down Spitfire were items like external BP glass, not covered U/C, bad carburetor, bad layout of exhust stacks, presence of rear wiev mirror, sometimes sloppy fit and finish. As time went on, those things were rectified. The radiator system was to wait until the advent of Spiteful.
> Yakovlev's fighters were small, this is where from the reasonable performance came from. Does not equate with low-drag wing.



Hello Tomo Pauk,
Most of the other fighters of the period used a 15% thickness at the wing root which is not that different. A for low drag, the NACA 2200 series airfoil is not. A high dive speed / critical Mach number does not necessarily mean the wing is low drag.
The Spiteful / Seafang used a laminar flow airfoil and gave up on the wonderful elliptical wing which shows what they thought of the value of the airfoil and wing planform on the Spitfire.
The Clark-Y airfoil used on the Yakovlev fighters is not a low drag airfoil either. It is a fairly high lift airfoil with very benign characteristics.

If you really want to see what can be done with a little (or a lot) of aerodynamic clean up, compare the Lavochkin La-5FN and the La-7.
The two are nearly identical in size weight and have identical engines and yet the La-7 is about 20 MPH faster.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> Most of the other fighters of the period used a 15% thickness at the wing root which is not that different. A for low drag, the NACA 2200 series airfoil is not. A high dive speed / critical Mach number does not necessarily mean the wing is low drag.
> The Spiteful / Seafang used a laminar flow airfoil and gave up on the wonderful elliptical wing which shows what they thought of the value of the airfoil and wing planform on the Spitfire.
> The Clark-Y airfoil used on the Yakovlev fighters is not a low drag airfoil either. It is a fairly high lift airfoil with very benign characteristics.
> ...



The La-5FN, once the wartime emergency passed and fit & finish improved, was clocked at 680 km/h, or same as the La-7. 
I never said that NACA 2200 series were low drag airfoils, but that thickness chosen was an excellent move. BTW - the XP-40Q was clocked at 420+ mph, or about as same as the much smaller and lighter Bf 109K-4, so the 2200 was not that draggy either. Granted, new profiles will improve streamlining.
Difference when going from 13% to 15% represents increase of thickness by 15%. The Fw 190 was with a 15.6% thick wing at root - it's thickness to chord ratio was 20% bigger than with Spitfire.
Yakovlev fighters used the Clark YH profile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2018)

Does anyone have any raw data concerning the FW-190's "military achievements", such as number of sorties flown, aerial victories, losses to both enemy aircraft and ground fire, etc.?

I would be interested in seeing them.....


----------



## pbehn (Jan 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Does anyone have any raw data concerning the FW-190's "military achievements", such as number of sorties flown, aerial victories, losses to both enemy aircraft and ground fire, etc.?
> 
> I would be interested in seeing them.....


There was a report summing up the service of the FW190, it was very brief. 

20,000 produced, in service from 1941 to 45, not as good as the F6F.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 13, 2018)

For what it's worth, another Eric Brown quote - his summation of the Fw 190 from _Wings of the Luftwaffe_:

"I was to fly the Fw 190 many times and in several varieties ... and each time I was to experience that sense of exhilaration that came from flying an aircraft that one instinctively knew to be a top-notcher, yet, at the same time, demanded handling skill if its high qualities were to be exploited. Just as the Spitfire Mk. IX was probably the most outstanding British fighter to give service in World War II, its Teutonic counterpart is undoubtedly deserving of the same recognition for Germany."

Another from an Air Fighting Development Unit pilot who took part in the trials on Faber's 190:

"With some disappointment, I found that the 190 had already had its black crosses and swastikas replaced by British roundels and a hastily applied coat of RAF camouflage. In the few places that had been missed the beautiful smooth original finish could be felt. The 190 was a perfect example of precise German design and workmanship. Unlike our Spitfires, the panels were so well fitted that they looked like one piece. Ingeniously designed finger-operated locks opened the panels to reveal an engine that had been designed for easy maintenance. To reduce drag, the space between the spinner and the outer cowling was reduced and the turbine impeller on the same axis as the prop, rotating three times as fast, sucked air in to facilitate cooling. It had a wide sturdy undercarriage and cockpit that was a fighter pilot's dream. All engine, undercarriage and flap controls were neatly arranged for fingertip control beside the throttle leaving the right hand free to manoeuvre the airplane and fire the guns. The one-piece perspex top came down half-way to the elbows on either side and gave almost perfect visibility to the sides and the rear."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There was a report summing up the service of the FW190, it was very brief.
> 
> 20,000 produced, in service from 1941 to 45, not as good as the F6F. Inferior to anything with roundel with a star in it.



Fixed for preconceived notional accuracy...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 13, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Fixed for preconceived notional accuracy...


I think you misunderstood my point Adler. This whole thread was created to conclude that the FW 190 was inferior to the F6F, purely because of one comparative test quoted on another thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I think you misunderstood my point Adler. This whole thread was created to conclude that the FW 190 was inferior to the F6F, purely because of one comparative test quoted on another thread.



No I understood your post. I was just adding to it.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I understood your post. I was just adding to it.


I just don't understand fanboy-ism 70-80 years after the event. To me, only the guys who flew them are allowed it, and for very obvious reasons.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The La-5FN, once the wartime emergency passed and fit & finish improved, was clocked at 680 km/h, or same as the La-7.
> I never said that NACA 2200 series were low drag airfoils, but that thickness chosen was an excellent move. BTW - the XP-40Q was clocked at 420+ mph, or about as same as the much smaller and lighter Bf 109K-4, so the 2200 was not that draggy either. Granted, new profiles will improve streamlining.
> Difference when going from 13% to 15% represents increase of thickness by 15%. The Fw 190 was with a 15.6% thick wing at root - it's thickness to chord ratio was 20% bigger than with Spitfire.
> Yakovlev fighters used the Clark YH profile.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

I would be very curious to see what was done to the La-5FN to raise the speed that much. Essentially what you are claiming then is that the laminar flow airfoil on the La-7 and the relocated oil cooler did nothing?

You are also giving the Me 109K-4 about 20-30 MPH less credit than it deserved. In fairness, the 109K had a lot more engine power but it also was not a particularly clean airframe. Neither was the P-40 in any version.

- Ivan.


----------



## stona (Jan 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GregP,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the Americans measured the wing lift coefficient of a Spitfire V, in 1942, as 1.68 in cruising flight, engine speed 2650rpm (can't find the boost figure, but it was under 200mph).
A lot of theoretical calculations, particularly of complicated wing shapes, sometimes using various airfoil sections (like the Spitfire) can be wide of the mark
Whatever the figure for the Bf 109, 'those stubby little wings, belting out a rough and altering lift gradient'* with its slats snapping in and out meant that the wing had less energy. The same, with obvious qualifications, can be said of the Fw 190. It's vicious stall was a function of this.

*Lance Cole in his somewhat biased biography of Beverley Shenstone.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> I would be very curious to see what was done to the La-5FN to raise the speed that much. Essentially what you are claiming then is that the laminar flow airfoil on the La-7 and the relocated oil cooler did nothing?



The La-7 did not have laminar-flow wing, but the old daddy NACA 23016 (root) from LaGG-3/La-5. The La-9 got laminar flow wing. 1st La-7s were tested at just 655 km/h at altitude.



> You are also giving the Me 109K-4 about 20-30 MPH less credit than it deserved. In fairness, the 109K had a lot more engine power but it also was not a particularly clean airframe. Neither was the P-40 in any version.



Whoops, my mistake. The Bf 109G-10 and similar were as fast as the XP-40Q, the K-4 was faster.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 14, 2018)

When reading first hand accounts, Pilots like Bob Johnson respected the 190. I think pilot skills played a large part in who came out on top with the 190 vs a Spitfire, 38, 47 or 51


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The La-7 did not have laminar-flow wing, but the old daddy NACA 23016 (root) from LaGG-3/La-5. The La-9 got laminar flow wing. 1st La-7s were tested at just 655 km/h at altitude.



The Russians, especially in the early days, had a really rough time getting their aeroplanes to meet the projected performance numbers as was seen in the LaGG-3. I had thought that the La-7 was faster than the La-5FN primarily because of its wing but if not, then what was the real explanation? A cowl shape difference and relocated oil cooler should not have that great an effect.

On a different note, someone asked a while back for the weight of armour carried by the FW 190A.
Here are some numbers for the FW 190A-8 from a table I found in a book by Rodeike
Note that this number differs a bit from what is found in the A-8 manual which lists 137.8 KG.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The Russians, especially in the early days, had a really rough time getting their aeroplanes to meet the projected performance numbers as was seen in the LaGG-3. I had thought that the La-7 was faster than the La-5FN primarily because of its wing but if not, then what was the real explanation? A cowl shape difference and relocated oil cooler should not have that great an effect.
> ...



My take is that fit & finish of Soviet aircrat improved after 1942, and especially after 1943. For example, they measured some 15 km/h improvement for Yak fighters manufactured in 1943 vs. those from 1942, and up to 30 km/h for LaGG-3, all for same engine power.
La-7 was barely faster than La-5 where attention was paid to the fit and finish for both machines.

Incomplete translation by yours truly:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> When reading first hand accounts, Pilots like Bob Johnson respected the 190. I think pilot skills played a large part in who came out on top with the 190 vs a Spitfire, 38, 47 or 51



Underestimating an enemy tends to be a guaranteed method of losing. 

Pilot skill and tactics are also critical in winning; the first-line fighters were all close enough so that skill and tactics were more important than small differences in aircraft properties.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There was a report summing up the service of the FW190, it was very brief.
> 
> 20,000 produced, in service from 1941 to 45, not as good as the F6F.



Is this all the information you have concerning it's achievements? I already knew these facts, especially the very last one. 

But seriously I am bewildered by the adulation that's been heaped on this particular aircraft. Like others have said many times before, all fighters are a compromise for a specific intention and mission. I know that it was a very good fighter but was it really as good as all the hype that proceeds it? And I'd like to think that I've been very honest and fair with my comments and questions. If you care to actually read what has been posted and discussed here I think you'll agree.

Anyway, I was told to refrain from being "snarky" and that's exactly what I intend to do. I had hoped others here would follow suit and do likewise but alas that just does not seem to be the case.....


----------



## GregP (Jan 14, 2018)

Hi Ivan1 GFP, 
Regarding your post to me on the lats page, The Bf 109 had a very good CL for the slatted area, but it wasn't the entire span. In fact, it was 25% of the span or so. So, the rest of the wing was NOT of a much higher CL< and the slats were there to keep the ailerons effective near stall. not to make it turn better. All airfoils have differing CLs, as you said, but differences in the second decimal place are not much to. In fact, slight difference in the 1st decimal place is minor, too. 

If one is 1.4 and another is 1.5, then the only time it really mean anything is when wing area are equal. If the one with a CL if 1.04 has 6.5% more are, the lift created is the same. So, I use wing loading as a rough measure of maneuverability. To really get into it between two individual fighter types needs a comparative flight test report, many of which are rare or nonexistent. Just calculating lift doesn't tell you how it flies.

But you know that. Nothing new here. From many reports, both sides, the Fw 190 was a delight to fly in almost any of its iterations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Is this all the information you have concerning it's achievements? I already knew these facts, especially the very last one.
> 
> But seriously I am bewildered by the adulation that's been heaped on this particular aircraft. Like others have said many times before, all fighters are a compromise for a specific intention and mission. I know that it was a very good fighter but was it really as good as all the hype that proceeds it? And I'd like to think that I've been very honest and fair with my comments and questions. If you care to actually read what has been posted and discussed here I think you'll agree.
> 
> Anyway, I was told to refrain from being "snarky" and that's exactly what I intend to do. I had hoped others here would follow suit and do likewise but alas that just does not seem to be the case.....


There is no adulation from me, or any of the main posters on this thread. The relevant combat reports you seek are the ones that do not exist. There are no combat reports because for long periods between the introduction of the FW 190 in France and the production of the Typhoon and Spitfire Mk IX and XII the RAF forbade any operations over France or hugely cut their numbers because of the losses. In that period the Allies, not just the RAF had no plane that could match it, That was in the period 1941 on to late 42 early 43 and it is not "adulation" it is a fact. Meanwhile you continually compare it to the F6F which first saw action in September 1943 which is 9 months before jets were introduced in Europe. The period of FW 190 superiority included the Dieppe raid which was a rout in the air and on the ground and also the Channel Dash which were major setbacks in the war in the west.. Here is the Wiki article on FW 190 operational history and another more detailed accounts of Dieppe (Operation Jubilee).
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history - Wikipedia
The Air Over Dieppe: Army, Part 9 | Legion Magazine
Focke-Wulf 190s Over Dieppe

I would note that Dieppe saw the first major use by the US forces of the B 17 and saw the P 51 A (as RAF Mustang I) score its first victory and loss while the RAF had 4 Squadrons of Spitfire IX a sign of how the wind was changing.

