# Fw 190: the good, the bad and the ugly



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2015)

The formidable fighter should have it's own thread, rather to share it with a Me 209 



dedalos said:


> [re. wing of Fw 190] Eveything is a compromise. But we can look for the best combination of speed, turn,roll,diving,climbing,range, firepower, handling,potentional of development.In my opinion the italian fighters offered a better package than both the main german fighters



The G.55 and Re.2005 offered more 'stretch' than Bf 109, I will agree with that. Unfortunately, without late DB 605 versions (or Jumo 213 or DB 603), they will not be able to compete vs. the best the West can throw in the battle. Against the 109, they cannot be produced fast enough, and Axis was also outproduced as early as 1941.
The Fw 190, however, also offered more stretch than Bf 109, it is in volume production from multiple factories, it is already proven as a tough opponent (despite the initial problems with reliability) and it got only praise from Allied AFs.



> [re. Fw 190 offering in winter of 1941/42 as much as the G.55 would 2 years later]No Tomo it wasnt. The Fw had always High wing loading, Young pilots were losing fataly control even in1942, had always poor altitude performance and handling. The 801 had always poor power to weight ratio and was requiring C3 fuel, A LOT of C3 fuel. The Fw in 41/42 had only 2 mg 151s. After middle 43 with thw wing of the A6 could mount 4 Mg151s



I'd ask you for sources that would back up the claim that young pilots were loosing control in 1942 with Fw 190. As for hi-alt capabilities - it depends what other fighter is compared with the 190, and when the comparison was made. It also depends whether the BMW 801C was run on 2550 or 2700 rpm in second s/c gear - 660 km/h at 5.7-6 km, for the 190A-1 without polishing, 10-15 km/h more with polished aircraft (link, check out also the PDF), for 2 cannons aboard. The 190A-2 incorporated the MG FFM, meaning 4 cannons are installed altogether; the BMW 801C was to be run on B4 fuel.
The Fw 190A with BMW 801D was capable for 670-680 km/h at 7 km with external intakes, and around 690 km/h with 'only' 2 cannons worth of armament and those intakes - compared with 640-650 km/h for the MC.205V with 2 HMGs.



> It was constructed vey strong, actually TOO strong. It was heavy. It was good for ground attacking, but all this weight was bad for the Air superiority role. It s not luck that the best Air superiority fighters of the was were NOT famous for their toughness(Spitfire,P51,KI84,La7



The La-7 and Ki 84 were offering in 1944/45 what Fw 190 was offering in 1941/42, that is half of how much the ww2 lasted in Europe. The P-47 was every bit an excellent air superiority fighter, and it was tough; the F4U was also tough and it was very good fighter. The engine of the Fw 190 was heavy powerful, armament was heavy, it carried plenty of fuel compared with many European fighters - it will not come out light.



> Because i insist DB605 is not enough for the FW190. Even the FW190A4, a light vertion, had a normal take off weight of almost 4000kgr. Even if we accept 250kgr less weight for an vertion with the DB605 its still 3750 normal take off weight.And still with a wing of just 18,5m2



Yep, 250 kg should be a good number. 
The weights from Guidonia tests give 3700 kg for take off weight of the G.55 (wing loading 175 kg/sqm), and 3560 kg for the Re.2005 (w.l. of 174.5 kg/sqm); 2550 kg for the MC.205N (187 kg/sqm) that also has only 3/4 of the range of what G.55 and Re. 2005 had, also 1/4 of the firepower. The wing loading for the "DB 190" would be 200 kg/sqm for 3700 kg - 15% greater that for the G.55 and Re.2005, 7% greater than MC.205, but also 7-10% more favorable than "BMW 190".



> I agree that the a FW190C based on the v13 prototype would be formidable fighter and the missing ling in the evolution of the jagdwaffe. But i suspect that the g56 would be even better



It probably would (bar level speed), unless we try to find the place for the MW 50 tank, as the G.55 (and G.56?) already have a fuel tank behind the pilot.



> There was space, but was necessary to modify the structure and the skin of the wing to make them available for the late Dora s and the Ta s.



Thanks - do you have more info on this interesting (al least to me) subject?



> As far as i know the G55 had the ability to cary 2 external fuel tanks under the wings



Probably - I've seen the pictures of post war 2-seaters (G.58?) with 2 drop tanks.


----------



## Juha (Jun 1, 2015)

Only a partially OT note, IMHO it is interesting that while at least the British pilots thought that 190 was clearly more dangerous opponent than 109 most Soviet pilots thought that the 'Messer' was clearly more dangerous opponent that the 'Fokker' even if one would think that the combats in the East, where most combats were low altitude ones, should have suited better for 190 than 109.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 1, 2015)

Juha said:


> Only a partially OT note, IMHO it is interesting that while at least the British pilots thought that 190 was clearly more dangerous opponent than 109 most Soviet pilots thought that the 'Messer' was clearly more dangerous opponent that the 'Fokker' even if one would think that the combats in the East, where most combats were low altitude ones, should have suited better for 190 than 109.



Interesting, any idea why?


----------



## Juha (Jun 1, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Interesting, any idea why?



No, only the partial explanation that many 190s in the eastern front were GA types but that is IMHO only a partial explanation, one other might be that before La-5F and -FN almost all VVS fighters were rather low-powered and lightly built so the very good roc of the 109s had a big impact and the fairly light armament of the basic 109 didn't matter in fighter combats. In the ETO also many the Spits climbed very well and as all-metal planes could take more damage than the Soviet ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 1, 2015)

Juha said:


> No, only the partial explanation that many 190s in the eastern front were GA types but that is IMHO only a partial explanation, one other might be that before La-5F and -FN almost all VVS fighters were rather low-powered and lightly built so the very good roc of the 109s had a big impact and the fairly light armament of the basic 109 didn't matter in fighter combats. In the ETO also many the Spits climbed very well and as all-metal planes could take more damage than the Soviet ones.



Ok, thanks.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2015)

Good.
Airframe in general with good handling and few bad flying habits. Inexpensive to mass produce too.
Wide track landing gear.
Bubble canopy.
540 liters of internal fuel (140 more then Me-109).
F and G variants made surprisingly good attack aircraft while still retaining decent low altitude self defense capability.
Massive firepower even if it was wing mounted.

Bad.
BMW801 engine. 
.....Long development to achieve acceptable reliability. Even then it required high octane fuel to produce decent power.
.....Radial design precluded use of hub cannon.
.....High altitude performance was never as good as contemporary V-12 engines. 

Ugly.
Only thing I can think of is RLM forcing Focke Wulf to use BMW801 engine rather then allowing Dr. Tank to power his airframe with Daimler Benz V12 as he wanted.


----------



## GregP (Jun 1, 2015)

The La-7 was much better than early Fw 190's. If was faster, climber better, was as good in roll, and had cannons of it's own that were as good or better than the German cannons.

I have the La-7 at between 402 and 411 mph at 2,000 meters. No early Fw 190 did that. an d I have it as between 4,460 and 4,760 feet per minute best initial rate of climb (no Fw 190 ever came near that). Those data are from state tests of service La-7's at WER.

That being said, I like the Fw 190 and think they should have dropped the Bf 109 in favor of it. I really like the Italian planes and it might have been well worth it to take an M.C.202/205. Re.2005, and Fiat G.55 and hand them to a German designer and ask him to make it produceable while chaning as little as possible. The result might have been outstanding and would have been available when needed ... and in numbers. Of course, the reuslt might alos have been not worth the effort, but that's already what happened with the myriad prototypes the Germans produced and they would be no worse off than they were.

I didn't need hindsight to go with the Fw 190, that was obvious to me from when I first read about it and SHOULD have been obvious to the Luftwaffe, too. If they had done that, they could have asked the Itlians to concentrate on jet airframe development while they produced piston fighters.

Just an option ... that never happened. I don't mind a lot of things, but extending the war or having the outcome the other way are not two of them, so I am happy it happened just as it did and didn't drag out any longer or, worse, reverse the outcome. Shorter would have been nice, with fewer casualties on all sides. No war would have been a LOT better. 

I'm not so sure we would have gone to war if he had just taken back the land lost, stopped all payments, and said Germany would join the rest of the world power as an equal or there could be war again. War MIGHT have started ... but had he done that and stayed in Germany, perhaps not. The question is was that possible? I, for one, doubt it ... but it might have been interesting at what point war WOULD start without a surprise Blitzkreig to give a good, sound push.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 1, 2015)

davebender said:


> Ugly.
> Only thing I can think of is RLM forcing Focke Wulf to use BMW801 engine rather then allowing Dr. Tank to power his airframe with Daimler Benz V12 as he wanted.



Interesting. Are there any drawings, pictures of what that FW would have looked like? Performance estimates would also be nice.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 1, 2015)

I have always had the impression that the Fw190 was a better flying machine than the Me109.
But don't forget the 109E and 109F were arguably the greatest fighters ever made. And were around when called upon. And that counts for a lot. The 109 was plenty good enough and the counter argument would be why need the Fw190 in the first place?


----------



## grampi (Jun 2, 2015)

The Basket said:


> But don't forget the 109E and 109F were arguably the greatest fighters ever made.



Even the word "arguably" doesn't make this statement true...


----------



## GregP (Jun 2, 2015)

The Bf 109 was a superb fighter in and around 180 - 290 mph or so. It had a benign stall, good roll and exceptional climb, coupled with decent armament. The great climb was developed at low airspeed and high deck angle. The visibility forward and to the left or right left some room for improvement and it had a nasty tendency to swing on takeoff, particularly on hard surfaces ... not so much on grass and softer runways. Pilots familiar with the Bf 109 knew it's good and bad points VERY well and could use both to their advantage from sheer familiarity.

The Fw 190 flew very well and had fantastic roll response from 200 - 350 mph or so, after which it slowed down in roll if faster to the point where it could be out-rolled by Allied fighters at 420 - 450 mph and above. The stall happened without aerodynamic warning and pulling into a maximum performance turn could put you into an almost-instant inverted spin. The means pilots were very reluctant to pull hard down low near the ground where there is no room for recovery, unless they were quite experienced in the Fw 190. Of course, that took some time in the pilot's seat. Up at 4,000 - 22,000 feet or so, they could pull pretty hard since entering an inverted spin would get them out of the line of fire anyway if they were being chased, and they had time and altitude to recover should it happen. If they were the chaser instead, they could quickly release back pressure, after some experience, and avoid the spin at the cost of losing sight picture. If they were being chased, doing that would more or less center them in the enemy's crosshairs for some small period of time, say several seconds. Eventually, they knew how hard to pull and it wasn't as much of a concern down lower. Fw 190 pilots got better flying lower and turning harder with experience in type.

To a nimble turner like the Yak-3/9, a good low-altitude turning fight was right where they wanted to be. Down at low-to-medium altitudes, where the Soviets fought, the Yak-3/9 could also out-climb the Fw 190 whereas the Bf 109's good climb rate was developed at low airspeed and high deck angle, making it harder to follw in an abrupt climb. The Yak-3's good climb rate was not at quite so steep of a deck angle.

Speaking only personally, I think the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were among the best 1-2 offensive fighters in the world at the time, in no particular order. They were a bit handicapped on the Russian Front since Soviet doctrine was for the aircraft to support the ground troops. So the Soviet pilots flew low, ignored the high-flying Luftwaffe pilots, and proceeded to kill the ground troops in large numbers. This forced the German pilots to come down and fight or simply lose the ground war by default. That put the fighters right in the best-performance envelope of the Yaks and Lavochkins.

In Europe, it was a much higher-altitude war, with forays into low to medium altitude fighting being present, but to a lesser degree. They tended to be either high or low, straffing on the way home, with fewer encounters at medium altitudes. Since the bombers were always high, most of the fighting took place there, with MOST of the low to medium altitude fighting being due to ground attack missions.

There are few, if any, absolutes in aerial warfare and there were exceptions to the circumstances above on both fronts ... it's just where things tended to be, not how all the fighting happened.

If I were recalling anything, it would be the fact that the three greatest fighters pilots of all time, Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall ... all flew the Bf 109 for almost their entire careers. So calling the Bf 109 less than a top contended is to go against the always-right weight of historic fact. Those three guys, amoung tham, accounted for almost 1,000 victims. 

Again just speaking just for myself, I'd observe, "Since the Bf 109 was the mount of choice for the top three aces of all times, how bad a fighter can it have been?" My own answer is that it cannot have been a bad fighter in any sense of the word, and richly deserves a place at or very near the top of the heap, at LEAST for effectiveness.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 2, 2015)

The Basket said:


> I have always had the impression that the Fw190 was a better flying machine than the Me109.
> But don't forget the 109E and 109F were arguably the greatest fighters ever made. And were around when called upon. And that counts for a lot. The 109 was plenty good enough and the counter argument would be *why need the Fw190 in the first place?*



Why? The technical advancements in many technical fields will inevitably mean that the expected German adversaries will try and field better aircraft as time passes, so it's better to have a back up in the pipeline, rather than to panic once the proverbial hits the fan. 
Fw 190 was devoid of some things that troubled the 109, like the U/C gear, pilot's field of view, it possessed great rate of roll, bigger internal space meant more fuel, guns and ammo can be carried, capacity to have more powerful engines installed. Going for the radial engine also meant an insurance against the current V-12 engines having this or that set of problems.


----------



## dedalos (Jun 2, 2015)

GregP said:


> .
> 
> .Speaking only personally, I think the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were among the best 1-2 offensive fighters in the world at the time, in no particular order. They were a bit handicapped on the Russian Front since Soviet doctrine was for the aircraft to support the ground troops. So the Soviet pilots flew low, ignored the high-flying Luftwaffe pilots, and proceeded to kill the ground troops in large numbers. This forced the German pilots to come down and fight or simply lose the ground war by default. That put the fighters right in the best-performance envelope of the Yaks and Lavochkins.
> 
> .



Greq P you keep repeating this statement over and over again. Simply is wrong
If you fly low and ignore higher flying enemy planes , you dont Force them down. You just make yourself a perfect target for them and YOU DIE.
The enemy ,in the scenario that you describe does not come down to fight, he just bounces you over and over again until YOU DIE

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 2, 2015)

Hi Dedalos,

The outcome of the Russian Front proves you as wrong as it is possible to be. By late 1944 there weren't many German planes that could live in a Soviet sky. Early on, the main culprit was obsolete Soviet types and poorly-prepared Soviet pilots. Once the Yak-3's and La-5's got there, together with some combat pilot seasoning, the tide of the aerial war reversed quite effectively. If flying low and concentrating on ground support was such wrong tactic, and if they DIED asa result, why did Germany conclusively lose that Front from about late 1943 to mid-1944 onward?

Your statement does not hold up under the light of really happened and if you disagree, that's just fine. Make your own case instead of attacking mine; form you own theory and lay it out for us. Exactly how DID the Germans lose the aerial war so conclusively, especially with such men as Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall leading the way? Huh?

Show me where the error is ... it isn't by accident that the tide turned when the Soviet VVS got aircraft with good performance and good armament. That changed the equipment superiority the Luftwaffe had from the start, and then things started to turn around. The Soviets were also operating in conditions that grouded the rest of the world, but they STILL operated a low-to-medium altitudes in support of ground forces. That is acording to world and Soviet history, not according to Greg.

Maybe you should read up on this front before speaking up?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 2, 2015)

Hopefully this will go into more calm waters, and on-topic if posible


----------



## The Basket (Jun 2, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Why? The technical advancements in many technical fields will inevitably mean that the expected German adversaries will try and field better aircraft as time passes, so it's better to have a back up in the pipeline, rather than to panic once the proverbial hits the fan.
> Fw 190 was devoid of some things that troubled the 109, like the U/C gear, pilot's field of view, it possessed great rate of roll, bigger internal space meant more fuel, guns and ammo can be carried, capacity to have more powerful engines installed. Going for the radial engine also meant an insurance against the current V-12 engines having this or that set of problems.


The war was supposed to last months not years and the 109...Spitfire excepted...was better than any other fighter it met in the first few years and the 109 could turn better than 190 and had better high altitude performance than the early Antons.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2015)

Like the US and GB, the qualitative equivalence was accompanied by numbers for the VVS.

The VVS preferred to fight in the Horizontal from the deck to 15,000 feet. With extremely low wing loading' low power fighters until La 7, Yak 3 - the VVS tuned those attributes in their combat doctrine. On the deck the 109 had superior rates of climb and near equal turn and better quality fighter pilots through 1943. The P-39 did Reasonably well in this envelope against both the 109 but like all Soviet fighters, did not have a deep (altitude wise) envelope to match either to 190 Or the 109 until Yak-3 and La 7 and 9.

IMO for point attack/defense the Spitfire variants, period to period, were the greatest piston engine fighters when compared to any other Axis or Allied fighter developed and improved from 1939 through EOW (Yes dears I favor the Mustang for its important contribution for ANY mission requiring Range AND Performance) but for interceptor and local air superiority I favor the Spit.

Pilot skill was more important than period performance when discussing La 7, La 9 Yak 3 Yak 9, P-51B/B, FW 190, Spit IX and XIV in 1944 and 1945. Numbers helped but they blur the discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 2, 2015)

Pilot skill remains arguably the most important factor of all. I was under the impression we covered that so heavily in the past that it was a given in any post, but I see your point in including it, Bill.

In agree with the Spitfire in terms of outright flight performance, but I think the Bf 109 was way more effective in terms of what was accomplished over the period of the war. It easily shot down many more enemy planes than the Spitfire and so was VERY effective as employed, but the Spitifre would be a top choice for any air-to-air mission for which it had the range.

The Spitfire was probably not an optimum choice for ground attack. Though it could certainly dish out a good deal of firepower, it was also somewhat fragile for that mission along with several other premier air-to-air specalist fighters.

So much of this comes down to the mission and the pilot!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2015)

GregP said:


> but I think the Bf 109 was way more effective in terms of what was accomplished over the period of the war. It easily shot down many more enemy planes than the Spitfire and so was VERY effective as employed, but the Spitifre would be a top choice for any air-to-air mission for which it had the range.



I have one word for you: opportunity.

The LW pilots racked up huge scores, particularly on the Eastern Front, because the opportunities afforded them. The opportunity was in numbers and the quality of the opposition. 

Hartmann was credited with 352 victories. He was in aerial combat 825 times, and flew a total of 1404 combat missions.

Erich Hartmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of his 352 victories, 345 came against the Soviets. How many were against non-fighters?


----------



## The Basket (Jun 3, 2015)

Of course been a later design the Fw190 could take advantage of more powerful engines and new ideas. More growth potential whereas the Me 109 was lumbered with its small light airframe which can be taken so far.
I would wager that the cannon armed 109E/F were better point interceptors than the equivalent Spitfire I armed with 303s. I would easily compare Spitfire to 109 until the Spitfire 9 appeared.
I think the fear of the Fw 190 in its first appearance by the RAF was more novel as the 109F had similar performance and was seemingly less deadly


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2015)

The situation does not change the effectiveness in dealing with the threats it was deployed against. Opportunity? Sure. It is possible they might have done less well, as well, or even better with another aircraft, but history doesn't allow you to have a mulligan. The Bf 109 was a star wherever it was deployed until well-trained pilot attrition kicked in, at which point NO fighter was going to do as well as it might have.

I am not making excuses for any situation, aircraft, or person. The Bf 109 had the best combat victory record of any fighter in any war ever fought until the F-15 managed zero losses on some occasions in combat. But the F-15 still has less than 5% of the victories in 40+ years of operations the Bf 109 achieved in about 5 1/2 years. That is almost the definition of combat effectiveness.

Are you saying the Bf 109's record is not at the top of the WWII fighters or what, Wayne?

I have Hartmann's record on spreadsheet. You tell me how many were non-fighters and I'll tell you if my data agree. If you take the trouble, I will too. Otherwise I'm not all that interested taking the time.


----------



## dedalos (Jun 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Dedalos,
> 
> The outcome of the Russian Front proves you as wrong as it is possible to be.
> *The outcome of the russian front was decided by many factors but low flying soviet flying was not one of them*
> ...


.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 3, 2015)

Greg,

I get 325 fighter types for Hartmann. (from Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Hartmann)

I'm saying that no other fighter had the opportunity to rack up such numbers. It was used in more theatres than most and for longer than most. The Bf 109 must also have one of the highest sortie totals in WW2. It certainly was built in more numbers than any fighter of WW2.

When you say "best combat victory record" do you mean kills/losses, or just sheer number of kills?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 3, 2015)

Selective sampling at work when you look at the record of the Bf 109 in the hands of Experten on the eastern front - and ignoring, say, when Mustangs were hunting them into extinction.

I'm not pointing this out to denigrate the 109, I just mean to say that sometimes in the actual war the circumstances are such that your type of aircraft matters comparatively little when a half dozen other very important factors are considered.


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2015)

I get 325, too, Wayne, so we're remarkably close! I count all his "LaGG-5's" as "La-5's" and attribute the error to not knowing the new fighter was from Lavochkin alone. I'm rather curious he had only one I-16 but maybe they were just all gone.

It is certainly possible the Bf 109 was a loser of a plane, but I can't prove it from the wartime results. When speaking of effectiveness, I was talking raw victories. The Allies threw maybe 12,000 P-51s, 20,000 Spitfires, 12,000 Hurricanes, 4,800 Mosquitoes, 3,300 Typhoons, 1,200 Tempests, and a lot of P-38's and P-40's at the 32,000 Bf 109's ... and the Bf 109 did very well given the circumstances it was forced to work in.

