# Fw 190D and Me 109K vs. Yak-3 and La-7



## spicmart (Feb 4, 2021)

How do the best German and Russian late-war fighters fare against each other? And why?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2021)

I'd pick the German stuff here.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 4, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> I'd pick the German stuff here.



Would you explain, why?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2021)

Their performance was not as 'locked' to the lower altitudes as it was the case for the Soviet stuff. They also carried drop tanks - a very rare sight on Soviet fighters - that gave better range/radius.
The only Soviet fighter that was supposed to do as good as those German A/C at altitude was the Yak-9U, but a) it is not topic here, and b) the VK-107s were very unreliable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 4, 2021)

Wait, you left out the P-39 ... sorry, couldn't resist ... slap me. Maybe is was a Bellonov Airakobra with an Alliskulin engine and Curtisokvsky propeller?

I'm with Tomo in his choice unless you were predictably fighting at low altitudes. Then it would be tough to beat the late model Lavochkins and Yakovlevs. They were pretty good down low. Many a Bf 109 and Fw 190 stalled out down low trying to follow a tight, low-altitude turn over the Russian steppes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Feb 5, 2021)

Bf 109K may be a bit limited here due to its engine optimized for higher alts than the other three


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 5, 2021)

spicmart said:


> How do the best German and Russian late-war fighters fare against each other? And why?


I imagine, like their shock at encountering the T-34, the Germans were surprised to realize that the VSS had any competitive fighters, let alone lots of them. The German 109 and 190 may have maintained one on one superiority, but not sufficiently so to overcome the numerical difference.

And just look at the Lavochkin La-7. This thing is just made for killing Germans.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2021)

Denniss said:


> Bf 109K may be a bit limited here due to its engine optimized for higher alts than the other three



At least 1800 PS down low with MW 50 - not too shabby


----------



## Acheron (Feb 5, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I imagine, like their shock at encountering the T-34, the Germans were surprised to realize that the VSS had any competitive fighters, let alone lots of them. The German 109 and 190 may have maintained one on one superiority, but not sufficiently so to overcome the numerical difference.


To my knowledge, the better Soviet fighters appeared only later in the way and until then, the Luftwaffe was superior to the Soviet air force, having both better aircraft and better pilots since few of the Red Army's lasted long enough to become experienced.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 5, 2021)

Acheron said:


> To my knowledge, the better Soviet fighters appeared only later in the way _[sic]_


Well yes, we are discussing two specific aircraft, Yak-3 and La-7 that appeared later in the war.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 5, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Their performance was not as 'locked' to the lower altitudes as it was the case for the Soviet stuff. They also carried drop tanks - a very rare sight on Soviet fighters - that gave better range/radius.
> The only Soviet fighter that was supposed to do as good as those German A/C at altitude was the Yak-9U, but a) it is not topic here, and b) the VK-107s were very unreliable.



The performance curve of the D-9 actually is similar to the La-7's with both peaking at 5.5 to 6 km IIrc.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2021)

spicmart said:


> The performance curve of the D-9 actually is similar to the La-7's with both peaking at 5.5 to 6 km IIrc.



Yes. Let me reformulate: German aircraft in question cover the greater altitude band than the Soviet aircraft in question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Feb 5, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Yes. Let me reformulate: German aircraft in question cover the greater altitude band than the Soviet aircraft in question.



Almost 6 km is quite high for a dedicated low altitude fighter if you ask me. You could call it medium alt even.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2021)

spicmart said:


> Almost 6 km is quite high for a dedicated low altitude fighter if you ask me. You could call it medium alt even.



Yes, La-7 was not a dedicated low altitude fighter.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 5, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Yes, La-7 was not a dedicated low altitude fighter.


Was anything intended as a low altitude fighter?

That sounds like a cop out, Firm X launches a new fighter aircraft and it turns out to be rubbish at medium to high altitude. So, to recoup any expense they market it as a dedicated low altitude fighter. Westland’s Whirlwind or Hawker’s Typhoon come to mind.

No one is asking for a dogfighter to perform at Ta 152 heights of over 40,000 feet, but any 1940-45, monoplane, single seat, single engined, retractible undercarriage fighter that’s out of puffs above 15,000 feet needs to go back to the drawing board.

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


----------



## spicmart (Feb 6, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Yes, La-7 was not a dedicated low altitude fighter.



You know the performance of the La-7 over full pressure height? Did it deteriorate more quickly than the D-9's? I don't know about that.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 6, 2021)

spicmart said:


> The performance curve of the D-9 actually is similar to the La-7's with both peaking at 5.5 to 6 km IIrc.



Well spotted. To be fair the Fw 190D9 was an interim or transition type using surplus bomber engine production Jumo 213A. The Fw 190D13 already was in production as was the Ta 152C and H. All 2 stage 3 speed superchargers (Jumo 213 E or F)


----------



## spicmart (Feb 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Well spotted. To be fair the Fw 190D9 was an interim or transition type using surplus bomber engine production Jumo 213A. The Fw 190D13 already was in production as was the Ta 152C and H. All 2 stage 3 speed superchargers (Jumo 213 E or F)



Were D-12/13 as good at low and medium height as D-9? If so, then, the Dora would have a definite advantage over the band.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 6, 2021)

The following performance information for a mid-production La-7. It comes
from NII VVS graphs 0216 / 0217 Beginning 1945 located on the rkka.es site.
Information for the Fw 190D-9 comes from a graph in Dietmar Hemann's
"Long-Nose" book in which he states this performance is typical of the
Fw 190D-9 with MW50. The first MW50 powered Fw 190D-9 became officially
operational 18 December 1944. The figures are for a clean Fw 190D-9 minus
the ETC504. 
Fw 190D-9 (La-7)
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / MPH / FPM
S.L.........382 / 4429 ( 383 / 4410 )
1,000...395 / 4390 ( 398 / 4410 )
2,000...408 / 4125 ( 396 / 4054 )
3,000...412 / 4105 ( 401 / 3512 )
4,000...421 / 3985 ( 395 / 2959 )
5,000...432 / 3495 ( 400 / 2795 )
6,000...432 / 2990 ( 414 / 2474 )
7,000...426 / 2500 ( 409 / 2041 )
8,000...418 / 1990 ( 395 / 1608 )
9,000...408 / 1485 ( N.G. / 1175 )

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Feb 6, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> The following performance information for a mid-production La-7. It comes
> from NII VVS graphs 0216 / 0217 Beginning 1945 located on the rkka.es site.
> Information for the Fw 190D-9 comes from a graph in Dietmar Hemann's
> "Long-Nose" book in which he states this performance is typical of the
> ...



Wow. It shows that up to 1000 m there wasn't much difference in speed and climb. From 2000 m onwards the D-9 pulls away.
But the La-7 and Yak-3 had to have been much more nimble in vertical and horizontal manoeuvers (according to Urbanke's book).
Which would still give them sort of an advantage as the performance gap is not enough for Dora down low.
In climb the D-9 prevails and turn radius at speed is very good, not sure equal to the Soviet fighters or not.

I've seen a chart which gave the D-9 a max speed of 702 km/h / 437 mp/h?


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 6, 2021)

Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
and Dmitry Komissarov.
Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading, best: 4.631 lb./hp., Wing Loading take-off: 48.69 lb./sq. ft.
La-7 Arkadi Shvetsov ASh-82FN 1,850 ps-1,825hp., 7,106 lb., 189.3 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading: 3.894 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 37.54 lb./sq. ft.

Surprisingly close in acceleration however the La-7 held the edge at low and
medium altitudes. The Lavochkin could outturn the Focke-Wulf at low and
medium altitudes also. Around 7,000 m. is where the Fw 190D began to take
charge. But it was no slouch even at the lower levels, especially when using
MW50. Late war Lavochkins were capable of climbing as fast as 4,762 fpm
initially. But even then its climb rate fell off faster than the Fw's.