The F6F was a great carrier borne aircraft but by the time of its introduction the conflicts course was clear, the F4U and F4F could have done the job in the far east, perhaps not so well but the hard yards had been completed in actions like Midway, Coral Sea and Leyte Gulf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There is no adulation from me, or any of the main posters on this thread. The relevant combat reports you seek are the ones that do not exist. There are no combat reports because for long periods between the introduction of the FW 190 in France and the production of the Typhoon and Spitfire Mk IX and XII the RAF forbade any operations over France or hugely cut their numbers because of the losses. In that period the Allies, not just the RAF had no plane that could match it, That was in the period 1941 on to late 42 early 43 and it is not "adulation" it is a fact. Meanwhile you continually compare it to the F6F which first saw action in September 1943 which is 9 months before jets were introduced in Europe. The period of FW 190 superiority included the Dieppe raid which was a rout in the air and on the ground and also the Channel Dash which were major setbacks in the war in the west.. Here is the Wiki article on FW 190 operational history and another more detailed accounts of Dieppe (Operation Jubilee).
> Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history - Wikipedia
> The Air Over Dieppe: Army, Part 9 | Legion Magazine
> Focke-Wulf 190s Over Dieppe
> ...



Thanks, I appreciate your input and the links. I just want to make clear that it would be foolish of me, or anyone for that matter, to raise any aircraft up to "sainthood" and if it seems that I did so I apologize profusely as from the very start this was not my intention. After all they were just machines, piloted by a living, breathing, human being. I agree that most of these late war fighters were so close in performance that it was up to the "human factor" to make the true difference.

Anyway, I've enjoyed this thread very much and continue to learn many facts about the FW-190 series that I did not know. I never brought up the "H" word (F6F) because I want this to be about the idiosyncrasies that made the FW-190 tick, not focus on just ONE flight test it had with the Navy fighter. I tend to always look for as much data as possible before drawing any conclusions and that's exactly what I am doing here. I'm beginning to see why it had all the right "stuff" and is still revered to this day as one of the greatest fighter aircraft of WWII.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 14, 2018)

Good points, both of you. I am not in adoration of ANY plane at all, but like most of them. The losers get weeded out in the selection process, and almost every fighter that made it into production was VERY worthy of being called a fighter. Sure, some are better than others, but ANY of them could give ANY of them a nasty surprise under the right circumstances.

Largely, but not entirely, it was mostly on the pilots. There WERE top-tier fighters, and we all know them ... perhaps with some discussion about which plane belongs on the top-tier. Since we aren't in combat with them, and the war is LONG over, that may never be settled, but the Fw 190 is usually accorded a position on the top-tier of WWII fighters, along with the BF 109, the Spitfire and the P-51 in the ETO and the Zero, F6F, and P-38 in the PTO. The Med was largely comprised of second-tier fighters, but not entirely.

WE could argue the list, but we HAVE for years! I'm pretty sure the Fw 190 is ON it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thanks, I appreciate your input and the links. I just want to make clear that it would be foolish of me, or anyone for that matter, to raise any aircraft up to "sainthood" and if it seems that I did so I apologize profusely as from the very start this was not my intention. After all they were just machines, piloted by a living, breathing, human being. I agree that most of these late war fighters were so close in performance that it was up to the "human factor" to make the true difference.
> 
> Anyway, I've enjoyed this thread very much and continue to learn many facts about the FW-190 series that I did not know. I never brought up the "H" word (F6F) because I want this to be about the idiosyncrasies that made the FW-190 tick, not focus on just ONE flight test it had with the Navy fighter. I tend to always look for as much data as possible before drawing any conclusions and that's exactly what I am doing here. I'm beginning to see why it had all the right "stuff" and is still revered to this day as one of the greatest fighter aircraft of WWII.


Darren, the way you refer to the F6F at times makes me think you have a dozen to sell. Everyone looks at and for different things in different ways. The only way the FW 190 is special to me is that I have seen one in the Hanover Aircraft Museum. Whereas I have seen many allied WW2 warbirds flying
Aviation Museum Hannover-Laatzen - Wikipedia

I don't get hung up in detailed discussion of flight tests, even to the people who did them and commissioned them their vagaries were known. Up to the introduction of the FW 190 the Spitfire and Me 109 were fairly even, the introduction of the 109 F prompted the Spitfire V into production and they were fairly evenly matched. However the FW 190 was completely superior, the Spitfire could possibly compete in a turning fight, but turning fights descend to the ground and that is a hopeless situation surrounded by a superior fighter over France, in any case, why would the German pilot do what the RAF wanted to, they weren't fools. For more than a whole year the Germans had a fighter that the allies, that is UK, US and Russia, had no answer to. I don't use words like adulation and revere, but I do think respect and recognition are completely appropriate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Darren, the way you refer to the F6F at times makes me think you have a dozen to sell...



Boy oh boy if I did I'd be one very rich man! But your point is well taken. You seem like someone who is for the most part impartial with his comments and that's why you have earned some respect from others here, and that includes me as well. I'm just hoping that the dialogue can continue in a positive direction, as this thread has been most illuminating for me indeed.

I started this thread in order to continue the dialogue from the "best dogfighter" thread because I felt it deserved a thread of it's own. I also didn't want the original thread to be "hijacked" so to speak and taken in another direction entirely. I hope that makes sense to everyone.

Thanks again for the added link and information. I hope to see more input from the others on this site because there's too many details about this fighter for just one person to know....


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Boy oh boy if I did I'd be one very rich man! But your point is well taken. You seem like someone who is for the most part impartial with his comments and that's why you have earned some respect from others here, and that includes me as well. I'm just hoping that the dialogue can continue in a positive direction, as this thread has been most illuminating for me indeed.
> 
> I started this thread in order to continue the dialogue from the "best dogfighter" thread because I felt it deserved a thread of it's own. I also didn't want the original thread to be "hijacked" so to speak and taken in another direction entirely. I hope that makes sense to everyone.
> 
> Thanks again for the added link and information. I hope to see more input from the others on this site because there's too many details about this fighter for just one person to know....



Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Boy oh boy if I did I'd be one very rich man! But your point is well taken. You seem like someone who is for the most part impartial with his comments and that's why you have earned some respect from others here, and that includes me as well. I'm just hoping that the dialogue can continue in a positive direction, as this thread has been most illuminating for me indeed.
> 
> I started this thread in order to continue the dialogue from the "best dogfighter" thread because I felt it deserved a thread of it's own. I also didn't want the original thread to be "hijacked" so to speak and taken in another direction entirely. I hope that makes sense to everyone.
> 
> Thanks again for the added link and information. I hope to see more input from the others on this site because there's too many details about this fighter for just one person to know....


I am as partial or impartial as my interlocutor is. On the subject of WW2 fighters (for example) in the limit there are only two dogs in the fight to discuss, that is the Spitfire and Bf109 simply because they were the only two there at the start and finish. Out of the two I choose the Spitfire because it won a stalemate in the BoB and at Malta and was competitive for the most part throughout the war in terms of prop fighters. The age of prop fighters ended in 1944 and was taken over briefly by the Me 262, being contrary I would argue that Gloster got the job of producing the Meteor because Supermarine were busy with the job in hand which was fighting a war.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190


I think they may have (Corsair) on a raid against the Tirpitz?


----------



## Greyman (Jan 14, 2018)

Anyone sick of Eric Brown quotations? Me neither!


*F6F-3 versus Fw 190A-4*
This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both were very maneuverable and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the Fw 190 was a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still, the technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East, but the Fw 190A-4 was a far tougher opponent. Risk to the Hellcat would be high indeed.
*Verdict:* This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor.

*F6F-5 versus Fw 190D-9*
The Fw190D-9 held all the aces in combat, even without the addition of water-methanol injection. The aircraft's rate of roll and acceleration with water methanol would get it out of any tight situation and turn the encounter rapidly to advantage.
*Verdict:* This would be virtually no contest. Disparity between the two aircraft in performance, handling and firepower gave the German fighter the upper hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> My take is that fit & finish of Soviet aircrat improved after 1942, and especially after 1943. For example, they measured some 15 km/h improvement for Yak fighters manufactured in 1943 vs. those from 1942, and up to 30 km/h for LaGG-3, all for same engine power.
> La-7 was barely faster than La-5 where attention was paid to the fit and finish for both machines.
> 
> Incomplete translation by yours truly:
> ...



Hello Tomo Pauk,

Where did this table come from? Do you read Russian as well?
(My Russian vocabulary is really rather poor.)
Column Headers:
Year of Issue
Airplane
Wing Loading
Power Loading
Speed at Earth (Sea Level)
Speed at Altitude
Landing Speed
Time to 5000 Meters
Ceiling Practical (Service Ceiling)
Duration of Flight
Distance of Flight
Turning Time (Seconds)

As you can tell by the changing wing and power loadings, there is quite a bit more going on than just year of manufacture or fit and finish. As strategic materials became less critical, many parts formerly made of wood were replaced with metal components which were generally lighter and stronger.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190



FAA Hellcats did engage German fighters, but only once on May 8th, 1944. Do a search of this forum and I'm sure you will find more information about this exchange. From what I gather there is some confusion about whether there were FW-190s present or not.

And everything that I've read states that the Corsair was never involved in a combat with German fighters. But of course I haven't read everything so I could be wrong!


----------



## GregP (Jan 15, 2018)

We have many WWII fighters flying, and the museum flies quite a few, including a real A6M5 and an Fw 190 replica with an R-2800 in it. We have a P-38J (a P-38J-20), several P-51s (two Ds and an A), a TBM, a P-47G, a P-40N, and a Yak-3 flying, as well as a A-1 Skyaider, an SBD (the only REAL one left flying), and have frequent Wildcat, Bearcat and Tigercat visitors and, very soon,will have out own Bearcat. We HAD a Hellcat but it has been years. For many years, we operated Spitfires (a Mk IX and XIV), a Hurricane, and a Martlett.

All the pilots say each has good and not-so-good points. Everyone likes the P-51, the F6F Hellcat, and the F8F Bearcat.

I wish I were one of the pilots, but that takes a pretty flush bucket of money!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190


There were several encounters with FW 190 and Bf 109 and F6F - Operation Dragoon in Med and IIRC in North Sea area.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

We need a thread: paean to FW190.

The Corsair, Hellcat, P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon, Lightning....have well-documented and universally agreed shortcomings; nobody is denying that, nor is anybody denying that they could not be beaten by contemporary aircraft, well-flown.

If neither the FW190 or Bf109 dominated as thoroughly as some posters seem to believe it, by rights, should have, we'd all be saluting to _Deutchsland Uber Alles _every morning and trying not to get killed by the secret police.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 15, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Where did this table come from? Do you read Russian as well?
> (My Russian vocabulary is really rather poor.)
> ...



Table is from Shavrov's 'bible' on Soviet aircraft of 1938-1950. Many of his tables are translated in Spanish, also from a book dealing with pre-1938 designs, can be read here. The last La-5 from the table I've posted was powered by the 18-cyl M-71 engine.
You're right about the columns. I can, passable, read Russian cyrilic, we were learning cyrilic back in the ex-Yu (I'm 47 y-o). Russian is also Slavic language, so I manage it somehow. Their technical nomenclature borrowed many words from German and French language, so that heps, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

There's been a discussion between myself and others elsewhere in this forum about the drag coefficients of the FW-190A. I'd like to see data on this and later marks as well, such as the D series. I've relied on the data for the FW-190A-5 provided by Tomo and Ivan in another thread to get a rudimentary figure, using a known formula for calculating the zero-lift drag coefficient of an aircraft and came up with a figure of 0.0242.

Does anyone have actual wind tunnel test data for this or any other FW-190?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 15, 2018)

If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
For the the D-9: 0.02426.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
> For the the D-9: 0.02426.



Probably as good or better than my math skills!


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
> For the the D-9: 0.02426.




....numbers which are fairly typical or a bit on the high side for single-engined fighters of the day, which tended to run from about 0.022 to about 0.025, with the P-51 an outlier on the low end, at about 0.018, and the Bf109 an outlier on the high end, at about 0.029.

Expect total drag in cruise to be about twice those values.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> We need a thread: paean to FW190.
> 
> The Corsair, Hellcat, P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon, Lightning....have well-documented and universally agreed shortcomings; nobody is denying that, nor is anybody denying that they could not be beaten by contemporary aircraft, well-flown.
> 
> If neither the FW190 or Bf109 dominated as thoroughly as some posters seem to believe it, by rights, should have, we'd all be saluting to _Deutchsland Uber Alles _every morning and trying not to get killed by the secret police.


There are a few reasons for this.
1 Frequently people compare fighters performance 1 on 1 when in WW2 by the time 1944 came around it was frequently 10 to 1.
2 The war in the air was sometimes important but frequently it wasn't. For all the kills the LW made in N Africa it had no effect on the conflict because elsewhere the Axis powers had lost the ability to send supplies. For all the huge number of kills recorded by LW aces they didn't even scratch the surface of the Soviet machine. Since there were (according to Wiki) about 600 LW aircraft opposing operation Bagration it is quite possible that thousands of Russian soldiers didn't see any for weeks if at all.
3 Many German machines quoted like the Fw 190 Dora and the Do 335 were introduced after the LW had effectively ceased to exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> ....numbers which are fairly typical or a bit on the high side for single-engined fighters of the day, which tended to run from about 0.022 to about 0.025, with the P-51 an outlier on the low end, at about 0.018, and the Bf109 an outlier on the high end, at about 0.029.
> 
> Expect total drag in cruise to be about twice those values.



The Bf 109 varied aplenty. MTT data shows 0.023 for the 109F4. The 109E and 109G-5 and later were much draggier.
The Fw 190A-6 and earlier will be less draggy than A-6 and later, and still less draggier with a pair of two pairs of guns removed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> There's been a discussion between myself and others elsewhere in this forum about the drag coefficients of the FW-190A. I'd like to see data on this and later marks as well, such as the D series. I've relied on the data for the FW-190A-5 provided by Tomo and Ivan in another thread to get a rudimentary figure, using a known formula for calculating the zero-lift drag coefficient of an aircraft and came up with a figure of 0.0242.
> 
> Does anyone have actual wind tunnel test data for this or any other FW-190?