Hi Greyman. I was not ignoring late-war. Looking only at late-war IS selective sampling. The only way the math is valid is by using a random sample, so every member of the population has an equal chance of being picked. Taking a sample of only late-war or only Finn victories, etc. is a textbook definition of statistical sampling bias and results in faulty conclusions.

That exactly why it is wrong to base your opinion of the Buffalo on Finland's experience. They flew only a relative handful of Buffalos. If you throw in the other Buffalo experiences and take real random samples, it comes out very badly, but that is how statistical sampling is done ... if it is done correctly.

If you think the Bf 109 was washed up as a fighter at the end of the war, find any Allied pilot who would take on Erich Hartmann at the end of the war, one on one, with equal starting positions and airspeed.

I'd give some pretty good Las Vegas odds on Herr Hartmann.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> I get 325, too, Wayne, so we're remarkably close! I count all his "LaGG-5's" as "La-5's" and attribute the error to not knowing the new fighter was from Lavochkin alone. I'm rather curious he had only one I-16 but maybe they were just all gone.



The list in the link I posted has a lot of LAGGs, without a designation number.

The LAGG-1 and LAGG-3 weren't a match for the Bf 109. The La-5 probably was a lot closer in ability.




GregP said:


> It is certainly possible the Bf 109 was a loser of a plane, but I can't prove it from the wartime results. When speaking of effectiveness, I was talking raw victories. The Allies threw maybe 12,000 P-51s, 20,000 Spitfires, 12,000 Hurricanes, 4,800 Mosquitoes, 3,300 Typhoons, 1,200 Tempests, and a lot of P-38's and P-40's at the 32,000 Bf 109's ... and the Bf 109 did very well given the circumstances it was forced to work in.



I never said that the Bf 109 was a "loser of a plane". Just that you cannot judge its greatness on raw kill numbers. 

No doubt that the Bf 109F was the best fighter at the time of its introduction. Arguably the Bf 109E was also the best in its time. Maybe the Fw 190 surpassed the Bf 109 on introduction.

The Bf 109 was certainly not the best fighter by wars end. By no means was it easy prey either. It remained competitive. It was just not the best any more.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Why? The technical advancements in many technical fields will inevitably mean that the expected German adversaries will try and field better aircraft as time passes, so it's better to have a back up in the pipeline, rather than to panic once the proverbial hits the fan.
> Fw 190 was devoid of some things that troubled the 109, like the U/C gear, pilot's field of view, it possessed great rate of roll, bigger internal space meant more fuel, guns and ammo can be carried, capacity to have more powerful engines installed. Going for the radial engine also meant an insurance against the current V-12 engines having this or that set of problems.


This latter bit is an interesting point given the lack of fighters adapted (even for testing) to use the Jumo 211 as security against shortages or delays in DB-601/605 production. More so since it would be easier to design an aircraft that could use either engine with relatively few modifications or differences in tooling on the production lines.

Aside from that, one of the greatest assets of the Fw 190 would be its all around handling characteristics catering better to veteran and novice pilots alike, not only making it more potent in the air but also greatly reducing ground accidents.

There's a lot more to logistics than which plane is best in fighter vs fighter combat from a sheer performance standpoint or which plane best suits veteran pilots, let alone aces. Sheer utility in all the applications and mission profiles the aircraft flies, costs of production (including man hours), ease of repair and maintanence, fuel efficiency, range/endurance, armament (external loads included), cockpit and canopy functionality contributing to overall situational awareness, ability to run from a fight (or engage/disengage at will), ability to limp home with considerable damage. All that comes into play and more. The issue of novice pilots would still be significant if the LW training program had been better organized too.

Beyond that there's also the issue of what the LW historically was using the planes for vs what they should have been using them for given more rational military command, leadership, and planning. Ability to reach and destroy bombers (and evade escorts if possible) would be high on that list. (speed, rate of climb, maintaining both at least up to bomber cruise altitudes, and heavy firepower are the demands there; endurance providing increased loiter time and longer range interceptions would also be significant) Granted, from that standpoint, the Fw 187 may have been the better bet. (it somewhat depends where the line between performance, attrition rate, and pilot value come in vs numbers of aircraft produced -the Fw 190 probably makes a better escort fighter, assuming significant edge in maneuverability -- but then again, you wouldn't have to be taking engine/production resources away from one to make more of the other, you've got the likes of Bf 110 production as well and potential to use the Jumo 211 engines otherwise slated for bombers)


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 3, 2015)

what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with. did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 3, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with. did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?



Hans-Joachim Marseille.


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2015)

We'll have to disagree there , Wayne.

When you go into a war, you get ONE SHOT at fighting it. If you are losing, you can turn it around, but if you DO lose, you lose. There aren't ant replays.

The accomplishments of the people and equipment they use are what they are as historically recorded, with inaccuracies and deliberate falsehoods aside. The Bf 109 was the aerial victory leader of all the fighters, fighter bombers, and heavy fighters regardless of circumstances, opposition, weather, or whatever. That makes it the most effective fighter of all times since there were more aerial victories scored during WWII than in all other wars in all of history combined.

For sheer flight performance, there is little debate the Spitfire was at or near the top alongside the Ta 152. For effectiveness at specific missions, the P-51 will always remain the best escort fighter of the war. There are other categories. I'd choose the Japanese Emily as the best flying boat hands down. The Bf 109's place at the top of the fighter heap in wartime shoot-down of enemy planes is damned hard to dispute unless someone is ignoring the facts.

I'm not saying it was the best fighter in service at the end of the war at all; it wasn't. But looking at the data for the entire war, the Bf 109 was right at the top of the heap for enemy shot down and traded virtual number one status with the Spitifre in actual flight and fighter performance for a LONG TIME before the Spitfire eventually eclipsed its rival at the tail end of the war through better development potential. Even on VE Day, any Spirtfire pilot who wasn't on his game was in danger from a well-flown Bf 109.

So, I'll keep the Bf 109 on top of my list for most effective figher of all times even though it was on the losing side. Hey, it's my list after all.

We've had long discussion about best fighter and decided it depended on the mission parameters. You can make a case for several planes if you can choose the mission. Those are fun debates and, though I am in the U.S.A., I might have to slip the Spirfire in there at the top for a lot of missions for which it had the range.

I think for you the Mosquito always seems to surface as a favorite. I have my own favorite too. But if I think of the pile of WWII enemy planes on the ground in wrecks by victor type, the Bf 109 comes to the top every time for me.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 3, 2015)

The Basket said:


> The war was supposed to last months not years and the 109...Spitfire excepted...was better than any other fighter it met in the first few years and the 109 could turn better than 190 and had better high altitude performance than the early Antons.



The Fw 190 was a winner of the RLM request from 1937, and it flew for the 1st time on June 1939. The RLM was also pushing with several bomber aircraft designs by that time, plus jet aircraft, plus new more powerful engines, so I'd say that Germans were keen to either acquire or remain at technological edge when it was about aircraft. 



The Basket said:


> Of course been a later design the Fw190 could take advantage of more powerful engines and new ideas. More growth potential whereas the Me 109 was lumbered with its small light airframe which can be taken so far.



That is what it's all about - in the Fw 190 there was more 'stretch' than in the Bf 109.


> I would wager that the cannon armed 109E/F were better point interceptors than the equivalent Spitfire I armed with 303s. I would easily compare Spitfire to 109 until the Spitfire 9 appeared.
> I think the fear of the Fw 190 in its first appearance by the RAF was more novel as the 109F had similar performance and was seemingly less deadly



The Bf 109F was not equivalent of the Spit I, but of the Spit V, that, once with workable Hispanos, have had twice the firepower than Bf 109F4 - meaning a better bomber killer, but will also make a short work of any fighter that gets hit. The Spitfire IX added needed performance boost with advent of the 2-stage Merlin. Id agree that part of the Fw 190 'fear' was do to the novelty, but there was a substantial performance gap (~20 mph), the Fw 190 also rolled much faster than either Spitfire or the 'legacy' Bf 109, the visibility could help out to the Fw 190's pilot - the Spitfire V was in true disadvantage. The Bf 109F could be faster than Spitfire II (RAF still have had those in 1941) and Spit V, that would be it. The Fw 190A-1 carried 2 cannons and 4 LMGs, and while the MG FFM was not as 'fast as either MG 151 version, the 190 will land many times twice the metal to the targeted aircraft than it would do the Bf 109F of 1941.


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2015)

The Germans always said one gun in the nose equals to guns in the wings. They had one cannon and two MG's n the nose some of the time. The Soviet Union appeared to belive this as the Lavochkins and Yaks and MiG all had nose guns.

I sort of wonder how good the Spirfire could have been wih an inverted Vee in the nose and nose armament. Yes, I have seen the pic of the Spirfire so converted by the Germans, and I must say, I liked it a lot.







But my point is the Bf 109 pilots, including the top three aces of all times, didn't seem to think they were underarmed. If I'm not mistaken, the Bf 109F was Hartmann's favorite version of the 109 as well as the favorite of many other 109 pilots and aces.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 3, 2015)

Again if you're going to base your Air Force's fighter on what the Experten can do with it, I don't think you're going about it properly. I'm sure the top three aces of all time could land the Bf 109 consistently just fine. How many hundreds of Luftwaffe pilots did not?


----------



## Juha (Jun 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> The Germans always said one gun in the nose equals to guns in the wings. They had one cannon and two MG's n the nose some of the time. The Soviet Union appeared to belive this as the Lavochkins and Yaks and MiG all had nose guns.
> 
> I sort of wonder how good the Spirfire could have been wih an inverted Vee in the nose and nose armament. Yes, I have seen the pic of the Spirfire so converted by the Germans, and I must say, I liked it a lot.
> 
> But my point is the Bf 109 pilots, including the top three aces of all times, didn't seem to think they were underarmed. If I'm not mistaken, the Bf 109F was Hartmann's favorite version of the 109 as well as the favorite of many other 109 pilots and aces.



LW saw 1x20mm + 2x7.92mm armament too weak against heavy bombers and Il-2s, maybe also against B-25 and B-26. And against bombers 2 20mm in the wings tended to be better than one 20mm in the nose, in fighter vs fighter combat it wa so and so. 

Spitfires seems to got upper hand against JG 2, JG 26 and other LW unist in the Channel Front in late 1943, still in July 43 the LW seems to have a slight edge but in November 43 Spitfires seems to won all the bigger air combats against 109s and 190s. And Haartmann never flew 109F-4 in combat, when he was posted to 7./JG 52 the unit was already equipped with 109Gs.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 3, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Hans-Joachim Marseille.



he was technically more in the MTO than the west....and flying in africa he did face us and uk planes. interestingly though, most were p 40s and hurris much like what the russians were using in east due to lend lease...

from wiki...

Marseille's 151 claims in North Africa included:

101 Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk/Kittyhawk fighters;
30 Hawker Hurricane fighters;
16 Supermarine Spitfire fighters;
Two Martin A-30 Baltimore bombers;
One Bristol Blenheim bomber; and
One Martin Maryland bomber.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> The Germans always said one gun in the nose equals to guns in the wings. They had one cannon and two MG's n the nose some of the time. The Soviet Union appeared to belive this as the Lavochkins and Yaks and MiG all had nose guns.
> 
> I sort of wonder how good the Spirfire could have been wih an inverted Vee in the nose and nose armament. Yes, I have seen the pic of the Spirfire so converted by the Germans, and I must say, I liked it a lot.
> 
> ...



Interesting, how did it compare to the Merlin Spitfire?


----------



## dedalos (Jun 3, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with. did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?



Mareseille, jg27, 158, Mainly Africa
Egon Mayer ,Jg2, 102, all on the channel front
Adolf Galland, JG26, 104
Josef Priller, Jg26, 101 all on the channel Western fronts
Kurt Buhligen, Jg2, 112 (40 in Africa)
Muncheberg 102of his 133 kills in the mediterrenean and Western europe
And of course Heinrich Baer, 126 (if i remember correctly) of his 220 kills were on the Africa and Western fronts
Forgive me if i forgot someone. Several others scored at 70-80 range

I forgot Werner Schroer with 102 of his 114 kills in Africa and Western europe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 3, 2015)

The first Fw190 encountered ,...A2 I believe ...did not have cannon. And only superior to Spit V not Spit IX 
I would add the Me109 was certainly no loser by any stretch. To prove let's put a Emil against a Defiant. There we go.

Here a mind teaser. Why was the 109 produced until the end?
A)good enough
B)nothing else

And if the Fw190 was so much better then why not shelve the 109 for the 190?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> But my point is the Bf 109 pilots, including the top three aces of all times, didn't seem to think they were underarmed. If I'm not mistaken, the Bf 109F was Hartmann's favorite version of the 109 as well as the favorite of many other 109 pilots and aces.



How did the nose armament on a Bf 109 take down a bomber? During the BoB the RAF wanted more mgs or cannons, even before the BoB the RAF wanted cannon armed fighters. As I understand it all German pilots wanted heavier weapons to take down bombers which is their primary duty.


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2015)

Bombers were made mostly of metal. Any metal that suffered a cannon hit from a cannon shooting an explosive shell was badly damaged if not destroyed. A few "badly damaged" major components were usually enough to make a bomber almost unflyable if not actually unflyable.

I'd estimate that many thousands of bombers found that very thing out at the end of a burst from a Bf 109. That would be B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, Hampdens, Whitleys, Manchesters, Mosquitos, Sterlings, etc. They all qualify as bombers and one hell of a lot of them went down to Bf 109s. It must be true since it happened.

Sure, German pilots wanted heavier armament specifically for bombers. That meant fewer shots were necessary and less time was spent inside Allied fighter cover and bomber defensive fire screens. Later Bf 109s were fitted with underwing gondolas with cannons. These were usually easier for the covering fighters to shoot down since they were slower, didn't roll as well, and had heavier wing loading in turns. Most of the Aces did not want underwing gondolas because they knew how to shoot better than most other pilots.

But the thousands of bombers that fell to standard Bf 109 armament never did figure out why the existing fire was "ineffective." Ineffective always means it didn't work when the fire hit you or other guys. When it DID shoot you down, it wasn't ineffective, particulalrly if you were floating down through a German fighter staffel in a parachute wondering how the completely ineffective Messerschmitt managed to get YOU.

The prison camps were full of guys who were shot down in bombers by Messerschmitt Bf 109s with only standard armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2015)

Shall we go to the ones with rockets? 






The G-6 got 13mm cowl guns why? 
They were running out of 7.9mm ammo?

They started putting in MK 108 cannon, why?

It was a lousy gun for fighter to fighter combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 3, 2015)

The Basket said:


> Here a mind teaser. Why was the 109 produced until the end?
> A)good enough
> B)nothing else
> 
> And if the Fw190 was so much better then why not shelve the 109 for the 190?



From another thread:

Generalleutnants Galland and Schmid during postwar interrogation; 

"_Our technical development program was not planned far enough into the future ... This was a mistake of tremendous scope. For example, the Me 262, the further development of the Fw 190, the gyro computing sight, engines of more than 2000 hp and many other developments were thus all delayed.

In the effort to raise production figures of items in series production, new developments were not forced into series models with the necessary pressure ... In addition, there was a certain dangerous (and partly unwarrented) self-satisfaction at every new technical advance.

For this reason the Me 109 was not taken out of series production for years, although this was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on. Similarly the beginning of the new series of Fw 190 and of the Ta 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective._"

In their ideal scenarios there would have been a faster conversion to the Fw 190 and less use of the Me 109 in 1942, replacement of the Me 109 introduced in 1943, and complete phase out by 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2015)

Once the Bf 109 had the cannon and 13 mm MGs, it really didn't need much more unless going after heavy ground targets or targeted specifically at heavy bomber streams. The Bf 109's fitted with the cannon gondolas were much easier targets for escorting Allied fighters than the standard Bf 109s were.

Good shots of cannon-gondola-equipped Bf 109s. They could certainly throw some lead. The Fw 190 started life with six 7.92 mm MG and wound u with 20 mm and 30 mm cannons! There was a marjed difference in handling, but the all-cannon Fw 190s could get evena grazing hit and put a plane down. Doing a head-on pass with an all-cannon Fw 190 was virtual suicide.

The Bf 109 didn't have the ability to gracefully carry all that weight. A G-model Bf 109 was already a ton heavier than an E or F-model. The E-7 was 2,767 kg and the G was in the vicinity of 3,660 kg depending on variant. Adding more weight for cannons and ammunition was a desperate measure to stop bombers or attack tanks and resulted in the loss off even MORE Bf 109s.

The G-model was the most-produced, but was also very heavy and most all the top 109 Aces preferred the F-model as long as they could get one.

I think ANYONE can answer why they'd fit Mk 108s, and it din't have anything to do with fighter vs. fighter combat. It also was rather unsuccessful unless they intercepted unescorted bombers or came across tanks and other ground pieces with no air cover and little or no AAA.

You might as well ask why they fitted Bazookas to an L-4 Grasshopper. It wasn't for spotting purposes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 3, 2015)

With the advent of the Fw 190, we forget just how effective the Bf 109F was over France and the UK between early 1941 and when the '190 appeared in autumn '42. Fighter Command was commencing its leaning into France policy and its fighters were suffering heavily at the hands of the Friedrich; it was more than a match for the Spitfire V with the exception of turning circle. It was largely reasponsible for the high losses of fighters in the first six months of 1941. Even the British themselves tacitly recognised its superiority; a minute at the time (don't have a date) from the Air Staff stated "...the aircraft [BF 109F] has a superior initial climb and dive to that of the Spitfire [V], but it is considered that the Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me 109F, especially at high speed."

Turning to the Fw 190, I do like the quote by an unknown observer to the activities of the operational evaluation squadron at Rechlin and its Fw 190A-0 pre-production aircraft, stating that the fighters flew back and forth, "...smoking and stinking like bees with their backsides on fire!" Hans Sander stated that flying the prototype was "...like sitting with both feet in the fire place..."


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> You might as well ask why they fitted Bazookas to an L-4 Grasshopper. It wasn't for spotting purposes.



Did the German's try to attempt anything like that with their Storch's? It seems like it could have potential with Panzerschrecks/R4M rockets.


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2015)

I was thinking of Charles Carpenter ... 

Charles Carpenter (lieutenant colonel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> I was thinking of Charles Carpenter ...
> 
> Charles Carpenter (lieutenant colonel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yeah, I know, but I thought I read somewhere that the German's tried that as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 4, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> what made life sweet yet difficult for the LW in the east was the soviet mindset. the vvs' biggest weapon was quantity. i have read several accounts where LW pilots who flew on both fronts said the western one was hardest to get kills. the ac they had to fly against and the training of the pilots was much better. in the east kill were relatively easier to come by as the soviets didnt armor their planes as much to keep the light...and the pilot training was more abrerviated. a couple LW pilots remaked that they would shoot down 20 soviet planes but the next day those would be replaced by 50 new ones. the lw did very well but it was a war of attrition which germany could not keep pace with.* did any german ace fly the western front solely and achieve 100+ kills?[/b*


*

8 over 100
4 with 90-99
Several Dozen scores 50-80

All on the western Front.*


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 4, 2015)

The Fw 190A1 was introduced in August 1941, the A2 with 20mm canon armament in October 1941. Those dates need to be remembered when comparing it against types such as the La 5 (Late 1942) and La 7 (Late 1944). By the time of the Fw 190A3 its production was in full swing, training programs had been developed and it was a usable aircraft compared to aircraft making a tentative introduction. In 1944 it showed a new lease of life with the introduction of the D variants with powerful new liquid cooled engines that gave increased performance at all altitudes, the Fw 190D13/R25 with the Jumo 213 EB engine was expected to reach 488mph and able to be armed with 3 x 20mm revolver canon or even a 30mm motor canon. Such variants would have migrated to the ground attack role as the Ta 152 with their larger wing area and both largely based on the Fw 190 and sharing more than 50% of its parts took over. Even the radial engine variants were on the verge of receiving the BMW 801F engine which could generate over 20% more power (2400hp, potentially 30% more with MW50) and offered a 3 speed supercharger to smooth out delivery of speed and power. The Fw 190A10 would also have received a slightly increased wing area (as had happened several times to the Fw 190 variants)

One is reminded of willy Messerschmitt's rhetorical question to Hermann Goering "What happens when the highly manoeuvrable fighter meets the fast bomber"


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2015)

The Basket said:


> Here a mind teaser. Why was the 109 produced until the end?
> A)good enough
> B)nothing else
> 
> And if the Fw190 was so much better then why not shelve the 109 for the 190?


Not enough 190s to go around. Be it lack of engines or airframes (or related planning/resource allocation) there simply weren't enough 190s of any type to replace the 109.

In 1941, with the same DB-601N and E engines, you've got the potential to produce the Bf 109F, He 100 (had it continued development), and the 190 airframe lighter and adapted to the sleeker engine. (also without reliability problems, yet retaining at very least the maneuverability advantage and likely improving forward visibility, motor cannon, reduced torque, longer range/endurance, and better dive acceleration) And unlike the 109 or (especially) He 100, the 190 airframe should be easier to adapt to the Jumo 211F and J. (or possibly more compelling in low altitude rated 211F models with more power down low useful for ground attack and air combat on the Eastern Front)

Getting a DB 603 powered 190 in production as soon as possible would be an obvious concern as well.







nuuumannn said:


> Turning to the Fw 190, I do like the quote by an unknown observer to the activities of the operational evaluation squadron at Rechlin and its Fw 190A-0 pre-production aircraft, stating that the fighters flew back and forth, "...smoking and stinking like bees with their backsides on fire!" Hans Sander stated that flying the prototype was "...like sitting with both feet in the fire place..."