PS: I forgot to add that the Dora could accelerate in a dive much quicker
and that the Focke-Wulf was the more rugged of the two.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2021)

MW50 doesn't last long in the D-9 and the La-7, unless I am not remembering correctly, didn't have a temporary "power-adder/boost" fluid or gas. It's speed and climb wasn't nearly as limited as was the volume of MW50 carried in a D-9. That doesn't eliminate the MW50, all it means is the German would not normally USE MW50 unless it was seriously needed. Of course, you wouldn't normally fly the La-7 at absolute maximum power for long periods ot time either.

So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50? I'm not too sure just now, but can look it up as well as anyone. Just thinking "out loud" on the keyboard.

Good comparison.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 7, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
> from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
> and Dmitry Komissarov.
> Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
> ...



The Dora weighs about a whole ton more than the La-7 (3240 kg to 4270 kg).
Power loading of the Soviet fighter was better as well.
That's really an enormous difference. They should have tried to lighten the Dora airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Feb 7, 2021)

GregP said:


> MW50 doesn't last long in the D-9 and the La-7, uoless I am not remembering correctly, didn't have a temporary "power-adder/boost" fluid or gas. It's speed and climb wasn't nearly as limited as was the volume of MW50 carried in a D-9. That doesn't eliminate the MW50, all it means is the German would not normally USE MW50 unless it was seriously needed. Of course, you wopuldn't normally fly the La-7 at absolute maximum power for long periods ot time either.
> 
> So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50? I'm not too sure just now, but can looki mit up as well as anyone. Just thinking "out loud" on the keyboard.
> 
> Good comparison.



The MW50 supply could be used for 10 minutes. After that you have to switch it off for 5 minutes before you can use another 10 minutes. After that another 5 minutes pause and then a final 10 minutes of use. So it can be used for a total of 30 minutes.
Afaik that is a lot more than with other fighters.

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


----------



## spicmart (Feb 7, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> At least 1800 PS down low with MW 50 - not too shabby



So it had almost the same power and wing loading like the La-7 down low. Dön't see any great disadvantage to the Lavochkin.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 7, 2021)

spicmart said:


> So it had almost the same power and wing loading like the La-7 down low. Dön't see any great disadvantage to the Lavochkin.



Neither for the 109K-4.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 7, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Neither for the 109K-4.


 
I meant the K-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Feb 7, 2021)

spicmart said:


> I meant the K-4.





CORSNING said:


> Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
> from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
> and Dmitry Komissarov.
> Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
> ...



Do you have data on the Me 109K-4?


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 7, 2021)

[QUOTE="GregP,
So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50?

The following figures relate to the early D-9 after the TAM conversion
kit was installed increasing PS power from 1,750 to 1,900 (1,726 to 1,874 hp)
and no ETC504 underbelly rack.

SL..........345 / 3680
1,000...359 / 3315
2,000...372 / 3060
3,000...384 / 3010
4,000...389 / 2970
5,000...400 / 2875
6,000...412 / 2420
7,000...403 / 1960
8,000...391 / 1505
FTH: 413 mph/6,050m.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 7, 2021)

spicmart said:


> Do you have data on the Me 109K-4?


*This is a tough one. All the graphs and charts I have (or can find) at this time are Messerschmitt
calculated data for the following engine installations.
DB 605DC/ASC & No MW50
DB 605DB/ASB with MW50
DB 605D with MW50*

*The DB 605DB/ASB engine K-4 relates very closely to the graphs provided on wwiiaircraftperforman
that is listed as actual performance.
The Yak-3 performance figures are from Russian Graph 0227 (Best Fighters of WWII) and Graph 0217 
(Beginning 1945). 
Bf 109K-4 ( Yak-3 )
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / MPH / FPM
SL..........369 / 4360 ( 352 / 4136 ) 
1,000....383 / 4365 ( 367 / 4202 )
2,000....396 / 4202 ( 381 / 3779 )
3,000....404 / 4044 ( 384 / 3663 )
4,000....413 / 3890 ( 399 / 3360 )
5,000....422 / 3680 ( 405 / 2821 )
6,000....431 / 3552 ( 401 / 2277 )
7,000....441 / 3129 ( 396 / 1782 )
8,000....436 / 2480 ( 386 / 1287 )
9,000....430 / 1968 ( 372 / 792 )
10,000.421 / 1485 ( 355 / 297 )

Bf 109K-4: 1,850 ps- 1,824 hp., 7,497 lb., 173.34 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading @ take-off: 4.110 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 43.25 lb./sq. ft.

Yak-3: Klimov VK-105PF-2: 1,320 ps- 1,302 hp., 5,934 lb., 159.8 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading @ TO: 4.558 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ TO: 37.13 lb./sq. ft.*

*Acceleration was very close between these two at low and medium altitudes.
Roll and turn were greatly in the Yak's favor at low and medium altitudes. The
Yak-3's roll rate was likened to the Fw-190A in more than one of the USSR 
fighter books I mentioned above.*

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


----------



## spicmart (Feb 7, 2021)

spicmart said:


> I meant the K-4.





CORSNING said:


> *This is a tough one. All the graphs and charts I have (or can find) at this time are Messerschmitt
> calculated data for the following engine installations.
> DB 605DC/ASC & No MW50
> DB 605DB/ASB with MW50
> ...



Thanks. That's cool.
The Yak-3 (and La-7 as well) rolled as good as the Fw 190 due to its small wings. But ! never get why the roll rate of the Me 109 is always rated as bad. Its overall dimensions and weight was aboutthe same as that of the La-7. Why would the 109 not turn and roll as good?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 7, 2021)

I would not rate the Bf 109's roll rate as bad at all. I have read were it was 
quite similar to the Merlin powered Mustangs. On this thread it is being
compared to three of the best rolling aircraft in WW2. 
The turn rate of the 109 was not that bad either. The Bf 109K-4 could
outturn the Fw 190D-9 at low and medium speeds and most altitudes.
Once again it is in the company of very maneuverable Soviet aircraft.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 7, 2021)

GregP said:


> MW50 doesn't last long in the D-9 and the La-7, unless I am not remembering correctly, didn't have a temporary "power-adder/boost" fluid or gas. It's speed and climb wasn't nearly as limited as was the volume of MW50 carried in a D-9. That doesn't eliminate the MW50, all it means is the German would not normally USE MW50 unless it was seriously needed. Of course, you wouldn't normally fly the La-7 at absolute maximum power for long periods ot time either.
> 
> So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50? I'm not too sure just now, but can look it up as well as anyone. Just thinking "out loud" on the keyboard.
> 
> Good comparison.




MW50 Sondernoteleistung (special emergency power) was 3 x 10 minute operations with 10 minute breaks in between.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 7, 2021)

spicmart said:


> Thanks. That's cool.
> The Yak-3 (and La-7 as well) rolled as good as the Fw 190 due to its small wings. But ! never get why the roll rate of the Me 109 is always rated as bad. Its overall dimensions and weight was about the same as that of the La-7. Why would the 109 not turn and roll as good?



The Me 109 roll rate was good at low to medium speed. At higher speeds the ailerons stiffened and roll rate reduced. (Roll rate increased with the Me 109F/G with friese ailerons). The plans to remedy the high speed roll slow down was the use of servo spring tabs (often called flettner tabs). Some Me 109G and Me 109K may have had these installed. They tend to be finicky to set up. The stiffening of Me 109 ailerons is often attributed to Mach effects on the relatively thick wing tips. Irrespective of what caused it, the speeds WW2 fighters were reaching (around Mach 0.66) meant some kind of effective aileron force reduction technique was needed.