Wind tunnel data are not easily compared; in airfoil testing different tunnels show significantly different values (When I was doing aero for a living, I saw a lot of tunnel data)The only way to get a reliable comparison of tunnel data between aircraft is full scale tests in either the same tunnel or in tunnels that have been well-characterized, so that their differences can be compensated for. If we had data for these aircraft, we would still have the micturation contest about how unfair the tests were to the <pick your aircraft>

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Wind tunnel data are not easily compared; in airfoil testing different tunnels show significantly different values (When I was doing aero for a living, I saw a lot of tunnel data)The only way to get a reliable comparison of tunnel data between aircraft is full scale tests in either the same tunnel or in tunnels that have been well-characterized, so that their differences can be compensated for. If we had data for these aircraft, we would still have the micturation contest about how unfair the tests were to the <pick your aircraft>



I see your point perfectly and it's a very sound one. I too work in a test chamber environment and understand what "characterization" means and it's importance to overall test validity. Thanks for clarifying this for everyone.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 15, 2018)

> My take is that fit & finish of Soviet aircrat improved after 1942, and especially after 1943. For example, they measured some 15 km/h improvement for Yak fighters manufactured in 1943 vs. those from 1942, and up to 30 km/h for LaGG-3, all for same engine power.
> La-7 was barely faster than La-5 where attention was paid to the fit and finish for both machines.



There was a program by TSaGI to improve the La-5FN aerodynamics, and also work by Lavochkin to reduce the weight (*). The war situation allowed the use of metal/alloys, which had not been the case before. The main improvements were:

- Metal spars.
- Redesigned air intake and oil intake cooler
- New VISh-105V-4 propeller
- Improved engine cowling

(*) The first prototype was 121 lbs lighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

GregP said:


> We have many WWII fighters flying, and the museum flies quite a few, including a real A6M5 and an Fw 190 replica with an R-2800 in it. We have a P-38J (a P-38J-20), several P-51s (two Ds and an A), a TBM, a P-47G, a P-40N, and a Yak-3 flying, as well as a A-1 Skyaider, an SBD (the only REAL one left flying), and have frequent Wildcat, Bearcat and Tigercat visitors and, very soon,will have out own Bearcat. We HAD a Hellcat but it has been years. For many years, we operated Spitfires (a Mk IX and XIV), a Hurricane, and a Martlett.
> 
> All the pilots say each has good and not-so-good points. Everyone likes the P-51, the F6F Hellcat, and the F8F Bearcat.
> 
> I wish I were one of the pilots, but that takes a pretty flush bucket of money!



Greg, you must be living the dream... at least my dream anyway!


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2018)

CDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:

1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
3.) at high M range CD is also non-linear increasing as a function of CL

All of the Parasite Drag increments (CDo + CDm + Cd (CL)) are non linear at increasing RN and M numbers.

All are required to develop POWER REQUIRED as Power Available factor in THP plus Power Available Delta's due to Prop Efficiencies and Exhaust Thrust (= f(Boost and mass flow rate)). Additional parasite drag items like bomb racks/bombs and fuel tanks also come into play as 'deltas' to the Base Parasite Drag.

Then another iteration on power required must be developed based on the Pressure drag of the immersed airframe in the prop vortex.

Tea anyone?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 15, 2018)

drgondog said:


> CDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:
> 
> 1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
> 2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
> ...


That's easy for you to say 

Milk and no sugar please, would you like an angel cake, they are home made!


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

drgondog said:


> CDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:
> 
> 1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
> 2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
> ...



No Earl Grey please.

Bluff bodies frequently have reduced drag coefficients as Reynolds' number increases; laminar flow is more prone to early separation. Of course, one wants to avoid separation. 

Most component drag data are measured at multiple Reynolds' numbers; airfoil data are always done at several, usually at high enough values so the reported polars are valid at operational conditions. There are also very good correlations for skin friction drag coefficient vs Reynolds number. When I was directly involved in tunnel testing, we went up to about M=0.8; much above that and tunnel design gets _very_ difficult. Supersonic tunnels are easier than transonic ones. Long before my time, the NACA was investigating the effects of compressibility on airfoils and nacelles (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=...930091746|20090014717|20090015023|20090015112, http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930091566)


As an aside, do remember that 1) aerodynamicists are _all_ going to be working from the same basic assumptions 2) NACA went to a great deal of effort and expense to make wind tunnels, such as the variable density wind tunnel, to achieve full-scale Reynolds' numbers and subsonic Mach numbers and 3) many of the reported Cd0 values are from flight test data. Or, largely bad, from handbook data.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 15, 2018)

Drgondog and Swampyankee, were there any areas of design that weren't known to designers of WW2 aircraft that led them up blind alleys looking back?


----------



## GregP (Jan 15, 2018)

I suppose it could be called living a dream. But, I don't get to fly them, and rightly so since most of my flight time is in Cessnas and Pipers, with a smattering of odd time in a few diverse types.

I DO get to help fabricate restoration and repair parts, and get in a lot of riveting and general fabrication, and I never thought I'd get to do that. Volunteering at a museum that flies warbirds DOES help a lot. Anyone can do that if they are lucky enough to live near such a museum. As it happens, I do.

You might try volunteering when you get near retirement. I learned my sheet metal skills within a couple of years of starting, and have been doing it now for about 10 years. I DID get to make a few parts for some rather interesting restorations. I'm really looking forward to seeing our Bell YP-59A fly! It has a lot of my own work in it, along with a LOT of work from about 100 other guys, including real restoration experts who work for and with Steve Hinton.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Drgondog and Swampyankee, were there any areas of design that weren't known to designers of WW2 aircraft that led them up blind alleys looking back?



This is something I'd have to give a lot of thought to. I don't think there were too many blind alleys of aircraft that entered WW2 service, although there were a couple of aircraft that probably would not have been accepted into service had they been developed in peacetime, one being the Curtiss SB2C.

I would think that two big areas would be ergonomics and damage tolerance. The efficiency of the pilots of the F4U and P-38 were compromised by cockpit design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 15, 2018)

drgondog said:


> There were several encounters with FW 190 and Bf 109 and F6F - Operation Dragoon in Med and IIRC in North Sea area.



do you know of any books with accounts of the encounters?


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

GregP said:


> I suppose it could be called living a dream. But, I don't get to fly them, and rightly so since most of my flight time is in Cessnas and Pipers, with a smattering of odd time in a few diverse types.
> 
> I DO get to help fabricate restoration and repair parts, and get in a lot of riveting and general fabrication, and I never thought I'd get to do that. Volunteering at a museum that flies warbirds DOES help a lot. Anyone can do that if they are lucky enough to live near such a museum. As it happens, I do.
> 
> You might try volunteering when you get near retirement. I learned my sheet metal skills within a couple of years of starting, and have been doing it now for about 10 years. I DID get to make a few parts for some rather interesting restorations. I'm really looking forward to seeing our Bell YP-59A fly! It has a lot of my own work in it, along with a LOT of work from about 100 other guys, including real restoration experts who work for and with Steve Hinton.


 I like the idea of doing some of those same things when I reach retirement age. There's a few museums within reach of me, one of them is a flying museum as well. Just being around that kind of living history on a semi-regular basis fascinates me greatly!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I would think that two big areas would be ergonomics and damage tolerance. The efficiency of the pilots of the F4U and P-38 were compromised by cockpit design.



Speaking of cockpit design, I have read that the FW-190 instruments and controls were very well thought out and because of this most pilots could instinctually find their way around the cockpit with little to no trouble. I never compared it's cockpit to that of the Bf-109 series, but was curious about what details of it's layout were considered an improvement over the Messerschmitt fighter? Also what aspects, if any, weren't as good?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Bluff bodies frequently have reduced drag coefficients as Reynolds' number increases; laminar flow is more prone to early separation. Of course, one wants to avoid separation.
> *
> One cannot avoid transition from laminar to turbulent flow at very low RN relative to normal flight speeds. The Base components of Parasite Drag are in turbulent flow. Separation due to adverse pressure gradients is a different discussion.*
> 
> As an aside, do remember that 1) aerodynamicists are _all_ going to be working from the same basic assumptions 2) NACA went to a great deal of effort and expense to make wind tunnels, such as the variable density wind tunnel, to achieve full-scale Reynolds' numbers and subsonic Mach numbers and 3) many of the reported Cd0 values are from flight test data. Or, largely bad, from handbook data.



Agreed - That said, even within the same company the referenced baseline Parasite drag components as function of RN, varied. For example, The P-51B-1 Performance Calcs began with a reference base point of CD vs RN at 1.84x10^6. The Basic Drag build up for the P-51D- was at 2.0x10^6and the P-51H Base Drag build up was at 9x10^6. Even within the NAA Mustang group you had to be a little careful in 'selecting' a CDo for quote.

All of the above Reports picked drag data and components from NACA wind tunnel testing results. A compilation of a range of both airframe low speed drag coefficient and individual component Cd for P-51, 38, 39, 40, F4U, F6F, etc can be found NACA Wartime Report L5A30.. The Wind tunnel airspeed was a uniform 100mph, then each RN was calculated as f(mean aero chord).. All of these were production airframes, not scale models.

As to methodology (at least for NAA) "Aerodynamics of the Airplane" by Clark R. Milliken, John Wiley and Sons, (1941) was the foundation for Schmeud's team

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 17, 2018)

drgondog said:


> Agreed - That said, even within the same company the referenced baseline Parasite drag components as function of RN, varied. For example, The P-51B-1 Performance Calcs began with a reference base point of CD vs RN at 1.84x10^6. The Basic Drag build up for the P-51D- was at 2.0x10^6and the P-51H Base Drag build up was at 9x10^6. Even within the NAA Mustang group you had to be a little careful in 'selecting' a CDo for quote.



This business of different CDs even for the "same" aeroplane is exactly why I was asking for the equivalent flat plate area. 
It is a much simpler concept and beats trying to figure out whether everyone is using the same reference area.
Here is a good description from a name that seems to come up a lot:


8/26/94 

*Analytical Methods {NWNet}*


The concept of "equivalent flate plate area" comes from noting
that while:

Drag Where: Drag = resistance force
CD = ------------------ rho = density
.5 rho Vel^2 Sref Vel = Velocity 
Sref = Ref Area

is nondimensional, the Sref is awkward, as how the reference area is
chosen can differ. So if we instead define:

Drag 
f = -------------
.5 rho Vel^2

the Sref no longer appears, but f has the units of length squared. If
English units are used, you get the equivalent flate plate area (f) in
units of square feet. Note, this does not mean that a flate plate of
the same area as f would have the same drag - a flate plate has a CD of
roughly 1.17 (in 3-D flow, according to Hoerner and 1.98 in 2-D flow), 
not 1 as implied in the equation! We can see this from:

Drag = CD .5 rho Vel^2 Sref

where Sref is the frontal area of the plate. Hence, the equivalent
flate plate area is:

CD .5 rho Vel^2 Sref
f = ----------------------
.5 rho Vel^2

So you can see that the flate plate of area Sref has an equivalent flat
plate area 1.17 times its true area (in 3-D flow)!


-Dave Lednicer
Analytical Methods, Inc.




drgondog said:


> All of the above Reports picked drag data and components from NACA wind tunnel testing results. A compilation of a range of both airframe low speed drag coefficient and individual component Cd for P-51, 38, 39, 40, F4U, F6F, etc can be found NACA Wartime Report L5A30.. The Wind tunnel airspeed was a uniform 100mph, then each RN was calculated as f(mean aero chord).. All of these were production airframes, not scale models.



NACA Report L5A30 can be found here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092668.pdf

By the way when saving a copy locally, don't do as I did a few years back and save it under its original name.
You will never find it again! Name it something appropriate.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> This business of different CDs even for the "same" aeroplane is exactly why I was asking for the equivalent flat plate area.
> It is a much simpler concept and beats trying to figure out whether everyone is using the same reference area.
> Here is a good description from a name that seems to come up a lot:
> 
> ...


Ivan - Flat plate area is a useful tool to compare Total Drag of one airframe vs another for the same airspeed and altitude. The issue is that multiple assumptions must be made to derive Total Thrust of the system as well as some precision on the 'assembled parasite drag components' and some assumptions must me made regarding Induced Drag (namely Oswald efficiency) for a degree of precision there.

Chapter 14 of Fluid Dynamic Drag by Hoerner supplies a nice 'Kentucky windage' model to drive to approximate Propeller thrust as f(HPxefficiciencyxK/V), then adds a general approximation for Exhaust Thrust (which varies as function of Boost/mass flow rate of combusted products through known annular area of multiple stacks, and know external pressure at the calculated altitude).

He then slides to T= Drag of airframe (including ALL components of Parasite Drag including zero lift, but also form drag as f(angle of attack, external stores, etc) multiplied by a compressibility factor), Plus Induced Drag 

Yielding T= THP + Tet = Drag (parasite and pressure) of airframe + Induced Drag=Total Drag= D. CD follows for Flat Plate and q=1/2 x rho x V^^2 and S=Sref of Wing Area.