That, of course, applied to the early V1 prototype fitted with the BMW 139 with serious cooling problems. (on top of being placed too close to the cockpit)

The initial, smaller V1 prototype might also have mated much better to the DB-601, though would have been a rather different aircraft on the whole and possibly not as easy to adapt to heavier armaments without an enlarged wing. (quite possibly a more direct replacement for the 109 and with more direct advantages over the He 100) Again, a Jumo 211 version would have merit as well. (in the case of the smaller, lighter airframe, perhaps enough to be the 109F's better in spite of the weaker engine)

An aircraft more closely based on the V1 might also have managed to reach production sooner while the larger 801, 603, and 213 powered variants could still follow later.





Koopernic said:


> The Fw 190A1 was introduced in August 1941, the A2 with 20mm canon armament in October 1941.


The A-1 also featured 2 20 mm MG-FF/M cannons in the outer wings. The A2 added the MG-151/20 cannons to the wing roots, replacing 2 of the MG-17s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 4, 2015)

Re. for the supposed 'one cannon in nose equals two in the wings' - not all LW pilots thought so, and not all LW pilots were Moelders' caliber (just like not all USN aviators were of Thach's caliber). Galland's 109F was outfitted with 2 MG FFM in the wings, and MG 17s were replaced by MG 131s. 
As kool kitty stated, the 190A-1 was outfitted with two MG FFM, the A-2 received two MG 151/20 in the wing roots (instead of MG 17s installed there). Wiki list is rather complete on the subject of Fw 190A (here, here).


----------



## Juha (Jun 4, 2015)

GregP said:


> Once the Bf 109 had the cannon and 13 mm MGs, it really didn't need much more unless going after heavy ground targets or targeted specifically at heavy bomber streams. The Bf 109's fitted with the cannon gondolas were much easier targets for escorting Allied fighters than the standard Bf 109s were.
> 
> Good shots of cannon-gondola-equipped Bf 109s. They could certainly throw some lead. The Fw 190 started life with six 7.92 mm MG and wound u with 20 mm and 30 mm cannons! There was a marjed difference in handling, but the all-cannon Fw 190s could get evena grazing hit and put a plane down. Doing a head-on pass with an all-cannon Fw 190 was virtual suicide.
> 
> ...




Hello Greg
where you got that tank fixation? I cannot recall a photo of a 109 ground-attack plane with under wing gondolas and MK 108 wasn't a tank killing weapon, MK 101 and 103 were, but they were entirely different cannons.

109G MTOWs varied between 3,050 kg and 3350 kg in normal fighter configuration.

Hartmann claimed 15 Il-2s, Rall the same and Barkhorn some 33 while Kittel claimed 94 (JG 54, some 220 of his 267 accepted claims achieved while flying 190As), Brendel 88 (JG 51, got a bit under ½ of his 189 accepted claims while flying 190, the rest while flying 109)and Wiese 70+ (JG 52). Finns though that 109G-6/R6 was good against Il-2s but the HQ ordered the gondolas removed, partly because they were wanted for the proposed night fighter 109G-6s and partly because their effect on the manoeuvrability and speed of 109G-6. A few FiAF pilots continued to fly with gondolas because of the extra firepower they gave and they also though that the effect on handling wasn't marked.


----------



## GregP (Jun 4, 2015)

Not fixated on tanks. Read that one.

I have also not read any reports of the pilots liking the gondolas. But I also didn't look specifically for that, either. I read most of the combat reports that I ever read on the Bf 109 some 10 - 12 years ago. I'm not even sure I could find them today.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 4, 2015)

There was a discussion on merits of a V-12 powered Fw 190, in early years. Perhaps this graph could mean something, both to proponents and opponents  The original (black lines) is from the manual for the DB 601E-G engines, the colored lines are for the BMW 801C for Notleistung (red) and Kampfleistung (pink), from this table. There are some caveats to it, however.





Caveats - the Notleistung was not available for the DB 601E during 1941; from December 1941/January 1942 the BMW 801C should be able to use 2700 rpm also in second S/C gear (per tests linked before; that would mean at least 1400 ps at 5 km? no ram). Then we have the question of ram air intake - we might call it 'very good' for the DB 601E, and 'not that good' for the vast majority of the historical BMW 801 installations (and for all BMW 801*C* installations); the importance is that better layout of ram air intake will benefit the engine 'breathing', hence more power is gained at altitude. 
Next - the engine-related drag. The Fw 190A8's equivalent flat plate for fuselage was 0.156 sq m, and for the cooling it was 0.073, for the ram air intakes it was 0.003 = total of 0.232 sq m. For the Jumo 213A, we have 0.1393 sq m for fuselage, 0.039 for cooling, and 0.019 for ram air intake = total of 0.1973 sq m. Granted, not all liquid-cooled engines' installations are created equal, but we can be sure that a V-12 will make a tad less of drag than, even a well executed, radial engine installation. (the equivalent flat plate, for high speed, was 0.485 sq m for the 190A-8 A-9, and 0.444 for the 190D-9)

At the end of the day - looks that whatever the BMW 801C offers in raw power, the DB 601E can compensate in the drag, weight and consumption reduction, except for low level capabilities.


----------



## GregP (Jun 4, 2015)

A couple of other things to note about the "not enoiugh 190's to go around" quip above.

The Bf 109 was always a better high-altitude fighter than the Fw 190 ever was. It had better climb and a WAY better ceiling than the radial models. I don't want to even talk about the 43 Ta-152's that were deployed ... that number isn't enough to make a dent in Aluminum foil. There were a reasonable number of Fw 109D's around, but if you wanted to get high, the Bf 109G still had a higher service ceiling than even the Fw 190D-9. So combat at high altitude was a good point for the Bf 109.

Also, at least on the Soviet front, the main targets were usually right in the best dogfight speed range of the Bf 109. It was almost ideally suited for the Soviet front where targets were typically going 190 - 300 mph. The Bf 109 had really good stall characteristics, with plenty of aerodynamic warning and gentle stall breaks. If you just released the back pressure, you were flying again with little altitude loss. Of course, "little" is relative. A 150-foot loss at 20,000 feet is nothing; a 150-foot loss at 90 feet above the trees is fatal. *Edit*: There probably aren't too many trees in Siberia, but the tundra will kill you just as dead.

So if you were in a low-level digfight (Soviet Front), would you rather be in an Fw 190 with great handling characteristics while it was flying but a vicious, no-warning stall or in a Bf 109 where the plane buffeted gently, then more severely, then shook like a mouse in a cat's mouth before the stall broke? If you DID stall, the Bf 109 was much more recoverable than the Fw 190, though neither one was likely to live from a fully-developed stall at 100 feet out of a steep turn.

Speaking for myself only, I'd take the 109 on the Soviet front or for ccombat at high altitudes, and probably the Fw 190 everywhere else. The thing is, you usually didn't get to choose. You flew what your group was assigned. I'm sure the group leaders had some say their equipment type, and most of the leaders beame fledglings and went from rookies through leadership position in the Bf 109. 

So, the guys who were assigned Fw 190s probably had them rammed down their throats involuntarily to a large degree. They then were left to discover their good fortune through getting familiar with their new mounts, and were usually happy with what they were assigned after a few hours. From all accounts I read, nobody wanted the Fw 190D models until they started actually flying them. THEN they discovered they had inherited a pretty good bird after all.

When the word got out, people wanted the "long nose" Fw 190s, but it took a while ... it wasn't "overnight."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2015)

Thanks for the information Blueskies, the ambiguity of the He 100's development is why I was more seriously pursuing the Fw 190's potential. The landing gear troubles are also good to note. (it would still be nice to have any sort of comments on handling qualities on the ground or in the air)





tomo pauk said:


> At the end of the day - looks that whatever the BMW 801C offers in raw power, the DB 601E can compensate in the drag, weight and consumption reduction, except for low level capabilities.


There's also the reliability and production volume of the DB-601. Even the 605 may have had advantages over the 801 in that sense ... numbers if not reliability. More C-3 fueled DB engines and more B4 fueled 801s (relegated to Ju 88s and Do 17s) could make a bigger difference as well.

With the serious night bombing threat, it might even be more useful to relegate the limited supply of DB-603s to those instead and keep the 190 powered by the smaller, sleeker, lighter, less fuel hungry DB engines. (especially if they'd implemented the larger supercharger sooner)

A low altitude DB-601/605 or Jumo 211 powered Jabo/Eastern front optimized variant might make sense too. (low altitude supercharger gearing would probably narrow some of the performance gaps between similarly tuned DB and Jumo engines -including power curves being smoother in both cases)

For that matter, how does the maximum power rating on the existing 211F compare to the 601E in 1941?


In any case, even in the worst case of having an airframe just as heavy as the Fw 190A, performance over 20,000 ft should be equal or better to the 801 powered variant with considerably longer range/endurance. A modest amount of weight should be saved by the lighter engine (even with radiator) and possibly reducing armament to just 3 20 mm cannons on the centerline should shift that discrepancy in the DB powered model's favor. (and obviously, time to altitude would be much improved once emergency rating was allowed)


----------



## Milosh (Jun 4, 2015)

GregP said:


> There probably aren't too many trees in Siberia, but the tundra will kill you just as dead.



There are quite a lot of trees in Siberia.


----------



## GregP (Jun 4, 2015)

OK Milosh. Of all the points to pick, this is the least important to the discussion, but whatever you say.

The pics I see are mostly of tundra and I wouldn't want to bet my life on one being softer than the other in an airplane crash. The difference isn't likely to be very drammatic after the post-stall impact.


----------



## Juha (Jun 5, 2015)

Hello Greg
Google Taiga, most of Siberia belongs to Taiga forest zone, as did almost all of Finland and most of Canada.

Hello KK
190 was appr. twice as expensive to produce than 190A that was one of the reasons why 109 was kept in production after 190 got past of its initial problems.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 5, 2015)

Fw 190A had the problem of power loss from supercharger speed change between 1 and 3km altitude. This is an area where many dogfights on the eastern front were probably made.
DB 605A reached its max power at somewhat above 2km.
All this is from static engine data, rammed air influx may raise this by ~200-300m for the BMW 801 and ~500m for the DB 605.


----------



## GregP (Jun 5, 2015)

I was wrong here ... I was thinking of the Steppes .... and wrote Siberia. It still won't make a hell of a lot of difference when you impact something whether it is trees or grassy dirt. A stall out of a steep turn isn't gliding in for a forced landing, it is a nose-low impact, at speed, with the wings a LONG way from level. The point was low-altitude turning fights with either the Fw 190 or the Bf 109, not terrrain. 

Maybe we could concentrae on the point as it applies to aircraft combat. I couldn't care less what the terrain is like, though I am sure there are non-wooded grassy meadows scattered in Siberia. They might have disppeared and been replaced with all trees, and it is meaningless to the discussion.

I've wandered off-subject before, but never so far as what the proper shrubbery is. This is like pushing a cat into a bag ... ergo no further interest.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 5, 2015)

Heavy armament was definetly needed. More guns heavier guns.
Remember most rounds fired missed. So its a simple case of throwing as much as you can at the enemy.
Attacking a bomber formation means you have to stay outside it's lethal range so you cannot fly up its exhaust pipes as you can a fighter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> ...
> The Bf 109 was always a better high-altitude fighter than the Fw 190 ever was. It had better climb and a WAY better ceiling than the radial models. ...



The performances need to be looked within context and within a strip of the time. The typical Bf 109 that bettered the Fw 190 will carry maybe half of firepower as the typical Fw 190A. Once we equalize the situation a bit (say, cram 2 gondola cannons on the 109), the Bf 109 will not look that sprinty. Toss in the fact that BMW 801D was fully rated from Oct 1942 on, while the DB 605A was not, the Fw 190A-4 will offer 660 km/h at 6.3 km, vs. 632 km/h at 6.6 km for the 109G-2 with 3 cannons (granted, Soviet tests give better performance for that version of 109)



> So if you were in a low-level digfight (Soviet Front), would you rather be in an Fw 190 with great handling characteristics while it was flying but a vicious, no-warning stall or in a Bf 109 where the plane buffeted gently, then more severely, then shook like a mouse in a cat's mouth before the stall broke? If you DID stall, the Bf 109 was much more recoverable than the Fw 190, though neither one was likely to live from a fully-developed stall at 100 feet out of a steep turn.



I'd again suggest that we attach gondola cannons on the 109 and then check flying qualities. Not many pilots were fond on 'Kannonevogel's' handling.



Denniss said:


> Fw 190A had the problem of power loss from supercharger speed change between 1 and 3km altitude. This is an area where many dogfights on the eastern front were probably made.
> DB 605A reached its max power at somewhat above 2km.
> *All this is from static engine data, rammed air influx may raise this by ~200-300m for the BMW 801 and ~500m for the DB 605.*



The bolded part is why I've said that ram air intakes were 'not that good' on the Fw 190A. The DB 605A will gain circa 1300m when on full power high speed level flight (5.7 km 'static' rated height, 7 km with ram on the Bf 109), while the BMW 801D will gain only 600 m (5.7 km vs. 6.3 km on Fw 190A flying with full power, high speed, level flight). The external intakes were tested for the BMW, with favorable results (rated height climbed at and above 7 km for high speed Fw 190A), but were not pursued with, maybe the loss of low level performance due to greater drag looked to great in LW eyes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 5, 2015)

The Basket said:


> Heavy armament was definetly needed. More guns heavier guns.
> Remember most rounds fired missed. So its a simple case of throwing as much as you can at the enemy.
> Attacking a bomber formation means you have to stay outside it's lethal range so you cannot fly up its exhaust pipes as you can a fighter.



Agreed. 
We can also remember that 'our' fighters will also encounter other tough aircraft. Eg. the LW fighter will need to down a B-25, Beaufighter or Il-2. This is where 'throwing as much as you can' applies too.



kool kitty89 said:


> ...
> With the serious night bombing threat, it might even be more useful to relegate the limited supply of DB-603s to those instead and keep the 190 powered by the smaller, sleeker, lighter, less fuel hungry DB engines. (especially if they'd implemented the larger supercharger sooner)



The problem with DB605A being not restricted for quite some time will hamper the '605 Fw 190' capabilities? Though, an LR fighter powered by DB 601/605 engine might be a good bet? The earlier implementation of external air intakes on the BMW 801 (hopefully in a more streamlined fashion) would push the Fw 190A beyond 670-680 km/h, depending on the number of cannons. With a working DB 603, it would be is close to 700 km/h (no cowl guns, for less drag).



> A low altitude DB-601/605 or Jumo 211 powered Jabo/Eastern front optimized variant might make sense too. (low altitude supercharger gearing would probably narrow some of the performance gaps between similarly tuned DB and Jumo engines -including power curves being smoother in both cases)



The Jumo 211 family was already well suited for low level work, bar the Jumo 211R (with 'faster' S/C gearing?) that never went into series production (the Jumo 213A took over instead). 



> For that matter, how does the maximum power rating on the existing 211F compare to the 601E in 1941?



Kampfleistung (thick lines) of the 211F (black) vs. my additions, 211J (red; also for TO power) and DB 601E (green; TO power is not greater than 1200 PS in most/all of 1941); neither the 211J nor 601E are in service in early 1941, of course. The difference in power between 2 and 5.5 km of altitude is marked, 211F vs. 601E.








> In any case, even in the worst case of having an airframe just as heavy as the Fw 190A, performance over 20,000 ft should be equal or better to the 801 powered variant with considerably longer range/endurance. A modest amount of weight should be saved by the lighter engine (even with radiator) and possibly reducing armament to just 3 20 mm cannons on the centerline should shift that discrepancy in the DB powered model's favor. (and obviously, time to altitude would be much improved once emergency rating was allowed)



The switch from BMW to Jumo 213 meant 10% less drag (for high speed) for the Fw 190 line, much of Fw 190D-9 extra performance came out from that. With a (lighter) V-12, the Fw 190 still retain it's advantages as an airframe vs. Bf 109.


----------



## GregP (Jun 5, 2015)

Tomo,

It was the Germans themselves who claimed that "one gun in the fuselage was worth two in the wings." The Bf 109 was adequately armed once it got to a 20 mm cannon and 13 mm MG. The is no need to equalize anything. What you need to do is look at typical loadouts. You don't load a combat plane to match some rival, you load it for it's designed loadout and missions. The Bf 109 was, far and away, the more successful fighter in the war as a whole as well as on the Soviet Front.

The Fw 190 was VERY good at medium altitudes, but that's typically not where bombs came from in the ETO.

On the Soviet Front, the fighting was at low to medium altitudes except for occasional forays into higher altitudes. Down low the Fw 190, as well as anythig else with speed usually quoted at best height, wasn't nearly as fast as the "top speed" numbers might indicate. The planes were in the open and were full of mud and dirt, suffered with only "field" maintenance, and the later Soviet types were more a match or better for it. I'm thinking Yaks and Lavochkins, not necessarily MiGs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 5, 2015)

Not all the Germans claimed that 'one gun in the fuselage is worth two guns in the wings' - it was what Werner Moelders claimed. Adolf Galland disagreed, and wanted (and got) his 109F having 3 times the firepower vs. what other 109Fs carried. So whom do we believe - one German ace or another? Further, had it been so, we wouldn't see any Bf 109s with performance-stealing gondola cannons, and those were used on MTO and Eastern Front. 



> The is no need to equalize anything. What you need to do is look at typical loadouts. You don't load a combat plane to match some rival, you load it for it's designed loadout and missions.



Going by that - the 109 with gondola cannons is to go hunting enemy planes, the extra guns will mean the enemy aircraft will be downed easier if the pilot got a good aim, or that some shells will hit the target even if the aim is a bit off.
Equalization is necessary, it levels the playing field. The Fw 190 with just 2 cannons and external intakes will be as fast or faster than Bf 109F4 or G2, it will retain fast roll rate, far better visibility, ruggedness, will improve at high altitude, with improved service ceiling, maneuverability, RoC, it will even sport a bit more firepower than those. 



> The Bf 109 was, far and away, the more successful fighter in the war as a whole as well as on the Soviet Front.



Think you're mixing the achievements of an airforce with real capabilities of an aircraft. That is not to say that Bf 109 was not a fine fighter.



> The Fw 190 was VERY good at medium altitudes, but that's typically not where bombs came from in the ETO.



Nobody said that Fw 190 was an ideal fighter. But - how many B-17/24 were shoot down by Fw 190, how many by Bf 109? What about the Schweinfurt disaster? 



> On the Soviet Front, the fighting was at low to medium altitudes except for occasional forays into higher altitudes. Down low the Fw 190, as well as anythig else with speed usually quoted at best height, wasn't nearly as fast as the "top speed" numbers might indicate. The planes were in the open and were full of mud and dirt, suffered with only "field" maintenance, and the later Soviet types were more a match or better for it. I'm thinking Yaks and Lavochkins, not necessarily MiGs.



Let's cram an extra pair of cannons (even though that borders on impossible) on Yaks or Lavotchkins and see how well they go. Let's also try to install drop tank facility on those. Any takes on why the La-7 produced in 1944 was 20 mph slower that the one of 1945? It took until 1944 for the Soviets to introduce 400 mph fighter in service units, the goal post moved from 1941. I love very much the MiG-3, but I cant defend it in the light of it's own flaws.
There was a reason why Soviets loved the P-39.


----------



## GregP (Jun 5, 2015)

I think the "one in the fuselage is worth two in the wings" guys were right.

You can't please everyone all the time ... ask any U.S. citizen ... our government is trying to do that very thing, spectacularly unsuccessfully. Since the Bf 109 shot down more airborne enemy aircraft than any other aircraft in history, the argument seems to be demonstrably correct.

That said, I'd much rather have a cannon-armed Fw 190 if I were attacking ground targets since it had more cannons and even shells that miss a small bit and would ineffective in the air will hit the ground around the target, explode, and cause damage. More shrapnel in the air around ground targets is better than less.

Hey, if you think the Fw 190 was a better fighter than the Bf 109, you have made a *great* choice. I just don't happen to make the same choice and, fortunately, the war is long over and it won't make the slightest bit of difference to anyone but you and me. I really like your choice; it's my second-favorite German fighter. I just think the Bf 109 demonstrated better air-to-air success during the war, so it gets my vote. 

If you are winning the boxing match hands down and manage to get caught with a left hook in the last round, you may wind up losing the fight while ahead on the score card. The Fw 190 and it's late variants, partcularly the Ta 152, had overtaken the Bf 109 at the end of the war in terms of performance, but the Bf 109 was still around and fighting in good numbers when the war ended, and it won a LOT of rounds in the fight.

The Ta 152 never got out of the corner to demonstrate it's capabilities with so few delivered. With something like 10 total victories to its credit against 2 - 4 losses, it has no combat claim to much of anything even though the performance was there and it COULD have made a huge difference had things gone on and had it been available in numbers. But things didn't go on and it was never available in numbers. Only 43 of about 150 airframes were delivered to combat units, and they had no spare parts! Your first major writeup was your last ride in it unless they canabalized another one to fix yours.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 7, 2015)

Juha said:


> 190 was appr. twice as expensive to produce than 190A that was one of the reasons why 109 was kept in production after 190 got past of its initial problems.


Without further context it's hard to use this as a metric for things. There's monetary cost, man hours, materials, and then other variables for the armament and engine used. (I'd think the BMW 801 would be more costly to manufacture than the DB 601, 605, or Jumo 211 -perhaps not the 213 or especially 603)

Then there's time scales and the context of production volumes, tooling, refining of production lines, among other things. The 109 was in production much earlier and expanded much sooner.