Late war Corsairs and Hellcats (1944) US Navy fighters used geared servo spring tabs. The P-51B/C/D used internal pressure balancing whereas the P-51A had a fairly modest roll rate since it lacked pressure balancing. Internal pressure balancing was possible because the P-51 was so thick it could fit the bellows (when high pressure air air from the deflected side is channelled to a bellows that relieves aileron forces)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 8, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
> from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
> and Dmitry Komissarov.
> Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
> ...



The statistics you give show the Fw 190D9 as having a much higher wing loading and much lower power to weight ratio. I'm a little sceptical about them but the difference is enormous and make it difficult for the Fw 190D9 to beat the La 7. Did the La 7 actually have 1850hp in 1944?
I think there are a couple of points though.
-Fw 190D9 was an interim aircraft being replaced by the Fw 190D13. The Fw 190D13's new Jumo 213F engine featured a two stage supercharger and 3 speeds, improved armament and improved aerodynamics.
-The Fw 190D13 itself was being replaced by the Ta 152C and Ta 152H particularly in the fighter role.
-The Fw 190D13's job would become fighter bomber, Fuel tanks being added to where the outboard guns were once installed. The Fw 190D13's Jumo 213F itself was being replaced by the Jumo 213EB which now featured a intercooler and an estimated speed of 488mph. The relatively high wing loading of the Fw 190D would be what makes it fast down low hauling a bomb.
-I suspect there is nothing stopping the Jumo 213A being evolved to accept 2.02 ata (test flights were conducted) or perhaps latter 2.2 ata. If there are production issues with the Jumo 213F the Jumo 213A could probably be almost as good at low altitude.


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 9, 2021)

German fighters offered at least two times salvo weight - considering Yak-3 fragile structure (everything sacrificed in favour of weight due to weak engine) it must be pretty destructible advantage, La-7 was slightly better but low muzzle velocity Shvak cannon may be found still inferrior in compare to MG151, La had tendence to poison pilot with carbon monoxide due to inadequate sealing of the cokpit area from the engine (never really fixed). Russians had problem with cockpit glazing - material used by them quickly detoriated from UV radiation and because of this almost all time they have flown with open cokpits - theoretical performance curves had nothing with reality. Interesting fact is that Soviets have introduced to their line service most of taken FW-190D - two of Baltic Fleet fighter regiments were equipped with this type.
If you consider fact that past Stallingrad Germans had just 2 (TWO!!) fighter regiments permanently allocated to the eastern front and Russians never achieved total aerial supremacy you may comes to the interesting conclusions.
Soviets won? - yes for sure, on the ground, and with price in manpower which was totally outside acceptable for other nations limits
Did WWS had crated serious threat for Luftwaffe? - rather not, Soviets just won in the air with western allies hands, Germans simply had no available air force to allocate to the eastern front

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> German fighters offered at least two times salvo weight - considering Yak-3 fragile structure (everything sacrificed in favour of weight due to weak engine) it must be pretty destructible advantage, La-7 was slightly better but low muzzle velocity Shvak cannon may be found still inferrior in compare to MG151,



Difference in muzzle velocities was under 5% (Shvak vs. M-shell from MG 151/20); the HE and incendiary shells from MG 151/20 were slower than the counterparts for the Shvak. Shvak also fires a bit faster.
Granted, German shells were either with much greater HE content, or/and heavier.
Muzzle velocity of the MG 131 was lower than of the UB. The MV of MK 108 was very low (no wonder, it used the long & heavy M-shell from the powerful MK 101 or 103, and about 1/4 of propellant what MK 101 or 03 used).



> La had tendence to poison pilot with carbon monoxide due to inadequate sealing of the cokpit area from the engine (never really fixed). Russians had problem with cockpit glazing - material used by them quickly detoriated from UV radiation and because of this almost all time they have flown with open cokpits - theoretical performance curves had nothing with reality. Interesting fact is that Soviets have introduced to their line service most of taken FW-190D - two of Baltic Fleet fighter regiments were equipped with this type.



It took some doing before Fw 190D-9 achieved the projected figures, too.
Soviets didn't have habit to waste anything. They pressed in use German tanks from Pz-III onwards (whether as-is or modified), the 5 cm pak etc. Despite their own mass production and LL.



> If you consider fact that past Stallingrad Germans had just 2 (TWO!!) fighter regiments permanently allocated to the eastern front and Russians never achieved total aerial supremacy you may comes to the interesting conclusions.
> Soviets won? - yes for sure, on the ground, and with price in manpower which was totally outside acceptable for other nations limits
> Did WWS had crated serious threat for Luftwaffe? - rather not, Soviets just won in the air with western allies hands, Germans simply had no available air force to allocate to the eastern front



It was Germany's fault to bite off more than they could chew.
Interesting conclusion is that Germans, despite having either air parity of air superiority didn't crashed the Soviets. War on the Eastern front was the war on the ground, those aircraft that trashed the VVS still needed to land sometimes.


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 9, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> German fighters offered at least two times salvo weight - considering Yak-3 fragile structure (everything sacrificed in favour of weight due to weak engine) it must be pretty destructible advantage, La-7 was slightly better but low muzzle velocity Shvak cannon may be found still inferrior in compare to MG151, La had tendence to poison pilot with carbon monoxide due to inadequate sealing of the cokpit area from the engine (never really fixed). Russians had problem with cockpit glazing - material used by them quickly detoriated from UV radiation and because of this almost all time they have flown with open cokpits - theoretical performance curves had nothing with reality. Interesting fact is that Soviets have introduced to their line service most of taken FW-190D - two of Baltic Fleet fighter regiments were equipped with this type.
> If you consider fact that past Stallingrad Germans had just 2 (TWO!!) fighter regiments permanently allocated to the eastern front and Russians never achieved total aerial supremacy you may comes to the interesting conclusions.
> Soviets won? - yes for sure, on the ground, and with price in manpower which was totally outside acceptable for other nations limits
> Did WWS had crated serious threat for Luftwaffe? - rather not, Soviets just won in the air with western allies hands, Germans simply had no available air force to allocate to the eastern front



Tomo already answered to Shak vs MG 151 comprison.
To my understanding the problems with cockpit glazing material was more acute during the early part of the Great Patriotic War, not so much in the later part.
Only two LW JGs (not so equivalent with Soviet fighter regiments which had 63 planes in 1941 and 34 mid 1943, the latter being smaller than German Gruppe saying nothing on Geschwader) permanently allocated to the Eastern Front after Stalingrad? Really, on 27 May 1943 there were:
most of JG 54
most of JG 3
JG 52
JG 51
½ of JG 5 operated against Soviets the other half operated from middle and Southern Norway against the Western Allies
I would say about 4 Jagdgeschwadern.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 9, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Tomo already answered to Shak vs MG 151 comprison.
> To my understanding the problems with cockpit glazing material was more acute during the early part of the Great Patriotic War, not so much in the later part.
> Only two LW JGs (not so equivalent with Soviet fighter regiments which had 63 planes in 1941 and 34 mid 1943, the latter being smaller than German Gruppe saying nothing on Geschwader) permanently allocated to the Eastern Front after Stalingrad. On 27 May 1943 there were:
> most of JG 54
> ...



