# FW-190 D-9-13 vs. Ta-152 C



## Bronc (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm having a difficult time getting a grasp on the differences, and the reason for the differences, between the FW-190 D-9-13 and the Ta-152C.

Here is what I know:

1) The FW "Long Nose" was powered by Jumo 213 series engines and the Ta-152 C's were to be DB 603A powered machines. However - Kurt Tank and his team tested and wanted the DB-603 in the FW-190-D series airframe AND tested the Jumo 213 series engine in the Ta-152C airframe.

2) The Ta-152 had an 11.0 m wingspan - 19.5 m2 wing area - 10.80 m maximum length.
The FW-190 D-9-13 had a 10.506 m wingspan - 18.3 m2 wing area - 10.192 m maximum length.

(The max length difference were due to the length and weight of the DB-603.)

3) The two types had some minor armament differences.

4) The Ta-152 would have been pressurized, the FW-190 D not so much.

Why was the FW-190 D "an interim type" when the Jumo powered D-13 turned out to be the fastest of them all?

If a nine (9) inch "extended outer wing panel" on each wing was the only difference between the Ta-152 C and FW-190 D wings, was it worth the delay in getting the D-9 into production?

Why pressurize the Ta-152C anyway, when the Ta-152H was the plane that needed it? 

Why didn't the RLM order both the FW-190 D's and Ta-152 C's into production? Everyone was saying
the Luftwaffe needed more fighters...

Bronc


----------



## Bronc (Oct 17, 2009)

Looking at the nominal loaded weight comparison between the FW-190 D-9 and Ta-152 C we have:

FW-190 D-9 = 4,350 kg
Ta-153 C = 5,320 kg

The Ta-153 C was a full TON heavier! (Hell, over a ton...)

Something really crazy was going on here. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. 

Bronc


----------



## riacrato (Oct 17, 2009)

Hello Bronc, consider the following facts:

- heavier armament (2 MG151 + 2 MG131 vs. 4 MG151 + 1 MK108)
- additional fuel tanks inside the wings
- bad weather fighter equipment

and here's my own speculation (hard to say, since actual first hand sources on the type are rare):
- additional armor since the type was intended primarily as a destroyer

In any case the Fw 190 D-13 or the original Fw 190 C would be somewhat better fighters than the Ta 152 C. The C and the D would be very similar but the C would have slightly better performance and the advantage of a motorkanone.


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2009)

A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6 lbs.

How much fuel did the Fw-190D9 carry internally?
How much fuel did the Ta-152 carry internally?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6 lbs.
> 
> How much fuel did the Fw-190D9 carry internally?
> How much fuel did the Ta-152 carry internally?



D-9 - 525 l. or ~115 Imp gal

152C-1

182kg + 283kg in fuselage tanks
368kg in 6 wing tanks


----------



## vanir (Oct 17, 2009)

Also the Jumo 213E and DB603LA power eggs are the same dimensions and weigh roughly the same. They are interchangeable in the Fw190 airframe modified to take either.
Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta152 is a good read and has a lot of information on the historical development and testing of the Ta152C, it was an excellent fighter which really left the Fw190D short.

The Ta152C was never pressurised. Much of the extra weight came from the armament, extra armour and additional fuel tankage. It had two fuselage tanks like the Dora but additional wing tanks. There was extra radio equipment (the R11 kit was standardised for all production Ta152 variants), so apparently best handling and climb was achieved by leaving one fuselage tank empty if possible (superior to Dora in this case).

The D-13 top speed rating of 740km/h was equivalent to the Ta152C but I believe both figures are calculated. One tremendous difference however would be that whilst flight testing of the Jumo 213E proved less than calculated performance in reality, the flight tests of the DB603LA proved better than calculated performance. So in service the Ta152C should've performed better out of the box than the D-11/12/13 which all used 213F-1 motors (as 213E but no intercoolers, which actually reduced performance slightly but also reduced weight and complexity), or the 213EB (I am unsure about the specifics of this engine variant).

Going over detailed documentation the empty equipped weight of the production series Ta152C-1 was about 4000kg whilst the take off weight was about 5040kg including ammunition and a partridge in a pear tree.
Loaded take off weight of a D-12 is given by Monogram Closeup as 4400kg.
In particular the benefit of the Ta152C is being structurally stressed for a loaded weight of 5500kg (being always conceived to be optioned as a fighter-bomber variant). All Ta152C are renowned as both extremely sturdy (exceptional dive) and very good climbers.

Yet indeed the story of Ta152 development does involve the Dora. Originally the Ta152C/H were to be variants of the Ta153 which was an all new design with a four blade prop. The Dora was always considered by Kurt Tank at least to be an interim for these models due to enter production by 1945. But the war climate and industrial situation meant the RLM demanded the Fw190 existing production facilities be modified to incorporate all the improvements of the Ta153 to expediate and uncomplicate its service entry. So the Ta152 really reflected Ta153 design features applied to the Fw190 airframe, heavily modified for the job, in the same way it was already modified to produce the Dora. So in this sense the Ta152 were a little bit like descendants of the Dora, although their development was completely independent (but did use common prototype testing for components).

Still, once you start putting these engine, armament, armour and equipment upgrades in a Dora without dramatic rebuilding of the airframe, you wind up with most of the weight of a Ta152 without the improved structural rigidity, without the purpose built airframe redesign to handle them, you wind up with a half arsed Ta152C that doesn't do the job as well, but may look similar on paper and may have much of the same equipment installed.


----------



## vanir (Oct 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6 lbs.
> 
> How much fuel did the Fw-190D9 carry internally?
> How much fuel did the Ta-152 carry internally?



Doras have the same fuselage tankage as a Ta152 (182kg front fuselage tank, 283kg rear fuselage tank, ~467kg total). The Ta152 added the wing tanks.
Either model mounts a 127kg MW50 installation (150 litres or 30min total operation). This was moved around between the rear fuselage and the inner wing whilst sorting CoG issues with the Ta152C preproduction prototypes, if mounted in the rear fuselage the rear tank was only to be half filled (preferrably not at all) I believe removing the rear tank completely was the R-I can't remember, 32 I think modification. But then it replaced the inner port wing fuel cell, so you'd have two on the port wing and three on the starboard wing, both fuselage tanks full and could carry a 500kg bomb or a 300l external fuel tank. Prior to this a bomb could not be carried due to CoG issues. Something like that, Dietmar Hermann covers it.


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2009)

> Still, once you start putting these engine, armament, armour and equipment upgrades in a Dora without dramatic rebuilding of the airframe, you wind up with most of the weight of a Ta152 without the improved structural rigidity, without the purpose built airframe redesign to handle them, you wind up with a half arsed Ta152C that doesn't do the job as well, but may look similar on paper and may have much of the same equipment installed.


Sometimes retrofitting new technology into an existing aircraft works well. Ju-188 features were incorporated into the late model Ju-88G (night fighter) and Ju-88S (light bomber). From what I can see these late model Ju-88s are superb aircraft, competative with other late WWII night fighters and light bombers.