Leading to Flat Plate Drag = D/q = Cd/S

Dean also used this method to try to bundle an array of fighter Drag characteristics and further extracted Parasite Drag as one lump value for 250mph at 10,000 feet by subtracting Induced Drag from Thrust to get to lump sum "All other Drag". 

To make them somewhat useful, he had to assume no form/pressure drag, no cooling drag and god know what for exhaust thrust for all the fighter variants.

So, where does that leave us relative to accurate Zero Lift Drag that we believe in for each separate case? Swamp Yankee is correct regarding looking to NACA (or equivalent) drag values extracted by careful methodology? Unfortunately those values are hard to find for the universe of non US aircraft via a consistent and repeatable methodology -------------> leading to Hoerner for Kentucky windage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 18, 2018)

Hello Drgondog,

Thanks for the reference to Hoerner. I found a PDF of the book a few years ago but don't use it much because I get lost pretty quick when trying to read it. Chapter 14 looks not to be so bad and even uses a Messerschmitt 109G as an example! I actually do have a few questions about what you wrote but I suppose I should read the chapter first.

Back to the case of the FW 190A, Corsair, and Hellcat:
With a comparison between Corsair and Hellcat, I still believe that Equivalent Flat Plate Area is a valid method (even if assumptions must be made) because of the great similarities in size, performance, airfoils, weights and propulsion. I believe that total drag is more important than aerodynamic shape in this case because that is what actually affects performance.
When the FW 190A is added, I really have no idea where any significant amount of data can be found other than for performance and the numbers there do not tend to be very consistent (maybe because I am relying on mostly English sources).

Thanks for giving some background and more proper methods for doing this type of calculation.

- Ivan.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 18, 2018)

Time ago posted from JoeB
"There was only one, May 8 1944 between 800 Sdn FAA Hellcat I's (ie. F6F-3's) off HMS Emperor v. Bf109's of 8 and 10./JG5, off Norway. The Hellcats were initially surprised but 2 Hellcats and 3 Bf109's (a G6 and 2 G2's) were lost per each side's loss accounts."

"All USN F6F victories in Europe were against German bomber and transport types in the invasion of Southern France, flying from CVE's Tulagi and Kasaan Bay. They spotted German fighters at long range once, but the enemy declined to give combat. Those were F6F-5's."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 19, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Thanks for the reference to Hoerner. I found a PDF of the book a few years ago but don't use it much because I get lost pretty quick when trying to read it. Chapter 14 looks not to be so bad and even uses a Messerschmitt 109G as an example! I actually do have a few questions about what you wrote but I suppose I should read the chapter first.
> .



Hello Drgondog,
I just skimmed through the process that Hoerner used to calculate the drag of the "Me 109G" and the process and estimates / formulas he uses are actually fairly simple (mostly).
I also found a couple interesting things:
He seems to be using equivalent flat plate area in quite a few places. 
His information on the Me 109G is not terribly accurate. It is probably closer to a F than a G.
He compared his numbers to a French Wind Tunnel test of a Me 109 in Paris in 1941 but the 109G did not come out until 1942 and did not appear with the Beule until the G-5 and G-6 series in 1943.

Could the differences in numbers be because it really was a Me 109E that was tested by the French?
It will take me a while to digest just this one chapter.

- Ivan.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 19, 2018)

Hi Ivan - as noted, Flat Plate Drag is an approximation based on loose assumptions that are valid ranging from 'purty near' to 'some of the time'

Your comments that deriving and comparing flat plate drag calc (per Hoerner approach) between F6F and F4U has some validity, and to a degree include the FW 190 but it will be less 'close'. The reason is that the Wing Airfoil and Oswald factor are close and the wing for a reasonably clean airframe is a dominant component of Parasite and, Form Drag due to lift. That said, although the root section of the FW 190/ F6F, F4U are all NACA 230xx and 'close' between each airframe in Max T/C, the wing area of the FW 190 is much less than either the F4F and F4U. This is reason the F6F and F4U low speed Parasite Drag CD values are approximately 15-20% higher than the FW 190.

In most discussions about Drag, "the Wing is the Thing'"..

Hoerner is more rigorous in the follow on paragraphs where he breaks down individual airframe components for a Drag build up of individual dtag components including friction, of wing, fuselage, exhaust stacks, protuberances, gaps, empennage, cockpit enclosure, mast, etc - and refers to previous chapters.

Your comments about the data points and reference to earlier wind tunnel are valid, but perhaps recognize that except for struts for Horizontal stab, very few items in 109 series IMPROVED until G-10/K over 109E/F

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 19, 2018)

Hello Drgondog,

While I agree with you that the more rigorous approach is the "correct" one, sometimes the additional data that can be generated doesn't add to the comparison even if it helps us better understand how the aeroplane behaves in something other than straight and level flight.
In straight and level flight such as for a maximum speed run, you are mostly interested in thrust and drag.
Lift is whatever it takes to maintain level flight and induced drag is just drag.
Induced drag may vary by quite a lot with speed and altitude, but with these three aeroplanes, they all reach their maximum speeds at nearly the same altitude and even the speeds are not that different.
Does it really matter if one has a much more induced drag while the other has more parasite drag?
That would make a difference in a climb or in transient maneuvers but not so much in a maximum speed run.

The point in asking for equivalent flat plate area was to get away from the coefficient of drag which I believe is somewhat misleading.
Using Hoerner's example with the Me 109G with a 172 square foot wing as the reference area gives a certain CD.
What happens if we were to do nothing more than increase the wing area by 15% or so?
We would probably lose a few MPH, but imagine the improved CD we would be getting!
The point is that in this hypothetical case, the total drag would most likely increase and that the equivalent flat plate area would be larger and this would tell us more than just a misleading lower CD value.

Regarding the Me 109 E to F to G to K changes, I will have to disagree with you.
The change from the E to F was actually fairly substantial:
Radiators, Propeller, the location of the Stabilizer, the Fin cross section, obviously the spinner and cowling shape, slats, wing armament, Wing planform, supercharger intake, retractable tail wheel, and probably a few more items I can't remember at the moment.
On the same power, (Early F models used the same engine as the late E (E-7?)) the F was faster.
On the other hand, after the F, the aerodynamics did not change much except to get gradually worse as more bumps and bulges appeared and radiator scoops grew larger. Of course power also increased which is why performance continued to improve.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2018)

I'll continue the Fw 190 discussion here, from another thread:



Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> Are you certain that the F-8 used external air intakes? There is a beautiful FW 190F-8 in the Udvar Hazy Smithsonian which appears to have normal intakes. Why would extra armour, cowl guns, and extra internal fuel tanks (behind cockpit?) be mutually exclusive?
> 
> One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far is that the F and G series were originally just factory Umrustbausatz special equipment versions of standard A series fighters.
> ...



Both F-2 and F-8 were specified with external air intakes. That was an easy expedient, tested also (but without filters) on fighters. The cowling with external and internal intakes could be switched between the two in field depots. 190Fs were from get-go outfitted with improved armor ( 'item' 1) on the doc, external intake (item 2)) and ETC 501 as standard (item 3)):





Please note that for tropical use, the distance of the oil cooler cowl vs. engine cowl was to be increased from 10 to 20 mm, with associated loss in speed by 15-20 km/h.

But yes, the same production line could be shared between the fighter and F-B versions of the Fw 190, te initial F-B versions were just fighters that carried bombs when required.

The engines were the same, I don't know what will mean that they were calibrated differently? However, the Jabos were 1st to use over-boosting in service, 1st by use excess fuel injection as ant-detonant ('C3 einspritz'), and quickly after that the 'simple' overboosting. IIRC there was no difference in pressurizing of the ignition system, perhaps it was just the case of sub-standard engine, a thing that popped out sometimes with other people's engines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Drgondog and Swampyankee, were there any areas of design that weren't known to designers of WW2 aircraft that led them up blind alleys looking back?


 I think the rapid rise of drag in the Mach .6-.8 region caught a lot of people by surprise. There were a lot of requirements issued for aircraft flying 450-500mph at 15-20,000ft that never came close to being fulfilled. Not to mention the prop tips going supersonic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 20, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Speaking of cockpit design, I have read that the FW-190 instruments and controls were very well thought out and because of this most pilots could instinctually find their way around the cockpit with little to no trouble. I never compared it's cockpit to that of the Bf-109 series, but was curious about what details of it's layout were considered an improvement over the Messerschmitt fighter? Also what aspects, if any, weren't as good?



Well, the F4U cockpit seemed to be designed for people over 6 ft tall, which is not particularly sensible when median height of white, American males was 5 ft 8 in, and fewer than 20% were over 6 ft. The P-38 cockpit was so cold, pilots had to deal with frostbite. In others, instruments and controls were placed haphazardly, and without consideration of the difficulty of retraining pilots to a new type or even to their use with heavy clothing and a life vest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 20, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> do you know of any books with accounts of the encounters?





Vincenzo said:


> Time ago posted from JoeB
> "There was only one, May 8 1944 between 800 Sdn FAA Hellcat I's (ie. F6F-3's) off HMS Emperor v. Bf109's of 8 and 10./JG5, off Norway. The Hellcats were initially surprised but 2 Hellcats and 3 Bf109's (a G6 and 2 G2's) were lost per each side's loss accounts."
> 
> "All USN F6F victories in Europe were against German bomber and transport types in the invasion of Southern France, flying from CVE's Tulagi and Kasaan Bay. They spotted German fighters at long range once, but the enemy declined to give combat. Those were F6F-5's."



Just to add to this information, during the war there were only a total of five German aircraft claimed as destroyed by FAA pilots while flying the Hellcat. Besides the three fighters mentioned in Vincenzo's post, there were also two He 115 float planes claimed as brought down less than a week later, on May 14th. One of these was awarded to 800 Sdn, while the other was shared by this same unit with 804 Sqn, also flying Hellcats. These were the final aerial victories scored in Atlantic waters by British Hellcat pilots, and by the fall of 1944 the aircraft were sent to the Far East for operations against the Japanese, were they eventually earned the lion's share of their 52 total aerial victories.

During the invasion of southern France, the US Navy credited F6F pilots with a total of eight German aircraft destroyed. On August 19th, VF-74 scored victories over a Ju-88 and Do-217, while in the evening VOF-1 was credited with the destruction of three He-111s. Two days later, on August 21st, VOF-1 brought down an additional three Ju-52s.

The source of the above information is _Hellcat Aces of World War II _by Barrett Tillman.

In total than, there were thirteen German aircraft awarded to pilots while flying the Hellcat. Of the three fighters claimed, two were Bf-109s and one a FW-190.The Germans in turn claimed three Hellcats shot down during the May 8th encounter, while the British only acknowledge the loss of two. There is confusion as to how the Hellcats were lost however, as one account states the two Hellcats collided in mid-air during the fight, while another says that one was hit by AAA fire. No American flown Hellcats were lost to Luftwaffe aircraft during the operations in southern France.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 20, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Well, the F4U cockpit seemed to be designed for people over 6 ft tall, which is not particularly sensible when median height of white, American males was 5 ft 8 in, and fewer than 20% were over 6 ft. The P-38 cockpit was so cold, pilots had to deal with frostbite. In others, instruments and controls were placed haphazardly, and without consideration of the difficulty of retraining pilots to a new type or even to their use with heavy clothing and a life vest.



Interesting. In contrast I have heard that the P-47 had a rather cramped cockpit. Any truth to this?


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> I'll continue the Fw 190 discussion here, from another thread:



Thanks, I was going to mention that as I inadvertently picked the wrong thread to ask my questions about the FW-190....


----------



## drgondog (Jan 20, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Interesting. In contrast I have heard that the P-47 had a rather cramped cockpit. Any truth to this?


I have been in P-47, MiG-15, Bf 109G, FW 190, P-51, P-40 and P-39. P-47 roomiest, MiG-15/Bf 109 cramped but MiG 15 had great visibility. I fit well in the Mig 15 at Eglin in 1954 at age 9. Ditto Bf 109 at age 11.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 20, 2018)

drgondog said:


> I have been in P-47, MiG-15, Bf 109G, FW 190, P-51, P-40 and P-39. P-47 roomiest, MiG-15/Bf 109 cramped but MiG 15 had great visibility. I fit well in the Mig 15 at Eglin in 1954 at age 9. Ditto Bf 109 at age 11.



Thanks for confirming this first hand drgondog, I had a feeling that what I heard about the P-47 cockpit was untrue.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 20, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Interesting. In contrast I have heard that the P-47 had a rather cramped cockpit. Any truth to this?



I don't know the answer to that question. A little googling found this article: P-47 THUNDERBOLT, which included an essay by a pilot who flew both P-47s and P-51s in combat (he preferred the former); he said "The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I could not move around like I could in the P-47. I found the ability to move a little bit very desirable, especially on seven and eight hour missions."

I know some people denigrate the importance of pilot comfort in a combat aircraft, but an uncomfortable pilot will tire more quickly and will be in poorer shape when it times to act.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> ...However, the Jabos were 1st to use over-boosting in service, 1st by use excess fuel injection as ant-detonant ('C3 einspritz'), and quickly after that the 'simple' overboosting....



From Focke-Wulf Fw 190 - Wikipedia:
_
*Changes introduced in the Fw 190 A-8 also included the C3-injection Erhöhte Notleistung emergency boost system to the fighter variant of the Fw 190 A (a similar system with less power had been fitted to some earlier Jabo variants of the 190 A), raising power to 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW) for a short time.*


*Fw 190 A-4/U8 — The A-4/U8 was the Jabo-Rei (Jagdbomber Reichweite, long-range fighter-bomber), adding twin standard Luftwaffe 300 L (80 US gal) drop tanks, one under each wing, on VTr-Ju 87 racks with duralumin fairings produced by Weserflug, and a centreline bomb rack. The outer wing-mounted 20 mm MG FF/M cannon and the cowling-mounted 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 were removed to save weight. The A-4/U8 was the precursor of the Fw 190 G-1.