than in best case 240 fighters - for the almost 4000km frontline - vs enemy who had in opposition around 3000 fighters. Personally i wouldn't call this great respect for the opponent. My point is that eastern front didn't broken the Luftwaffe, it was done by sum of German mistakes, USAF and RAF and wise selection of pivotal elements of German economy which has been targeted. VVS input was important but not decisive by any measure, exactly in reverse to Soviet land forces efforts, here it was major force who smashed Wehrmacht. 
Also i'm surprised by admiration for the numbers and performance curves presented on this forum, you have to remember that all this data are not covering important factors related to real battle condition - maintenance, tactics, reliability and the quality of the equipment, training of the personnel quality and many others (above all - who would like to fly in combat in the Yak or La equipped with usually not working radio - rise your hand please, or who is interested in flying in airframe made of "delta wood" soaking moisture like sponge? - i can assure you that, after one month in field conditions, none of La fighters was capable of reaching performance curves from manual).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 9, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Difference in muzzle velocities was under 5% (Shvak vs. M-shell from MG 151/20); the HE and incendiary shells from MG 151/20 were slower than the counterparts for the Shvak. Shvak also fires a bit faster.
> Granted, German shells were either with much greater HE content, or/and heavier.
> Muzzle velocity of the MG 131 was lower than of the UB. The MV of MK 108 was very low (no wonder, it used the long & heavy M-shell from the powerful MK 101 or 103, and about 1/4 of propellant what MK 101 or 03 used).
> 
> ...


exactly that was my point - discussion about advantage of specific airframe is pointless in situation when air supremacy is not giving you edge because you have no striking force which may stop your opponent. As you said war on east was land war - germans have not enough bombers and assault airplanes to stop Red Army and also VVS have not enough ground striking aircrafts to really harass Wehrmacht. That was exactly in opposition to the western front - here air supremacy was major winning factor for allies.


----------



## dedalos (Feb 9, 2021)

Personnaly i dont believe that operational D9s achieved700km/h. But even more i dont believe the russian performance claims in field conditions. 
I would add that the russian fighters had more pilot work load and often did not provide even basic instruments. Their ultra light construction suffered quickly in field conditions . 
With proper building quality , and Mw50, the D9 was probably equal below 3000m and superior above that altitude. The wide blade propellers of the later D series aircraft, the removal of the draggy cowling hmgs , two stage superchargers,and possible use of boosted ailerons provided overall a clearly better combat aircraft


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> exactly that was my point - discussion about advantage of specific airframe is pointless in situation when air supremacy is not giving you edge because you have no striking force which may stop your opponent.



Topic is specifically about individual qualities of the 4 fighter aircraft types. It is not about air supremacy, it is not about whether you have a striking force on on your disposal or not.



> As you said war on east was land war - germans have not enough bombers and assault airplanes to stop Red Army and also VVS have not enough ground striking aircrafts to really harass Wehrmacht. That was exactly in opposition to the western front - here air supremacy was major winning factor for allies.



VVS have had plenty of ground-striking aircraft. Il-2 and Pe-2 production & service use was in tens of thousand combined, and there were other 2-engined combat A/C in use, both Soviet and LL.

Soviets did lack an over-performing & reliable fighter of their own design & production in numbers before well in 1944.


----------



## dedalos (Feb 9, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The statistics you give show the Fw 190D9 as having a much higher wing loading and much lower power to weight ratio. I'm a little sceptical about them but the difference is enormous and make it difficult for the Fw 190D9 to beat the La 7. Did the La 7 actually have 1850hp in 1944?
> I think there are a couple of points though.
> -Fw 190D9 was an interim aircraft being replaced by the Fw 190D13. The Fw 190D13's new Jumo 213F engine featured a two stage supercharger and 3 speeds, improved armament and improved aerodynamics.
> -The Fw 190D13 itself was being replaced by the Ta 152C and Ta 152H particularly in the fighter role.
> ...


How they would increase the boost levels given the lack of alloys to provide strength to the internal part of the engines? Or to construct proper spark plugs?
Anyway what output would you expect from the 213A at 2.02 ata and 2.2ata?And the DB 605DC at 2,2 ata?


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 9, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Topic is specifically about individual qualities of the 4 fighter aircraft types. It is not about air supremacy, it is not about whether you have a striking force on on your disposal or not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure they had plenty bombers - numbers which comes to my mind - IL2 ~35000 manufactured, number in service VE day 3200 well....


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 9, 2021)

The Salvo weight of the Fw 190A (4 x 20mm + 2 x 13.2mm) is impressive by any standards and as J.P.C. said over twice that of the La 7 and more.
The Fw 190D9 had less, with only 2 x 20mm guns but it still had the 2 x 13.2mm MG over the La 7's 2 x ShVAK .
(note the 95 gram MG151/20 round has slightly more muzzle velocity than a 95 gram ShVAK round, 3% or so not much)

The Fw 190D13 with 3 x 20mm guns (with the central one motor mounted and no suffering synchronisation losses) started showing up I think Feb 1945. These are small numbers but reflected the breakdown of the Reichs manufacturing.

Some La 7 started leaving the factories in Jan 1945 with the 2 x ShVAK replaced by 3 Berezin B20. The gun wasn't more destructive and fired the same ammunition but it was much lighter allowing the additional gun.

The Luftwaffe used Fw 190F and Fw 190G for ground attack, these aircraft were fast enough to often avoid interception even when hauling a bomb load and the La 7 perhaps gave the VVS a chance to intercept. However since the Luftwaffe was moving to adopt the faster Fw 190D13 to ground attack with Ruckstatzes the speed advantage would likely be retained in the near future. La 7 deployment was running about 4 months ahead of Fw 190D and 6 months ahead of Fw 190D13 though the Fw 190D was an upgrade of the Fw 190A and production ramp up was rapid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 9, 2021)

dedalos said:


> How they would increase the boost levels given the lack of alloys to provide strength to the internal part of the engines? Or to construct proper spark plugs?
> Anyway what output would you expect from the 213A at 2.02 ata and 2.2ata?And the DB 605DC at 2,2 ata?



The power increase would be more or less linear. About 10% more. Clearly 2.02 ATA runs were made on the Dora 9 using B4+MW50. 

I suspect C3+MW50 might allow 2.2 ATA for a limited time. The single stage supercharger would be incapable of sustaining this above a certain altitude.

Boost increase can come from one or a combination of factors: fuel, better liquid or air cooling, oil cooling, better spark plugs, strengthened components, better control, intercooling.

The Jumo 213EB definitely had more capable cooling.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 10, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> than in best case 240 fighters - for the almost 4000km frontline - vs enemy who had in opposition around 3000 fighters. Personally i wouldn't call this great respect for the opponent. My point is that eastern front didn't broken the Luftwaffe, it was done by sum of German mistakes, USAF and RAF and wise selection of pivotal elements of German economy which has been targeted. VVS input was important but not decisive by any measure, exactly in reverse to Soviet land forces efforts, here it was major force who smashed Wehrmacht.
> Also i'm surprised by admiration for the numbers and performance curves presented on this forum, you have to remember that all this data are not covering important factors related to real battle condition - maintenance, tactics, reliability and the quality of the equipment, training of the personnel quality and many others (above all - who would like to fly in combat in the Yak or La equipped with usually not working radio - rise your hand please, or who is interested in flying in airframe made of "delta wood" soaking moisture like sponge? - i can assure you that, after one month in field conditions, none of La fighters was capable of reaching performance curves from manual).



That means in the real world appr 520 fighters, did not bother to check which of the two JG 5 Gruppen served against the Soviets and which against the British, they change the Gruppen time to time so all got their share of northern action and also the time in protecting coastal convoys against the RAF. Check at least the basic facts, e.g. the sizes of the LW formations and units.
Yes, training, tactics etc were very important, I agree with that. But I'm not sure on your claim that ""delta wood" soaking moisture like sponge", I have not seen that claim in Finnish reports, we used three LaGG-3s in active service, they had many other problems, but so war booty planes often had (lack of manuals, spare parts etc.)

There were also Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish AFs, IIRC Italians were out after Stalingrad or at least shortly after that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 10, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> exactly that was my point - discussion about advantage of specific airframe is pointless in situation when air supremacy is not giving you edge because you have no striking force which may stop your opponent. As you said war on east was land war - germans have not enough bombers and assault airplanes to stop Red Army and also VVS have not enough ground striking aircrafts to really harass Wehrmacht. That was exactly in opposition to the western front - here air supremacy was major winning factor for allies.