----------



## vanir (Oct 17, 2009)

Dunno mate, you could be right. I'm no expert to say, but my instinct tells me it's a problem in this case.


----------



## Bronc (Oct 17, 2009)

Vanir wrote: "Still, once you start putting these engine, armament, armour and equipment upgrades in a Dora without dramatic rebuilding of the airframe, you wind up with most of the weight of a Ta152 without the improved structural rigidity, without the purpose built airframe redesign to handle them, you wind up with a half arsed Ta152C that doesn't do the job as well, but may look similar on paper and may have much of the same equipment installed."

Between the Ta-152 C wing tanks that I didn't know about and Vanir's post, I'm finally getting some perspective on this issue.

However, at about the same time all of this was going on in Germany, the Americans were doing everything they could to get the extra weight off their fighter aircraft. The P-51 H and F8F Bearcat developments come immediately to mind. By this time EVERYONE knew that weight was a critical issue in fighter performance. The P-47 N gets heavier only because of the wing tanks and extra fuel cells.

In my mind, the Ta-152 C is about the most beautiful airplane the world has ever seen. It's like the late Mark Spitfires and P-51 D, I can't find an angle on it that isn't beautiful. The FW-190 D series and Ta-152 series aircraft are my all time favorites--if you haven't guessed already!!

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2009)

> Americans were doing everything they could to get the extra weight off their fighter aircraft.


WWII American fighter aircraft were relatively heavy compared to those of other nations. They had no choice but to go on a diet.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> WWII American fighter aircraft were relatively heavy compared to those of other nations. They had no choice but to go on a diet.



All true. 

Having said that, the US didn't invest in point interceptors designed to climb very high very fast - the P-38 was the only exception I can think of and it didn't reach its prime until the engine Hp caught up with the weight.

The airpower doctrine for both the USAAF and USN looked at fighters more in the tactical role - with both the P-47 and P-38 being aberations with late 1930's philosophy and available engines.


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2009)

One militaria editor Jim Winchester, who's been making commerical military aviation publications since the mid-80's Cold War era (occasionally I've noticed he gets a technical spec here and there wrong), he seems to have a pretty good general insight on to the sentiments of Wright-Patterson celebration and things like that if you follow me, his rating is the Ta152C in particular, in terms of postwar piston aircraft, in terms of the ideas presented in production, the standard equipment installed, the overall performance in conjunction with this (ie. a 22m/s initial climb and 740km/h top speed with full all weather gear installed and seriously heavy armament/armour, good range, external stores, autopilot standard, automated hydromechanical and electrical flight systems standard, great radio equipment, etc.), was only really matched by the jet age production well into the Korean War era.
He says you could use things like the Ta152C in the 1950's in the Middle East for example, and be perfectly contemporary. Which is an amazing effort for wartime Germany for one, but also speaks as to the advanced nature of the Ta152C as a postwar fighter type.

I personally feel it was a truly great fighter, every bit as good as early postwar US and British piston a/c. Not because it's performance on paper was superior or anything, damn sure it wasn't, but overall, and the flight equipment installed, as a total package I think, it was contemporary and viable, refined and advanced. I would **** bricks flying for the Israelis in 1948 and hearing a large force of Ta152C were on their way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Oct 18, 2009)

How does the Ta 152C compare to the other late/post war fighters as a dogfighter being so much heavier than a Dora?
I know the Doras are considered to be at least the equal to its contemporaries in dogfighting terms, so..?
Vanir, where did you get the 22m/s initial climb rate for Ta 152C? 
Never saw that spec before, just for the Fw 190D. I always thought the Ta 152C climb rate is lower IIRC.
Doras and 152C are my absolute favorites along with 109K. Also in terms of looks, nothing beats them for me.


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2009)

Monogram Closeup lists initial climb for the Ta152C as 16m/s steig-kampfleistung citing Focke Wulf records, Dietmar Hermann gave me the figure of 15.7m/s steig-kampfleistung and specified that where it really left the Dora for dead was from 5000m and higher altitude. Focke Wulf test figures 24/3/45 for a D-9 at steig-kampfleistung are 14.8m/s.
My estimate of maximum initial climb at sondernotleistung is based on the sondernotleistung rating for the D-9 mit MW50 being variously 21-22.5m/s. I consider it a conservative estimate.

I believe part of the reason lay with the paddle blade VDM-VP prop fitted to Ta152C where the VS-9 is normally fitted to the Jumo213A/E motor (the Fw190F-9 and some A-9 got the VS-9 too I think). The VS-9 is a thick chord wood prop, for some reason the Ta152C were specifically fitted with a metal version, the VDM-VP which lends me to think about the very high off idle torque of the DB603 and initial climb rates. Certainly one of the design features of the Ta152C is to use a rough forward airfield in any weather conditions to take 5500kg into the air with the shortest runway space possible, climb effortlessly, cruise very fast with good range, sortie, rtb. But...loaded combat weight for production was more like 5040kg and the preproduction C-0/R-31 (no rear fuselage fuel tank) had a loaded combat weight of 4540kg (two of these delivered and listed on the serviceable a/c roster for stab/JG301 but actual combat sorties are unconfirmed).

One of the great difficulties about the Dora and moreso the Ta152 is the amount of calculated charts Focke Wulf made for them, sometimes to promote or discourage RLM policy about their developmental directions, and the sketchy and very circumstantial test figures charted for them. Charted figures for the Ta152C in Focke Wulf records include calculated figures for the DB603G motor, test figures for the DB603EC motor, calculated figures for the DB603L motor, the LA motor, the list goes on. The Dora itself isn't so cut and dried in terms of technical specification and performance figures either, no less than three very different versions entered service with different outputs and characteristics, about five were tested and the configuration of any D-9 in service could be any one of them when it really boils down to it, or it might be a D-12.
Late 1944-45 was a very weird time for German administrative bureacracy.

So all in all I think there has to be a little latitude when describing the performance of the late model Luftwaffe a/c like the Ta152, Dora and 109K/G-10 or G-14. An Erla G-10 is better than a Augsberg K-4 which is better than a Regensberg G-10 which are all better than an Augsberg G-14 but not a Sköda G-14 or a Regensberg G-6. It's like that.

*on top of that I might've got the bergs mixed up there because Germany has way too many bergs not to fry my memory-recall


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2009)

not to mention the 'burgs'..


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2009)

I never know when to call it berg or burg. Some one, others the other. My rule of thumb is if I sound like a Swedish yodeller when talking German, I'm saying it wrong. Germans sound like machinery, industrial, purposeful. Rain falling on a tin roof is German. A bouncing ball falling down the stairs is only German if it does so with with remarkably repititious precision.