Fw 190 A-5/U8* *— The A-5/U8 was another Jabo-Rei outfitted with SC-250 centreline-mounted bombs, under-wing 300-litre drop tanks and only two MG 151s; it later became the Fw 190 G-2.*_

I have a few questions. Was the C3 system added to all of the above mentioned variants at the factory, or was it a field modification performed on selected machines? Also, what exactly is 'simple' overboosting?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 20, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thanks for confirming this first hand drgondog, I had a feeling that what I heard about the P-47 cockpit was untrue.


I have read in various places that the Bf 109 was so cramped that it affected roll rate in some cases, note some graphs for roll rate state a force value. Big pilots simply couldnt exert enough sideways pressure to get the best from the plane, on the other extreme I have read jokes somewhere on this forum about P47 pilots taking evasive action by jumping around the cockpit, there was a lot of "banter" between P47 and Spitfire pilots when it arrived in UK.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I have read in various places that the Bf 109 was so cramped that it affected roll rate in some cases, note some graphs for roll rate state a force value. Big pilots simply couldnt exert enough sideways pressure to get the best from the plane, on the other extreme I have read jokes somewhere on this forum about P47 pilots taking evasive action by jumping around the cockpit, there was a lot of "banter" between P47 and Spitfire pilots when it arrived in UK.



During their Emil testing the RAE noted that due to the cramped conditions, the pilot was only able to exert 40 pounds of sideways force, while in a Spitfire 60 pounds was possible,


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ...
> I have a few questions. Was the C3 system added to all of the above mentioned variants at the factory, or was it a field modification performed on selected machines? Also, what exactly is 'simple' overboosting?



The 'C3 - Zusatzeinspritzung' system used the (excess) fuel as anti-detonant fluid. It was a factory modification, the excess fuel was sprayed in the eye of supercharger to cool the compressed air so increased boost might be used under the rated altitude (1.65 ata vs. 1.42 ata). Please note that BMW 801D was outfitted serialy with direct fuel injection, each cylinder have had it's plumbing and injector. C3 was German name for their 100 oct fuel (it got better than 100 oct during the course of war). Benefit is that it was easier to engineer and install the extra plumbing for that, than to go with water-alcohol injection system. A new boost gauge was also fitted. Shortcoming was that total fuel consumption went sky high, not a good thing when one has fuel shortages. At 1st the system was cleared to use just with supercharger in 1st gear, in 1944 it was allowed also for 2nd gear.
BMW also tried to use MW 50 to increase the boost of their 801s, however the power gain was judged as too small, with reliability problems emerging during the tests, like burned pistons.
'Simple' overboosting took advantage of anti-knock properties of the C3 fuel, just like the RR did it with Merlins 4-5 years earlier. No new parts are needed, apart from boost gauge. The 120-130 PN C3 fuel of 1943 allowed pilots to open up the throttle under the rated altitudes, so boost went up, and power with it. Limit was 1.58 ata in 1st S/C gear, 1.65 ata in 2nd S/C gear. Shortcoming was increased head temperature, so pilots needed to be wary.
1.65 ata = +8.75 psi = 47.7 in Hg
1.42 ata = +5.5 psi = 41 in Hg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 21, 2018)

Intersesting stuff. So after the higher octane C3 became available to use with the BMW 801D was the C3 - 'Zusatzeinspritzung' system largely abandoned or was it still in use?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Intersesting stuff. So after the higher octane C3 became available to use with the BMW 801D was the C3 - 'Zusatzeinspritzung' system largely abandoned or was it still in use?



My understanding is that, once the 'simple' overboosting was tested and found workable, the installation of the 'C3 - Zusatzeinspritzung' was no longer being installed on production A/C. Talk late 1943/early 1944.
BTW - looks like that 'C3 - Zusatzeinspritzung' was used in service predominantly on fighter-bomber variants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 21, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I know some people denigrate the importance of pilot comfort in a combat aircraft, but an uncomfortable pilot will tire more quickly and will be in poorer shape when it times to act.



Very true. And this becomes especially relevant after flying several hours seated in one position before even arriving over the target area....


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 21, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> My understanding is that, once the 'simple' overboosting was tested and found workable, the installation of the 'C3 - Zusatzeinspritzung' was no longer being installed on production A/C. Talk late 1943/early 1944.
> BTW - looks like that 'C3 - Zusatzeinspritzung' was used in service predominantly on fighter-bomber variants.



Great. So what you are telling me is that these earlier built BMW 801D engines were engineered from the start to benefit from the higher octane fuels, but because they were either unavailable or in short supply other methods were used to increase the power of these motors. True?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2018)

The BMW 801D engines were from onset using the C3 fuel. Things were not that clear cut, though, both with engine and fuel. Early BMW 801Ds were unreliable, and during the 1st 7 months or so they were operated with restrictions with regard to the boost and rpm. After modifications were introduced* in late 1942, the engine was finally fully rated (max rpm 2700 max boost 1.42 ata). By that time, the C3 fuel have had it's rich rating around 120 grade (or 120 performance number). During 1943, the C3 fuel got increasingly better, eg. this test mentions it as with rich rating of 140 grade (140 PN), and surely the people at BMW were eager to puch their engine to the reliable limit. 
The wartime reports on German fuel development in English language can be accessed at the Fischer-Tropsch archive.
Please note that increase in boost was very modest for such high PN fuel, probably due to the high compression ratio, while the supercharger and associated plumbing needed redesign & improvement. The redesign granted an extra ~0.2 ata of boost under 6 km, or another 200 PS. Again - cue what RR (= Hooker) did with Merlin's 1-stage supercharger & plumbing, but 4 years earlier.
I've tossed in some info about the BMW 801 engines here, FWIW.

* from here: "_Chrome-plated valves, Bosch spark plugs, fixed spark plug sockets preferably latest rolled version, nitrated blades in supercharger, strengthened starter shafts. Subject to a reexamination of the empirical data the following procedure is agreed upon_."

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jan 21, 2018)

With the general consensus being that the late-war Focke Wulfs were among the best machines for fighter-versus-fighter combat, I wonder how could an Fw 190D-9, which had its best performance at low-to-medium altitude, combat a La-7, a dedicated low-alt fighter.. maybe even more so than the Dora. It was almost as fast (maybe even faster at sea level?) and had good armament.
But the most striking difference lies in the weights of the two. While having similar dimensions.take-off weight is 3240 kg for La-7 and 4270 kg for D-9, IIRC. 
That is a bit more than a ton! So wing loading favors the La-7 as well as power loading: the M-82 gave 1850 PS, the Jumo 213A gave 1750 PS to 2240 PS depending on equipment, setting and fuel. You do the math.
So what tactics the Germans must apply in a dogfight in order to have a chance to prevail?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 21, 2018)

spicmart said:


> With the general consensus being that the late-war Focke Wulfs were among the best machines for fighter-versus-fighter combat, I wonder how could an Fw 190D-9, which had its best performance at low-to-medium altitude, combat a La-7, a dedicated low-alt fighter.. maybe even more so than the Dora. It was almost as fast (maybe even faster at sea level?) and had good armament.
> But the most striking difference lies in the weights of the two. While having similar dimensions.take-off weight is 3240 kg for La-7 and 4270 kg for D-9, IIRC.
> That is a bit more than a ton! So wing loading favors the La-7 as well as power loading: the M-82 gave 1850 PS, the Jumo 213A gave 1750 PS to 2240 PS depending on equipment, setting and fuel. You do the math.
> So what tactics the Germans must apply in a dogfight in order to have a chance to prevail?


If there is that consensus I don't share it. All machines increase in performance and the FW 190 did. However the early versions had no match on the allied side, the later versions were circa 2000PS at maximum but the allies had several fighters designed for or developed to that output by 1944/45. Weight was never as important an issue as power, the Spitfire pretty much doubled in weight through the war and no one complained about its weight they were happy with the extra power. It was only in the last days of piston engined planes that weight reduction was addressed as a way to get the last extra drops of performance. The P51H, Bearcat and Fury/Sea fury were all lightened versions of their previous marques (or supposed to be)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 21, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> During 1943, the C3 fuel got increasingly better, eg. this test mentions it as with rich rating of 140 grade (140 PN)....



Thank you for providing the links, they were very informative as was your reply. I will need to go through them again in more detail to understand them completely of course.

So in comparison to the C3 fuels of 1943, what octane ratings were the allies using for their aero engines during this same period?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2018)

spicmart said:


> With the general consensus being that the late-war Focke Wulfs were among the best machines for fighter-versus-fighter combat, I wonder how could an Fw 190D-9, which had its best performance at low-to-medium altitude, combat a La-7, a dedicated low-alt fighter.. maybe even more so than the Dora. It was almost as fast (maybe even faster at sea level?) and had good armament.
> But the most striking difference lies in the weights of the two. While having similar dimensions.take-off weight is 3240 kg for La-7 and 4270 kg for D-9, IIRC.
> That is a bit more than a ton! So wing loading favors the La-7 as well as power loading: the M-82 gave 1850 PS, the Jumo 213A gave 1750 PS to 2240 PS depending on equipment, setting and fuel. You do the math.
> So what tactics the Germans must apply in a dogfight in order to have a chance to prevail?



The La-7 was also very good at medium altitudes, 650-680 km/h at ~6 km. Power at that altitude was ~1450 CV, vs. Jumo 213A with ~1600 CV, both values are with ram effect, ie. for A/C flying at max speed. IMO - the LW pilot will be well advised to keep it's speed up and don't allow to be drawn into lower altitudes and into the turning flight. Granted, if the MW 50 is installed, the Fw 190D-9 should have had upper hand in all altitudes in speed and climb.
Perhaps the closest Soviet aircraft vs. the D-9 is the Yak-9U with VK 107A engine (if we discard the unrelaibility of the engine from the equation).


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thank you for providing the links, they were very informative as was your reply. I will need to go through them again in more detail to understand them completely of course.
> 
> So in comparison to the C3 fuels of 1943, what octane ratings were the allies using for their aero engines during this same period?



Western Allied fuel was with 130 performance number (for rich rating; 100 oct for lean rating), thus named 100/130. Allies strarted using 150 PN fuel by spring of 1944 in Europe. 
The figures for Soviet fuel are not easy to come by, they were usualy stating just '94.5 oct' or '95 oct' during the war.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 21, 2018)

My knowledge of WWII aviation fuels could use a little tweaking, but thankfully you helped fill in a few blanks for me.


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2018)

I was not able to locate anything saying C3 was 140 PN fuel except a comment that 140 grade fuel was used for the test quoted above (Thanks for the link, Tomo!) because it corresponds to German fuel grades. The only tests I have seen rate six different batches of C-3 (Green) fuel as anywhere from 118.5 to 125 PN when rich. Five of the six rich ratings were 124 - 125 PN.

The tests found C-3 to be 95-97 Octane lean and 124-125 PN when rich. That is decidedly not 140 PN, but one would use 140 rather than 100 since 125 is higher-rated than 100.

C-3 was also found to 40% aromatics (!), which is about twice that of British fuels. US fuels were less than 5% aromatics, and British fuel gave early P-38s fits when they got to the UK because the engines were set up for U.S. fuels. I have little doubt that the BMW 801 in the test was not very comfortable on U.S. fuel.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2018)

A quick peek on a doc (here) states that 3-C* Rich mixture rating % of 130 grade for C3 ('green') fuel ranged from 110 to >125. I don't know the exact minutiae of what the '3-C Rich mixture rating % of 130 grade fuel' means, my understanding is that C3 fuel was as hi-oct as the WAllied hi-oct fuel of any given day of ww2. 125% of 130 = 162.

BTW:


GregP said:


> ... and British fuel gave early P-38s fits when they got to the UK because the engines were set up for U.S. fuels.



That myth is dead & burried 

*has nothing to do with German C3 nomenclature


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 22, 2018)

GregP said:


> C-3 was also found to 40% aromatics (!), which is about twice that of British fuels. US fuels were less than 5% aromatics



I hope I'm not getting too 'scientific' by asking this, but how exactly do aromatics affect the quality or usefulness of aviation fuel?


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2018)

Hi Tomo,

I see your statement that the myth of British fuels being significantly different from U.S. fuels is dead and buried. I have not read anything that supports that other than posts in here, and have first-hand testimony from several P-38 pilots that the early P-38s DID have fuel-related problems that were cured. They were told it was the gasoline after the cure was effected. It took some 8 - 10 months because nobody sent any British fuels back to the U.S.A. for analysis. When they did, the difference in aromatics became known and the carburetor jets were changed, eliminating that issue. After that, it wasn't an issue as long as the fuel to be used was specified.

To be sure, the P-38 had other issues, each of which were also solved except for the low critical Mach number. Part of the cure may well have been the turbulators installed in the Allison intake manifolds as well as new jets, but the combination DID fix the issue when the aircraft were used in the ETO or MED. PTO operations used U.S. fuel, so they never had the issue, and were also mostly conducted AFTER the original issue was found and solved. When I was at an Allison shop, we used ONLY the intakes with the turbulators for aircraft engines. When I was there, we didn't make any new tractor or boat engines, so I can't say for sure about them, but many tractor guys in Europe run fuel injection anyway, so the intake wouldn't matter since it is eliminated in an injected or boosted-injected setup.