Have you ever read German division histories? Plenty of complains on VVS attacks, not necessarily in scale of that in the ETO in 1944 - 45 but still important sometimes having even strategic significance.


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 10, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> That means in the real world appr 520 fighters, did not bother to check which of the two JG 5 Gruppen served against the Soviets and which against the British, they change the Gruppen time to time so all got their share of northern action and also the time in protecting coastal convoys against the RAF. Check at least the basic facts, e.g. the sizes of the LW formations and units.
> Yes, training, tactics etc were very important, I agree with that. But I'm not sure on your claim that ""delta wood" soaking moisture like sponge", I have not seen that claim in Finnish reports, we used three LaGG-3s in active service, they had many other problems, but so war booty planes often had (lack of manuals, spare parts etc.)
> 
> There were also Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish AFs, IIRC Italians were out after Stalingrad or at least shortly after that.


HAHAHAHA- Finnish AF have used Buffalo without complaining as well - only aircraft i'm awared of which forced your pilots to complain was CR714 but it was a crap by any measure. You are mentioning LaGG - first of the bread - well i wonder why Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Feb 10, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> HAHAHAHA- Finnish AF have used Buffalo without complaining as well - only aircraft i'm awared of which forced your pilots to complain was CR714 but it was a crap by any measure. You are mentioning LaGG - first of the bread - well i wonder why Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...


Perhaps you should try to answer an educated post with some data to support your claims instead of simply replying as this forum is Twitter.

For example, Luftwaffe OB for Kursk in that sector alone included some 186 fighters in 1 Fliegerdivison, 184 in Fliegerkorps VIII and some 30 hungarian fighters in FK VIII. Some 400 fighters, to which you have to add those to the far north, north and south of Kursk.

VVS OB in Kursk was 455 serviceable fighters (of 526 in total) in 16 VA, 389 (of 474) in 2 VA and 163 (of 206) in 17 VA. Some 1.007 (of 1.206). Idem for LW in other sectors.

In regard of the Buffalo, don't supose it was a crap because it get trashed in the Pacific and SEA. There were more reasons of why it fared bad in those theathers than because it was a bad plane, such as bad pilot training, wrong tactics, lack of proper maintenance, lack of early warning that lead to a bad tactical position to oppose the enemy.

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


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 10, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> HAHAHAHA- Finnish AF have used Buffalo without complaining as well - only aircraft i'm awared of which forced your pilots to complain was CR714 but it was a crap by any measure. You are mentioning LaGG - first of the bread - well i wonder why Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...



Don't make your ignorance so obvious. Finns got almost a Gruppe worth of Bf 109 G-2s in early 1943, or was it also a s**t plane according to you? Surely some of our aces complained that the view out of its cockpit was poor, that it was not as rugged as the US fighters, especially Hawk 75A, or Fiat G. 50. And was less maneuverable than they. Of course they liked its speed and roc and its cannon. And Brewster Model 239 was not a bad plane in 1941-42, it turned very well, rolled well and its controls remained light even at high speeds. It was a good low- and medium altitude fighter at its time, not a overburden beast as F2A-3 was. Several Finns did not rate Hurricane very high, maybe partly because we did not have 100 octane fuel. And many complained the armament of Fiat G.50 and its difficult maintenance, same goes to MS 406.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 10, 2021)

Any chance that we steer to the merits (and lack of those) of the aircraft that are topic? Lest it becomes another P-39 debate.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 10, 2021)

*Fw 190D-12*
FYI from Dietmar Herman's "Long-nose": Graphs dated 12/15/44 and 1/3/45
had the same curve for the Fw 190D-12
Meters...MPH/KPH
S.L........375/604
1,000...387/623
2,000...400/644
3,000...413/664.5
4,000...415/668
5,000...427/687
6,000...439/706
7,000...448/721
9,000...449/722
10,000.448/721
11,000.437/734
12,000.422/680

FTHs: 413.5mph/3,100m., 448mph/6,800m., 450 mph/9,750m.
The D-12 armament: 1 x 30 mm Mk 108 hub mounted + 2 x 20 mm MG 151 nose
mounted.

*Fw 190D-13* specifications & performance
Take-off Weight: 9,790 lb.
Range: 463 ml. internal fuel, 776 ml. with auxiliary tank.
Speed:
355 mph/S.L. (378 mph with MW50)
458 mph/37,720 ft.
Climb:
Initial: 4330 fpm.
3,000 m./3.6 min.
6,000 m./7.6 min.
8,000 m./10.7 min.
10,000 m./14.7 min.
From www.indianamilitary.org: By April 1945, yellow 10 (Fw 190D-13, werk No.836017)
was in service with JG 26 and was the personal mount of Major Franz Gotz, a Knight
Cross holder with 63 confirmed victories. 836017 was one of two D-13s that can be
documented as being in squadron service before the end of the war. Although exact
numbers built will probably never be known, Yellow 10's werk number would seem to
indicate that at least sixteen other airframes were manufactured before it.

*Fw 190D-9* 's performance is listed on two charts in Hermann's "Long-nose"
The following is from pages 122 and 160 dated 10 October 1944.
Speed:
380 mph/S.L.
436 mph/5,700 m.
Climb:
3641 fpm. (4330 fpm with MW50)
10,000 m./12.5 minutes
Service Ceiling: 35,424 ft.

If anyone has any more information on the Fw 190D-13, sharing with us would
be greatly appreciated.


----------



## dedalos (Feb 10, 2021)

it s obvious from the above data sheets that the performance of the D9,D13 was good for the eastern front but totaly inadequate for the western front. Most late war anglo american fighters, using 150 grade fuel, were achieving 400mph at 0m. 
Additionaly several aerodynamic improvements , were ready, but impossible to serial produced
Is there any photo of any D series aircraft with fully covered wheels? Even the D13 yeppow 10 has not such wheel covers


----------



## GregP (Feb 10, 2021)

I wouldn't worry too much about the Fw 190D-13s. They delivered a total of 17 of them. A series of 17 is basically a prototype series. They tend to go rapidly out of service since they are new, untried, and there are no spares. Generally, unserviceable airplanes are the spare parts logistics pile.

For any airplane, you have about 1/3 or so fully operational, with about another 1/3 in maintenance, and another 1/3 ready for maintenance. If the ones ready for maintenance are flyable, I'll say half, then they had about 8 - 10 Fw 190D-13s available for missions, assuming they were all delivered in a short time, which may or may not be the case. Either way, there weren't enough Fw 190D-13s to worry about.

1,805 of the 1,850 Fw 190D models were D-9s, so that is the airplane in the D series to worry about.

It was a very good airplane, but not really too much ahead of the La-7s at typical combat altitudes. Let's not forget that whatever number of Fw 190Ds were on the Russian Front, they were flying in the same conditions the Lavochkins were flying in and likely had similar weather-related in-service issues, and probably more since the Russians were very familiar with conditions there and the Germans weren't. Neither the La-7s nor the Fw 1909Ds were likely giving maximum flight test performance numbers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 10, 2021)

[QUOTE="GregP,
Either way, there weren't enough Fw 190D-13s to worry about.

True that. There were about ten Dornier Do 335A-0, eleven A-1 and a couple of
A-12. None made it to combat that I am aware of. However, their performance 
and history are still very interesting. I would greatly like to know much much more
about their performance and history also.

, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 10, 2021)

FYI Turn Rates:

Yak-3 1943 5,945 lb.: 19-21 seconds/1,000 m.
Yak-3 1944 5,945 lb.: 17 seconds/1,000 m. & 20 seconds/4,000 m.
La-7 1944 7,126 lb: 20-21 seconds/1,000 m. & 19.5 sec./4,000 m.
La-7 1945 7,276 lb: 19 sec./1,000 m.
Fw 190D-9 9,254 lb: 22-23 sec./1,000 m. & (24 sec./4,000 m. @ 9,591 lb.)