A DB (or Jumo) powered 190 would also conceivably have entered production before the 801 version, been at least somewhat cheaper from the start, and certainly easier to maintain. There'd be greater differences between a smaller/lighter 190 based on the original V1 airframe too, and that may have been cheaper to manufacture on top of better performing with the V12 engines, but there's obviously no comparable statistics for that airframe in mass production.




tomo pauk said:


> The problem with DB605A being not restricted for quite some time will hamper the '605 Fw 190' capabilities? Though, an LR fighter powered by DB 601/605 engine might be a good bet? The earlier implementation of external air intakes on the BMW 801 (hopefully in a more streamlined fashion) would push the Fw 190A beyond 670-680 km/h, depending on the number of cannons. With a working DB 603, it would be is close to 700 km/h (no cowl guns, for less drag).


There would still be the reliability and maintenance advantages of the alternate engines, likely cost as well, but aside from that there was the context of just being better all around than 109s using the same engines.



> The Jumo 211 family was already well suited for low level work, bar the Jumo 211R (with 'faster' S/C gearing?) that never went into series production (the Jumo 213A took over instead).


Yes, but I'd meant more something along the lines of tuning the low supercharger speed for maximum power at 0 m and the high speed for considerably lower than it was. (at least for low-level/ground attack specific aircraft, optimized closer to the AM38's best altitudes)

With the gains from the 211F to J from the intercooling, similar gains seem likely at lower altitudes with the reduced charge heating of the lower supercharger speeds. (possibly slightly better gains given the reduced power consumed by the supercharger itself) 



> Kampfleistung (thick lines) of the 211F (black) vs. my additions, 211J (red; also for TO power) and DB 601E (green; TO power is not greater than 1200 PS in most/all of 1941); neither the 211J nor 601E are in service in early 1941, of course. The difference in power between 2 and 5.5 km of altitude is marked, 211F vs. 601E.


Was the 211F available earlier than the 601E? That might be moderately significant to note. (the 601N already had competitive/better performance, but required C3 fuel)





GregP said:


> It was the Germans themselves who claimed that "one gun in the fuselage was worth two in the wings." The Bf 109 was adequately armed once it got to a 20 mm cannon and 13 mm MG. The is no need to equalize anything. What you need to do is look at typical loadouts. You don't load a combat plane to match some rival, you load it for it's designed loadout and missions. The Bf 109 was, far and away, the more successful fighter in the war as a whole as well as on the Soviet Front.


Not quite the same argument, but the 190's wing root guns should pretty well count as 'in the nose' as well. And with a V12, it could have had 3 MG 151s all on the centerline too. (at least around the same time as the A-2 got the wing root 151s, initially it might be MG-FF/Ms in the nose and outer wings -or possibly omitting the outer wing guns in some configurations to save weight, leaving the 4 MG 17s and single MG-FF/M -likely with the larger capacity drum)

I'm also not sure whether the smaller wing on the V1 prototype (or the slightly larger small wing on the later prototypes and initial A0s -before the full sized wing entered production) could accept cannons in the outer wings, but given the 109 managed it and the 190 saved on some complexity/space consumption by lacking the LE slats, it seems plausible to assume at least. (certainly less room for fuel tanks in the wings though)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> ...
> Yes, but I'd meant more something along the lines of tuning the low supercharger speed for maximum power at 0 m and the high speed for considerably lower than it was. (at least for low-level/ground attack specific aircraft, optimized closer to the AM38's best altitudes)



Let's see the power chart for Jumo 211F only:






The 'Start' part of 'Start und Notleistung' power setting was used in bombers, ie. the 1.4 ata 2600 rpm was used for 1 minute, take off only. For the fighter's use, the engine need to be tested and rated for 'Notleistung', say 5 minutes at 1.4 ata and 2600 rpm in this case. It gives (for v = 0 km/h, ie. no ram) ~1400 PS at 1.3 km, and ~1190 PS at 5 km. With 400 km/h worth of ram, the rated height for the 1st S/C speed is at 2.8 km, the power is supposed to be 1420 PS there. So we have the Jumo 211F pretty well matched as-is with any low-level Soviet machine; the AM 38 is a bit better, but at cost (bulk, weight), and it does not have 2nd S/C gear to help out above ~3,5 km.


> With the gains from the 211F to J from the intercooling, similar gains seem likely at lower altitudes with the reduced charge heating of the lower supercharger speeds. (possibly slightly better gains given the reduced power consumed by the supercharger itself)



The gain in power, 211J vs. 211F, is not that great in 1st S/C gear as it is in 2nd, but it can still give an increase in power at low level. Looking at the data, we should have ~1450 PS at 1000m, Notleistung, no ram.




> Was the 211F available earlier than the 601E? That might be moderately significant to note. (the 601N already had competitive/better performance, but required C3 fuel)



IIRC the 211F was in use from early 1941, the 601E from June 1941.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 7, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The 'Start' part of 'Start und Notleistung' power setting was used in bombers, ie. the 1.4 ata 2600 rpm was used for 1 minute, take off only. For the fighter's use, the engine need to be tested and rated for 'Notleistung', say 5 minutes at 1.4 ata and 2600 rpm in this case. It gives (for v = 0 km/h, ie. no ram) ~1400 PS at 1.3 km, and ~1190 PS at 5 km. With 400 km/h worth of ram, the rated height for the 1st S/C speed is at *2.8 km*, the power is supposed to be 1420 PS there. So we have the Jumo 211F pretty well matched as-is with any low-level Soviet machine; the AM 38 is a bit better, but at cost (bulk, weight), and it does not have 2nd S/C gear to help out above ~3,5 km.


Looking at the chart, that should be 1.8 km, not 2.8, for 1420 ps with 400 km/h ram. (though for flat-out speed in a Fw 190 derivative, the 1440 ps at 2.4 km with 600 km/h ram would also be relevant)

And yes, I wasn't so much expecting to match the AM38's power, but more optimize for the same peak performance range (distributed between 2 supercharger speeds rather than 1), but in this case the gains might not be worth it given the reduced utility at higher altitudes (when needed -or simply for standard production). 

In addition to that, I'd forgotten to consider in my previous posts that, had the 211F indeed been implemented on fighters, there might have been some precedent for ratings specific to C2 or C3 usage and increased maximum boost without use of the intercooler. (and also without the compression ratio increases typical of C3-specific engine models) You wouldn't have the same charge cooling/density improvements of the 211J, but also no added drag from the intercoolers. (more important if a specialized low-drag radiator arrangement is used rather than the standard jumo annular one -given the intercooler radiators fit into that same cowling without increasing the frontal area)

Any higher power settings on the 211F would obviously require additional testing, so at very least probably seeing some delay akin to the 601E in 1941. In any case, the 211 would make more efficient use of that C3 fuel than the same resources going to the thirstier 801. (less fuel hungry for B4 as well, of course)

Of course, with both C3 fuel AND the 211J's intercooler, you might be capable of even greater boost so long as the rest of the engine is strong enough for it. (which it very well might not be -managing 211J power levels on the 211F without modifications other than changing fuel type and manifold pressure limits seems far more likely)



> IIRC the 211F was in use from early 1941, the 601E from June 1941.


This might be another attractive point for adapting the Fw 190 to the Jumo 211. At least for the earlier part of 1941 it would be the most powerful German V12 in service and continue to be so until the 601E was cleared for 1.42 ATA. (albeit with slightly weaker altitude performance than the 601N -more so with the coarser power curves)

That coupled with the greater availability of the 211 (genuine shortages of DB engines on top of the RLM distribution preference for Bf 109 and 110 use) and other advantages over the 801C would seem to make it a very attractive fighter engine for a complement or replacement for the 109. (besides that, had the Jumo 211 been pressed for use as a fighter engine, it might have seen more developments for optimizations catering to that mission profile -though the 'Notleistung' and potential C3 usage would both be part of that line of thought)

That would also make the 211 somewhat compelling to use on the 109, but given the 190 was a new design and avoiding interruption of 109 production was a major concern, that would be one more thing in favor of the Jumo 211F + Fw 190 airframe combination. (be it something closer to the Fw 190V1 or a heavier airframe much closer to the Production A1 -though almost certainly including a motor cannon in either case)

And while this would remove some of the 211s going to bomber production in 1941, it could also mean applying most/all of the BMW 801Cs to bombers and night fighters rather than day fighters. (Do 217s and Ju 88s in particular)


On another note, had the Fw 190 indeed performed well adapted to the Jumo engine, that would be one more practical reason the Fw 187 would be less attractive using the same engines. (aside from being more attractive in roles more specific to the Bf 110 -especially with the 801 powered Ju 88 likely performing better as a night fighter at least until compact enough radar could be applied to the Fw 187 itself)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> So if you were in a low-level digfight (Soviet Front), would you rather be in an Fw 190 with great handling characteristics while it was flying but a vicious, no-warning stall or in a Bf 109 where the plane buffeted gently, then more severely, then shook like a mouse in a cat's mouth before the stall broke? If you DID stall, the Bf 109 was much more recoverable than the Fw 190, though neither one was likely to live from a fully-developed stall at 100 feet out of a steep turn.


How accurate of a comparison of the stalling characteristics of the 109 and 190 is this? I seem to recall the spitfire also having problems with snap stalls at high speed but was generally regarded as easier to fly than the 109. The 109's slats also gave an unusual feel for stall and given some anecdotal accounts, not all pilots seem to have been trained to properly use them. (some descriptions of the 109 tending to 'stall without warning' seems more like not understanding the difference between pulling into high angle of attack and forcing the slats to pop open and actually pushing further into the stall range)


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moreRketqek_

I was rather confused watching this a few months back given the description of handling characteristics that contradicted much of which I'd read and seen discussed about the 109 and spitfire. (and totally omitted any mention of the slats)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 8, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Looking at the chart, that should be 1.8 km, not 2.8, for 1420 ps with 400 km/h ram. (though for flat-out speed in a Fw 190 derivative, the 1440 ps at 2.4 km with 600 km/h ram would also be relevant)



Whoops - my bad, it is indeed 1.8 km for 400 km/h



> And yes, I wasn't so much expecting to match the AM38's power, but more optimize for the same peak performance range (distributed between 2 supercharger speeds rather than 1), but in this case the gains might not be worth it given the reduced utility at higher altitudes (when needed -or simply for standard production).



The Jumo 211F should be able to provide both power down low to match AM 38, and enough of power to compete with AM 35A high up, let alone the M 105 on all altitudes.



> In addition to that, I'd forgotten to consider in my previous posts that, had the 211F indeed been implemented on fighters, there might have been some precedent for ratings specific to C2 or C3 usage and increased maximum boost without use of the intercooler. (and also without the compression ratio increases typical of C3-specific engine models) You wouldn't have the same charge cooling/density improvements of the 211J, but also no added drag from the intercoolers. (more important if a specialized low-drag radiator arrangement is used rather than the standard jumo annular one -given the intercooler radiators fit into that same cowling without increasing the frontal area)



The Jumo engines were with low CR (6.5:1) and indeed it should be less of a problem to implement higher boost levels with C3 fuel. Granted, the BMW 801D with no increase of the CR vs. the 801C should be also interesting in that regard, while implementation of more streamlined external intakes will improve altitude performance, while not making that of a dent on low-altitude performance.



> Any higher power settings on the 211F would obviously require additional testing, so at very least probably seeing some delay akin to the 601E in 1941. In any case, the 211 would make more efficient use of that C3 fuel than the same resources going to the thirstier 801. (less fuel hungry for B4 as well, of course)



The early V-12 powered Fw 190 should make a better LR fighter than what would be reasonably expected from the Bf 109 in any iteration


> Of course, with both C3 fuel AND the 211J's intercooler, you might be capable of even greater boost so long as the rest of the engine is strong enough for it. (which it very well might not be -managing 211J power levels on the 211F without modifications other than changing fuel type and manifold pressure limits seems far more likely)



We might recall that Ta 154 have had issues with Jumo 211 engines, with 3 prototypes crashing because of engine problems - so yes, the caution and good testing is needed. Ironically, Germany have had reliability problems on all of it's main engines mid-war.


> This might be another attractive point for adapting the Fw 190 to the Jumo 211. At least for the earlier part of 1941 it would be the most powerful German V12 in service and continue to be so until the 601E was cleared for 1.42 ATA. (albeit with slightly weaker altitude performance than the 601N -more so with the coarser power curves)



In 1941, the Fw 190/211F should be performing better than any Allied fighter, with exception of Spitfire V?



> That would also make the 211 somewhat compelling to use on the 109, but given the 190 was a new design and avoiding interruption of 109 production was a major concern, that would be one more thing in favor of the Jumo 211F + Fw 190 airframe combination. (be it something closer to the Fw 190V1 or a heavier airframe much closer to the Production A1 -though almost certainly including a motor cannon in either case)



I'd go with the normal, big wing, it is still fairly a small wing compared with Spit, P-40, P-51 or Zero. The further adoption of heavier powerplant would not favor the initial, small wing.



> On another note, had the Fw 190 indeed performed well adapted to the Jumo engine, that would be one more practical reason the Fw 187 would be less attractive using the same engines. (aside from being more attractive in roles more specific to the Bf 110 -especially with the 801 powered Ju 88 likely performing better as a night fighter at least until compact enough radar could be applied to the Fw 187 itself)



The Fw 190/801 will be far more attractive with BMW 801C running at 2700 rpm also in second S/C gear, along with both 801C and 801D having streamlined, but external intakes. At least in ETO, where the altitude performance is needed, and long range (at least when in defense) is not that attractive thing. Also - ditch the fuselage MGs.


----------



## GregP (Jun 8, 2015)

Hi Kool Kitty,

The flight reports I have read were German, British, and U.S.A. . All commented that the fighter flew very well, had excellent ailerons, and very little aerodynamic stall warning. The aircraft was supposed to flick one way or the other if you got into a deep stall in a tight turn. That means it would roll to the outside of the turn if slipping and roll to the inside if skidding, ending up upside down in either case.

Some planes did that. It didn't make them especially dangerous, but it WOULD give you pause at low altitudes if you were not quite famailar with the aircraft and needed to pull hard into a turn.

How accurate? I've never flown one. 

The only guy I know personally who has is Steve Hinton, and he wasn't exploring the stall characteristics, he was exploring the FLIGHT charachertistics. He described the flight characteristics as wonderful and said you could feel a BIG difference between the real bird and the Flugwerk replicas. He said there was no doubt you were in a thoroughbred fighter when you were in a real Fw 190. 

So ...if you believe the flight reports from the time, then you do. If you don't, you have no frame of reference. I personally don't believe the WWII flight reports were fake; they flew like the guys at the time SAID they flew.

Also keep in mind that any captured planes were operated by people who were essentially unfamiliar with them and their maintenance requirements and specifications. So, they might not quite match the flight tests carried out by the people who invented and manufactured the captured planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 9, 2015)

A more riskier earlier (with regard to the service use) approach to the Fw 190 engine might be pressing on with BMW 139. The installation will certainly need more louvers so it can be cooled better, along with cooling fan (instead of ducting spinner), as it was the case with reworked V1 prototype.
The BMW 139 was to make 1410 PS at 4500 m (5 min rating) and 1270 PS at 4900 m (30 min rating), weight 800 kg bare engine, but with cooling fan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2015)

Might not work very well In the DO 217 or later Ju-88s though 

Turning it into a production could delay or cancel the 801 leaving the Germans..................


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 9, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Might not work very well In the DO 217 or later Ju-88s though



In case cooling is improved, it might be a decent engine. The power levels are comparable with BMW 801C, or the 801A on the earlier Do 217s - 1500 PS for take off vs. 1560.



> Turning it into a production could delay or cancel the 801 leaving the Germans..................



Produce the 139 in 1940-43, with 801 introduced in winter of 1942/43?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2015)

If you have enough engineers/man power for two design teams. 

We don't know why they stopped the BMW 139 do we? Or the RPM, Boost it was operating at?


----------



## Denniss (Jun 9, 2015)

The 139 was built using 132 components, I doubt these would be suitable for higher power levels than ~1500PS.
The 801 had multiple improvements to enable further power increases.


----------



## rinkol (Jun 9, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> If you have enough engineers/man power for two design teams.
> 
> We don't know why they stopped the BMW 139 do we? Or the RPM, Boost it was operating at?



My understanding is that the BMW 801 was basically a developed BMW 139. Improvements included a two speed supercharger and mechanical refinements. The often seen statement that the BMW 139 had 18 cylinders is almost certainly incorrect. FWIW, there was an 18 cylinder development (BMW 140) that never materialized.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 9, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> If you have enough engineers/man power for two design teams.
> 
> We don't know why they stopped the BMW 139 do we? Or the RPM, Boost it was operating at?



To a certain extent BMW did have two design teams: There was BMW itself, based in Munich, and then Bramo which was the BRandenberg MOtor works, based near Berlin and itself once known as Siemens Schuckert and in many ways more illustrious. BMW absorbed Bramo. I believe the 139 was a BMW project development and the 329 bramo. This is why the firm appears to have licensed both the Mercury from Bristol and the Hornet from Pratt and Whitney. BMW took over and so its programs were preeminent. 

The 801 was numbered as the RLM, German air ministry, issued a new block of numbers to the "merged" firm.

The treaty of Versailes and allied commission all but wiped out German aircraft and engine manufacture with severe rules restricting engine horsepower and airframes size, at one point to only 100hp. Firms like Junkers survived by shifting operations to Sweden and Dornier by shifting across the border to Switzerland just across the other side of Lake Constance.

It's likely the German aviation industry would have wiped the floor in post WW1 civil aviation globally with the mastery of aluminium construction that was fully developed by 1918 but for these allied restrictions. (Claudius Dornier learned has smooth plate aluminium construction craft at the Zeppelin Works also on Lake Constance in Frierichshaven)

These all metal monoplanes could operate in storm that grounded biplanes.

The trimotors that Junkers developed such as the G24 (and latter Ju 52) were originally designed as economical single engined aircraft that had to be built in Germany as trimotors so as not to be regarded as fighters, they were then to be shipped to Sweden and the idea was to remove the wing mounted engines for overseas customers and substitute a single large engine. Twins of the day could not keep themselves in the air if an engine failed and were thus no safer, hence Lindbergh choice of a single, but a trimotor could. Hence through the use of gyroscopic artificial horizons and radio navigation beacons Lufthansa was able to begin the worlds first scheduled night time passenger services using G24s since a single engine failure did not lead to a crash landing since a open field could not be seen at night. 

Obviously with these restrictions German engine manufacturers fell behind in investment and BMW resorted to liscence production when restrictions were finally lifted. Daimler Benz did not deign to do so. Hirth and Argus, roughly Auto Union or Audi, developed its own inline air cooled technology that might have matched the liquid v12 and air cooled radials in performance had it been pursued.

Bramo/Siemens used 300 series numbers eg Bramo 323 with a Jupiter heritage while BMW used 100 series numbers eg BMW132 with a hornet heritage. The merged firm received a new block of numbers beginning at 800.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> In 1941, the Fw 190/211F should be performing better than any Allied fighter, with exception of Spitfire V?


Perhaps still better than the Spitfire V (LF variants aside) at low altitudes more akin to the 801 powered variant but with somewhat different performance advantages. (still related to the smoother power curves than the single-speed Merlin)



> I'd go with the normal, big wing, it is still fairly a small wing compared with Spit, P-40, P-51 or Zero. The further adoption of heavier powerplant would not favor the initial, small wing.


Agreed, though hopefully some of the lighter structure of the 190 V1 could be retained in spite of the wing change. (granted, the structural changes seem to be more related to the engine installation and other modifications leading up to the V5k, plus the initial new wing adapted to the V5k was a longer span but still the more tapered, lower area wing used on the first few A-0s rather than the broader wing tested on the V5g, so introducing the Jumo 211 into testing earlier on would hopefully result in more of a mix of characteristics from the lighter V1 and V2, and larger V5g wing -of course with added armor and overall military load adding more weight in service too)



> The Fw 190/801 will be far more attractive with BMW 801C running at 2700 rpm also in second S/C gear, along with both 801C and 801D having streamlined, but external intakes. At least in ETO, where the altitude performance is needed, and long range (at least when in defense) is not that attractive thing. Also - ditch the fuselage MGs.


Agreed, especially for an interceptor (the reduced range and increased weight would mean more compromises for fighter-bomber use).

Aside from that, there's just the Do 217 and Ju 88 competing for 801 engines. (more so once the British night bombing campaign increased in volume and even more so with earlier, light/stripped down/interceptor configured 801 powered Ju 88 night fighters possibly making better mosquito chasers than anything else available at the time) Not to mention 801 powered Ju 88 bombers would be closer to Mosquito performance in other roles too. (or potentially, depending on defensive and offensive armaement configuration -including external loads)

Armament wise, replacing the synchronized MG17s as soon as possible would be a high priority. If MG 131s could be supplied sooner than MG 151s (15 or 20 mm) and easier to adapt to the 190's wing root mountings (as appears to be the case given the V2's armament test/provision configurations) that should have been pursued likely with deleting the upper cowl guns entirely. (and, of course, on V12 powered version you could have the hub mounted cannon as well -3 MG-FF/M and 2 MG 131 guns seems a likely practical arrangement)





tomo pauk said:


> A more riskier earlier (with regard to the service use) approach to the Fw 190 engine might be pressing on with BMW 139. The installation will certainly need more louvers so it can be cooled better, along with cooling fan (instead of ducting spinner), as it was the case with reworked V1 prototype.
> The BMW 139 was to make 1410 PS at 4500 m (5 min rating) and 1270 PS at 4900 m (30 min rating), weight 800 kg bare engine, but with cooling fan.