I have no real dog in the hunt since the pilots I know who fly warbirds can't get either U.S. or British WWII fuels anyway, and they have to fly on the best they can get today. But the first-hand testimony indicates the situation could have been a real one. It WOULD be nice to know for sure, but I have no definitive source.



Hi DarrenW,

In WWII, aromatics were mostly Benzene and Benzene derivatives, used mainly to increase the Octane number. After an Octane rating of 100 (101 - 150), the term is "performance number." In WWII, we had gasoline with two ratings, the lean rating (cruise condition, leaned out), and the rich rating (full power, full rich). We started the war running 80 / 100 fuels (generally) and ended with fuels called 115 / 145, sometimes mistakenly called grade 150 fuel. Nobody makes 115 / 145 fuel anymore except by special order.

If you cut down the aromatics, the base Octane number dropps unless compensated for by adding other additives, such as tetraethyl lead (hence the obsolete term "ethyl" for high-octane gasoline for cars). European fuels generally had more aromatics than U.S. fuels due to the sources of their oil. If the U.S.A. had sourced the base oil from the same places as, say, Germany, our fuels would have had higher aromatics, too. Of course, the refineries can ADD Benzene and derivatives to make any desired mixture. Current U.S. 100 / 130 fuel is 5.0% aromatics, as is 100LL. WWII U.S. 100 / 130 avgas had 3.0 ml/gal tertaethyl lead, and 115 / 145 had 4.6 ml/gal. The gallons are, of course, U.S. gallons.

To answer your question, we used different additives to get high-performance number fuels and used less aromatics than did Europe. Neither is good or bad, just a fact. But the two different routes to higher Octanes burn differently when the mixture changes, and it isn't important which fuel you use as long as you know and jet for it. Bottom line: if the performance number drops, you get detonation at a lower temperature. When that temperature drops down to within the range of what is seen in the cylinders, you get destructive detonation, and pilots HATE it when they go down and get captured due to easily-preventable failures.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 22, 2018)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo,
> 
> 
> 
> I... ended with fuels called 115 / 145, sometimes mistakenly called grade 150 fuel. Nobody makes 115 / 145 fuel anymore except by special order.



When one of the test engineers I worked with at Lycoming was involved in the flight tests of the ALF-502 engine on the ex-USN AJ-2, he told a story about the flight test manager with bottles of tetraethyl lead spiking barrels of 100/130. I never got to rode in the AJ-2. The plane never crashed, but after that last stint of flight testing it went to a museum. I was told that the flight test people at Lycoming felt the aircraft had very little life left in it, and was approaching a condition where it wasn't flight worthy without far too much expenditure.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2018)

GregP said:


> I see your statement that the myth of British fuels being significantly different from U.S. fuels is dead and buried. I have not read anything that supports that other than posts in here, and have first-hand testimony from several P-38 pilots that the early P-38s DID have fuel-related problems that were cured. They were told it was the gasoline after the cure was effected. It took some 8 - 10 months because nobody sent any British fuels back to the U.S.A. for analysis. When they did, the difference in aromatics became known and the carburetor jets were changed, eliminating that issue. After that, it wasn't an issue as long as the fuel to be used was specified.



P-40s didn't seem to have much of a problem on "British fuels".


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 22, 2018)

wuzak said:


> P-40s didn't seem to have much of a problem on "British fuels".



I suspect that the turbocharger gave a higher pressure ratio, resulting in a higher cylinder inlet temperature than did the supercharger on the P-40. We could also have a thread about how the P-40 has been undeservedly maligned.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2018)

GregP said:


> In WWII, aromatics were mostly Benzene and Benzene derivatives, used mainly to increase the Octane number. After an Octane rating of 100 (101 - 150), the term is "performance number." In WWII, we had gasoline with two ratings, the lean rating (cruise condition, leaned out), and the rich rating (full power, full rich). We started the war running 80 / 100 fuels (generally) and ended with fuels called 115 / 145, sometimes mistakenly called grade 150 fuel. Nobody makes 115 / 145 fuel anymore except by special order.



The US *started *the war using fuel with octane ratings from around 65 to 100, in 1939-40 there was no "rich rating". 

Grades may have included 65, 73, 80, 87, 90/91 and 100. The lower grades were used in light aircraft and trainers. 
see: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...86f3a8c564f1a8525670c00523a93/$FILE/E-216.pdf 
For the inline 6 cylinder Ranger which was available to use 4 different grades of fuel. Each engine used a different compression ratio (but no supercharger). 
Large commercial and military aircraft used 87 pretty much as a minimum although a few planes using P & W Wasp Juniors had a small tank of 87 octane and several larger tanks filled with 80 octane. The 87 octane was used for take-off and then the plane cruised on the cheaper 80 octane. This was one of them.






There may have been some very short lived grades of fuel between 91 and 100 at this time. 91/96 did show up as a standard later. 
Post war things get real confusing as were four grades of Military fuel (80, 91/96, 100/130, 115/145) and five grades of commercial fuel (80/87, 91/98, 100/130, 108/134 and 115/145) in 1951. Please note there were a few differences between military fuel and commercial. Commercial fuel had slightly lower evaporation temperatures, more allowable gum residue and precipitate, but lower allowable lead content in the mid grades. 
Please note that during WW II there sometimes more than one specification per year for a given grade of fuel. 100/130 went through 3 if not 4 specifications (maybe more) and that does *NOT* include either the pre war American 100 octane, the British pre war/early war 100 octane, or the 100/125PN fuel. 
First 100/130 only allowed 3.0 CC of lead per US gallon, the 2nd allowed 4.0 CC of lead and the 3rd allowed 4.6 CC of lead. Please note that just because 4.6 CC could be used doesn't mean it was used in all batches. 
Benzine was not well liked by early WW II despite being a "go to" additive in the 1920s and early 30s. It had a few problems for aircraft use if you weren't record breaking at sea level. One was that if froze at 42 degrees F. That is 42 degrees above zero, not below. Another was that it good for about 17,300btus per pound of heat value compared to the desired 18,700 Btus per gallon of av gas. While it's anti knock rating running richis very, very good it's anti-knock ability when running lean is not so great. Adding lead to Benzine does just about nothing. 




GregP said:


> C-3 was also found to 40% aromatics (!), which is about twice that of British fuels. US fuels were less than 5% aromatics, and British fuel gave early P-38s fits when they got to the UK because the engines were set up for U.S. fuels. I have little doubt that the BMW 801 in the test was not very comfortable on U.S. fuel.



Early British fuel was sometimes 40% aromatics. Early American fuel was under 2%, this was lifted to 5% for a short period to help increase production but little of this may have been actually made. The short lived 100/125 fuel was allowed to use 20% aromatics although not spelled out in specifications. The upper limit was more a by product of heat energy content specification. 

Please see, "Development of Aviation Fuels" by S. D. Heron.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 23, 2018)

GregP said:


> To answer your question, we used different additives to get high-performance number fuels and used less aromatics than did Europe. Neither is good or bad, just a fact. But the two different routes to higher Octanes burn differently when the mixture changes, and it isn't important which fuel you use as long as you know and jet for it.....



I appreciate the further explanation. So when you use the term "jet" I suppose you are talking about the jets of a carburetor or fuel injection system?


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2018)

Please note that the report Tomo linked to is dated 1940-1943. A PN increase over 125 after 1943 would not be in this report.


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2018)

Hi DarrenW,

Yes, carb jets.

Rest, I didn't cover all the German, Japanese, Russian, British, and U.S. fuels. I was trying to say that I have first-hand statements about the issue with early P-38s that point squarely at fuel issues. I suspect, as mentioned, that the fact that the P-38 was both supercharged and turbocharged has something to do with it since the mixture was much hotter as-delivered to the cylinders than anything in a non-turbocharged P-40 ever was. An extra boost stage does that.

The Allison letters of the day indicate fuel issues, as does Allison company correspondence and former Allison employees in possession of a friend who builds Allisons. To me, the issue is mixed in with the intake manifold mixture issue that was solved about the same time as the fuel issue, and the final solution could easily have been the result of both changes.

For those who don't know, the original Allison intake manifolds served 3 cylinders (4 of them mated to two ram's horn distribution castings), was very smooth and the mixture came into the manifold in the middle. The resultant mixture bounced off the smooth interior and made the outer two cylinders rich and the inner one lean from an initial homogeneous mixture. The solution was to install a turbulator inside the manifold to make the mixture swirl inside the manifold, evening out the flow. The combination of the turbulator and the jets made a huge difference in the way fuel was burned.

I wasn't there in WWII, but I can see how it works on an Allison today on a regular basis, including on P-38s running engines we built. Coupled with first-hand accounts, it seems to me there WAS an issue with British fuels. Nothing whatsoever wrong with the WWII British fuel ... it just wasn't exactly the same as U.S. fuel of the day. Once known, the jets were easily worked out.

I have no problem if people refuse to believe it. If you worked on and with Allisons, you'd probably know if you had the old correspondence and tried the old manifolds. Otherwise, we read what people who weren't there, never flew planes, and never worked on Allison engines wrote after the war was over. They may be good researchers who write books, but they weren't there just as I wasn't.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 23, 2018)

GregP said:


> Yes, carb jets.





GregP said:


> I have little doubt that the BMW 801 in the test was not very comfortable on U.S. fuel.



So from what you are telling me, the octane rating is just one of several specifications to consider when deciding what fuels to use, in this case with a WWII radial engine. Wouldn't the persons performing the test normally know if the fuels they were using were 'compatible' with the engine in question? And would adjustments be made to the carb at that point? Excuse me for not being very educated on the subject, I'm most likely asking questions that others in this discussion already are well aware of....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2018)

The fuel issue is very complicated. There are literally hundreds of different compounds that can be found in gasoline, at least in trace amounts. Some have more impact than others. 
The source of fuel varies considerably, that is to say the crude oil from one field can vary considerably from one oil to another oil field and to a lesser extent from oil wells within a large field. Some oil comes out of the ground with 30-40% aromatics and some comes out with almost none. Some other basic elements can also show the same sort of variation. 

Until the late 20s most aviation fuel varied from around 38-40 octane to around 70 octane however until the invention/development of the octane scale there was no way to measure the differences. They were known to exist but there was no way to measure or judge a particular fuel sample. Once you had the octane scale you could measure up to 100 octane but after that things got tricky, all you could say was that fuel XX _acted like_ 100% Iso-octane plus X amount of lead if it went over 100 octane. S. D. Heron (author of the book mentioned above) helped develop/invent the performance number scale (among other things) which not only goes above 100 octane but is much more liner that than the octane scale. The octane scale is actually somewhat curved. the difference between 70 and 80 octane is actually a lot less than the difference (about 21%) between 80 octane and 90 octane (about 26.3% improvement) and another 10 points (90 to 100) is actually a 35.7% improvement. 

The book mentioned is not a history of all aviation fuels but more a history of the allies effort and the conflicting needs between increased production and the availability of certain compounds or refining techniques. Some compounds showed great advantages as additives but either cost too much in the way of raw materials or cost tens of thousand of tons of high grade steel for the refining plant needed to make them. 
There was also less than the desired communication between engine makers and the fuel producers although this got better over time. Compound this with the Governments wanting large numbers of the most advanced engines and large amounts of the highest grade fuels and things sometimes got pulled one way or an other. 

I would guess that all the major countries had bright and skilled chemists/chemical engineers but not all countries had access to the same quality crude oil or additive industries and not all countries had access to even the needed refining plant improvements. 
Even the US could not use some of the better compounds for aircraft fuel, like Toluene which was wanted for high explosives production. However some of the Xylenes were used for aviation fuel and they were a by product of Toluene. Or the large scale production of Triptane would have consumed almost the entire US production of chlorine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 23, 2018)

Life gets a little more complicated still. I don't think I have seen this mentioned yet:
If you have ever looked at the markings on the gas pump, you will see something like (R+M) / 2
What this means is that the octane marked at the pump is an average of the Research Octane and Motor Octane.
(This has been a while....)
Research Octane is a chemical analysis of the gasoline.
Motor Octane is how the fuel behaves in a very specific test engine.
The problem though is that not every country uses the same form of test engine and the resulting numbers may be different.

As was explained to me (and Shortround6 already touched upon here), Petroleum from different sources has different chemical properties such as Sulfur content (a contaminant), and of course a different combination of hydrocarbons which makes them best suited for different purposes. Some kinds might be most useful in making gasoline while others might be more useful for lubricating or fuel / heating oils or other petro chemicals.
I worked for one of the major oil companies supporting their commodities trading and monitoring volatility (of the market kind) and there were a lot of lunch discussions about why we were buying and trading different crudes to support the needs of the refineries and also why often what was pumped out of the ground in one place was shipped to a remote refinery instead of the local one. Often there was a new commodity we had interest in and then folks would need to figure out what it was closest to for analysis of market volatility.

Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane, Pentane, Hexane, Heptane, Octane, Nonane, Decane....

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Jan 23, 2018)

> The 'C3 - Zusatzeinspritzung' system used the (excess) fuel as anti-detonant fluid. It was a factory modification, the excess fuel was sprayed in the eye of supercharger to cool the compressed air so increased boost might be used under the rated altitude



Many books say mid series FW190A-4/5 etc had MW50 water injection, this appears to be a misunderstanding by non-technical authors?