I do not have any turn times actual or calculated for the Bf 109K. however,
a Bf 109G-2 loaded to 7,485 lb. was capable of 22.6L and 22.8R./1,000 m.
A Bf 109G-6 loaded to 7,224 lb. was capable of 21.8 sec./4,000 m.


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 10, 2021)

So back to the original question, at the low- and medium level which were the altitudes that really mattered at the Eastern Front there were not very big differences between the types mentioned. But as combat planes the German planes had a couple advantages, they were more robust and pilots were better protected so they were more difficult to shot down, and their engine controls were much more automatic, so pilots could much better concentrate the actual fighting.

One point, generally Soviets thought that "Messers" were more dangerous opponents than "Fokkers", this was other way round than how the British tended to see it, that includes both 190 As and Ds . Soviets maybe undervalued 190 Ds because it seems that they tested them without working MW 50 system.


----------



## GregP (Feb 10, 2021)

Hi Corsning,

I agree. Their performance is very interesting. Their combat effectiveness isn't because they had almost zero impact operationally due to a combination of factors including:

1) Very few deilvered.
2) No spare parts.
3) Rapidly deteriorating war situation.

In Jan, Feb, Mar 45, the USAAF destroyed 465, 460, and 750 enemy aircraft in the ETO. Then, in Apr 45, they destroyed 4,367 enemy aircraft. That from the Statistical Digest of WWII. Interestingly, the sortie count went from 111,472 in Mar 45 to 79,402 in Apr 45, when the great pile of aircraft were destroyed. 3,703 of them were destroyed on the ground. That tells me that the Luftwaffe ceased being an effective fighting force in April 1945, right when the Ta 152 and Do 335 were being deployed in very small numbers. Their absoultely mediocre-to-bad war records were not a reflection of their performance, but rather the rapidly worsening war situation, with the few German airplanes being hunted by packs of Allied fighters on the prowl.

I'm pretty sure had either the Do 335 or the Ta 152 been released a year earlier, they would have had spectacular results, assuming they were deployed in some numbers greater than what were actually fielded in 1945. But, it's a "what if" I can't really get behind because it never happened. I'll just say that I am a fan of both the Ta 152 and the Do 335 while realizing they didn't actually affect the war at all. Still, the aircraft themselves were at the pinnacle of piston development, right up there with the Tempest and P-51H and probably also the F4U-4 and F8F. These "super pistons" never really fought each other, but all of them were definitely hot airplanes that any decent fighter pilot would delight in flying. As a last point, I said the Ta 152 and Do 335 didn't affect the war at all.

In point of fact, neither did any other of the super pistons affect the war to any great degree except for the Tempest, which was deployed about Apr 44 or so.

In Apr 45, Closterman encountered a Do 335 in his Tempest but could not close with it. The Tempest achieved a ratio of 7:1 in air combat, with many being V-1s. The ratio against single-seat fighters was about 2:1. The P-51H and F4U-4 barely saw operations and did not see combat in the ETO.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 10, 2021)

GregP said:


> Hi Corsning,
> The P-51H and F4U-4 barely saw operations and did not see combat in the ETO.


*I remember reading that the P-51Hs flew just a few sorties before the war officially ended
in the Pacific. The F4U-4 became operational at Okinawa in May 1945 and did enter
combat. But even so, the F4U-4 would have made about as much difference as the Ta 152H-0.*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 10, 2021)

[QUOTE="Juha3, post:
One point, generally Soviets thought that "Messers" were more dangerous opponents than "Fokkers", 
*I believe this was because the Bf 109s were more dangerous in the vertical plane and had a better 
sustained turning ability.*

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


----------



## Milosh (Feb 10, 2021)

Most of the Fw190s on the EF were ground attack a/c. They were heavier than the fighter version.


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 10, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...


Just for the sake of accuracy: Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin (Grob in Russian).

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


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 10, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> One point, generally Soviets thought that "Messers" were more dangerous opponents than "Fokkers",


It depends on the Soviet source. There are derogative descriptions of FW 190 as "easy prey" in the Soviet pilots' memoirs. But those are mostly the memoirs of fighter pilots served in 1944-1945, who enjoyed air superiority and encountered mostly FW 190Fs. We need to consider also the survivor bias. And bomber pilots respected FW 190.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 10, 2021)

GregP said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about the Fw 190D-13s. They delivered a total of 17 of them. A series of 17 is basically a prototype series. They tend to go rapidly out of service since they are new, untried, and there are no spares. Generally, unserviceable airplanes are the spare parts logistics pile.
> 
> For any airplane, you have about 1/3 or so fully operational, with about another 1/3 in maintenance, and another 1/3 ready for maintenance. If the ones ready for maintenance are flyable, I'll say half, then they had about 8 - 10 Fw 190D-13s available for missions, assuming they were all delivered in a short time, which may or may not be the case. Either way, there weren't enough Fw 190D-13s to worry about.
> 
> ...



The Fw 190D13 entered service. It would have been produced in higher numbers but for the collapse of the Reichs manufacturing capacity, bombing and loss of territory. 

Casting the Fw 190D13 as a "prototype series" doesn't represent the fact that it was a relatively minor modification of the Fw 190D9 which itself was a relatively minor modification of the Fw 190A9. The Fw 190D13 was essentially a Fw 190D9 ahead of the firewall. There was very little new in it. There is not going to be a big logistical trail if a part gets bent or shot up for instance a cockpit canopy, ailerons, tail, radiator, undercarriage etc. It's all about certain parts of the engine and propeller.

Even the Jumo 213F engine is very similar to the Jumo 213A. It had for instance the same radiator on the Fw 190D9 and D13. The Jumo 213F1 was the same as the Jumo 213E1 (as used on the Ta 152H1 also in service) except for the absence of the intercooler. The first 200 Jumo 213F0 and Jumo 213E0 had a too weak supercharger shaft that locked out 3rd gear but it didn't effect the Jumo 213F1 and E1 which did enter service.


The other thing to point out is that the road map for the Fw 190D series is that the aircraft was being transitioned more into a ground attack roll. The Ta 152C would have been the aircraft fighting the La 7 in a dog fight or maybe a Me 109K4/K14. The Fw 190D13 I think the Fw 190D13 R25 was the ground attack version) but would have remained a potent and fast fighter in its own right.

We even have a flightworthy Fw 190D13 whose engine starts. “Yellow 10” (serial 836017) was delivered to _Jagdgeschwader _26 in March 1945, within two months of VE-Day. It was flown by Maj. Franz Goetz (63 victories), the last JG-26 commander, who retained the _Pik As_ (ace of spades) emblem of his previous unit, JG-53. Yellow 10 (Goetz’s “lucky number”) was one of five long-nose 190s taken to the U.S. for evaluation. Of those, only three remain including two owned by the National Air and Space Museum. Subsequently 836017 was donated to Georgia Tech, and after years of neglect it was acquired by David Kyte in California. Doug Champlin learned of the derelict fighter and in 1972 purchased it for shipment to Germany. There Art Williams of Guenzburg began a four-year restoration with assistance from Prof. Kurt Tank. Many missing parts had to be found or manufactured but the project was largely completed in 1976 and returned to the U.S. As the only privately-owned 190D, the “Dora” was the crown jewel of the Champlin collection in Mesa, Arizona. In 2001 a complete rebuild was begun by Gosshawk Aviation, directed by Dave Goss at Falcon Field. *The result is perhaps the most authentic, airworthy Luftwaffe aircraft in North America.* Yellow 10 now resides in her new home at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 10, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> *Fw 190D-12*
> FYI from Dietmar Herman's "Long-nose": Graphs dated 12/15/44 and 1/3/45
> had the same curve for the Fw 190D-12
> Meters...MPH/KPH
> ...