----------



## Wulf (Oct 31, 2009)

Bronc said:


> If a nine (9) inch "extended outer wing panel" on each wing was the only difference between the Ta-152 C and FW-190 D wings, was it worth the delay in getting the D-9 into production?
> 
> Bronc



The outer wingpanel was not extended. They made a 500mm insert in the centersection and moved the wing 410mm forward to balance the long nose. The new wing was also in two halves, joined with large flanges.
Because of the insert, the UC also was 500mm wider.
The complete nose with engine and panels was connected to the original firewall from the A model.


----------



## tory1966 (Jun 9, 2011)

Hi vanir, your mods from a ta 152c still somewhere possible to download? thx man


----------



## Mosshorn (Jun 20, 2011)

Did a prototype (or a development or weapons test example) of either aircraft (Fw-190D-13 or Ta-152C) ever fly a combat mission?

Second question: If the RLM/Luftwaffe had committed *110%* of their resources to the FW-190 series and its watercooled engine development in January of 1942, WHEN would the Ta-152 series, specifically the C and H version have entered combat? (Now: change the date to January of 1943. Same question.)

Moss


----------



## riacrato (Jun 21, 2011)

No records of Ta-152 Cs ever flying a combat mission afaik
Several Fw 190 D-13s were in service with operational units, most notably the one that is still existing and almost flight-worthy. So it is likely they were used operationally a few times but I don't know if they ever made contact.

The Fw 190 C could've probably been operationally in early-to-mid 1943. In retrospective it would've been wise to start with that and ignore the more significant structural changes of the Ta 152 for the time being. I don't think speeding up Ta 152 development by more then a few months is realistic. It would've been too late for the critical phase over the Western Front in any case.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 21, 2011)

I did read that Junkers specifically went after the Daimler Benz aero engine market with the 213 by making sure it's connection points etc were identical and thus the 213 was as usable in an airframe as a 603 (and, with ballast, a 605?).
The 213 603 weighed almost identical amounts so swapping one for the other would not be a big deal.


----------



## mm-2 (Jun 21, 2011)

I've read it the other way around, that the RLM wanted engine interchangability way back before the war. The DB engines were too scarce, and their production runs frought with delays and disruptions, meaning aircraft were built before the engines were. 

The ability to swap out an engine in an airframe was seen as a benefit early on. You see this in pre-war Bf109s as well as He111s and other airframes as well. It was simply part of the design of the German war machine, rather than Junkers trying to steal DB's market share.


P.S. Didn't the Ta152H-1 first introduce wing tanks? I thought the C-1 had only fuselage tanks?


----------



## davebender (Jun 21, 2011)

1936. RLM funds development of the DB603 engine.
1937. RLM cancels funding for the DB603 engine.
1937. RLM funds development of the Fw-190 fighter aircraft.

Dr. Tank preferred to power his new fighter aircraft with the DB603 V12. Cancellation of the DB603 engine program forced Focke Wulf to swith to the BMW139 radial engine. Cancellation of the BMW139 in favor of the yet to be developed BMW801 engine forced a second major redesign of the Fw-190. Each of these design changes delayed the Fw-190 program and added weight to what was originally a lightweight fighter aircraft.

IMO the Fw-190C could probably have been operational during early 1941. So could the Do-217M bomber. RLM caused great damage to both aircraft programs by cancelling development of the DB603 engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mosshorn (Jun 21, 2011)

*IMO the Fw-190C could probably have been operational during early 1941.*

Wow... Things in the *East* and *West* would have been VERY different with DB603-powered FW-190's flying around in early 1941. The BMW801-powered Fw-190's really didn't start showing up until early 1942 as it was.

Actually that kind of scary...

So based on that, in my opinion, the RLM enforced cancellation/delay of the DB-603 and Jumo-213 engine programs cost the Luftwaffe air superiority in both theatres and most likely: the war.

Moss

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jun 22, 2011)

> RLM enforced cancellation/delay of the DB-603 and Jumo-213 engine programs cost the Luftwaffe air superiority


I wouldn't go that far. The Me-109 was continually upgraded, keeping it competitive until the end of the war.

The Fw-190 had better endurance then the Me-109. The Do-217 had better endurance then the He-111. Which makes them better at projecting combat power over enemy airspace. Cancellation of the DB603 engine program cost Germany a chance to develop a long range bomber force.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> 1936. RLM funds development of the DB603 engine.
> 1937. RLM cancels funding for the DB603 engine.
> 1937. RLM funds development of the Fw-190 fighter aircraft.
> 
> ...



There was little or no way the Fw-190 was going to be a light weight fighter with a DB 603 in it. Not with the weight of the DB 603, the weight of the radiators and the weight of the entire engine installation. 

There is also no reason to suppose that had the DB 603 continued in development it would have achieved 1943 power levels in 1941. This assumes that the DB engineers learned nothing in the meantime from their development of the DB 601 and 605 engines that they applied to the 603 when they resumed development. Both planes might have been able to be in service in 1941 but it would be with a 1500-1600hp DB 603 and quite possibly a critical altitude of about 5000 meters.


----------



## riacrato (Jun 22, 2011)

The DB603 was never cancelled. It was no longer funded by the RLM but development continued on private Daimler Benz funding.

How much non-interrupted govermental financial support would've pulled-in the development is of speculation.

As is, no Fw 190 C before 1943, as historical development shows. In 1941-1942 the difference to the historical BMW801-Fw 190s would've been marginal anyways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## riacrato (Jun 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> There was little or no way the Fw-190 was going to be a light weight fighter with a DB 603 in it. Not with the weight of the DB 603, the weight of the radiators and the weight of the entire engine installation.


Fw 190 C prototypes with annular radiatior and "normal" supercharger (no Hirth Turbo) were in the same weight class as the A version. Same goes for the Fw 190 D.


----------



## davebender (Jun 22, 2011)

Autumn 1937.
RLM begins funding development of the Fw-190.

1938.
Cancellation of the DB603 engine program forces Dr. Tank to switch to the BMW139 radial engine.

1 June 1939.
Fw-190 prototype first flight. BMW139 engine.

Spring of 1940.
Fw-190 prototype first flight with BMW801 engine.
- BMW801 was longer and heavier then the BMW139 engine.
- Airframe strengthened.
- Cockpit moved further to the rear to improve engine cooling.
- Strengthened undercarriage with larger wheels to accomodate the additional weight.
- 635kg total weight gain.
- Larger wing to compensate for the weight gain.

Spring 1942.
Fw-190A3. First somewhat reliable version.


DB603 engine. 1,750 hp with B4 fueld. 1,900 hp with C3 fuel.
920kg dry weight.
7 sq ft engine frontal area.

BMW801 engine. 1,539hp with B4 fuel. 1,750hp with C3 fuel.
1,088kg dry weight.
14.7 sw ft engine frontal area.




> Fw 190 C prototypes with annular radiatior and "normal" supercharger (no Hirth Turbo) were in the same weight class as the A version. Same goes for the Fw 190 D


The historical Fw-190C and Fw-190D were built using a modified Fw-190A airframe. So it's to be expected they would weight about the same. 