That doesn't really sound better than the Jumo 211F (at least assuming the 1 minute limit was extended to 5 minutes for fighters). The power curves are different, so performance at the 139's critical altitudes is worse, but on the whole, you have the 211F reaching 1440 PS at 2.4 km and 1230 ps at 6.1 km with full ram (likely for the 190 at top speed) though for very slight raming conditions (ie normal climb conditions, well under the 400 km/h curve) it would be approximately 1400 ps at 1.4 km and 1200 ps at 5.2 km.







Koopernic said:


> To a certain extent BMW did have two design teams: There was BMW itself, based in Munich, and then Bramo which was the BRandenberg MOtor works, based near Berlin and itself once known as Siemens Schuckert and in many ways more illustrious. BMW absorbed Bramo. I believe the 139 was a BMW project development and the 329 bramo. This is why the firm appears to have licensed both the Mercury from Bristol and the Hornet from Pratt and Whitney. BMW took over and so its programs were preeminent.
> 
> ...
> 
> Bramo/Siemens used 300 series numbers eg Bramo 323 with a Jupiter heritage while BMW used 100 series numbers eg BMW132 with a hornet heritage. The merged firm received a new block of numbers beginning at 800.


It was my impression that the BMW 801 was a direct development (and renaming) of the Bramo 329 with added engineering experience applied from the BMW team.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 10, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> It was my impression that the BMW 801 was a direct development (and renaming) of the Bramo 329 with added engineering experience applied from the BMW team.



Wasn't the Bramo 329 an 18 cylinder radial, rather than the 14 of the 801?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 11, 2015)

What is Bramo 329?


----------



## Milosh (Jun 11, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> What is Bramo 329?



A twined Fafnir engine.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=El...gIVg0mSCh0WrQCe#v=onepage&q=Bramo 329&f=false

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 11, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> If you have enough engineers/man power for two design teams.
> 
> We don't know why they stopped the BMW 139 do we? Or the RPM, Boost it was operating at?



Max RPM was 2700 (for 1 min take off rating and for 5 min emergency rating), 2500 RPM was for 'Climb combat power'.
BMW was historically also working on the 800 (9 cyl radial), 802 (59.9L, 18 cyl), 803/803A (28 cyl liquid cooled radial), 804 (45.6L, 14-cyl radial), 805 (development of the 801, a bit bigger displacement), plus jet engines. So there is plenty of projects that can be shelved, with resources focused on the heir of the 139.



Denniss said:


> The 139 was built using 132 components, I doubt these would be suitable for higher power levels than ~1500PS.
> The 801 had multiple improvements to enable further power increases.



Denniss - maybe you could check it out elsewhere: was the crankshaft of the 139 'fixed' with 3 bearings, or just with 2?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 12, 2015)

Milosh said:


> A twined Fafnir engine.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=El...gIVg0mSCh0WrQCe#v=onepage&q=Bramo 329&f=false


Ah, I was mistaken, it seems the 329 was indeed an 18 cylinder engine and completely abandoned following the BMW merger. This seems unfortunate, given the power class being beyond that of the 801, more in the range of the R-2800 or early Jumo 222, particularly with it running earlier than either of those engines or the 801 itself. It might have been too big to practically fit on the Fw 190 but possibly better suited to bomber and transport designs. (or potentially larger fighters as well)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 12, 2015)

People SAY it might be too big to fit, but recall how the Japanese mated a good radial to the Ki-61 airframe to make the Ki-100 ... it it was too big, too, by conventional thinking.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2015)

Maybe, maybe not. the Kinsei engine was about 50in in diameter (or a bit less?) which puts it on the small side for a 14 cylinder radial, not by much but still smaller than a "twin Fafnir" which would be closer to 56in diameter and 2000lbs and 3270 cu in unless they shortened the stroke some. Think crude R-3350.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 13, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. the Kinsei engine was about 50in in diameter (or a bit less?) which puts it on the small side for a 14 cylinder radial, not by much but still smaller than a "twin Fafnir" which would be closer to 56in diameter and 2000lbs and 3270 cu in unless they shortened the stroke some. Think crude R-3350.


Indeed, and I was thinking more weight than diameter. It might not be worse than the DB 603 or Jumo 213 though, at least not with the annular radiator putting all that weight up front.

Diameter wise, it'd be more a drag/speed issue than actually making it work structurally. (if it was just diameter, it would be closer to comparing the P-40 to the P-36 to the R-1820 powered Hawk 75, at least in structure/airframe terms) 

Comparing the Bristol Hercules or R-2600 to the R-2800 would be more like the difference between the 801 (and 139) and 329, except without the R-2800's diameter advantage. (assuming -as you say- Bramo hadn't shortened the stroke)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> ...
> Armament wise, replacing the synchronized MG17s as soon as possible would be a high priority. If MG 131s could be supplied sooner than MG 151s (15 or 20 mm) and easier to adapt to the 190's wing root mountings (as appears to be the case given the V2's armament test/provision configurations) that should have been pursued likely with deleting the upper cowl guns entirely. (and, of course, on V12 powered version you could have the hub mounted cannon as well -3 MG-FF/M and 2 MG 131 guns seems a likely practical arrangement)



I'm not sure that, for Fw 190, MG 131 offers anything vs. MG 151 (any) or MG FFM, if we exclude the inability of the MG FFM to fire synchronized. Stick indeed 2-3-4 cannons on the Fw 190 (depending on the engine type installed) and you're set.



> That doesn't really sound better than the Jumo 211F (at least assuming the 1 minute limit was extended to 5 minutes for fighters). The power curves are different, so performance at the 139's critical altitudes is worse, but on the whole, you have the 211F reaching 1440 PS at 2.4 km and 1230 ps at 6.1 km with full ram (likely for the 190 at top speed) though for very slight raming conditions (ie normal climb conditions, well under the 400 km/h curve) it would be approximately 1400 ps at 1.4 km and 1200 ps at 5.2 km.



It sounds better than the 211F - almost 200 PS more than it at 4.5 to 5 km, though the drag will eat some of that power surplus. The air intakes for the 139 should be also hopefully of external type, when altitude performance is needed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 13, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure that, for Fw 190, MG 131 offers anything vs. MG 151 (any) or MG FFM, if we exclude the inability of the MG FFM to fire synchronized. Stick indeed 2-3-4 cannons on the Fw 190 (depending on the engine type installed) and you're set.


I was referring to the possibility of MG 131s becoming available in quantity before MG 151/20s could be employed as standard in the wing roots. (namely the possibility of displacing the wing root MG17s on the A-1 -or Jumo powered equivalent) Once the MG 151s are employed, omitting all LMGs and HMGs entirely seems sensible.


On the BMW 139 issue, one other interesting possibility may have been continuing development of both the 139 and Bramo 329 rather than transitioning to the 801 at all. If the improvements in the 801 were mostly performance/diameter/weight related and not especially more optimized for faster and/or lower cost manufacturing, then sticking with the two earlier designs seems to make a lot of sense. (and also forgo investment in the 802, 803, and 804 in favor of continued 139 and 329 development -and turbine development, of course)


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 13, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> 802, 803, and 804 in favor of continued 139 and 329 development -and turbine development, of course)



What's the BMW 804?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2015)

The derivative of the 801, with a bigger bore and stroke (160 x 160 mm) and displacement (45,5L), supposed to be using either 3-speed 1-stage S/C, or 2x2 speed 2-stage S/C.


----------



## pattern14 (Jun 14, 2015)

Interesting topic, although much of what actually happened on the soviet side is still probably not easily accessed. Combat records from the Germans were pretty good, mainly due to the meticulous nature of the Germans themselves, and comparative freedom of information from British and U.S sources permits a lot more close scrutiny. The Russian campaign also appears to play a background role in aerial warfare ( how many war movies show that side???), although this is just a general observation on my part. As for the FW 190, it was still in the stage of being developed when the war ended, where as the Bf 109 had reached its zenith. The potential of the Ta 152 was never realised, although the inherant design of the FW 190 showed an aircraft that was still a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2015)

The Fw 190 was in the development stage when the war ended? Maybe the final stage. There certaihly wasn't much of anything left to develop.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2015)

It depends what one counts as part of the development. Apart form what the Ta 152 was to get, the Fw 190 was to receive 2-stage V-12 engines, wing fuel tanks, the fuselage-fastened engine cowling (vs. the engine-fastened engine cowling that was more draggier), hydraulically-operated ailerons, among other details. So it was not such a big change as it was from P-51D to P-51H, but it was still substantial.



> pattern14 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting topic, although much of what actually happened on the soviet side is still probably not easily accessed. Combat records from the Germans were pretty good, mainly due to the meticulous nature of the Germans themselves, and comparative freedom of information from British and U.S sources permits a lot more close scrutiny.
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2015)

The quick'n'dirty comparison between the BMW 801D and DB engines of interest for the 1942-44 period. The 801D (blue line is Notleistung, green line is Kampfleistung) will produce some 20% more power than the DB 601E at altitude and down low, but maybe about 8% more than DB 605A; all goes for fully rated engines. 
In all of 1942, however, only the 601E is fully rated, the 605A is not allowed for Notleistung ('dash dot' black line), the best rating available until late 1943 is Kampfleistung (red line, fits with green line of the 801D above ~5.8 km). The BMW 801D is restricted at all ratings until Oct 1942, with, for example, Notleistung being just a tad better than Kampfleistung of a fully rated 801D.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2015)

Speed goes up as the cube of the horsepower ratio, so there is hardly any difference between the DB 605A of 1942 and the blue line except below 1,500 meters... maybe a few mph only. 

In the ETO, very few people were fighting at below 1,500 meters.

They weren't going to wring much more from the Ta 152 no matter what they did. Jets were on the way and pistons were near the peak of piston development. There was no real-world piston development that made production which performed significantly better except maybe in climb rate, so it's damed hard to argue the point that there was much development room left for performance improvement. It was as "developed" as it was going to get within a few percent. The main service improvements were going to be reilability and a spare parts supply chain. 

The very few that actually got delivered were virtual service prototypes and I've never even seen a document that says they were all built the same. Certainly the Fw 190D-13 that used to be in the Champlin collection had parts that were different from the Fw 190D-9 the National Air and Space Museum owns. It is now on long-term loan to the Natioanl Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton. And the parts I'm talking about weren't supposed to be different ... they just were. That from people accociated with the former Doug Champlin Museum in Mesa, Arozona where it lived for so long. The guys at the Paul Allen museum don't seem to know much about it last time I visited there about a year ago, but I saw it get started on two occasions and talked with many of the Chamnplin staff at the time. It helped that I was with the owner, J. Curtiss Earl, of one of the diaplayed MiG-15s at the time.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2015)

GregP said:


> Speed goes up as the cube of the horsepower ratio, so there is hardly any difference between the DB 605A of 1942 and the blue line except below 1,500 meters... maybe a few mph only.



The BMW 801 will produce a bigger drag than any of the German V-12 engines, despite it's excellent installation. That, and it's substantial weight difference vs. DB 601/605 (even vs. Jumo 211) will tend to eat up most if not all of the horsepower advantage. The V-12 powered Fw 190 will also have better range/radius than the BMW-powered one due to smaller consumption (both total and specific).
Granted, from late 1941-late 1943, the BMW-powered Fw will still be a very competent fighter, whether historically or with feasible improvements.



> In the ETO, very few people were fighting at below 1,500 meters.



We still have MTO and Eastern front, plus fighter-bomber variants of the Fw 190 where the considerable power surplus of the BMW at low level is very much a good thing. The radial should be also more damage resistant.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 14, 2015)

The DB605 rating seems to be for the problematical 1.42ATA that wasn't securely available till October 1943. The DB605 has a higher compression ratio which means that it expands its combustion products over a greater distance of travel and is therefore more efficient at converting hot gases into kinetic energy. The downside, especially for a fighter, is that there is now less energy available for jet thrust. Furthermore the BMW801 reached 1900 and then over 2000hp 1943/44.

The Fw 190 was a much heavier aircraft than the Me 109 and Spitfire, I can't see it being competitive if equipped with a DB605 unless one is speaking of the 1944 water methanol injected ones or a possible version running on C3 96/125 fuel.

It needs a DB603, jumo 213 or possibly Jumo 222.

Interestingly some of the changes in technology from the DB601E to DB605A (such as changes in bearings) seem to have been a retrograde step that took a long time to debug. We would then have to ask as to whether a hypothetical DB603 that was not held up between 1937-1940 by Udet's decree is borrowing from 605 technology or DB601E technology.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2015)

While everything you said is true, Tomo, there wasn't much development left in the Fw 190 airframe. 

Since it was right near the top of the fastest piston fighters ever made, it wasn't going to get much faster no matter what they did ... unless you think there was some unexplored aerodynamic advantage that nobody else ever thought of lurking on the horizon.

It was a damned good airplane that came at a time when it could do no good as the war was well and truly lost by the time the very first Ta 152 service sortie took place. The only reason it didn't see decent-scale service is that all use of the Ta 152 stopped with the end of the war except for test flights of captured examples. Except for that it might have been a very good service aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 14, 2015)

GregP said:


> While everything you said is true, Tomo, there wasn't much development left in the Fw 190 airframe.
> 
> Since it was right near the top of the fastest piston fighters ever made, it wasn't going to get much faster no matter what they did ... unless you think there was some unexplored aerodynamic advantage that nobody else ever thought of lurking on the horizon.
> 
> It was a damned good airplane that came at a time when it could do no good as the war was well and truly lost by the time the very first Ta 152 service sortie took place. The only reason it didn't see decent-scale service is that all use of the Ta 152 stopped with the end of the war except for test flights of captured examples. Except for that it might have been a very good service aircraft.



Theoretically they could try a Laminar Flow profile wing but I think it would be too radical an effort as increases in wing planform and spar position might be required, the NACA 5 digit series was pretty good in any case and the chances of completing this transformation before a new generation of jets reached service were slim to none. I suspect an effort in maintaining airframe tolerances might have helped a great deal more. At a certain point it seems that engine power is more important than the slightly higher critical mach number.

As laminar flow wings can be thicker for the same critical mach the effort might have been justified if the change to a laminar profile wing meant that it could be made of wood, steel, plastic. Of course by the end of 1944 the RLM/Luftwaffe is trying to back peddle from any piston aircraft development it can to an all jet airforce and I think they would have sorted out their jet problems before any radical new piston aircraft could be introduced.



If one searches in detail one finds that just about every second version of the Fw 190 that was released had a small increase in wing area, usually about 0.6 sqm or so. The final version, the Fw 190A10 was to receive another wing area increase as well as an BMW801F engine good for up to 2400hp (2600hp with MW50). I would expect these increases in wing area would transfer through to the inline versions.

Improvements in the engines beyond the BMW801F 'power egg' might have born fruit. The far more advanced 18 cylinder BMW802 wasn't just bigger; it had the exhaust and inlet valves in axial or in tandem to the air flow(rather than circumferentially arranged) with the hot exhaust valve presenting to the air flow and the cooler inlet valve behind it. This gave better cooling and most importantly less drag through the engine. The cooling fan had a stator to compress the air to improve fan efficiency and could thus generate jet thrust at relatively low speeds as the heated air expanded from the cooling gills to recover cooling flow drag. The 802 also was to be capable of exhaust valve variable timming to tune resonant scavenging across the full RPM range. Apart from more power (perhaps 3000hp? WEP with MW50) less drag would be achievable. Non of these hypothetical improvements worsen engine conditions. This is just my theory of a BMW801 incorporating BMW802 technology.

The Fw 190 was a heavy fighter and the Ta 152, which used the same engine, heavier still. The Ta 152 would thus have a fundamental power to weight ratio issue compared to the Fw 190 (and its Allied competitors such as Griffon Spitfires which were hardly heavier than the Merlin versions) using the same advanced engines such as the Jumo 213EB (2500hp I suspect). The far more powerful Jumo 222 supposedly could be carried by the Ta 152 with minimal modifications and it was certainly slated for production in September 1944 (delayed to Feb 1945) for a range of aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2015)

The V-1 ws a purpose-built dive bomber. It just didn't have to be designed strong enough to make a pullout from the dive.

I think they were still launching a few in 1945. Heck, it didn't even take evasive action much less a pullout.

Come to think of it, the untimate dive bomber has to be the V-2 ...

Oh, but you probably meant MANNED dive bomber? 

Couldn't resist ...


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2015)

The V-1 ws a purpose-built dive bomber. It just didn't have to be designed strong enough to make a pullout from the dive.

I think they were still launching a few in 1945. Heck, it didn't even take evasive action much less a pullout.

Come to think of it, the untimate dive bomber has to be the V-2 ...

Oh, but you probably meant MANNED dive bomber? 

Couldn't resist ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 14, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The DB605 rating seems to be for the problematical 1.42ATA that wasn't securely available till October 1943. The DB605 has a higher compression ratio which means that it expands its combustion products over a greater distance of travel and is therefore more efficient at converting hot gases into kinetic energy. The downside, especially for a fighter, is that there is now less energy available for jet thrust.


The lower compression ratio of the Jumo 211F would be an advantage in that respect too, and may have managed power levels close to the 211J if it had been tested/rated for C-2 or C-3 fuel. (albeit lower critical altitudes for given power levels due to the lack of intercooling but also avoiding any added drag from the intercooler -more significant if an embedded low-drag radiator was used rather than the typical annular Jumo one)

With fighter engine development in mind for the 211, its performance may have stayed ahead of the DB-601E and DB-605 at least until the Jumo 213 entered production. (or at least the practical rated power levels with the timeline of limits placed on the DB engines)



> The Fw 190 was a much heavier aircraft than the Me 109 and Spitfire, I can't see it being competitive if equipped with a DB605 unless one is speaking of the 1944 water methanol injected ones or a possible version running on C3 96/125 fuel.


Had the structure been developed towards optimizations for a smaller, lighter powerplant early on (as was already the case to some degree on the early prototypes), much of that weight may have been avoided along with savings from using a lighter engine as well. Still, it would likely end up heavier than the Spitfire and 109, but then such was the case for the P-51, P-40, and even P-39.

Ground attack versions with the added heavy armor would obviously be heavier in any case, while specifically lightened high altitude fighter/interceptor versions should be the lightest with compromises made to armament and fuel capacity too. (somewhat like the 801 powers light/high alt fighter variants except with the potential for a hub cannon; 3 20 mm cannons would seem likely, 5 on heavy interceptors)

Heavier DB-603 and Jumo 213 powered variants would certainly make sense too, or even the Bramo 329 had it been pursued. (though that seems better used on bombers and heavy night fighters) I still don't know much on the 329's development, but it seems like the design was progressing early enough to be in line with the BMW 801 or DB 603 in development (if not ahead -running and meeting its 2000 ps design goal in 1938 ) and much more likely to be useful in a far more timely manner than the Jumo 222, DB 604, or BMW 802. (let alone the 803 or 804) I'm not sure, but continuing with the BMW 139 may have had time to (reliable) mass production advantages over the 801 as well. (and lower weight)



> Interestingly some of the changes in technology from the DB601E to DB605A (such as changes in bearings) seem to have been a retrograde step that took a long time to debug. We would then have to ask as to whether a hypothetical DB603 that was not held up between 1937-1940 by Udet's decree is borrowing from 605 technology or DB601E technology.


Did Jumo not have the same shortage on ball bearings that Daimler Benz had to deal with or were they already making heavier use of other bearing types in the Jumo 211 line? (without the overhead in debugging that DB's transition suffered)


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 14, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> The lower compression ratio of the Jumo 211F would be an advantage in that respect too, and may have managed power levels close to the 211J if it had been tested/rated for C-2 or C-3 fuel. (albeit lower critical altitudes for given power levels due to the lack of intercooling but also avoiding any added drag from the intercooler -more significant if an embedded low-drag radiator was used rather than the typical annular Jumo one)
> 
> With fighter engine development in mind for the 211, its performance may have stayed ahead of the DB-601E and DB-605 at least until the Jumo 213 entered production. (or at least the practical rated power levels with the timeline of limits placed on the DB engines)
> 
> ...



Using roller bearings is unusual though admittedly superior from a friction point of view. I don't believe any allied engines used this technique.

Junkers Jumo made use of a different crankshaft design to the post roller bearing Daimler Benz engines, I suspect it was completely hollow, to distribute oil to both the big end bearings of the cranks and the bearings.

KurfÃ¼rst - Transcript of Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 7th September, 1943.

This is a translated transcript on the issue of the 1.42 ata ban on the DB605A. 
Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, C-in-C, Luftwaffe.
Petersen, head of Erpobungstelle Rechlin. 
Nallinger, CEO of Daimler Benz AG.
Scheibe, design engineer, Junkers AG.


Reichmarschall Göring : This means that with regard to the DB605, it is impossible to predict whether the engine is ever going to be a useful engine.

Eisenlohr : The engineering changes and the available test results reveal that there is a high probability that concerning the question bearings, the worst is behind us and the situation is going to improve, even if it is not going to be a robust engine, but at least one that can be run at maximum output by the frontline units with full justification. The testing at Rechlin proceeded completely well so far. Cuno reported that four weeks are still required for completion.

Reichmarschall Göring :You have the confidence in that can work out?

Eisenlohr : Yes sir.

Reichmarschall Göring : Nallinger, do you still have great confidence in your child? 

Nallinger : On the basis of our latest testings we have the absolute confidence in that with the engineering changes I've reported, the engine will be fixed with regard to the bearings and the Startleistung is going to be cleared for use. 

Reichmarschall Göring : What do you think, Petersen? 