Just a note: the Fw 190D12 and Fw 190D13 were essentially the same aircraft. They differed only in that the D12 had a MK108 canon and the D13 MG151/20 in the engine mounted canon. Differences in performance probably represent other factors.

The Fw 190D13 had a defect in that the same radiator was used as the Jumo 213A of the Fw 190D9. At high altitude, where the two stage supercharger was providing more air and more power, there was also more heating load and the cowling cooling fins would open slowing the aircraft down after about 60 seconds. The aircraft sill had a higher ceiling, more acceleration, better turn etc but it lost some sustained top speed.

This was well understood and expected however rather than go through the cost of developing and manufacturing a larger radiator it was deemed best or quicker to wait for the Jumo 213EB engine. This engine featured a heat exchanger that cooled the engine block, intercooler and oil cooler. It could fit into both the Ta 152H1 and the Fw 190D13 so the Fw 190D13 gained an intercooler.

With this engine the Ta 152H with Jumo 213EB was as fast as the Jumo 213E variant but didn't need Nitrous Oxide to achieve 474mph and could do so at a lower altitude.

The Fw 190D13 EB was expected to achieve 488mph with this engine.

The ground attack variant would have featured fuel tanks where the outer wing guns were, a TSA 2D toss bombing sight and likely all sorts of navigation equipment.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 11, 2021)

Let me ask basic question - most of you are trying to make judgement based on available test data and manual performance curves. Is anybody here familiar with differences in methodologies of test which lead to creating this data? are you sure you are really compering apple to apples???


Dimlee said:


> Just for the sake of accuracy: Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin (Grob in Russian).


correct - i just thought this translation is more appealing to english speaking peoples


----------



## dedalos (Feb 11, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> Let me ask basic question - most of you are trying to make judgement based on available test data and manual performance curves. Is anybody here familiar with differences in methodologies of test which lead to creating this data? are you sure you are really compering apple to apples???
> 
> correct - i just thought this translation is more appealing to english speaking peoples


I absolutely agree, that diferent method of testing, create misleading data sheets. I was always sceptical about the claims of certain nations and companies.
But since its not easy to prove the suspitions, we have to use, at least as a basis, the existing data sheets


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 11, 2021)

Empty weight of the Lavochkin La -7 was 2640kg. It had 1850 hp available.
Empty weight of the Focke Wulf Fw 190A8 was 3200kg. It had 1980 hp at 1.63 ata available.
The Fw 190A8 has 21% more weight than the La 7 for only 8% more power.

(I’m assuming this is empty equipped weight, but who knows I’m using wiki). Unless the Fw 190 gets to about 2250 hp it looks like it’s at a at serious power to weight ratio disadvantage. On top of that there is a higher wing loading on the German fighter.

1.82 ata boost was being flown on some Fw 190A9 but that gets us to about 2200hp. It seems to have been authorised in Feb 1945 *without MW50. * 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg

The 2400hp to 2600hp was being promised by the BMW 801F engine.

Power levels above 2200hp looks like being reached by the Jumo 213 earlier than the BMW 801 plus the Jumo 213 has a two stage supercharger.

The La 7 simply had a power to weight ratio advantage and wing loading advantage arising from a lighter smaller structure. Parity would have been restored with the release of 1.82 ata. The higher wing loading of the Fw 190 might still be a disadvantage but should also provide a higher speed. 

Its more or less the same story with the Yaks.

The 190 had more firepower, could take more damage, more armour and more range but on the parameters needed to wing a dog fight it was at a disadvantage. If the Soviets had to build fighters to intercept heavily armed 4 engine bombers the La 7 and Yaks would tend to be too weak and under armed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2021)

Hi Koopernic, in post #55, just as a matter of curiosity and / or discussion, what exactly do you disagree with? No agenda here.


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Most of the Fw190s on the EF were ground attack a/c. They were heavier than the fighter version.



Not necessary up to autumn 1943, even at the time of the Kursk battles most of 190s on the Eastern Front were fighters, after JG 51 converted almost totally back to 109s your claim is true, but in 1945 after most of the JGs moved to the EF appr. 45 % of the 190s there were fighters.


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

Dimlee said:


> Just for the sake of accuracy: Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin (Grob in Russian).



Shortly on LaGG-3s, late production batches having lighter, aerodynamically cleaned structure, lighter armament and slats and with low-level engine giving more power at lower altitudes, were much better aircraft, some 50 km/h faster and not so underpowered.

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


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

Dimlee said:


> It depends on the Soviet source. There are derogative descriptions of FW 190 as "easy prey" in the Soviet pilots' memoirs. But those are mostly the memoirs of fighter pilots served in 1944-1945, who enjoyed air superiority and encountered mostly FW 190Fs. We need to consider also the survivor bias. And bomber pilots respected FW 190.



I agree with the last sentence, the armament of 190 As was devastating against Soviet bombers and very effective even against Sturmoviks. Because this thread is on fighter versus fighter comparison I thought only that. I have Golubev's memoirs, he fought through the whole of the Great Patriotic War over the Baltic and fought against 109s and 190 As, I should find some time to read it. The survivor bias is a factor in all memoirs, a must to take into account but probably not slew off so much the opinions on the comparisons on the merits of the enemy a/c.


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> Let me ask basic question - most of you are trying to make judgement based on available test data and manual performance curves. Is anybody here familiar with differences in methodologies of test which lead to creating this data? are you sure you are really compering apple to apples???
> 
> correct - i just thought this translation is more appealing to english speaking peoples



At least on the Soviet tests it is important to check is the tested aircraft a pattern aircraft (handmade prototype) or a production a/c, the former always performed better in the tests. 
German speed figures were sometimes compression corrected, sometimes not, best are those with both figures, showed the effect of the correction at certain speeds.


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 12, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> At least on the Soviet tests it is important to check is the tested aircraft a pattern aircraft (handmade prototype) or a production a/c, the former always performed better in the tests.
> German speed figures were sometimes compression corrected, sometimes not, best are those with both figures, showed the effect of the correction at certain speeds.


what configuration? combat loaded? full fuel? gap sealed? what engine condition? - should i proceed with more questions???


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 12, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> I agree with the last sentence, the armament of 190 As was devastating against Soviet bombers and very effective even against Sturmoviks. Because this thread is on fighter versus fighter comparison I thought only that. I have Golubev's memoirs, he fought through the whole of the Great Patriotic War over the Baltic and fought against 109s and 190 As, I should find some time to read it. The survivor bias is a factor in all memoirs, a must to take into account but probably not slew off so much the opinions on the comparisons on the merits of the enemy a/c.


Vasiliy Golubev, I guess. His books were better than many others. But, still, they were all written in the Soviet period. That meant censorship, political bias, etc.

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


----------



## dedalos (Feb 12, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Not necessary up to autumn 1943, even at the time of the Kursk battles most of 190s on the Eastern Front were fighters, after JG 51 converted almost totally back to 109s your claim is true, but in 1945 after most of the JGs moved to the EF appr. 45 % of the 190s there were fighters.