Another amusing error I find is that the 801TS motor is said to be turbo-supercharged! Assuming the author thought T=turbo S=supercharger  

Slightly more reliable books have said that MW50 problems were solved and it was available on the 801TS/TH in the Fw190A-9/F-9, they quote a decent 2300HP for it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Many books say mid series FW190A-4/5 etc had MW50 water injection, this appears to be a misunderstanding by non-technical authors?
> Another amusing error I find is that the 801TS motor is said to be turbo-supercharged! Assuming the author thought T=turbo S=supercharger
> Slightly more reliable books have said that MW50 problems were solved and it was available on the 801TS/TH in the Fw190A-9/F-9, they quote a decent 2300HP for it.



The amount of mistakes that got repeated in English-language publications on German ww2 hardware is pretty big. People often either downplay the capability of German gear, or over-blow it. It would've been very good if someone actually posted exerpts from manuals, test reports and factory docs to prove their statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 24, 2018)

From_ Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history - Wikipedia:

On the whole, Allied pilots who flew the FW-190 found it pleasant to fly, very responsive, and, while the cockpit was small compared to most Allied fighters, it was well laid out. Most pilots found the FW-190's Kommandogerät system (which automatically controlled the __RPM__, fuel mixture, ignition timing, supercharger switchover, and boost pressure) to be more of a hindrance than a help.....
_
I also have read that American pilots said this same system made it extremely hard to fly formation as the pilot had less fine power plant control to 'tune" their aircraft to one another. Did these criticisms stem more from a lack of experience with the _Kommandogerät_ system, or did these feelings exist within the German Luftwaffe as well?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2018)

Some american aircraft had a similar (but perhaps not quite as inclusive ) system later in the war. Perhaps a few british ones did near the end of the war? 

I would be leary of the control of the ignition system also. Perhaps the 801 did use an adjustment of the ignition timing, I don't know. Many other engines did not. Or used one setting for starting and then a fixed setting for actually running once started, in which case there was no advantage one way or the other in an "automatic" control.


----------



## GregP (Jan 24, 2018)

Good post above Shortround. Gasoline IS complex and changing a few minor things can have major consequences. It's a wonder we can drive / fly around with so few issues.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 24, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The amount of mistakes that got repeated in English-language publications on German ww2 hardware is pretty big. People often either downplay the capability of German gear, or over-blow it. It would've been very good if someone actually posted exerpts from manuals, test reports and factory docs to prove their statement.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

If you think information on German aircraft is often incorrect, it gets MUCH worse with Japanese aircraft.

Regarding formation flying, I believe FW 190 had a RPM control that could be finely adjusted for formation flying.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> If you think information on German aircraft is often incorrect, it gets MUCH worse with Japanese aircraft.
> ...



Care to make a topic about the coverage of Japanese A/C in Western publications?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 24, 2018)

Not really.
I am more interested in finding more information rather than commiserating about the lack of it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Not really.
> I am more interested in finding more information rather than commiserating about the lack of it.



Roger that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 24, 2018)

One good feature about the Fw 190 was the engine installation. Kurt Tank managed to integrate a big, powerful radial engine into a small airframe. Soviet engineers who examined a Fw 190 in 1943 found the oil tank/ring configuration very interesting. The power egg configuration was also very handy.

Perhaps someone that has examined other radial fighters can add more. What about Fw 190 evaluation in the UK/US? I think sometimes the fact that it was a top fighter with a radial engine is overblown a bit, as there were models in this era (P-47). I am also thinking about the Il-16, which was a huge surprise during the Spanish Civil War.


----------



## GregP (Jan 24, 2018)

The museum flies a P-47G Thunderbolt, an F4U-1a Corsair, the last airworthy SBD Dauntless, A TBM Avenger, several AT-6 Texans, a B-25 Mitchell, the last Seversky AT-12 Guardsman(2-seat P-35), a Boeing P-26 Peashooter, an A-1 Skyraider, an A6M5 Model 52 Zero, and a Flugwerk Fw 190 replica (R-2800 radial). We see F7F Tigercats regularly along with Sea Furies. All fly very well. The Fw 190 had oil temp issues until they added some extra underwing oil coolers. It isn't exactly stock, but it works. All have systems differing from one another. The Zero has some really neat systems and linkages. The rudder trim comes to mind as do the cowl flaps. The wartime Fw 190 had a single-lever throttle that we didn't particularly like unless flying combat. Then it was very good. Otherwise (95% of the time) it was not really finely adjustable in our tests.

German planes that I have worked on (Bf 109, Bf 108, Jungmeister) are well made, but nothing out of the ordinary. I have not worked on the Flugwerk airplane and likely won't.

I heard rumors that the Zero was poorly made. When I got to work on it, the opposite was true, It was pretty well made and had neat systems. Since it has low installed power, the skin was light and no excess weight was added. Other than that, it was conventionally well made. The F8F Bearcat has a QEC (quick engine change) module consisting of the mount, engine, oil tank, etc. Remove and replace, go fly.

So far, I can't see anything that one nation did a lot better, worse, or differently than the others with the exception of the lightweight Zero due to modest engine. The same designer's next project (J2M Raiden) is made like a U.S. fighter since he had 1,850 HP to work with. We have the last one (static display). The British tend to use more hardware than anyone else, but it goes together to make a good airplane. For my money, there isn't a whole lot of difference among them with the exception that the U.S.A. tends to build a bit beefier with slightly thicker metal. It shows up particularly on Naval aircraft.

We also have a Yak-3 (non-radial, some a MiG-15 bis, and used to operate an old AN-2.

They are about equal with the Soviet hardware being just a bit crude by comparison, but effectively made. All fly well. 

Aerial leaders, pilots, and pilot training made the difference. To be more correct, we also had good mechanics and a top-notch logistics system, coupled with effective pilot replacement training. All contributed, and logistics hardly ever gets the credit it deserves. When you have regular spare parts and good mechanics, it certainly helps the war effort on the front lines. Parts don't make, transport, and stock themselves. We also had a very good supply of tools that many other nations lacked on the front lines.

A lot of places we left quickly after the war still drive WWII jeeps!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 24, 2018)

alejandro_ said:


> Perhaps someone that has examined other radial fighters can add more. What about Fw 190 evaluation in the UK/US?



The Hawker Centaurus fighter went from this






Hawker Tornado in 1941(?)

To this






Hawker Tempest II in 1944(?).

Having evaluated one of these in 1942






There seems to have been some influence on the engine installation.

Meanwhile, the Grumman F8F shows some similarities, such as the exhausts all coming out on the sides, but not others - still used cooling gills around teh circumference, rather than the side outlets on the Fw 190A and Tempest II


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 24, 2018)

It appears even landing the F8F in a three pointer is close to a prop strike!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 25, 2018)

wuzak said:


> ....Having evaluated one of these in 1942
> 
> View attachment 480231
> 
> ...




This is probably as good a time as any to bring this up. Could someone please provide some substantiated proof that Grumman, being so impressed by what they saw in a captured example, was inspired to copy many of the FW-190 design features while engineering the F8F? To me it still retained much of the 'cat' pedigree, and on the surface I see little if anything related to the German fighter, other than being trimmed down a bit in order to capitalize on weight savings to improve speed and climb rate. Any physical resemblance at all between these two aircraft is purely coincidental IMHO. I say this because Grumman had already laid most of the ground work for the fighter BEFORE flight testing of a captured FW-190 by the allies even occurred.

I'd really like to know the truth regarding this, and not just rumors or off-handed comments made over time (Corky Myer included). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dismiss the idea entirely. I just want more proof and less here say, that's all.

Could this be just another legend that became fact over time, similar to the wrongly held belief that the Zero inspired the design of the Hellcat? I'm starting to think so...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

To me it is as likely to be convergent evolution as direct copying.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 25, 2018)

GregP said:


> The Zero has some really neat systems and linkages. The rudder trim comes to mind as do the cowl flaps....
> I heard rumors that the Zero was poorly made. When I got to work on it, the opposite was true, It was pretty well made and had neat systems..



While not having nearly the extensive hands-on background with WWII airplanes as yourself, from what I have ascertained over the years I feel exactly as you do regarding the aeronautical engineering capabilities of the Japanese. They were very good craftsmen and designers and were able to manufacture quality aircraft for most of the war. But similar to the situation in Germany, their aircraft suffered from poor workmanship and shoddy materials as the war progressed against them, which in turn hampered their overall performance.

The Japanese were a very formidable enemy and their technological prowess caught the West totally by surprise. And while we did find the Zero rather easy to burn, all aircraft would be easier to bring down without armor protection or self-sealing fuel tanks. This was more of an error in design philosophy, rather than inferior quality or workmanship.


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2018)

The designer didn't make the error. They gave him an 880 hp radial and asked for performance to match an Allied fighter with perhaps 1,350 - 1,500 hp. To make it work, something had to go, and the obvious answer was weight in the form of armor and self-sealing tanks. His next design, the J2M Raiden, DID have armor and self-sealing tanks since he had 1,850 hp to work with.

The error, if there even was one, was with the IJN specifications that constrained the engine choices.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 25, 2018)

Good point Greg.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> The Japanese were a very formidable enemy and their technological prowess caught the West totally by surprise. And while we did find the Zero rather easy to burn, all aircraft would be easier to bring down without armor protection or self-sealing fuel tanks. This was more of an error in design philosophy, rather than inferior quality or workmanship.



The Zero had a prodigious range.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 25, 2018)

I believe that over the years there has been some racial prejudice towards the capability of the Japanese military as a whole. The notion that the German pilots we faced in European skies were somehow innately superior to what we were confronting in the Pacific is just another example of this archaic mindset.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I believe that over the years there has been some racial prejudice towards the capability of the Japanese military as a whole. The notion that the German pilots we faced in European skies were somehow innately superior to what we were confronting in the Pacific is just another example of this archaic mindset.


Darren, wars are all about racial and other prejudice, if you don't have a racial difference you manufacture one and obliterate the similarities. This is how the Anglo Saxon British suddenly started calling their closest trading partner and cultural cousins "The Hun" and the royal family discovered they were called "Windsor" and not Saxe Coberg Gothe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 25, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Darren, wars are all about racial and other prejudice, if you don't have a racial difference you manufacture one and obliterate the similarities. This is how the Anglo Saxon British suddenly started calling their closest trading partner and cultural cousins "The Hun" and the royal family discovered they were called "Windsor" and not Saxe Coberg Gothe.



Precisely....


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 25, 2018)

The designer of the Zero, Jiro Horikoshi, wrote a book entitled "Eagles of Mitsubishi, The Story of the Zero Fighter". It is a little gem I would recommend it to anyone, as it deals with the process of designing a fighter. 

Horikoshi points out again and again how the weight of the Zero was reduced (new aluminium alloy for example), him cheking every component which was above certain % of the total weight to make sure it was the best option. As you say, he states that with available power, no other aircraft had a similar performance. 

Regarding Japanese quality, later in the war there were issues as manufacturers had to use unskilled labour and teenagers. Also, there were no resources (or time) to carry out checks and tests. However, to quantify this phenomenon is not possible. Maybe you got your hands on a earlier type or one that had been selected because it was in good condition.

Greg, regarding maintenance, working on a P-47/F4U, is it very different to Fw 190? I am talking about ease of access, time needed to do something and so on. It is also pointed out as one of the advantages of the Fw 190 (wrt to Bf 109).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 25, 2018)

GregP said:


> The designer didn't make the error. They gave him an 880 hp radial and asked for performance to match an Allied fighter with perhaps 1,350 - 1,500 hp. To make it work, something had to go, and the obvious answer was weight in the form of armor and self-sealing tanks. His next design, the J2M Raiden, DID have armor and self-sealing tanks since he had 1,850 hp to work with.
> 
> The error, if there even was one, was with the IJN specifications that constrained the engine choices.



Hello GregP,
The specifications were tough enough that Nakajima did not even submit an entry.
There were performance requirements and dimensional requirements to fit the standard elevator.
Engine choices were not constrained either but to stay with company products there was the choice of either a Zuisei or Kinsei.

A you pointed out, these guys wanted a new design that had the performance equal or superior to current fighters, maneuverability equal to the last generation of fighter, equipment and ability to operate from a carrier and range that was two or three times that of other current fighters
Makes you wonder what would have happened if Mitsubishi had also turned down the project.

Hello DarrenW,
Do you happen to have a copy of Corkey Meyer's Flight Journal?
I don't have mine handy to confirm but I saw in another forum that a discussion regarding FW 190 can be found on page 144.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 25, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello DarrenW,
> Do you happen to have a copy of Corkey Meyer's Flight Journal?
> I don't have mine handy to confirm but I saw in another forum that a discussion regarding FW 190 can be found on page 144.
> 
> - Ivan.



Hi Ivan,
No I do not have that journal myself, I've just seen excerpts from it. I will try to hunt it down however. Thank you.


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2018)

I bet our fighters would have had great range, too, if they could have cruised at the same horsepower as the Zero did when going for range! Likely, they'd have dropped out of the sky at that power level, though.


----------



## mcoffee (Jan 26, 2018)

GregP said:


> The museum flies..., the last airworthy SBD Dauntless,



The Dixie Wing of the CAF has a flying SBD-5.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 26, 2018)

alejandro_ said:


> Regarding Japanese quality, later in the war there were issues as manufacturers had to use unskilled labour and teenagers.