Petersen : I share this conviction and additionally am convinced that in conjunction with the oil centrifuge, the engine is going to be all right with regard to the bearings. That has always been the experience of the past, the maintenance people predicted that the engine is going to fail soon if the oil pressure dropped below a certain figure, below 100 atü. The new 177s with oil centrifuges have worked well so far, and no bearing failures have been suffered, so that I'm able to say: If these measures which I would like to call detail work are added, the oil centrifuge in conjection with the 605, that the bearing story can be considered to have ended.

Reichmarschall Göring : What do you say, Scheibe? 

Scheibe : According to the understanding at Junkers, there should actually be no problem fixing the engine with regard to the bearings. If a far-fetched solution is necessary, then - as Nallinger elaborated - the lubrication has to be taken out of the crankshaft, if it's possible to use the example of the Jumo 211 as a reference which runs in the power-boosted forms N and P at virtually the same speeds without bearing problems.

*******************
The Jumo 211 seems to have been a solid engine and given the Jumo 211N was 1420hp and the Jumo 211P 1500hp they might indeed have offered as much as the BMW801D2 (around 1700hp) with C3 fuel perhaps more depending on grade. I don't know why it wasn't produced. I suspect the decision to make a large leap to the Jumo 213 came out of the need to not just match but substantially exceed BMW801 power which reached over 2000hp 1943/44.

The BMW801 was only 51 inches in diameter, any version to replace it would have to be no greater diameter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 15, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The DB605 rating seems to be for the problematical 1.42ATA that wasn't securely available till October 1943.
> ...



There was indeed a ban on using Notleistung (1.42 ata, 2800 rpm) until Oct 1942, as noted above.



> The Fw 190 was a much heavier aircraft than the Me 109 and Spitfire, I can't see it being competitive if equipped with a DB605 unless one is speaking of the 1944 water methanol injected ones or a possible version running on C3 96/125 fuel


.

Several times it is mentioned in this and 'what to cancel' thread about why the Fw 190 was heavier than Spit or 109, plus what changes the possible V-12 engine brings. The BMW 801 was a heavy engine, even if we compare the liquid cooled engine PLUS it's cooling system - 150-250 kg of difference, depending on what engines are compared. Then we have the usually heavy armament of the Fw 190 - 4 cannons, 2 LMGs and all the ammo carried meant 4000-4100 kg ready to take off weight. 116 imp gals of fuel, vs. 84 and 88, plus the weight of protection for the tanks. Protection - almost 300 lbs standard (not the 'sturmbocks'), granted the 109 and Spit were also protected to some degree. Fully retractable covered U/C is strong enough to handle the 1800 kg (almost 4000 lbs) bomb under fuselage in FB variants - lets not try that with 109 or Spit.
We can use 'equalization' - halve the firepower, use only the bigger fuel tank, while installation of the V-12 shaves both weight and drag. Such a Fw 190, with 2 cannons and 80-90 imp gals, is at 3500-3600 kg? The Fw 190A3/U7 was at 3660 kg, with two cannons only and some 100 kg of protection deleted (but with extra 20 kg of fuel). 



> It needs a DB603, jumo 213 or possibly Jumo 222.



Once the P-47 (with even a limited external tank facility) arrived, it certainly does need the 603 or 213.



Koopernic said:


> ...
> The Jumo 211 seems to have been a solid engine and given the Jumo 211N was 1420hp and the Jumo 211P 1500hp they might indeed have offered as much as the BMW801D2 (around 1700hp) with C3 fuel perhaps more depending on grade. I don't know why it wasn't produced. I suspect the decision to make a large leap to the Jumo 213 came out of the need to not just match but substantially exceed BMW801 power which reached over 2000hp 1943/44.



The 211P was produced IIRC, granted the 213A (and subsequent) make far more sense from late 1943 on. In order to match the 801D and the fully rated 605A, it needs a 'faster' supercharger, and that is what is the Jumo 211R all about - gains at altitude, while sacrificing low level power. The 211R probably never powered an operational aircraft, though. 



> The BMW801 was only 51 inches in diameter, any version to replace it would have to be no greater diameter.



This is a part of the answer to why the Fw 190D9 was faster than Fw 190A4-A8: it's powerplant was less draggy, with a smaller cross section.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 15, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The 211P was produced IIRC, granted the 213A (and subsequent) make far more sense from late 1943 on. In order to match the 801D and the fully rated 605A, it needs a 'faster' supercharger, and that is what is the Jumo 211R all about - gains at altitude, while sacrificing low level power. The 211R probably never powered an operational aircraft, though.


Higher supercharger gear ratios applied earlier in the 211's life might also have allowed for more competitive altitude performance. (probably best applied in conjunction with the intercooler addition of the 211J) That of course, assumes that the existing supercharger (of the 211F/J -much improved over the 'spouted' earlier design) had headroom for reasonably efficient operation at higher speeds. Without the intercooler (or water injection) it may not have been worth the effort.

That also may have been an earlier option to combat the P-47's high alt performance. (increased boost limits with C3 fuel on top of that would help too, but perhaps not at P-47/B-17 heights -still important for brining the fight down a bit lower and for climb to get up there more quickly)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 16, 2015)

What were the practical limits of the BMW 801D powered Fw 190 can be found in this test report. The Fw 190A3/U7 clocked 694 km/h at 7400 m (431 mph at 24278 ft), parly due to weight and drag reduction, partly by using external ram air intakes that increased usage of ram (not sure what is a proper term) to 60-95% vs. the internal intakes with the same value down to 22%.


----------



## dedalos (Jun 16, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> What were the practical limits of the BMW 801D powered Fw 190 can be found in this test report. The Fw 190A3/U7 clocked 694 km/h at 7400 m (431 mph at 24278 ft), parly due to weight and drag reduction, partly by using external ram air intakes that increased usage of ram (not sure what is a proper term) to 60-95% vs. the internal intakes with the same value down to 22%.



I always wondered what would be the performance of the A4 airframe in combination with the later BMW 801s of the 2100 ps. It would be an excellent vertion for the Eastern front. But the RLM could think of nothing else than more and more guns and more and more armour


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 16, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> What were the practical limits of the BMW 801D powered Fw 190 can be found in this test report. The Fw 190A3/U7 clocked 694 km/h at 7400 m (431 mph at 24278 ft), parly due to weight and drag reduction, partly by using external ram air intakes that increased usage of ram (not sure what is a proper term) to 60-95% vs. the internal intakes with the same value down to 22%.



The following passage from Flugbericht Fw190 410230 V 34 Nr.1 should be kept in mind when discussing Fw 190 flight test figures from Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau:

Ergebnis zu 1) Erstmalig ist im Kurvenblatt 1) die über der Meßstrecke ermittelte Staudruck eichung unter Berücksichtigung der Kompressibilität der Luft aufgetragen. In Zukunft werden alle mit den BMW 801 F und Jumo 312 Triebwerken ermittelten Geschwindigkeitsleistungen mit Berücksichtigung der Kompressibilität bekanntgegeben. Bei den Flugzeugen mit 801 D Motoren entfällt diese Umrechnung auch weiterhin, um die Vergleichsmöglichkeiten mit früher ermittelten Werten zu erleichtern. 

That said, the comparison discussed in the report on Fw 190 528 is very interesting and worthy of note.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2015)

dedalos said:


> I always wondered what would be the performance of the A4 airframe in combination with the later BMW 801s of the 2100 ps. It would be an excellent vertion for the Eastern front. But the RLM could think of nothing else than more and more guns and more and more armour



Was that a case of wanting to make it more effective at shooting down USAAF heavy bombers?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 17, 2015)

wuzak said:


> Was that a case of wanting to make it more effective at shooting down USAAF heavy bombers?


The heavy A-8 variant was more optimized for ground attack and other low altitude work with weight gain from heavy armor to protect against ground fire. They were also the heaviest armed with 4 MG 151/20 cannons and 2 MG 131s.

The more high altitude fighter/interceptor oriented D-9 omitted the outer pair of cannons leaving 2 151/20s and 2 131 HMGs. The lightened high alt optimized 801 powered variants also tended to omit the outer wing cannons. (though I'd think omitting the cowl guns and reducing the ammunition load for the inboard 20 mm guns would be a more effective balance for weight, drag, and overall firepower)


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> What were the practical limits of the BMW 801D powered Fw 190 can be found in this test report. The Fw 190A3/U7 clocked 694 km/h at 7400 m (431 mph at 24278 ft), parly due to weight and drag reduction, partly by using external ram air intakes that increased usage of ram (not sure what is a proper term) to 60-95% vs. the internal intakes with the same value down to 22%.



This engine, seemingly the 1700hp 1.42 ata rated version, was tested in 1942, the incorporation of the ram inlet of the BMW801 into the wing root leading edge, as your other post shows, (rather than within the engine cowling) seems to have been designed into the 2400hp BMW 801F suggesting that this modification hadn't been introduced even 1.5 years after the test. Perhaps the superiority of the Jumo 213A versions partially traces back to this.

There was this life left in the radial versions.

The Fw 190 received two incremental wing area increases after the A3 variant and this would add some drag though not much.

The Fw 190D was being used to test the MG213 revolving breech gun, something that would boost fire power of the wing root guns by about 70% and make more practical the elimination of the outer wing guns. Some variants of the Fw 190D13 were supposed to receive wing tanks where the outer wing guns were. Considering the increased fuel thirst of these greatly more powerful engines more fuel was going to be critical. It's surprising the Luftwaffe didn't develop a long range air superiority version of the Fw 190A early on using this possibility.

There appear to have been two reasons for removing the wing guns of the Fw 190D9. One was the air situation in which superior allied quality and quantity demanded this kind of measure to give the pilots a chance of surviving. The other appears to be that the 'long nose' had a reduced roll rate. It's not immediately apparent why this should be so but I'm assuming that it was the problem of 'inertia coupling' latter experienced in jet fighters. An aircraft doing a roll does not rotate perfectly about its axis and there is a tendency of long thin aircraft with heavy mass at the end to 'sort off' centrifuge out, causing problems.

The Versions with the Jumo 213F, DB603LA and Jumo 213EB would have had the ability to carry mountings and propellers suitable for motor canon, this made practical the elimination of the synchronised machinge guns as well as the outer wing guns. Nevertheless the possibility of operating with the outer wing guns was always there form when the need and opportunity (no allied escorts) might arise.

Carrying sufficient armament is important. It might be safer to fly missions with a stripped down armament from a survivability point of view but if you aren't shooting down bombers why are you risking your life flying missions at all? 


Up to the Fw 190A5 variants modified for ground attack were given an umrustung or U designation. After the A6 versions designed for ground attack were called Fw 190F though aircraft from the Fw 190A6 could still be modified. I suspect that a lot started to change after that (1943), including propellors, WEP devices, bomb release sequencers, armour distribution etc.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 17, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> The heavy A-8 variant was more optimized for ground attack and other low altitude work with weight gain from heavy armor to protect against ground fire. They were also the heaviest armed with 4 MG 151/20 cannons and 2 MG 131s.


No armor vs ground attack in A-8, that's the F-8. Armament was already available in the A-7. Major diff between A-7 and A-8 is the option to install an aux fuel tank (standard autumn 44). Some weight was gained with adoption of 801Q-2 engine (summer/autumn 44, larger oil tank with thicker armor).


----------



## dedalos (Jun 17, 2015)

Once again, as in the case of the Me 109, RLM was unwilling to insert improvements from fear of losing some production


----------



## Milosh (Jun 17, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The Fw 190 received two incremental wing area increases after the A3 variant and this would add some drag though not much.



Only have heard of structural changes. What were these area increases?


----------



## GregP (Jun 17, 2015)

Came across a US study of the evolution of fighter tactics and was interested to see a paragraph about the tactics typically used by P-51 pilots in WWII in whgich they used the P-51's good instantaneous turn and roll and the ability to zoom climb but avioded getting into long turning fights, particularly against better-turn aircraft like the Fw 190. There was no elaboration about the "better-turning" part, just the statement.

That's the first time I heard it expressed quite that way and this seems like a good place to post it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 17, 2015)

Denniss said:


> No armor vs ground attack in A-8, that's the F-8. Armament was already available in the A-7. Major diff between A-7 and A-8 is the option to install an aux fuel tank (standard autumn 44). Some weight was gained with adoption of 801Q-2 engine (summer/autumn 44, larger oil tank with thicker armor).


I also forgot to mention earlier that the added external ram air intakes added more to altitude performance but not much/any advantage at low level given the drag imparted, so the A-8 was already optimized for mid/low alt fighter duties as it was. (a BMW powered variant to be more directly competitive with the D-9 likely should have adopted those intakes though)


----------



## Denniss (Jun 18, 2015)

Never seen external intakes on A-9. Still a mystery why they were not introduced for West Front use, at least as unit mod/hack.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2015)

Mike Williams said:


> The following passage from Flugbericht Fw190 410230 V 34 Nr.1 should be kept in mind when discussing Fw 190 flight test figures from Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau:
> 
> Ergebnis zu 1) Erstmalig ist im Kurvenblatt 1) die über der Meßstrecke ermittelte Staudruck eichung unter Berücksichtigung der Kompressibilität der Luft aufgetragen. In Zukunft werden alle mit den BMW 801 F und Jumo 312 Triebwerken ermittelten Geschwindigkeitsleistungen mit Berücksichtigung der Kompressibilität bekanntgegeben. Bei den Flugzeugen mit 801 D Motoren entfällt diese Umrechnung auch weiterhin, um die Vergleichsmöglichkeiten mit früher ermittelten Werten zu erleichtern.
> 
> That said, the comparison discussed in the report on Fw 190 528 is very interesting and worthy of note.



Thanks for the feedback, Mike. 
Looking at the Fw 190A-5 chart that shows some 15 km/h of difference between the speed values that are corrected for compressibility and not corrected (for 7 km and 645 km/h true corrected), that should put the speed of the Fw 190 Wk.Nr.528 somewhere around 675+ km/h? Indeed the Fw 190D was to do 685 km/h, and it would take a good leap of faith to believe the #528 will be beating that - it was lighter, but not more streamlined than the D-9.

The 190A-6 was to gain 15 km/h at 7 km when external intakes ('Ansaughutzen 'Aussen'' vs. 'Ansaughutzen 'innen'') were installed; the price was increased drag that lowered the speed under the rated height:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2015)

dedalos said:


> I always wondered what would be the performance of the A4 airframe in combination with the later BMW 801s of the 2100 ps. It would be an excellent vertion for the Eastern front. But the RLM could think of nothing else than more and more guns and more and more armour



More guns and more armor were requirements of the 'bomber war' the LW was making from 1943 on, in the ETO and MTO. As always - more guns armor means lowering the performance, and that, coupled with steady advances in Allied fighter force meant more bad than good for the LW pilots and Germany itself.
The 190A-4 with the overboosted 801D would also be a pretty mean fighter for the Eastern front.



dedalos said:


> Once again, as in the case of the Me 109, RLM was unwilling to insert improvements from fear of losing some production



For the Fw 190 (and other A/C) to remain competitive, an improved engine is needed at least every year, ie. from late 1943 the substantially better engine is needed, after the fully rated 801D (late 1942) and the start with 801C (late 1941 in combat). The 190 got it in late 1944 instead, LW lost the air war in the mean time.
Producing masses of aircraft was a far easier thing than producing masses of trained pilots.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 21, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Producing masses of aircraft was a far easier thing than producing masses of trained pilots.



Therein lies the rub.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 22, 2015)

Would someone please tell me what happened to the Fw 190 B? Why was it cancelled?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 22, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> For the Fw 190 (and other A/C) to remain competitive, an improved engine is needed at least every year, ie. from late 1943 the substantially better engine is needed, after the fully rated 801D (late 1942) and the start with 801C (late 1941 in combat). The 190 got it in late 1944 instead, LW lost the air war in the mean time.
> Producing masses of aircraft was a far easier thing than producing masses of trained pilots.


This is where the big argument for 'quality over quantity' comes into play to. And while it's certainly true that having a well-organized, efficient training program infrastructure would have made a huge difference as well, the issue of putting an emphasis on war machines able to make the best use of existing high quality pilots/crew is significant. That and putting a greater emphasis on operational effectiveness would be more important than initial manufacturing costs. (ability to fulfill their given mission, survivability, handling on the ground and in the air, reliability, and resources required for maintaining continual operations -man hours spent on maintenance, skilled personnel required to maintain the machines, as well as material resources of oil, fuel, spare parts, tool wear, etc)

Aside from up-arming and up-engining the Fw 190 itself, there's the possibility of retaining a number of lighter fighters configured for fighter-interceptor duties (a role the 109 sometimes played, but specialized 190 variants may have done significantly better). You have a good lot of potential for different Fw 190 derivatives with the progression of BMW, DB, and Jumo engines available.

The Fw 187 still comes to mind as well, including potential to be something akin to an early-war Me 262 counterpart with enough performance to evade any escorting fighters and enough firepower to devastate heavy bomber formations. (at least if fitted with Jumo 211 or DB 601/605 engines and up-armmed to perhaps 4 or even 6 MG-FF/M cannons, 4 MG 151/20s and eventually 4 MK 108s -granted, you'd need cheek bulges and/or belly/lower nose mounted gun placements to fit that at very least for the 108s) Hypothetical of course given the lack of further development of that design, but it seems like it might have had the potential to fit that role and even transition to night fighter with the more compact radar available late war. (allocating the larger/heavier DB-603, BMW 801, and Jumo 213 seems unwise given the potential difficulty in adapting the airframe to that degree of weight increase plus the greater value in applying those to bombers, larger night fighters, and Fw 190 airframes)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2015)

Only problem is that the "heavy bomber formations" don't really show up until mid 1943. From mid 1942 to mid 1943 the daylight bombing campaign was by relatively small formations.

Before the escort fighters there was no need for the Fw 187 as a bomber destroyer. Bf 110 and Ju 88 night fighters could do the job of heavy bomber destroyers.

When the escorts showed up, the twins were outclassed and could not survive long. I'm not sure the Fw 187 would have been that much different.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 22, 2015)

wuzak said:


> When the escorts showed up, the twins were outclassed and could not survive long. I'm not sure the Fw 187 would have been that much different.



I wouldn't be too sure about that, with DB 600's*, the 187 approached 400 mph (something the 110 never came even close to getting. As for the other important characteristics, this is what Rechlin test pilot Heinrich Beauvais opinions concerning the Fw-187 was:
- Circled comparable to the Me-109.
- Roll rate slightly less than the Me-109.
- Top speed superior to the Me-109. ~30 mph faster.
- Climb superior to the Me-109. ~300 feet per minute better.
- Dive as good as the Me-109.

*One of my sources says that it was fully armed when it attained that speed, I'm not sure if Beauvais's was.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 22, 2015)

The Daimlerized Fw 187 vs. the Fw 190 - it depends what we want from the aircraft, and what engines are available. If we want the aircraft with 4 cannons (or more?) and plenty of fuel, the Fw 190A becomes a non-performer - the Fw190A-8. The Fw 187 with ~3000 HP (talk DB 605A, late 1943 on) can lug around a heavy battery of cannons and plenty of fuel, and still perform. From mid 1943 on, the Fw 190 needs the engine better than the BMW 801D, lets say the Jumo 213 or DB 603 in order to match it, and here the LW dropped the ball in crucial time of war. 



SpicyJuan11 said:


> Would someone please tell me what happened to the Fw 190 B? Why was it cancelled?



Dietmar Hermann, in his booklet about the high altitude Focke Wulf fighters, says that there are no clearly stated reasons about why the 190B was cancelled. He also writes that Kurt Tank didn't liked very much that the weight of the 190B was increased by 150 kg because the GM-1 system was to be installed. One of the features to be incorporated in the 190B was the bigger wing, 20.3 sq m vs. usual 18.3.
The 190B-1 was stated in RLM production planing, production was to start from June 1942, with 2991 fighter planed to be produced until Dec 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 22, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The Daimlerized Fw 187 vs. the Fw 190 - it depends what we want from the aircraft, and what engines are available. If we want the aircraft with 4 cannons (or more?) and plenty of fuel, the Fw 190A becomes a non-performer - the Fw190A-8. The Fw 187 with ~3000 HP (talk DB 605A, late 1943 on) can lug around a heavy battery of cannons and plenty of fuel, and still perform. From mid 1943 on, the Fw 190 needs the engine better than the BMW 801D, lets say the Jumo 213 or DB 603 in order to match it, and here the LW dropped the ball in crucial time of war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, thank you for the info.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 22, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Dietmar Hermann, in his booklet about the high altitude Focke Wulf fighters, says that there are no clearly stated reasons about why the 190B was cancelled. He also writes that Kurt Tank didn't liked very much that the weight of the 190B was increased by 150 kg because the GM-1 system was to be installed. One of the features to be incorporated in the 190B was the bigger wing, 20.3 sq m vs. usual 18.3.
> The 190B-1 was stated in RLM production planing, production was to start from June 1942, with 2991 fighter planed to be produced until Dec 1943.


The 190B was turbo-charged. They couldn't afford the metals to build turbochargers in that quantity, so they cancelled it, just like the they didn't build the Jumo 004A or the turbocharged Fw190C.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2015)

Dang tablets. You can bacon things you can't see!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 22, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> The 190B was turbo-charged. They couldn't afford the metals to build turbochargers in that quantity, so they cancelled it, just like the they didn't build the Jumo 004A or the turbocharged Fw190C.