But what if the Fw-190 airframe was designed for the DB603 engine from 1937 onward? Would the airframe still gain 635 kg during development? Would it take advantange of the slimmer engine to be a bit more aerodynamic? Would it have a prop mounted cannon from the beginning, eliminating any need for the two outer wing cannon positions? Would it have a bit more power while running on the same C3 fuel that the BMW801 engine required?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

How much does the radiator and coolant for the 603 weigh? Even a Merlin or Allison went 300lbs (136kg) or so. Weight advantage for the 603 just disappeared. 
In 1940-41 the 603 would be running RPM (work out the piston speed) of about 2400-2500rpm, about 100rpm behind the 601-605. It would also be running about the same boost. 1.3 Ata. 

If you can have a 603 running at 2700rpm at 1.42 Ata in 1941 you might as well just claim you can have a 109G with a DB605A running in the spring of 1941


----------



## davebender (Jun 22, 2011)

1941 DB601E engine. 34L. 1,350 HP. with B4 fuel.
1941 DB603 engine. 44.5L. Displacement is 31% larger.

I am under the impression a DB603 is essentially a larger version of the DB601. So why wouldn't a 1941 DB603 engine produce approximately 31% more power then a 1941 DB601 engine?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> Autumn 1937.
> RLM begins funding development of the Fw-190.
> 
> 1938.
> ...


 
The frontal area advantage of the DB603 would count for nothing if it were mounted with an annular radiator, as per Fw190D. Especially if it was QEC designed to fit on the same mountings as the BMW QEC.


----------



## davebender (Jun 22, 2011)

> frontal area advantage of the DB603 would count for nothing if it were mounted with an annular radiator


Did the original 1937 Fw-190 plans call for an annular radiator? I suspect a radiator arrangement similiar to the late 1930s Me-109 and He-100D1 is more likely.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> 1941 DB601E engine. 34L. 1,350 HP. with B4 fuel.
> 1941 DB603 engine. 44.5L. Displacement is 31% larger.
> 
> I am under the impression a DB603 is essentially a larger version of the DB601. So why wouldn't a 1941 DB603 engine produce approximately 31% more power then a 1941 DB601 engine?



A "when" in 1941 engine? Fall winter of 1941 or spring summer of 1941?
The 601E and 605 used much more radical camshafts than earlier engines, more advanced ignition timing and other developments ( see what I mean about early development of the 603 might not be able to take advantage of things learned in development of the 601?) The difference in idle performance was so pronounced that special low speed intake passages/manifolds had to be used.

See: Daimler-Benz

The 109 F was supposed to use the "E" series engine put delays with development of the "E" meant that the F-1 and F-2 were fitted with the "N" engine. 

For your hypothetical you have to have DB either devote even more time to the 603 than they were and as much or more time than than they were on the 601E (which was running about a year late) or for them to concentrate on the 603. 
Concentrating on the smaller engine and solving the problems on it then scaling up to the bigger engine seems more logical. 

Having engines available in quantity for a fair portion of 1941 would mean it would be based on a earlier set of limitations. Consider that according to Kurfurst there were 499 "N" series engines in service as of Jan 1st, 1941 and just one Gruppe of 36 109s equipped with "N" engines in July of 1940 for an engine that went into production at the end of 1939. 

Basing your 'early' 603 on and engine that doesn't show up in any numbers until the fall/winter of 1941 isn't going to change things in 1941 much.


----------



## davebender (Jun 22, 2011)

I agree. Production of the DB603 would begin during early 1941. Daimler-Benz will require a year to work the bugs out of the production process and the newly introduced DB603 engine. At the same time Focke Wulf would be working kinks out of the Fw-190 assembly line and Dornier would be working kinks out of Do-217M production.

During 1942 Germany begins to reap the benefits from not cancelling DB603 engine funding during 1937 through 1939. DB603 powered Fw-190s and Do-217s would be in mass production. If enough DB603 engines are produced there might also be an early introduction of the Ju-88G. 

DB603 powered Me-410 won't show up before January 1943 as they need to iron out airframe bugs. However Me-410 production might be greater as there should be an adequate supply of DB603 engines.


----------



## DonL (Jun 23, 2011)

We have talked and raised this issue a time before in this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/replace-me-109-me-155-a-20121.html


At the meantime I have done more research on the subject.
To my opinion you can't rise the DB 603 and it's development without a whole view of the RLM and their official advertisements from the year 1937/1938.
Besides the death of Wever and the discharge of Wimmer.

At 1937/1938 the main focus of the RLM changed to the Bomber B and the Heinkel 177 with a lot of consequences for the engine development of the aviation Industrie!

For the Bomber B and due the promises of Junkers with the Ju 288 the RLM wanted 2 or 3 steps in one step.
The official advertisement of the new engine was 2000-3000PS, that wasn't going with normal evolution steps of the existing engines or engine technology. So a lot of or the most development capacity was changed to the new *over* engines from Junkers with the Jumo 222 and DB with the DB 604X.

At the same time DB was also busy with the development of the DB 606 and all of it's problems.

The advance development of the existing engines or enginetechnology was culpable neglected from 1937/38 to 1941.

It is a matter of fact, that the Jumo 213 and the DB 603 were normal advance developments of the existing german enigine technology

Jumo 213: Jumo 210 --> derivate with a pantograph to Jumo 211 --> Jumo 213 directly derivate from the Jumo 211!

DB 603: DB 600 --> derivate with a pantograph to DB 603!

With an other main focus of the RLM at 1937/38 and an official advertisement of an 1500 PS engine with existing engine technologie at the same time there are more hindsights than not, that both engines (DB 603 and Jumo 213) were production ready a lot earlier then reality shows.
It's clear that earlier production engines hadn't shown the same performance output but both engine could be production ready at late 1941, if most development capacity would be on this "development" since 1937/38.

So the Bomber B and the He 177 had slow down the german high performance engine development significant.

Edit:
As I said in the other thread:
Sometimes it is better the bird in the hand than a pigeon on the roof

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jun 23, 2011)

> Bomber B and the He 177 had slow down the german high performance engine development significant.


I agree. RLM cancelled funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937. At the same time RLM authorized funding of the DB604 engine for the Bomber B program.

You don't need to cancel the Bomber A and Bomber B programs to have DB603 engines. Just inform Daimler-Benz they will not be developing a 24 cylinder engine for the Bomber B program. Instead RLM funding and Daimler-Benz engineers historically expended on the DB604 program would be employed to complete DB603 engine development during 1937 to 1940.

We cannot ignore engine production.
Summer 1940. 
Genshagen engine plant reaches peak capacity of about 300 DB601 engines per month.

September 1940.
50 million RM expansion. New Genshagen goal of 800 V12 engines per month.

In this scenerio the 50 million RM Genshagen expansion would be for the production of 500 DB603 V12s. Genshagen production of DB601s / DB605s would remain at 300 engines per month.