From Mitsubishi J2M - Wikipedia :

_The struggle to meet production demands sparked a Japanese initiative to recruit shonenko (__child labour__) from __Taiwan (Formosa)__. Though the target of 25,000 youths was never reached, over 8,400 Taiwanese youths aged 12 to 14 relocated to Mitsubishi plants to help build the J2M Raiden...._


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2018)

I believe you are wrong, mcoffee. Ours is the last flyable original SBD. 

All the others are Army A-24s converted to SBD confirguration with the addition of a tailhook and other Naval gear, IF the conversion was done at all. The A-24 was an SBD without the Naval gear installed in it for the USAAC, and the dataplate should say A-24, assuming you can find it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2018)

GregP said:


> I believe you are wrong, mcoffee. Ours is the last flyable original SBD.
> 
> All the others are Army A-24s converted to SBD confirguration with the addition of a tailhook and other Naval gear, IF the conversion was done at all. The A-24 was an SBD without the Naval gear installed in it for the USAAC, and the dataplate should say A-24, assuming you can find it.



Negative, the CAF Dixie Wing’s Dauntless is SBD-5, not an A-24.

http://dixiewing.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CAF-Douglas-SBD-5-Dauntless-BuAer-54532-.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2018)

Interesting, and thanks for the information.

I wonder, if there were two 54532 SNs, how they know which one this particular one is? I am assuming they looked at the data plate and it says SBD-5 (I am assuming it is not a replacement dataplate). The Dixie Wing would know, and I can find out easily enough.

Our information at Planes of Fame indicates the Dixie Wing flies an A-24, but I have no reason to disbelieve you about it, and there are plenty of friends in the Dixie Wing.

Cheers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2018)

Greg,

There is whole world of aviation history not found at your museum...


----------



## GregP (Jan 27, 2018)

And a whole world of it to be found there, too, Chris.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 27, 2018)

US Navy and US Marine Corps BuNos--Third Series (50360 to 60009)

54050/54599 Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless

54532. Accepted by US Navy March 3, 1944; Bureau of Aeronautics General Representative,
Los Angeles, CA August 1944; Bureau of Aeronautics General Representative, Baltimore, MD
June 1945; NAS Norfolk, VA December 1946; SOC February 8, 1947; War Assets Administration
[sale document lists serial number as 42-54532]; Andy Stinis / Skywriting Corp of America;
Registered NL1339V; SS Pike Company, New York, NY March 9, 1950; Registration cancelled October 24, 1951
to export to Mexico; Compania Mexicana Aerofoto, Mexico City October 18, 1951; Registered XB-QUC;
Paul Mantz & Frank G. Tallman/ Tallmantz Aviation/Movieland of the Air, Orange County CA 1964;
Ed Maloney/ The Air Museum, Ontario CA January 11, 1966; Robert L. Griffin, San Antonio TX March 4, 1971;
Donated to the Confederate Air Force; Hoisted aboard USS Nimitz 1975 for the retirement ceremony of
Admiral Ralph W Cousins; Registered N54532; Confederate Air Force, Harlingen/ Midland TX October 1978;
Substantially damaged at Rockford IL July 3, 1981 when the landing gear retracted on the landing roll;
WFU at Harlingen 1988, trucked to Griffin GA 1995 for restoration to fly 1995/1999;
Confederate Air Force, Midland TX August 1996; registered N82GA to the American Airpower Heritage Flying Museum, Dallas, TX
September 10, 1991, current [Jun17]; ff Atlanta-Peach Tree GA February 1999 as USN "5";
Forced landing due engine failure, Deland-Bob Lee, FL November 13, 2004;
current with the Commemorative Air Force Dixie Wing, Peachtree City, GA. At on time, it was
thought that the plane with American Airpower Heritage Flying Museum,
Midland, TX as N82GA marked as SBD-5 54532 was really A-24B 42-54532.


1942 USAAF Serial Numbers (42-50027 to 42-57212)

42-54460/54649 Douglas A-24B-10-DT Dauntless

54532 (MSN 17371) Delivered to USAAF September 14, 1943; flown to Oakland, CA, then to Long Beach, C where it was
loaded on a ship and taken to the Hawaiian Air Depot, Hickam Army Air Field in Hawaii;
420th Sub Depot, 7th Air Force; Condemned July 31, 1944 as missing due to enemy action

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 27, 2018)

A little more information on USAAF serial numbers from this site:

1941: Serial Numbers do not go that high.

1942:
Douglas A-24B as listed above

1943: Serial Numbers do not go that high.

1944:
44-53328/54707 Lockheed P-38L-5-LO Lightning
Contract cancelled.

1945:
45-2562/2675 Douglas C-117A
45-2676/4400 Contract cancelled

This last one is a stretch. I don't think the SBD was in production by 1945 but on the off chance that
54532 is short for 45-4532.....

Hope this helps.
- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2018)

GregP said:


> And a whole world of it to be found there, too, Chris.



I'm only messing with you...


----------



## GregP (Jan 28, 2018)

OK, Chris. You have a world of experience up on me, and I'd bet on your data most anytime. Our founder, Ed Maloney, was told, at one time, that it was an A-24, and we never really looked into it after that because when you find out, you generally stop looking ... last time I spoke with the CAF Dixie Wing guys, they had issues with their P-63. That was a few years back.

Nice to know there are two SBDs. For myself, I'd as soon see an A-24 fly as an SBD since they are the same airframe. I'll pass this on so we have correct information displayed.


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 1, 2018)

Some interesting observations of the FW-190A-5 by Japanese pilots....

WildEagles: Japanese Focke-Wulf Fw 190

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 2, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Some interesting observations of the FW-190A-5 by Japanese pilots....
> 
> WildEagles: Japanese Focke-Wulf Fw 190


Interesting, thanks for the link!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 2, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Interesting, thanks for the link!



No problem. It's rare to find first-hand accounts of the Japanese flying their own machines, let alone those belonging to another nation.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 4, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> No problem. It's rare to find first-hand accounts of the Japanese flying their own machines, let alone those belonging to another nation.



Hello DarrenW,
It actually isn't all that hard to find first hand accounts by Japanese pilots. The "Aircraft of the Aces: series has a bunch but although I have come across a few, I didn't note down which books they were in and where. From other discussions, I have heard that the Ki 61 / Ki 100 book by Nick Millman has a few. I have seen quotes in the forums from that particular book because I have been chasing information for he Ki 61 series.
I actually flipped through a copy of that book in a local hobby shop just before Christmas but didn't buy it. (Got so many books it is hard to store them.) That particular hobby shop closed for the last time last weekend. Next closest is now 15 miles away.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 5, 2018)

Well I guess I'll have to look a little harder from now on then. It has been a little time since I actively sought out books pertaining to the memoirs of Japanese combat pilots.


----------



## Juha2 (Feb 14, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> My take is that fit & finish of Soviet aircrat improved after 1942, and especially after 1943. For example, they measured some 15 km/h improvement for Yak fighters manufactured in 1943 vs. those from 1942, and up to 30 km/h for LaGG-3, all for same engine power.
> La-7 was barely faster than La-5 where attention was paid to the fit and finish for both machines.
> 
> Incomplete translation by yours truly:
> ...



Hello Tomo
thanks a lot for posting the page!
some questions
what is the source?
The meaning of * and **
To my understanding the La-5FN 648 km/h was the La-5FN proto and the series a/c, at least early on had max speed of c. 615 km/h.

TIA
Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 14, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Hello Tomo
> thanks a lot for posting the page!
> some questions
> what is the source?
> ...



Source is the "_Istoriia konstruktskii samoletov v SSSR, 1938-1950 gg._" by Shavrov. Sorta bible on Soviet A/C. Many of the tables from that book are translated on Spanish (in HTML = can be easily translated further) and posted here.
* = A/C was produced in meaningful numbers
** = A/C was mass produced
Please note that the last La-5 from the table I've posted was powered by the M-71 radial engine of 2000 CV, 18 cyl.
Prototypes of Soviet A/C in ww2 tended to fly much faster than mass-produced examples. The Il-2 being the worst offender.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Feb 14, 2018)

Hello Tomo
thanks a lot!
Much appreciated
Juha


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 22, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ..........
> Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane, Pentane, Hexane, Heptane, Octane, Nonane, Decane....
> 
> - Ivan.



Off Topic but sometimes children will surprise you.
My Son is taking AP Chemistry as a High School Sophomore. There is nothing unusual about that.
It is one of the few subjects he is actually doing well in.
Tonight, I asked him if he knew what an Alkane was.
He gave me the definition and listed the first five which for me are the hardest to remember and even gave me the chemical formula for a couple.
Maybe he is learning something after all.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 3, 2018)

I have put together a graph comparing the maximum speed of different Allied fighters with that of Fw 190 A-1. I have aimed for types available in August 1941. It is fair to say that the Fw has a good advantage over all of them. The other advantages (dive, climb, firepower) have also been mentioned before. Even if there were childhood diseases, it offered many advantages until well into 1942.

Maybe some of the readers can make more suggestions on what to compare it with. P-47 were introduced some time later, end of 1941. Mustangs with Allison engine started flying combat sorties in May 1942. P-38D/E could be added, but I have not found any performance data.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2018)

P-47s weren't flying in numbers higher than one until March of 1942, first issue to a service squadron wasn't until June of 1942. This squadron won't be declared operational until Nov 1942. 

See: P-38 Performance Tests

for some early P-38 performance data. 
There were 36 P-38Ds completed by the beginning of Sept 1941, Production P-38s start to show up at end of Oct or beginning of Nov. 
P-38Fs start to show up in Feb 1942 at the factory door. Getting them overseas takes a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Mar 4, 2018)

Many thanks Shortround6. I will have a look to the P-38 data to update the chart. I also plan to create another with the climb performance. 

I made a typo when mentioning the P-47, as you say it is end of 1942.


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 20, 2018)

I have a question regarding the ETC 501 rack carried by the FW-190. It is said that the speed of the airplane would be reduced by approx. 8 mph at ground level and by 10 mph at roughly 20,000 feet altitude. I thought this loss to be somewhat high, given that it was only a single rack. I looked at few pictures and noticed that the wheel well doors that cover the tires are also missing. Was this normally the case when the rack was installed? To me, it doesn't look like they would fully open if installed due to the width of the rack. If this is true then the amount of speed loss is definitely plausible because of the extra drag incurred by their absence.

Also, could the lower portion of the rack be readily removed in order to decrease drag, or was it permanently attached to the top fuselage mounting?


----------



## Milosh (Mar 20, 2018)

Yes the rack interfered with the operation of the inner doors.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 20, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Yes the rack interfered with the operation of the inner doors.



Thanks for the quick response and verification.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 20, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Also, could the lower portion of the rack be readily removed in order to decrease drag, or was it permanently attached to the top fuselage mounting?



I would imagine it rather pointless to carry the lower portion, the stabilizing arms, as the aircraft could not then carry a bomb or fuel tank on the carrier. Simpler to remove the rack altogether if it was not required.


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 20, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I would imagine it rather pointless to carry the lower portion, the stabilizing arms, as the aircraft could not then carry a bomb or fuel tank on the carrier. Simpler to remove the rack altogether if it was not required.



True, I was just assuming that removing the stabilizing arms was a quick affair, much like the TERs that are mounted on aircraft hard points today (the wing rack is considered an integral part of the airframe and not normally removed). But if the entire rack is easy to remove, than that would definitely be the best course of action.


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 20, 2018)

So my next question is, how prevalent was it for German fighters to have this device installed on their fighters? I know that the F6F-5 would at the very least carry a single bomb rack inboard on it's right wing, as this was considered a normal "combat" configuration for the airplane. Was the ETC Rack also considered a combat necessity for the FW-190 or Me-109? It would seem that many had this rack installed, if only going by the numerous photos that I have seen up to this point.


----------



## mstennes (Nov 30, 2019)

GregP said:


> The one in the US Museum (National Air and Space Museum) is an Fw 190D-9, Werksnummer 601088.
> 
> I have heard otherwise about the Ta 152s, particularly the Ta 152Cs, but have no particular primary source for it. Heard it YEARS ago, unsubstiatiated. I have no issue one way or the other with their last assignments.
> 
> ...


The D13 is at The Flying Heritage Museum, supposedly it is airworthy but will not fly as it’s the only one, they do from time to time taxi it around.


GregP said:


> That particular airplane will start, but cannot fly because some carburetor parts are missing and only the engine idle circuit is working. It starts up about half the times they try it. If they had a complete carburetor for the Jumo 213, it could fly. Perhaps they are looking and will find one sometime. It is a beautiful airplane up close.
> 
> Regarding the Ta 152H, it SHOULD have been somewhat of a pig down low due to the long wings when compared with the shorter-winged versions, but contemporary flight reports say otherwise. They say it retained good roll even with the long wings. To me, that is very interesting as most long-wing planes are not good rollers.
> 
> ...


It’s fuel injection as noted, but what is missing and incomplete is the throttle control, it can taxi but that’s it. They say it won’t fly because it’s the only one, but they restored a ME262 with original Jumo’s that they plan on flying, and are working on their JU87 to fly. So who knows?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 1, 2019)

alejandro_ said:


> Many thanks Shortround6. I will have a look to the P-38 data to update the chart. I also plan to create another with the climb performance.
> 
> I made a typo when mentioning the P-47, as you say it is end of 1942.


The P40F isn’t appear until 1942


----------