Going by this thread, the 190B was not turbo charged: link. 
The Jumo 388 used turboed engines, the hollow blades were a way to circumvent the requirements for the rare metals.
The reason why the turboed DB 603 was cancelled for the Fw 190 was the installations' huge drag - the Fw 190 with DB 603A was 30-50 km/h faster from SL up to 9 km, the turboed 190 taking over above 10 km. The Fw 190 with DB 603A that featured the experimental 'G' (scroll type) supercharger was faster up to 10 km, and above was equally fast.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 22, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Going by this thread, the 190B was not turbo charged: link.
> The Jumo 388 used turboed engines, the hollow blades were a way to circumvent the requirements for the rare metals.
> The reason why the turboed DB 603 was cancelled for the Fw 190 was the installations' huge drag - the Fw 190 with DB 603A was 30-50 km/h faster from SL up to 9 km, the turboed 190 taking over above 10 km. The Fw 190 with DB 603A that featured the experimental 'G' (scroll type) supercharger was faster up to 10 km, and above was equally fast.



Which turbo'd C are you referring to? Didn't the V18 have much less drag?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 22, 2015)

I'm not referring to the turboed 190C - there was no such thing? The 'turboed' Fw 190 was the V18/U1 (Wk.Nr.0040), and it was one draggy aircraft. Same the for similar machines - from V29 to V32.
The V13, V15 and V16 (DB 603A, but no turbo) were far more streamlined practical aircraft, without the inter-cooler's radiator and turbine sticking in the slipstream in 1920s/30s fashion. V15 was later used as trial machine for the installation of turbo-associated plumbing. 
The more streamlined turbo installations, that required cutting a bit of the fuselage fuel tankage so the turbo and inter-cooler can be buried in the fuselage, never left the paper stage.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 22, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Going by this thread, the 190B was not turbo charged: link.
> The Jumo 388 used turboed engines, the hollow blades were a way to circumvent the requirements for the rare metals.
> The reason why the turboed DB 603 was cancelled for the Fw 190 was the installations' huge drag - the Fw 190 with DB 603A was 30-50 km/h faster from SL up to 9 km, the turboed 190 taking over above 10 km. The Fw 190 with DB 603A that featured the experimental 'G' (scroll type) supercharger was faster up to 10 km, and above was equally fast.



https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_B_und_C
Seems pretty well sourced about this.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 23, 2015)

Unfortunately, it is not that well sourced about the Fw 190B. 
It lists under the literature the booklet by D. Hermann (Die Focke-Wulf Höhenjäger. Vom 1. Höhenjäger zur Fw 190 H) - I have the booklet, and as power plant for the 190B is listed solely the BMW 801D; the experiments with GM-1 system started with Wk.Nr. 0049 and 0811 (those were named Fw 190B-1) in March 1944. For the flight tests of the 1st Fw 190B0 (Wk.Nr 0046), please see the test reports kindly provided by Mike Williams in the thread I've posted the link above. Also this climb graph (sorry for not the best quality, please open it separately):






The Wiki article about the 190B reminds me about the article about Yak-3 in Russian - author of the article lists Shavrov's book under literature, yet Shavrov notes that Yak-3 entered service in 1944, contrary to what the Wiki article says. Similar thing is the article about the BMW 116 engine, where literature listed disagrees with the article itself.

This will also raise the eyebrow, from the Wikipedia article about the Fw 190B C:


> Für die B-Baureihe der Fw 190 war ursprünglich der BMW 801 J als Antrieb geplant (*der später in wenigen Exemplaren auch in der Fw 190 A-9 verbaut wurde*).



Basically, the bolded part will want us to believe that small number of Fw 190A-9 received turbo engines (BMW 801J)???

Also this outrageous sentence:


> Da der BMW 801 Motor ursprünglich nicht für den Einsatz in einem Jagdflugzeug entwickelt worden war, verfügte er auch nicht über einen Lader, dessen Leistungsfähigkeit in größeren Höhen mit jenem z.B. des DB 605 V-Motor [1] vergleichbar war, der der Messerschmitt Bf 109 gegenüber der Fw 190 A eine deutlich bessere Höhenleistung verlieh.



Myths galore - no supercharger (or not good supercharger - help) on BMW 801 vs. DB 605, engine is to blame for Fw 190 not being as good as Bf 109 at altitude (more guns, ammo, protection and fuel seem not to play any part, ditto for the layout of intakes), what Fw 190 vs. what Bf 109 etc.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 23, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not referring to the turboed 190C - there was no such thing? The 'turboed' Fw 190 was the V18/U1 (Wk.Nr.0040), and it was one draggy aircraft. Same the for similar machines - from V29 to V32.
> The V13, V15 and V16 (DB 603A, but no turbo) were far more streamlined practical aircraft, without the inter-cooler's radiator and turbine sticking in the slipstream in 1920s/30s fashion. V15 was later used as trial machine for the installation of turbo-associated plumbing.
> The more streamlined turbo installations, that required cutting a bit of the fuselage fuel tankage so the turbo and inter-cooler can be buried in the fuselage, never left the paper stage.



Was the turbo worth the drag? Could it have been made more aerodynamic? How much speed did it sacrifice?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 23, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Was the turbo worth the drag?



As flown - a clear 'no, it was not'.



> Could it have been made more aerodynamic?



It could, at least if we look at the drawings of proposed semi-buried installations, that never past the 'paper stage'.



> How much speed did it sacrifice?



Inter-cooler, turbo and tubing cost 30-50 km/h from SL to 8 km, less between 8 and 9 km of altitude where the turboed DB 603 have had a hefty power surplus vs. the 'normal' DB 603 to overcome the drag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 23, 2015)

The bigger point would be that the DB 603A alone made for a good all around performing fighter when mated to the 190 airframe while also being available nearly a year before the Jumo 213 was. (the DB-605AS would also be interesting for lighter high-alt fighter configurations -same for higher alt oriented Jumo 211 models like the 211R or hypothetical alternate supercharger configurations, had the demand for that engine on high-alt fighters materialized)

Junkers Engines - Jumo 211

If that chart is accurate, the 211R seems more related to the 211F/J rather than the 2700 RPM N/P. Seems like it may have been a 211J with higher supercharger gear ratios and ending up with similar take-off power to the 211F due to the added intercooling.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 24, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> As flown - a clear 'no, it was not'. It could, at least if we look at the drawings of proposed semi-buried installations, that never past the 'paper stage'. Inter-cooler, turbo and tubing cost 30-50 km/h from SL to 8 km, less between 8 and 9 km of altitude where the turboed DB 603 have had a hefty power surplus vs. the 'normal' DB 603 to overcome the drag.



Wow, why didn't they try to go for the semi-buried design first?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 24, 2015)

It was easier that way?



kool kitty89 said:


> ...
> 
> Junkers Engines - Jumo 211
> 
> If that chart is accurate, the 211R seems more related to the 211F/J rather than the 2700 RPM N/P. Seems like it may have been a 211J with higher supercharger gear ratios and ending up with similar take-off power to the 211F due to the added intercooling.



Look here, it is 2700 rpm for the Jumo 211R. Problem with the 211R is that it was too late to matter - every 211 built in 1944 means one 213 less.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 24, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Look here, it is 2700 rpm for the Jumo 211R. Problem with the 211R is that it was too late to matter - every 211 built in 1944 means one 213 less.


The other suggestion (of putting emphasis on a higher altitude rated 211 sooner -at the expense of low altitude performance) still stands. If the 211R used a 2-stage supercharger arrangement similar to the 213A, that would be less directly applicable to potential earlier developments, but if it was closer to the single-stage unit of the F/J/N/P (or identical to it, but using higher gear ratios) then that indicates such developments should have been feasible to introduce considerably sooner. (doing so in parallel with the 211J's intercooler development seems attractive given the greater needs for charge cooling with higher supercharger compression ratios)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2015)

Yes and no, the inter-coolers create drag, and the more you compress the air, say for high altitude work, the hotter it gets and the more airflow (drag) you need to cool the intake air. Now at high altitude where the air is thin the extra power more than offsets the extra drag and the plane will be faster. At lower altitudes the drag trumps the extra power and the plane is slower. 
it is not the manifold pressure that counts here (1.42 Ata or whatever) but the amount of compression needed to get the outside air _to_ 1.42 Ata (or whatever manifold pressure you are looking for).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 25, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes and no, the inter-coolers create drag, and the more you compress the air, say for high altitude work, the hotter it gets and the more airflow (drag) you need to cool the intake air. Now at high altitude where the air is thin the extra power more than offsets the extra drag and the plane will be faster. At lower altitudes the drag trumps the extra power and the plane is slower.
> it is not the manifold pressure that counts here (1.42 Ata or whatever) but the amount of compression needed to get the outside air _to_ 1.42 Ata (or whatever manifold pressure you are looking for).


If using an intercooler closer to (or the same) size of that of the 211J, wouldn't it be possible to increase the supercharger speed (or use a larger/different supercharger) and end up with acceptable charge densities and temperatures? (perhaps close to the 211F's but with higher critical altitudes)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 25, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> The other suggestion (of putting emphasis on a higher altitude rated 211 sooner -at the expense of low altitude performance) still stands. *If the 211R used a 2-stage supercharger arrangement similar to the 213A*, that would be less directly applicable to potential earlier developments, but if it was closer to the single-stage unit of the F/J/N/P (or identical to it, but using higher gear ratios) then that indicates such developments should have been feasible to introduce considerably sooner. (doing so in parallel with the 211J's intercooler development seems attractive given the greater needs for charge cooling with higher supercharger compression ratios)



The 213A was using 1-stage S/C, not two stage S/C. The 2-stage unit was introduced with Jumo 213E.

Jumo 211J (= intercooled), with 'faster' S/C should've been a decent 'fighter engine'. The engine + intercooler will have a bit less drag than even the tightly cowled BMW 801, plus there is a weight save and less consumption. Weapon drag will be also smaller for same firepower, assuming prop cannon is installed instead of cowl HMGs. Use of C3 fuel will mean also plenty of power at low and medium altitudes, though the engine needs to be tested rated for that in the 1st place.

With that said, the intercooled DB 601/605 engines would be also interesting choices for the Fw 190.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2015)

The Jumo 211J was the *ONLY* single stage engine that was mass produced and fitted with an intercooler and it was used on bombers. The general thinking of the time was that the benefit of using an intercooler on a single stage engine engine in a fighter wasn't worth the weight and bulk/drag. The engine installation in a fighter being a much larger fraction of the total drag than the engine installation/s on a bomber. We may be able to find the weight of the intercooler on the 211J but you are aiming at a moving target. Running the supercharger faster and compressing the air more for better altitude performance is going to heat the intake charge more and require a larger inter-cooler and and higher mass flow of cooling air than the "J" needed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 25, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The engine installation in a fighter being a much larger fraction of the total drag than the engine installation/s on a bomber.



It was the other way around - powerplant drag of 2-engined aircraft represented a bigger percentage of the total drag than on the 1-engined A/C in ww2. Eg. - Welkin started with powerplant drag being 19.4% of total drag, the Beaufighter was at 35.4%, Mossie and Whirly being in between. Spitfire was at 16.5-18 (Merlin 45) and at 19% (2-stage Merlin); British calculated the Fw 190 with 21.5%. Per tables kindly provided by Neil Stirling a short while ago. 


> We may be able to find the weight of the intercooler on the 211J but you are aiming at a moving target.



The intercooler was also a radiator - ie. it is of air-to-air type. The weight should be pretty low? The compressed air exited through the tube (42a), entered the intercooler and exited it, to enter the tube 44a:









> Running the supercharger faster and compressing the air more for better altitude performance is going to heat the intake charge more and require a larger inter-cooler and and higher mass flow of cooling air than the "J" needed.



The fighter with the Jumo 211J will fly faster than the Ju 88 with the same engine - 100 km/h faster on same settings, or 25% faster, for 25% more air flow?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 25, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The 213A was using 1-stage S/C, not two stage S/C. The 2-stage unit was introduced with Jumo 213E.


 Was that single-stage Jumo 213 still used the swirl type inlet/throttle guide vanes, right? Was it also intercooled?



> The engine + intercooler will have a bit less drag than even the tightly cowled BMW 801, plus there is a weight save and less consumption. Weapon drag will be also smaller for same firepower, assuming prop cannon is installed instead of cowl HMGs.


Similar or better fire with the hub cannon, yes. (either an MG 151/20 or MK 108 should be more destructive than the pair of MG 131s, let alone preceding MG 17s). Drag might be a better than Jumo's standard annular radiator with a more streamlined one adapted specific to the 190 airframe. (plus, moving the radiator further aft, below the engine or fuselage should give better control over CoG while still keeping coolant lines and intercooler ducting short)



> With that said, the intercooled DB 601/605 engines would be also interesting choices for the Fw 190.


Sticking with the existing 211F and J as the basis might have advantages in reliability over the 605 too. (DB 601 with intercooled DB 603 supercharger would have been interesting, intercooled DB-605AS certainly too though again there's the bearing lubrication issues)

Come to think of it, I don't recall any mention of the DB 603 suffering from bearing issues. Had it avoided use of roller bearings from the start and incorporated more satisfactory alternatives than the DB 605? (or at least compared to the initial production DB 605) If that was the case, might it have made more sense to forgo DB-605 production altogether in favor of more DB 603s as DB-601 production wound down?


For that matter, the 211J entered production ad service much earlier than the 605AM or D, and if tested/rated for higher boost with C2/C3 fuel, should have outstripped the 605A's performance without water injection, or possibly even approach the 605AM's at critical altitude.





tomo pauk said:


> It was the other way around - powerplant drag of 2-engined aircraft represented a bigger percentage of the total drag than on the 1-engined A/C in ww2. Eg. - Welkin started with powerplant drag being 19.4% of total drag, the Beaufighter was at 35.4%, Mossie and Whirly being in between. Spitfire was at 16.5-18 (Merlin 45) and at 19% (2-stage Merlin); British calculated the Fw 190 with 21.5%. Per tables kindly provided by Neil Stirling a short while ago.


Weight would be a bigger consideration on a single engine fighter (cockpit/pilot/armor, fuel tankage, and engine weight would all be bigger considerations on a single engine fighter). And unless you use a push/pull arrangement, the twin engine examples have the full engine nacelles adding to drag rather than the engine sharing some of its drag with the fuselage.

You'd need a very large wing and fuselage (and gun/turret bulges, external racks, etc) to skew that. (might have been the case for typical Ju 88 production models)



> The intercooler was also a radiator - ie. it is of air-to-air type. The weight should be pretty low? The compressed air exited through the tube (42a), entered the intercooler and exited it, to enter the tube 4


From what I recall, the 211J intercoolers were also still fairly compact, fitting into an annular radiator cowling of the same diameter as the 211F but filling in some holes/gaps present between the coolant radiators.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> It was the other way around - powerplant drag of 2-engined aircraft represented a bigger percentage of the total drag than on the 1-engined A/C in ww2. Eg. - Welkin started with powerplant drag being 19.4% of total drag, the Beaufighter was at 35.4%, Mossie and Whirly being in between. Spitfire was at 16.5-18 (Merlin 45) and at 19% (2-stage Merlin); British calculated the Fw 190 with 21.5%. Per tables kindly provided by Neil Stirling a short while ago.



I said "bomber" not fighter 
The chart doesn't list much in the way of twin engine bombers and the size of the airframe can make a difference in the _percentage_ the engine installation takes up. The Beaufighter's engines contributing 35.4% of the drag but essentially the same engines on a Lerwick flying boat (admittedly a huge airframe) are only 14.2% of the total drag. If you make the rest of the airframe ugly enough you can get even a rather dodgy engine installation to look good number wise.






engine was only 12.3% of the total drag, much better than a Spitfire  

I probably phrased it wrong. _Each_ engine on a multi engine aircraft is a smaller percentage of the total. ie, _each_ engine on a Mosquito is 12-14% of the total and _each_ Merlin on a Lancaster I is about 6% of the total drag. A bomber could use certain features in engine installations that wouldn't hurt the performance anywhere near as much as the same feature on a a single engine fighter. 

Granted the JU-88 was a lot smaller than a Lerwick but but there was still a lot of airframe compared to a single engine fighter. 




> The intercooler was also a radiator - ie. it is of air-to-air type. The weight should be pretty low? The compressed air exited through the tube (42a), entered the intercooler and exited it, to enter the tube 44a:



Thank you for the pictures.



> The fighter with the Jumo 211J will fly faster than the Ju 88 with the same engine - 100 km/h faster on same settings, or 25% faster, for 25% more air flow?



and now we get into dynamics. Yes the higher airspeed gives higher airflow. However we have not just the increase in frontal area ( the easy part) but the drag of the airflow though the ducts and the inter cooler matrix. Increase the velocity of the airflow by 25% and you increase the drag by 56% even at the same mass flow. Since you increased the mass flow by 25% you may now have 90-95% more drag than the bomber had in it's inter-cooler set-up unless you change something? Like increase the area of the matrix and duct cross section to lower the velocity of the air as it goes through the inter cooler matrix?) 

To get a 40% efficient inter-cooler (lowers the intake charge temperature by 40 degrees for every 100 degrees of starting temperature or every 100 degrees added to the ambient temp by the supercharger) you need a mass flow equal to the charge flow, cooling air equals combustion air. 1.5 times the combustion air can get you a bit over 50% efficiency and twice the mass flow of the combustion air can get you a bit over 60%. 

It is not quite bolt the power egg from a JU-88 on the nose of a FW 190, change to fighter reduction gear ratio and prop and away you go. 

Say you pick up 100hp at the prop but the inter-cooler is costing you 50hp in drag, is it worth it?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 25, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Say you pick up 100hp at the prop but the inter-cooler is costing you 50hp in drag, is it worth it?


Even assuming those figures stayed static (given whatever radiator configuration employed), there's still the question of: is it worth it relative to what alternative?

If either case is superior to the drag situation of the BMW 801 while also weighing significantly less, then it becomes more of a competition between the 211F and 211J (or similar engines with supercharger gearing increased for higher altitudes -if only modestly so). And then the question of what happens when more weight is added to the airframe and the added drag of the intercooler becomes less significant relative to the power gained? (ie a heavily loaded fighter-bomber or -in the more altitude optimized case- heavily armed and armored bomber interceptor)

Also consider the weight and drag related to the intercooler vs weight, drag, and fuel consumption/displacement of a (hypothetical) rich mixed or MW/50 injection system, assuming such could even be fielded on the 211F at the time the 211J became available. Then consider weight impacting drag/range and climb performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2015)

With the Jumo 211J the addition of Rich mixture or MW/50 isn't going to get you much. You are already cooling the intake charge and _extra_ cooling isn't going to get anywhere near the increase in power. Some American planes used both inter-coolers and water injection but then they were compressing the air a heck of a lot more to begin with. A late model P-47 could pull 72in (2.4Ata) at 30,000ft in level flight (with RAM) and was compressing the air 8 times over the ambient air pressure. It was also exceeding the capacity of it's intercooler/s which had not be designed for that air flow (40% more than an early P-47). 
Early American turbo practice (before WER settings) was to lower the intake air temperature _back down_ after the turbo to 100 degrees F max at the carb intake and 90 degrees ideally. If your inter cooler on the Jumo 211 is doing it's job to begin with the intake air in the manifolds should be around a similar temperature. injecting water or extra fuel into even 100-150 degree air doesn't get you the same sort of cooling that injecting it into 200 degree+ air does. 

The intercooler on the 211J may have been there as much for climb performance on the bomber as it was for speed. You are trying to get a 26-31,000lb bomber up to operating height and or improve ceiling as much as add 10-15mph to the speed. Water injection or rich mixture don't work well for long, hard climbs, you use up more Lbs of material (water or fuel) than the intercooler weighs. It could take a JU-88A-4 23 minutes to hit just under 18,000ft while weighing 27,557lbs. max take-off was 30,865lbs. The inter-cooler allowed operation at higher power levels for long periods of time and the shorter climb to altitued vs a non interecooled engine allowed for greater range on the same fuel. On a fighter it is different, the climb is much shorter only 1/3 or less of the time to get to the same altitude.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 26, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Was that single-stage Jumo 213 still used the swirl type inlet/throttle guide vanes, right? Was it also intercooled?



1 - yes (link), 2 - no.


> Sticking with the existing 211F and J as the basis might have advantages in reliability over the 605 too. (DB 601 with intercooled DB 603 supercharger would have been interesting, intercooled DB-605AS certainly too though again there's the bearing lubrication issues)



The standard DB 601E was producing as much power as the intercooled 211J, so it would still be my preference to intercool the DB. We can recall that Ta 154 crashed 3 times due the engine troubles, so it would be prudent not to claim that Jumo 211 was more reliable than DB 605A, that produced more power on 30 min rating than the Jumo 211J on 1 min rating (!). 
Intercooled DB 605A or 605AS would be fine engines.



> (plus, moving the radiator further aft, below the engine or fuselage should give better control over CoG while still keeping coolant lines and intercooler ducting short)



Radiator under fuselage - no-no IMO, it will be a speed brake. The CoG issues should be close to non-existant with the annular radiator, the Jumo 211 engines were much lighter than the Jumo 213 or DB 603A (and one of Fw 190s flew with DB 603 and without tail 'plug').



> Come to think of it, I don't recall any mention of the DB 603 suffering from bearing issues. Had it avoided use of roller bearings from the start and incorporated more satisfactory alternatives than the DB 605? (or at least compared to the initial production DB 605) If that was the case, might it have made more sense to forgo DB-605 production altogether in favor of more DB 603s as DB-601 production wound down?



It all depends on how long it would it take for the DB to sort out the 603A, and how good supercharger set-up is installed on the DB 601(E), plus whether it would be easy to rev-up the 601E to 2800 rpm, like the 605 managed eventually. 