Summer 1941.
120 million RM expansion. New Genshagen goal of 1,200 V12 engines per month.

In this scenerio RLM will allocate expansion money between DB605 production and DB603 production based on engine demand. That's difficult to predict as early availability of the DB603 engine will change quite a few aircraft programs. However I expect the DB605 powered Me-109 to remain in production because it was so inexpensive yet very effective.

Ostmark Engine Plant.
Jan 1941. 
Decision to build a new 1,000 aircraft engine per month manufacturing complex.
.....265 million marks. Stage 1. 500 engines per month.
.....393 million marks. Stage 2. 1,000 engines per month.

25 July 1941.
Factory construction begins.

24 December 1941. Jumo222A engine program cancelled. 
The Ostmark engine plant was being tooled to produce this engine. Instead it will be converted to produce DB603 engines. This delays Ostmark engine production for about one year.

March 1942.
Ostmark factory construction complete.

Mid 1943.
Ostmark factory finally begins producing DB603 engines.

August 1943.
Ostmark factory bombed. This further delayed production. Only 515 engines produced through the end of 1943.

April 1944. 
Ostmark produces 365 engines. Getting close to the Stage 1 production goal of 500 engines per month. Production delays and enemy bombing prevented the Stage 2 expansion from being implemented. 

In this scenerio....
Hmmm. DB603 engines are already being produced at Genshagen. So what happens to the Ostmark engine plant?


----------



## Mosshorn (Jun 23, 2011)

It's remarkable how much industry, manufacturing, engineering, and manpower managment have to do with winning a modern war. (I'm not sure American politicians understand this point, as A LOT of our industry, manufacturing and engineering has been exported to China.) 

Reading the posts above, I get the distinct impression that Germany lost World War II *in 1937.* They *had to* win it by the end of 1942 *AND* keep the United States out of the war *or* _they didn't stand a chance of winning it._

Moss


----------



## davebender (Jun 24, 2011)

To a large extent that is true. German military procurement decisions made during 1935 to 1938 determined how the war would be fought.

However German military leaders had no idea Britain and France would start a general European war during September 1939. The German Government told them such a war was unlikey until the mid 1940s. The Luftwaffe planned accordingly and IMO did a pretty good job. By 1944 both the Bomber A and Bomber B programs would probably have operational aircraft. These bombers would carry guided air to surface weapons. By 1945 the Luftwaffe would have reliable jet aircraft.


----------



## spicmart (Jun 24, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The frontal area advantage of the DB603 would count for nothing if it were mounted with an annular radiator, as per Fw190D. Especially if it was QEC designed to fit on the same mountings as the BMW QEC.


 
AFAIK an annular radiator (Fw 190D) is much less draggy than a radial engine with similar diameter. I guess it has quite less drag than one ought to think. The Fw 190D was more steamlined even than a Spitfire according to Bryan Bury's site about the Dora. 
But this site does not exist anymore.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 12, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The frontal area advantage of the DB603 would count for nothing if it were mounted with an annular radiator, as per Fw190D. Especially if it was QEC designed to fit on the same mountings as the BMW QEC.



I don't think that even with the frontal radiator that the drag produced was a great deal: despite the appearance of being a flat area it was porous and the installation must have recovered heat energy using the ram (or so called meridith) effect; note the cowling cooling flaps which would have acted as nozzles.

The BMW801 comes in as a heavyweight: I suspect this is due to the armoured cowling oil tank cooler and the intergral cooling fan and gearbox.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 12, 2011)

Agreed for the most part, just a tidbit: ram effect mean that incoming air has a beneficial influence at supercharger system (the air enters the intake at high speed, making it easier for the supercharger to compress the air), while Meredith effect is connected to the radiator it's ducts, in order to reduce/cancel the drag.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 12, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> I don't think that even with the frontal radiator that the drag produced was a great deal: despite the appearance of being a flat area it was porous and the installation must have recovered heat energy using the ram (or so called meridith) effect; note the cowling cooling flaps which would have acted as nozzles.
> 
> The BMW801 comes in as a heavyweight: I suspect this is due to the armoured cowling oil tank cooler and the intergral cooling fan and gearbox.


 
Even without Meredith effect the D-9 airframe produces a lot less parasitic drag compared to the A-model, at least according to VSAero models that were shown in this forum.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 20, 2011)

Bronc said:


> I'm having a difficult time getting a grasp on the differences, and the reason for the differences, between the FW-190 D-9-13 and the Ta-152C.
> 
> Bronc



Essentially the Ta 152C had a new bigger wing achieved by extending the roots with a new structure, this reduced wing loading and handled the extra weight. This was Kurt Tanks 'escort fighter'. The Ta 152H added more wing span still, something that reduces roll rate and speed but increases ceiling and reduces turn radious. Both of the new wings had room for much more armament and prodigious fuel volume in 6 bag tanks one of which could carry MW50. The FW 190 generally did not carry fuel in the wings. The fueselage of the Ta 152 was significantly rearranged and also seems to have had provision for more fuel volume, it certainly was the first aircraft designed from the begining for GM-1 (Nitrous Oxide)

The Ta 152C used the DB603LA while the Ta 152H used the Jumo 213E1, both engines had about the same performance, the DB603LA was lighter and did not come with GM-1 as standard. Both could use MW50.

I believe both new wings used twin steal spars with mich of the rest wooden. The stall and aeroelastic characteristics would have been completely different to the FW 190 due to the way the wing twist under load and the greater geometric twist (washout). The stiffness of the FW 190 helped give the aircraft its fast roll rate but also made its stall a littpe harsher as wings didn't twist under load to soften the stall.

The FW 190D series was a straighforward adaption of the FW 190A8 with the BMW 801 radial replaced by the Jumo 213A, there was a slight lengthening of the tail with a 'plug' inserted in the tail to provide the extra tail momment for handling the longer nose. In other words much easier to manufacture.

The Jumo 213A used 87 octane B4 fuel and had a single stage supercharger and was left over from descheduled Ju 188 bomber production and had to be used up but in an ideal world the Jumo 213C would have been used for the FW 190D9. The Jumo 213C had the mounting for a propellor and guns that allowed a motor canon and also used C3 fuel for 2000hp. It was a fighter engine from the start.

The Jumo 213A receive several field upgrades: a rich mixture injection system that boosted power from 1770 to 1900hp on B4 and then the oldenberg MW50 system that used supercharger pressure to pressurise the MW50 tank and blow the mixture into the supercharger. Junkers shortly after that sent field technicians to install its even more powerfull high flow pumped MW50 system for even more power. Use of C3 fuel added even more power. (This all happened over 2-3 months or so FW 190D9 performance is all over the place). This was a very fast aircraft at low altitude. 

The FW 190D12 and D13 varied as to whether they had Mk 103 of MG 150/20 motor guns. They were powered by the Jumo 213E, Jumo 213F or planned Jumo 213EB engines (oversized valves) which had two stage 3 speed superchargers and so much better high altitude performance. Speed about 455mph. There were no synchronised MG 131 guns as the motor hub 20mm guns was enough.

Some variants of the FW 190D13 (I think the R3) were to receive wing fuel tanks, presumably taking up the space no longer needed by the outer wing guns. The 3 x 20mm guns being enough.

It was recently discovered that the Goetz Yellow 10 FW 190D13 had hydraulically boosted ailerons which was to be incorporated into the TA 152.

Eric Brown mentions that the roll rate of the FW 190D was less, I suspect this is inertial coupling of the longer body; the hydrauic boost should have more than made up for that.


----------



## vanir (Oct 20, 2011)

Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta152 mentions centre of gravity issues in Focke Wulf test documentation and company meetings, the Dora frame has one front, one centre/rear tank, both a good size. The Ta152 was to add the wing fuel cells and put a large MW50 tank in the rear fuselage for the C series, the H series was to put a GM-1 tank in the rear fuselage and use the inner port fuel cell as a small MW50 tank.

But they found centre of gravity issues in the V6 prototype when an ETC rack was fitted to the fuselage and ballast was used to represent production trimming (motor guns weren't fitted to prototypes, etc.). Future test guidelines were to leave the rear fuselage tank empty and use only the front tank. Fun part, none of the prototypes had fuel cells fitted to the wings yet. The fuel cells were to be fitted during production, the Ta-152H-1/R11 that were delivered (but not the V series 152H prototypes), they had fuel cells in the wings. And the end result of Ta-152 testing was that the rear fuselage fuel tank was to be removed for CoG issues and MW50 fitment relocated to the port wing in a smaller tank than planned.

Production series Ta-152C-1 would be delivered from June 45 and have 5 wing fuel cells, a small MW50 tank in the port wing, plus the front only fuel tank of a Dora, and an ETC rack fitted standard from the factory like an A-8. Overall fuel capacity is only marginally better than a Dora but cruise range is actually much better because the 603LA is far more efficient especially at altitude.

The D-13, which is much like the one Brown tested (his dora was a D-13 and not a D-9 but nobody knew what one was at the time, it was the one sent to the Smithsonian afterwards so it got examined later and the two-stage 213F motor and hand finished build quality was revealed, so Browns Dora evaluation no longer relates to D-9 in service trim but there is a superb one done by Wright-Patterson by two different test pilots and compares a regular service D-9 against the Mustang as a measure). Anyway the D-13 uses a shorter, lighter version of the basic 213E motor, it lacks the intercooler (oddly enough the 213A is actually a derivative of the 213E as well rather than the other way around, a simplified blower was put on for rushed production whilst development of the multiple stage one continued).

The power egg for the DB-603LA and Jumo 213E is actually the same size and roughly the same weight in its armoured cage, fully assembled and ready to start up. A Jumo 213F is going to weigh in similarly to a DB-603E. The whole Dora Tank, Daimler Jumo thing are all fairly interchangeable specifications on the same basic model design. They're all variations on a theme.

What you're really asking is why use the Dora when you've got the Ta-152C or vice versa.

Given the period, jets were coming onto the scene and the RLM was looking to downsize production to a smaller number of models capable of performing a wider variety of roles and continuing postwar service. They were headed in the same direction history took us. The Ta-152C represents postwar models like the SeaFury and P-47N where the Dora is more like an interim such as Tempest V and P-47D.
But production realities meant that historically it was easiest to use the aircraft available and use the Dora as a cheaper and easier build to quickly supplement the Ta-152C in the same way the G-10 was designed to do this for the K-4. 

So putting improved engines in Doras to put up alongside Ta-152C was the best option. It was planned that the D-12 and D-13 were going to switch to DB-603 engines and be redesignated D-14 and D-15, to further close the gap between Ta-152C and Dora performance during 1945. But the aim of this was to gear down piston fighter production to be replaced by jets over coming years. Not overnight, but moving in that direction.


As for a performance comparison, I have FW charts comparing the D-12 with the 213E engine, to the Ta-152C with the LA motor (it's a mid-44 document so figures are obviously calculated), it gives the Dora/Jumo much higher performance under 5500 metres but from this height the Ta-152C/Daimler just owns it. In theory it is at least 20km/h faster at higher altitudes but in practise it could be as much as 50km/h or more as the complicated Jumo blower proved unreliable at high altitude, documented in Dietmar's book.
It was a similar problem with the P-47 and Spit HF models, in that era flying as high as people claim these aircraft run around was far more special case and dealing with astronautical research than they realise. Such heights were sustained only under test conditions or highly unusual and risky incidents, and even then the technology was rudimentary. The Thunderbolt turbo oversped above 9000 metres. Tank was the only pilot who got the Ta-152H anywhere near its claimed ceiling. HF Spits did top 40,000ft but under test conditions. Cabin pressurisation was at its infancy and incapable of pressurising a cabin in the modern sense, it's best achievement is keeping fumes out of the cockpit but pilot conditions were atrocious, with Saharan interior temperatures and unreliable sealing. Actual mission heights were in the order of 5000-8000 metres maximum. Luftwaffe Me-109 and Ta-152H tended to freijäger or orbit at 7000 metres according to wartime accounts, Germans just considered it a fairly safe ceiling height. I suppose because the majority of fighters perform best under 6000 metres.

Generally high altitude performance in service fighters, such as quoting absolute ceiling (well beyond the climb rate related service ceiling, typically around 6000 metres for midwar types), are one figure in a question of performance mapping, best used to infer things like cruise range and loadbearing for a quantity of fuel. Aircraft comparisons deal in performance envelopes.

The Jumo performs superbly up to 8000 metres and the Daimler to 10000 metres in practise so Daimler has a better cruise range and better loadbearing, that's the moral of that story.
The Daimler hardly notices the extra weight of the stretched Ta-152C, pilots remarked it was more stable and had more lazy grunt. Both engines gave the impression they could climb to space at a good rate.
The Ta-152C frame spreads its weight out very nicely along a torsional line and keeps the same frontal mass, so it appears to be less affected by a much larger weapons load. It is rated for heavier loads than the Dora, is much better armoured and even the prototypes all had four MG-151/20 fitted/with ammo ballast all through testing, its performance is rated for carrying a much heavier warload and combat trim.

It is literally the conclusion of exactly what the Dora was trying to achieve, which is logical the Dora is its interim type rushed into production. It is heavier but more refined, like most later versions of an earlier model craft tend to be.
The main thing about production realities for service issue is that all were based on current Anton production airframes of the same period, Ta-152 were in production terms more heavily modified Doras, so it was easier to keep numbers up continuing Dora production and upgrading their engines. Make them alongside Ta-152, the RLM planned to replace all 190A/F production with Dora/Ta152 production, and all other fighter production would concentrate on transitioning to jets.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 21, 2011)

As far as Altitude performance goes: the Jumo 213E was equiped with GM-1 on the Ta 152H while the DB603LA and the Ta 152C was not.
A DB603LA equiped Ta 152H with GM-1 should perform better than a Jumo 213E?