> For that matter, the 211J entered production ad service much earlier than the 605AM or D, and if tested/rated for higher boost with C2/C3 fuel, should have outstripped the 605A's performance without water injection, or possibly even approach the 605AM's at critical altitude.



As above - methinks that the DB 601E 605A would need less fiddling with, in order to achieve a bit better performance. Probably, the engine that 1st is to get a workable 2-stage S/C is the 'winner'. 



> From what I recall, the 211J intercoolers were also still fairly compact, fitting into an annular radiator cowling of the same diameter as the 211F but filling in some holes/gaps present between the coolant radiators.



The difference in installation of Jumo 211B and 211J:


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2015)

To move a bit to the more powerful engines - the comparison between DB 603A (the original graph) with added lines for the Jumo 213A (blue) and BMW 801D (fully rated; thick red; thin red is for overboost above 1.42 ata). Above 6 km, the DB 603A (on B4 fuel) will make 10% more power than the 801D (C3 fuel), with perhaps main bonus being that overall drag will be decreased.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 29, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The intercooler on the 211J may have been there as much for climb performance on the bomber as it was for speed. You are trying to get a 26-31,000lb bomber up to operating height and or improve ceiling as much as add 10-15mph to the speed. Water injection or rich mixture don't work well for long, hard climbs, you use up more Lbs of material (water or fuel) than the intercooler weighs. It could take a JU-88A-4 23 minutes to hit just under 18,000ft while weighing 27,557lbs. max take-off was 30,865lbs. The inter-cooler allowed operation at higher power levels for long periods of time and the shorter climb to altitued vs a non interecooled engine allowed for greater range on the same fuel. On a fighter it is different, the climb is much shorter only 1/3 or less of the time to get to the same altitude.


Sorry, I don't think I was very clear with my phrasing before. I'd meant to say that the 211J's arrangement is generally more useful all around than a hypothetical 211F with similar power levels achieved through water/rich mixture injection. (an overboosted 211F running C-2 or C-3 might be more useful, but it won't help altitude performance any)


The separate point was that using higher supercharger ratios with the 211F's intercooler should still be practical at the expense of increased charge heating as with any supercharger arrangement. (but still be better off than similar supercharging without intercooling)






tomo pauk said:


> Radiator under fuselage - no-no IMO, it will be a speed brake. The CoG issues should be close to non-existant with the annular radiator, the Jumo 211 engines were much lighter than the Jumo 213 or DB 603A (and one of Fw 190s flew with DB 603 and without tail 'plug').


You don't think there's any way of managing an embedded or retractable radiator with significant improvements over the annular arrangement? (especially for the 211F without concerns for the intercooler)

This same issue came up before on the high speed Ju 88 design discussion (with embedded wing radiators suggested over the annular ones) though I suppose the Ju 88 offers a lot more space for that sort of compromise.



> It all depends on how long it would it take for the DB to sort out the 603A, and how good supercharger set-up is installed on the DB 601(E), plus whether it would be easy to rev-up the 601E to 2800 rpm, like the 605 managed eventually.


I was suggesting the 603 emphasis more in leu of the bearing shortages that forced some of the redesigns in transition from DB 601 to 605. (with continued use of ball bearings, the 601 -or alternate 605- might have had an easier time with higher RPM as well)



> As above - methinks that the DB 601E 605A would need less fiddling with, in order to achieve a bit better performance. Probably, the engine that 1st is to get a workable 2-stage S/C is the 'winner'.


Larger single stage supercharged arrangements seemed to work well enough too (an intercooled DB-605AS should have covered most of the needs without resorting to a 2-stage arrangement or requiring water injection). The swirl/radial throttle guide vanes on the 213 also helped smooth power curves even better than the DB's fluid coupling in some respects. Having the latter available on the 211 earlier would have probably been more important than a 2-stage arrangement and probably more important than intercooling. (the upgrade from the crappy supercharger in the 211A-D series to the ones of the F was important for sure)





tomo pauk said:


> To move a bit to the more powerful engines - the comparison between DB 603A (the original graph) with added lines for the Jumo 213A (blue) and BMW 801D (fully rated; thick red; thin red is for overboost above 1.42 ata). Above 6 km, the DB 603A (on B4 fuel) will make 10% more power than the 801D (C3 fuel), with perhaps main bonus being that overall drag will be decreased.


Interesting that the 213A manages best power at the low altitude ends of its 2 supercharger speeds. I'as assume the critical altitudes would remain rather similar in height and power output for a simpler throttle plate configuration which implies the radial guide vanes actually improve power under dense air + restricted flow conditions and that a similar configuration applied to the earlier 211 models should have significantly increased their power at all heights outside of critical altitudes (or above 2nd speed crit alt) as well as making peak power output at SL. (possibly allowing the 211J to outperform the 605A, or the 211F to directly compete? -possibly without the added reliability problems suffered by the 211N depending what the cause of that actually was)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2015)

For radiators the retracting scheme may be a dead end. 

A major source of the drag is the airflow through the radiator core or matrix. It depends on what the pressure drop is of the air moving through the radiator. A small area radiator with a high pressure drop is just as bad as a large radiator with a low pressure drop. This was part of what made the Mustang good. The air entered through the bottom scoop and the duct rapidly got larger which slowed the air _before_ it hit the radiator core/matrix. the slower speed helped a lot because drag goes up with the square of the speed. The Mustang was trading volume inside the airframe for a low drag installation. Using short front to back radiator cores shoved out into the airstream (even part way) is like partially deploying an airbrake.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 30, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> ...
> You don't think there's any way of managing an embedded or retractable radiator with significant improvements over the annular arrangement? (especially for the 211F without concerns for the intercooler)



I agree with SR6 here - the retractable radiator would bring more bad than good re. streamlining.



> Larger single stage supercharged arrangements seemed to work well enough too (an intercooled DB-605AS should have covered most of the needs without resorting to a 2-stage arrangement or requiring water injection). The swirl/radial throttle guide vanes on the 213 also helped smooth power curves even better than the DB's fluid coupling in some respects. Having the latter available on the 211 earlier would have probably been more important than a 2-stage arrangement and probably more important than intercooling. (the upgrade from the crappy supercharger in the 211A-D series to the ones of the F was important for sure)



The advantage of the 2-speed S/C with the swirl throttle vs. hydraulically driven S/C with 'normal' throttle is that losses due to slippage at lower altitudes are non-existant, so there is more power left to drive the prop. Advantage of DB s/c drive is that is available 5 years earlier historically for the LW, and it too can have the swirl throttle installed, like it was the case with DB 605L and 603L (the 2-stage supercharged engines).
The swirl throttle cannot increase the rated altitude, however, and this is why I've suggested the 2-stage S/C for the DB 601/605 and Jumo 211 (hopefully inter-cooled, and that will increase power vs. non-intercooled engine variant) - LW have had plenty of fine engines for under 20000 ft work, the Allied multi-stage engines reigned supreme above that altitude, when we talk about service engines from late 1943 to May 1945.
At 10 km and vs. DB 605A, the DB 605AS offered ~170 HP more (about equaling the Merlin 66), the DB 605L was offering 550+ PS more (like 2-stage RR Griffon). That is quite a difference.




> Interesting that the 213A manages best power at the low altitude ends of its 2 supercharger speeds. I'as assume the critical altitudes would remain rather similar in height and power output for a simpler throttle plate configuration which implies the radial guide vanes actually improve power under dense air + restricted flow conditions and that a similar configuration applied to the earlier 211 models should have significantly increased their power at all heights outside of critical altitudes (or above 2nd speed crit alt) as well as making peak power output at SL.



Swirl throttles are the key to the increase in power under the rated height. Indeed the rated height will remain the same with simple throttle, but obviously the 213A (and othe 213s) will loose a good deal of power under the rated heights in that case. 
As above - the improved throttle device will not increase the rated height, but more power down low will come in handy, especially for bombers and fighter-bombers.



> (possibly allowing the 211J to outperform the 605A, or the 211F to directly compete? -possibly without the added reliability problems suffered by the 211N depending what the cause of that actually was)



I wouldn't be so sure that 211J (let alone the 211F, that was of lower power than the DB 601E already) will be outperforming even a restricted DB 605A. The 605A can still make 2600 rpm for 30 minutes, the 211J for 1 minute historically (take off only), and maybe 5 min in a faster flying fighter. The 605A has smaller drag due to the lack of intercooler, and it is even 4 cm narrower (not that it will mean anything for the installation on the Fw 190).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 30, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> A major source of the drag is the airflow through the radiator core or matrix. It depends on what the pressure drop is of the air moving through the radiator. A small area radiator with a high pressure drop is just as bad as a large radiator with a low pressure drop. This was part of what made the Mustang good. The air entered through the bottom scoop and the duct rapidly got larger which slowed the air _before_ it hit the radiator core/matrix. the slower speed helped a lot because drag goes up with the square of the speed. The Mustang was trading volume inside the airframe for a low drag installation. Using short front to back radiator cores shoved out into the airstream (even part way) is like partially deploying an airbrake.


A retractable radiator would still have advantages in drag over a similar fixed radiator, wouldn't it? The He 100's example for takeoff/ground running is a bad example as it's not ducted/cowled. I'm thinking more in line with designs intended to be used in-flight like the single seater Fw 187 prototypes, He 111, and I believe some He 112 prototypes.

I'd think the major trade-offs would be added weight and complexity for the retraction system, and internal space consumed. (though the latter shouldn't be any worse than a similarly sized burried radiator)
Hmm ... perhaps I've answered my own question though ... a fixed, burried radiator with similar location and just a retractable intake scoop might work better and be lighter. (admittedly, the Fw 187 prototypes actually appear to use that configruation more so than actually retracting the radiator core)

Still, there must be some reason the He 111 didn't adopt the Junkers style annular radiators.




tomo pauk said:


> Radiator under fuselage - no-no IMO, it will be a speed brake. The CoG issues should be close to non-existant with the annular radiator, the Jumo 211 engines were much lighter than the Jumo 213 or DB 603A (and one of Fw 190s flew with DB 603 and without tail 'plug').


Thinking on this again, I had originally meant to imply more of a 'beard' type radiator under the nose (like P-40, Typhoon/Tempest, Ju 87, Bf 109A/B/C/D, etc) but that might not work as efficiently on an inverted V arrangement than an upright V. (or have few/no advantages over the annular placement) The P-40Q seems to have slimmed it down a good bit (and the P-40B/C was more streamlined as well, or at least appeared so aesthetically) but I'm not sure that would mean so much for the Jumo or DB engines. In all cases you'd still want some sort of ducting/cowling arrangement with boundary layer splitter and radiator cores shaped/placed accordingly. (having ram ducting and diffusion area like the P-51 used is another matter entirely and requires a lot more space)





tomo pauk said:


> At 10 km and vs. DB 605A, the DB 605AS offered ~170 HP more (about equaling the Merlin 66), the DB 605L was offering 550+ PS more (like 2-stage RR Griffon). That is quite a difference.


Agreed there, but I think the point of potential for an intercooled 605AS still stands. Similarly there should have been more room for single stage (with and without intercooling) growth on the 211 itself. The 213A seems to have maxed that potential out though, or come close enough. (same for the 605AS and the 603A)



> I wouldn't be so sure that 211J (let alone the 211F, that was of lower power than the DB 601E already) will be outperforming even a restricted DB 605A. The 605A can still make 2600 rpm for 30 minutes, the 211J for 1 minute historically (take off only), and maybe 5 min in a faster flying fighter. The 605A has smaller drag due to the lack of intercooler, and it is even 4 cm narrower (not that it will mean anything for the installation on the Fw 190).


I was more suggesting that the 211 might make better competitors had the swirl throttle been available sooner (and assuming Jumo got it working satisfactorily earlier than DB). The added power below critical altitude might make the 211F and J better for low level operation than the 601E and 605A (or at least more attractive with weight and production volumes in mind). 211N would be more interesting but as you mentioned also seems to have reliability issues, at least in testing on the Ta 154.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 1, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> ...
> Thinking on this again, I had originally meant to imply more of a 'beard' type radiator under the nose (like P-40, Typhoon/Tempest, Ju 87, Bf 109A/B/C/D, etc) but that might not work as efficiently on an inverted V arrangement than an upright V. (or have few/no advantages over the annular placement) The P-40Q seems to have slimmed it down a good bit (and the P-40B/C was more streamlined as well, or at least appeared so aesthetically) but I'm not sure that would mean so much for the Jumo or DB engines.



In the case of XP-40Q, two radiators were relocated in the wings, hence the smaller 'beard' that now housed only one (oil?) radiator. 



> In all cases you'd still want some sort of ducting/cowling arrangement with boundary layer splitter and radiator cores shaped/placed accordingly. (having ram ducting and diffusion area like the P-51 used is another matter entirely and requires a lot more space)



The annular radiator circumvents the need to have the boundary layer splitter. In case we want a P-51-style radiator, one of the fuel tanks must go - not such a big problem, there is enough of space between the spars for fuel tanks, but still a work to be done.



> Agreed there, but I think the point of potential for an intercooled 605AS still stands. Similarly there should have been more room for single stage (with and without intercooling) growth on the 211 itself. The 213A seems to have maxed that potential out though, or come close enough. (same for the 605AS and the 603A)



The Jumo 213A and DB 603A/E were among the best 1-stage engines, once sorted out. Strong points being the ability to use 87 oct fuel and still perform, the shortcoming being greater weight and bulk, as well as lower power above 20000 ft than a decent 2-stage supercharged 700-750 kg (dry) engine, let alone with 2-stage 1000 kg engines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2015)

I am not sure how much smaller the "nose" was on the P-40Q. It just may have hidden better behind a bigger prop hub 






First P-40Q


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2015)

duplicate


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 1, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> In the case of XP-40Q, two radiators were relocated in the wings, hence the smaller 'beard' that now housed only one (oil?) radiator.


I thought the oil coolers were in the wing leading edges and the prestone radiators were either under the nose or under the fuselage (with the chin being an intake duct)

You yourself mentioned the LE oil coolers here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/xp-40q-able-35878-post983430.html#post983430

The initial P-40Q prototype appears to have had the oil coolers grouped with the coolant radiators all under the wing center section.

I'm not sure if either configuration caused the wing center fuel tankage to be reduced. (or eliminated the belly rack)




> The annular radiator circumvents the need to have the boundary layer splitter. In case we want a P-51-style radiator, one of the fuel tanks must go - not such a big problem, there is enough of space between the spars for fuel tanks, but still a work to be done.


You also loose the centerline bomb/drop tank rack, though less of an issue if you use the annular radiator (or BMW radial) on fighter-bomber versions.



> The Jumo 213A and DB 603A/E were among the best 1-stage engines, once sorted out. Strong points being the ability to use 87 oct fuel and still perform, the shortcoming being greater weight and bulk, as well as lower power above 20000 ft than a decent 2-stage supercharged 700-750 kg (dry) engine, let alone with 2-stage 1000 kg engines.


One of my points was that the Jumo 211 should have had more room for growth (at least in high altitude performance) with a single stage supercharger before a 2-stage unit was worthwhile and that a 605AS featuring an intercooler would also be useful. (perhaps less useful on the 603A given the lower compression ratios used)




Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure how much smaller the "nose" was on the P-40Q. It just may have hidden better behind a bigger prop hub


It still looks a bit smaller, maybe not much smaller than the P-40C's scoop, but smaller than the P-40E/F/K/L/N's.

It does appear to be deeper too, extending to the belly section.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 4, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> I thought the oil coolers were in the wing leading edges and the prestone radiators were either under the nose or under the fuselage (with the chin being an intake duct)
> You yourself mentioned the LE oil coolers here:
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/xp-40q-able-35878-post983430.html#post983430



Indeed, in the 'Vee's for victory' such configuration (oil coolers in the wings) is mentioned.



> The initial P-40Q prototype appears to have had the oil coolers grouped with the coolant radiators all under the wing center section.
> I'm not sure if either configuration caused the wing center fuel tankage to be reduced. (or eliminated the belly rack)



The initial configuration was a messy job IMO. The late configuration looks fine, it will not cause any changes in fuel tanks, internal an external.



> One of my points was that the Jumo 211 should have had more room for growth (at least in high altitude performance) with a single stage supercharger before a 2-stage unit was worthwhile and that a 605AS featuring an intercooler would also be useful. (perhaps less useful on the 603A given the lower compression ratios used)



 I was trying to go for a 2-stage S/C as soon as possible. The Jumo 211J is already intercooled, and the 211 series have, along with Jumo 213, the lowest compression ratio among the major German engines, so it will have less problems with heated charge. Since it should be going in the Fw 190 instead of the BMW, the C3 fuel will provide plenty of boost under the FTH.


----------



## GregP (Jul 5, 2015)

The nose on the P-40Q is nowhere near as deep as the nose on a P-40N.

In a sort of strange turn of events, the Allison required less radiator airfow than a Merlin, but more oil cooler airflow. I think the XP-40Qs had redesigned oil coolers that account for a lot of the smaller air intake. The Allison used engine oil to help cool some parts of the engien and gearbox moreso than the Merlin, so some of the heat generated was not required to be dissipated by the radiator. Ergo, it had bigger oil coolers or better oil cooler design and less coolant and radiator area required.

If you look in the radiator opening of a typical P-40N (or even a P-38H/J/L) you'll see two oil coolers on the outside of a center opening. The radiator on the P-40 is right there in the center opening. The P-38 routes the center air back to the boom radiator, but the oil coolers are right up front where they are on a P-40N.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 5, 2015)

Indeed: P-40 Warhawk Technical

http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/Nose/E-K-M-N_Lower_cowl_front.gif
http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/E cowl.jpg

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/P40E_1_13.jpg

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2537/curtissp40ekittyhawk1we.jpg


The oil coolers actually appear to take up more area than the coolant radiator.

The installation on the P-40B/C seems more streamlined, but that's probably just due to the coolers being physically smaller and the long-nosed V-1710-33 making the entire nose look sleeker. (at a glance, the radiator ducting does look like it benefits more from ram compression effect than the later P-40D/E/F/etc radiator, but that might be more aesthetics than results in practive)

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/Other/P40_Av_4008_cutaway_W.png

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/p-40-tomahawk-iib-science-source.jpg



On another note, short of going with a bubble canopy, the P-40 should have been rather simple to adapt to a bulged Malcolm Hood style canopy given it already used a sliding mechanism. (I'd think this change would be simpler than the modifications actually made to the P-40N ... no modified rear decking, just the original 'scalloped' glazing along with a new canopy hood -bulged, unlike the P-40N's)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 11, 2015)

On the bread'n'butter P-40, there were two coolant radiators and one oil radiator, as it can be seen on the attached picture. On the XP-40Q, with 2-stage engine, The oil cooling requirements due to the auxiliary's stage hydraulic drive slippage heating should be increased, thus requiring the more capacious oil cooling system.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 8, 2018)

In order not to clog the other thread, I'll quote here the two recent posts regarding the Fw 190, and add my comment or two.



dedalos said:


> ...
> The Fw190 was a very good fighter bomber , but as a fighter was totally outclassed in western Europe after early 1943. Terrible wing profile, bad engine, very high wingh loading.
> ...





bada said:


> Please explain further, as i consider the Wurger as the best fighter of WWII, being the most versatile airframe from WWII (as fighter) and the easiest to fly (HoTaS)
> Outclassed after early43: by what? the spitty? the Poney? it depends of altitudes only. above 6Km yes until then it was still the most agile fighter, able to change azimuts no other airplane could follow and the speed of the allies were not greater, mostly equal. Then came the D-9....
> Terrible wing profile: why do you think that? Like all wing designs it was a good compromise. Semi-laminar profile made for speed, the most rigid wing structure available able to cope with the tremendous rollrate without aerolasticity and the wing was still "active" at lower speed, not like the poney's wing that need high speed otherwise it stalls.
> Bad engine: ???? 801D2 bad engine? no really? check the BMW production numbers and match it with the 190 airframes production numbers and all other planes that flew with those engines, you'll see they didn't build them like2 times the number of airframes. it's just like i'll say the pw2800 is a bad engine (from my pov, it is as it's too big and need large compressors or turbo pipings to run at decent power through the altitude range ,but technically it's very well build). the 801 evolved from41 untill to end from 1650ps to 2000ps without issues, keeping the same size, the same ease of maintenance and it's reliability.
> Very high wing loading: like all high speed fighters, it also provides you a certain instability what is good for maneuvrability.



I certainly don't think that Fw 190 was outclassed in Europe after the early 1943. It did struggled against P-47D from Autmn of 1943 on, though, and was decidely falling behind the Merlin Mustang, Spit XIV, Tempest and P-47D from winter of 1943/44 on. Soviets were also catching up with Yak-3 and La-7.
The Fw-190D-9 was improvement to the breed, but nothing special vs. latest Allied fighters.
The NACA 230 series was never called 'semi laminar-flow' by anyone. Again - nothing special, but it was well liked and used in ww2. Pony's wings were of much lower drag, despite being thicker (Germans measured it, too, and came to the same conclusion), while offering plenty of space for big & protected fuel tanks, useful to heavy armament, while also housing the strong U/C.
BMW 801 have had such problems with reliability in the 1st year of servicce aboard of the Fw 190 that almost made RLM kill the whole Fw 190 project. Reliability and power went up from 1942 on, though. In comparison with R-2800, the BMW 801 comes as second best. Neither was a lightweight like the Hercules, ASh-82 or some Japanese engines.
About the high wing loading - it is both strong and weak point for a fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