Also in the pipeline was the Jumo 213EB (oversized valves I believe) and the 4 valve head Jumo 213J which ran at 3750 rpm for 2700hp.


----------



## vanir (Oct 21, 2011)

I talked with Dietmar and some of the people at LEMB at length on this and got sent tons of documentation, I was the one who did the Ta-152C-1/3 flight modelling for the aaa/sas il2 repatch and they helped with the research, was nearly a year long project. Got V7 spot on though, I did a DB-603EC Nov44 spec V7 that tops 615km/h at sea level fully loaded, plus the C-1 and 3 production series (Dietmar sent me a bunch of stuff on the changes).

Was doing a ton of DB-605 and Fw-190A research back then too. Talked to Crumpp. A lot of stuff I just get told in passing though while I'm researching something else, so sometimes I'm running on fallable memory.

And of course I'm just one of you guys, open to correction.

Anyway the tested performance using GM-1 was a rather serious problem with the pressure actuated blower system on the Jumo. The GM-1 threw it all out and instead of getting a boost for every gear above the throttle altitude, the third gear keeps kicking back to second with the GM-1 activated. Kurt Tank himself was the only pilot who didn't have this problem, nobody else could get it past second blower gear with the GM-1 enabled, which means actual flight ceiling was restricted to 12500 metres because of unreliable engine performance. On top of this there were problems with the cockpit pressurisation system that caused a service ceiling limitation of 10500 metres after it nearly killed one pilot. So this was the Ta-152H true absolute ceiling which was the same as a Ta-152C. You never got to use the GM-1 because of the pressurisation system failure. It was actually removed from all Ta-152C and Me-109K-4 which were also supposed to be pressurised. The technology was just too rudimentary, it didn't even work properly in the Spit recon thing, unsafe above 40,000ft for any extended period. All they did which was useful, they kept fumes out of the cabin at high altitude, that was the usual killer at around 10,000 metres. Interior/exterior/engine bay ambient pressures cause fuel and exhaust fumes to do laminar flow over the airframe and enter the cockpit, even crappy pressurisation prevents it, true story. But in the 1940s the best cockpit pressurisation you could get short of building a B-29 wasn't nearly capable of preventing your blood boiling at 12,000 metres, another true story.

In terms of a comparison Jumo-Daimler yes you're right Siegfried, the LA on B4 has 1000m more throttle height than the 213E on B4, and more importantly the GM-1 will use the monstrous Daimler slipping blower instead of the sensitive and troublesome automatic gears in the Jumo. They don't like second stage blowing let alone GM-1. The Daimler doesn't mind it at all, it adds a good two thousand metres throttle height in the 300kg standard kit. That means the Daimler-LA is putting out something like 1800PS at 12000 metres, which is what a Jumo-E/F puts out at 8000 metres.
Lot of weight but.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 21, 2011)

vanir said:


> But in the 1940s the best cockpit pressurisation you could get short of building a B-29 wasn't nearly capable of preventing your blood boiling at 12,000 metres, another true story.


Blood does not boil at 12000 meters. Pressure suits are not required on military aircraft until over 50,000 ft (aprox 16,000 meters)


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

well to be fair it varies by thickness of atmosphere layers, which are dramatically less over the poles and different over northwest europe than the pacific for example, but quite right dave, I just pulled the figure out of a hat based on altitudes I know intake pressures markedly differ, not actual accounts of blood boiling.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 24, 2011)

It must be noted that at about 40,000 ft. pressure breathing is required.


----------



## vanir (Oct 24, 2011)

Modern civilian airworthiness prefers pressurisation over 30,000...or less.


----------



## spicmart (Oct 24, 2011)

vanir said:


> ...but there is a superb one done by Wright-Patterson by two different test pilots and compares a regular service D-9 against the Mustang as a measure.



What was the conclusion of this comparison?


----------



## davparlr (Oct 24, 2011)

vanir said:


> Modern civilian airworthiness prefers pressurisation over 30,000...or less.


I believe USAF requirements are that unpressurized aircraft are limited to 25,000 ft, the crew must wear masks above 10k, I think. However, if a pressurized aircraft loses pressurization above 40000 ft., the O2 regulator will provide 100% O2 under pressure to the crew masks. In other words the mask actually blows O2 into the lungs, which is what I meant by pressure breathing.


----------



## vanir (Oct 25, 2011)

spicmart said:


> What was the conclusion of this comparison?



The pilot worked harder but could match Mustang performance but here is the important part, build quality was shocking. It had to be rebuilt before the aerodrome would even declare it airworthy enough to test fly. Both pilots commented that it was more like a hotrod that was built in a shed than a mass produced fighter plane, they said the main accomplishment of the type was that it could match Mustang performance and yet was so rough and nuts and bolts to fly.
It was a real hack. But also a real dragster.

This is more of a statement of German industry of the period, war records make the same comments about G-14 build quality in mid-44, those made in Hungary were better built. Hartmann rejected a replacement plane because of its shocking build quality and requisitioned a 1943-build G-6 from a training squadron.
It was also suspected that the Dora had been assembled by camp labourers, passively sabotaging with poor quality (unairworthy) work. To hold together under those conditions is a pretty impressive aircraft design basis.


----------



## vanir (Oct 25, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I believe USAF requirements are that unpressurized aircraft are limited to 25,000 ft, the crew must wear masks above 10k, I think. However, if a pressurized aircraft loses pressurization above 40000 ft., the O2 regulator will provide 100% O2 under pressure to the crew masks. In other words the mask actually blows O2 into the lungs, which is what I meant by pressure breathing.



thanks for the extra info mate, I was playing a bit but recognise clearly you're more knowledgable on the topic than me  I pull figures from the air mid stream y'know, they have basis but aren't necessarily as well informed as others, especially on experten sites like these.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 25, 2011)

vanir said:


> thanks for the extra info mate, I was playing a bit but recognise clearly you're more knowledgable on the topic than me  I pull figures from the air mid stream y'know, they have basis but aren't necessarily as well informed as others, especially on experten sites like these.


Just trying to remember operational days long past. Good discussion on oxygen usage, though.


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

If I was paranoid I'd think the post above me was telling us to get a room davparl


----------



## jim (Oct 26, 2011)

vanir said:


> The pilot worked harder but could match Mustang performance but here is the important part, build quality was shocking. It had to be rebuilt before the aerodrome would even declare it airworthy enough to test fly. Both pilots commented that it was more like a hotrod that was built in a shed than a mass produced fighter plane, they said the main accomplishment of the type was that it could match Mustang performance and yet was so rough and nuts and bolts to fly.
> It was a real hack. But also a real dragster.
> 
> This is more of a statement of German industry of the period, war records make the same comments about G-14 build quality in mid-44, those made in Hungary were better built. Hartmann rejected a replacement plane because of its shocking build quality and requisitioned a 1943-build G-6 from a training squadron.
> It was also suspected that the Dora had been assembled by camp labourers, passively sabotaging with poor quality (unairworthy) work. To hold together under those conditions is a pretty impressive aircraft design basis.


 
Did they use Mw50 during their "comparison tests"?
Were they familiar with german systems and tuning them ?
The pilots had to work harder despite the presence of automatic engine controls?
Did their report imply that a proper built dora could perform better ?
Their expertise and eperience were better than Eric Browns ?


----------



## jim (Oct 26, 2011)

Was Ta 152C relly needed? In my opinion NO. It was a classic example of german overenginnearing and misjudged operational needs. 
LW had Me 262 as a bomber destroyer , Ta 152H as mid/ high altitude fighter ( while being amble even at low altitude) . What Lw lacked was a low/medium altitude air superiority fighter to support the army on BOTH fronts and help in Reich Defence against Jabos.
Performance is the premium criteria for any fighter. Since Dora and Ta152C were able to use the same engines weight would show the winner 
Ta 152C was much heavier. Was that weight worth the performance and manouverability loss ?
The excessive weight was caused by :
1) Longer fuselage . That was nessacary because Lw demanded 20mm cannons in place of 13mm nose armament,and Mk 103 30mm motorkannone ,plus 20mm or even 30mm cannons in wings! That was an overkill of unbelievable proportions and immense weight penalty. The 3 x20mm Of Fw 190D-13 ,placed on or near the central axis is enough even for B17s .If a pilot cannot shoot down aircrafts with such armament its problem is not the armament but its training. R4M were on its way too.
Longer fuselage was needed for intercooler space too but a two stage ,intercooled engine was not a must for a medium altitude fighter. Also Db engines provided decent performance even with single stage supercharger. 
2) Additional fuel . More fuel is always good dut the wings tanks of Ta152c could and would be introduced to the Fw190D13 as well
3)Much heavier navigation and blind weather equipment . Bad weather missions should be a job for a plane based on Ta 152H . No matter what avionics Lw fighters carried , German controllers were continiusly unable to properly direct them. In fact put them directly into escort fighters path. So at least save some weight for the dogfights. Also for the eastern front totaly useless
4) Stronger airframe. Because of the requirement of the redecilus armament. Fw190A8 was already very strong ( more than ideal for a pure fighter)
5) Slitly bigger wing. That was a good thing without important weight penalty .Dora would be helped by this wing ,as it would lower a little wing loading and would help with stall ( the inexperienced pilots)
For the above reasons i find the weight of of ta152 unjustifiable
In My opinion the ideal configuration for a late war medium altitude Fw
1) Dora fuselage 2) Ta152c wings 3) Db603 EC , Jumo 213F , Jumo213S or J or anything else available in this performance class, Db 603L if space permitted is 4 ) 3 x 20mm armament 4) Boosted ailerons as found in D13, integral engine cowling ( built in a single Ta 152H ,150 004 ,and improved aerodynamics), 5)wide blade propeller tuned for turning and climbing, 6)improved less druggy radiator, 7)very high pressure Mw50( Mw100?), 8)Ta 152 vertical stabilizer, 9) fuselage gaps sealed 10) F8F surface built quality ( i dont claim it possible, i just call it ideal!)
I used Mr Hermanns book on Ta 152 as a basis, not an ideal book but thats what i have. 
Please correct any mistakes


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

jim said:


> Did they use Mw50 during their "comparison tests"?


No, from memory they were restricted to military to preserve the engine. Pilot guidelines are very specific about its extremely conservative use anyway, only in level flight and at a high airspeed as an emergency measure to escape combat, the Americans quoted the Focke Wulf handbook about it. Use was prohibited at low airspeed BFM. MW50 and overboost in general doesn't reflect combat performance of an aircraft, it's largely superfluous, use it to enter a speed race not evaluate a fighter plane.



> Were they familiar with german systems and tuning them ?


Yes, engineers examined the aircraft in detail, reported on its anciliaries and systems (such as the blower system and overboost guidelines), as well as compared their findings with captured FW pilot guidelines and workshop manuals.



> The pilots had to work harder despite the presence of automatic engine controls?


Yes, part of the hassle was the ridiculously noisy and very hot cockpit, it was very wearisome. Controls were excellent but moving the aircraft around gave the impression it was quite heavy and it would slip a lot through manoeuvres. In general it was more about being an exhaustive aircraft to balance on the fine edge of high performance BFM and like the entire 190 family has a slight shade of inherent instability. Doras can't match the way an Anton can flip itself into a directional change, no other aircraft can, but it can still do a controlled stall not many others can match. They did remark it was surprisingly well equipped, mostly they congratulated the kommandogerät/aeromechanical-screw as revolutionary technology. It was. But a Mustang simply fatigues its pilot less overall, even Räll commented on this.



> Did their report imply that a proper built dora could perform better ?


Yes but it was more about refinement and seviceability than figures. You might toss around something like a 7-15km/h speculative figure for qualitive finishing disadvantages.



> Their expertise and eperience were better than Eric Browns ?


Yes, Eric Brown has never flown a D-9. He flew Götz's D-13. It was hand finished, has a prototype two stage motor and was given to a kommodore for service trialling. It is nothing like a typical wartime Dora.


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

Hey Jim, your personal assessment of the Ta-152C/Fw-190D equation is fair as all opinions are but you should keep in the mind the German way of thinking here. The way they classified roles and requirements.
Jabo, zerstörer, schlacht, jäger, höhenjäger, escort, tactical reconnaissance, these were all to be ecompassed by the Ta153 project which became the Ta152. The Dora was just the jäger/jabo rushed into service as an interim, part of the same project mate.

Rebuild a Dora to fill the other mission requirements of the project and you wind up with the Ta152. The höhenjäger just has extended wings. They both just use modified A-6 wings. Rebuilding it to carry heavier armament simply redressed the thinking behind the 190A-7, this modification of the A-6 was to do just that (whilst A-8 is just an equipment update and sondernotleistung standardised, the A-9 is the same thing with an engine update). The Ta152 armament layout was a combination of filling numerous roles with the same basic airframe, so that piston fighter production could be downscaled and transition to jets.

The Ta-152C-1 was to be supplemented by hotrod Doras with updated engines, it replaced the Ju-88C/G and Me-410 (which was already cancelled but the role needed to be filled) and 109K-4 in one hit. The C-3 replaced Fw-190A/F in the schlacht role (the G was already cancelled). The Anton was to be dropped completely from production around mid-45.




> Performance is the premium criteria for any fighter.


Including things like combat range? Damage resistance? Serviceability and support requirements? Handling qualities? Structural limitations? Pilot equipment? Loadbearing qualities? Rough field turnaround performance?


----------