 Reading soviet tests of the fw190, all the time say how much superior their fighters were. And indeed the Fw190A was obsolete by 1945. However , in Kurland pocket , just two gruppen of Jg54 , fought for six months against thousands soviets aircraft, and managed to keep the ports operating. And at the end they escaped to the british occupation zone. I dont see much sovier fighter superiority there 
Until the last day luftwaffe was flying missions against the soviets, if fuel was available with any type of aircraft. From training biplanes to jets . Lipfert was even flying in his own initiative in order to get his 200th kill. Against the western alleis they could not even take off. Soviet superiority was basically in numbers, LA7 and yak3 were good but we should not exaggerate their abilities

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 12, 2021)

Hi Koopernic,

Having lived in Arizona for 22 years, I am VERY familiar with Doug Champlin's Museum while it was in operation. The Fw 190D-13 is very impressive but was NEVER flightworthy. The engine has both an idle circuit and a run circuit in the injection system, and the run circuit had and is missing parts. So, yes, the aircraft did occasionally start, but also would NOT start about 1/3 of the times they tried. I was there for three attempts and it would not start one of those times. It is magnificent, to be sure, but with a series of only 17 airplanes, it was not a factor in the war. I think it was almost a Ta 152, which also wasn't a factor in the war and had a very meodiocre war record.

I'm under the impression the D-13 used the Jumo 213EB engine and an MG151 cannon instead of a Mk 108.

In any "what if" situation, there are always extenuating circumstances. Sure, had they been able to do so, they would have built more Fw 190 D-13s, but they didn't. If you want to believe they were a factor in the war, that's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am a fan of the type, but there were simply too few to be of any real use to the German war effort. Same can be said of the Ta 152, amazing though it was.

About the Ta 152, they apparently built some 150 airframes, but only delivered some 67 aircraft to the front line units. They were basically a group of small-run airplanes with no spares and when the war ended, there were exactly two Ta 152Cs still opertional with front line units. The Luftwaffe grounded all Ta 152Hs, an ignominious end for an aircraft with such great potential. I do not know why they were grounded, but I am sure they could have been corrected and returned to flight status had the war not been essentially over at the time. That does not constitute much of a threat in my book, and they didn't achieve much in real life.

Do I respect them as adversaries one-on-one? You bet I do; the Fw 190D-13, too. I would not especially want to meet one flown by a competent pilot if I were one-on-one with it. But they can hardly be considered as a factor in the war. The Fw 190D-13 and Ta 152 richly deserve a place among the pinnacle of piston fighter design, but they weren't a lot better than the other pinnacle pistons that were produced, also in small numbers. I'm referring to the P-51H (made WWII, but did not see combat), the unproduced Superbolt (prototype only), the Seafang (18 built, did not make WWII), the Sea Fury (1st flight Feb 45), etc. Last-gen pistons). None were factors in WWII, but they did display wonderful performance just before being retired to make way for jets.

All very good airplanes, but not in time to be war winners, at least not in WWII. But, you are correct, they were among the best piston fighters ever built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 12, 2021)

La-5/7 vs Fw 190 Eastern Front 1942-45 by Dmitriy Khazanov & Aleksander Medved
Page 5:
"Although the Focke-Wulf would remain a significant threat to the VVS-KA into
early 1944, by then Soviet pilots had come to realize that most of the fighter units
equipped with the Fw 190 had been posted back to Germany to defend its cities
against daylight bomber raids being mounted by the USAAF's Eighth and Fifteenth
Air Forces. Indeed, by the spring of 1944 most Fw 190-equipped Gruppen on the 
Eastern Front were Schlacht (ground attack) units. These machines were not flown by
Experten who had amassed vast experience engaging Soviet fighters, but by ex-Ju 87
and Hs 129 pilots with only limited knowledge of aerial combat. The Focke-Wulf
gradually became a less dangerous foe for the Soviet fighter pilots as a result, although
the Bf 109G/K remained a threat through to war's end."

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


----------



## GregP (Feb 12, 2021)

Bomber pilots never spent much time hard-maneuvering and almost zero time inverted, even in a split-S, loop, or simple peel-off, so they weren't exactly up to par when it came to basic fighter maneuvers. But I'd bet former-bomber pilots turned fighter pilot survivors of air combat got better at pretty quickly, even if not exactly turning into "experten." The problem was surviving for 7 - 10 combat missions. Atfer that, you'd generally pretty much know what was goping to happen and be fairly ready for it. 

Getting through the first several combat missions was likely a 20 - 40% survival thing late-war. Not really glowing future prospects.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 12, 2021)

GregP said:


> Bomber pilots never spent much time hard-maneuvering and almost zero time inverted, even in a split-S, loop, or simple peel-off, so they weren't exactly up to par when it came to basic fighter maneuvers. But I'd bet former-bomber pilots turned fighter pilot survivors of air combat got better at pretty quickly, even if not exactly turning into "experten." The problem was surviving for 7 - 10 combat missions. Atfer that, you'd generally pretty much know what was goping to happen and be fairly ready for it.
> 
> Getting through the first several combat missions was likely a 20 - 40% survival thing late-war. Not really glowing future prospects.



Post Vietnam the USAF realized that once a crew has 10 combat sorties under their belt the odds for survival go up tremendously. So Red Flag was established. I attended all through the 90’s and will say not only was it fantastic training but a lot of fun, both in the air and on the ground. Lots of adversaries, SAMs, peer pressure as well as nights in Viva Las Vegas. Interesting to note was the majority of fatalities / accidents occur on the second Monday. The second Monday briefs always started with videos of midair collisions, as well as flight into the ground (very sobering).

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## pbehn (Feb 12, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Post Vietnam the USAF realized that once a crew has 10 combat sorties under their belt the odds for survival go up tremendously. So Red Flag was established. I attended all through the 90’s and will say not only was it fantastic training but a lot of fun, both in the air and on the ground. Lots of adversaries, SAMs, peer pressure as well as nights in Viva Las Vegas. Interesting to note was the majority of fatalities / accidents occur on the second Monday. The second Monday briefs always started with videos of midair collisions, as well as flight into the ground (very sobering).
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Second Monday after what?


----------



## Husky (Feb 12, 2021)

Target fixation.

Why second Mondays???


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 12, 2021)

Sorry about that. Red Flag is two weeks long (2 Monday to Friday periods of flying) and most of the accidents occurred on the second Monday. You make it through the first week, are feeling comfortable, went out partying all weekend, and Monday you are ready to kick some arse. The difficulty level also goes up the second week. Over confidence, increased difficulty and threats, may combine for a bad mix.

Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

Dimlee said:


> Vasiliy Golubev, I guess. His books were better than many others. But, still, they were all written in the Soviet period. That meant censorship, political bias, etc.


Yes, I know, I have read several Soviet time books, thanks to "Progress" publishing house, and know the problems with them


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

dedalos said:


> Reading soviet tests of the fw190, all the time say how much superior their fighters were. And indeed the Fw190A was obsolete by 1945. However , in Kurland pocket , just two gruppen of Jg54 , fought for six months against thousands soviets aircraft, and managed to keep the ports operating. And at the end they escaped to the british occupation zone. I dont see much sovier fighter superiority there
> Until the last day luftwaffe was flying missions against the soviets, if fuel was available with any type of aircraft. From training biplanes to jets . Lipfert was even flying in his own initiative in order to get his 200th kill. Against the western alleis they could not even take off. Soviet superiority was basically in numbers, LA7 and yak3 were good but we should not exaggerate their abilities



I agree with the first part but calling 190 As obsolete, it clearly was still useful in 1945, and anyway Soviets still used Yak-9Ms and British Spit IXs and XVIs.
But it is not true, that LW was powerless in the ETO in 1945, air combats continued to the end, the LW even used Ju 87s at daytime time to time, e.g. at Stolzenau on 5 April 1945 against British ground forces.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 12, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> I agree with the first part but calling 190 As obsolete, it clearly was still useful in 1945, and anyway Soviets still used Yak-9Ms and British Spit IXs and XVIs.
> But it is not true, that LW was powerless in the ETO in 1945, air combats continued to the end, the LW even used Ju 87s at daytime time to time, e.g. at Stolzenau on 5 April 1945 against British ground forces.


To what end? A Ju 87 is airborne artillery only useful when used with the ground forces or perhaps sinking ships. An Fw 190 was still a potent aeroplane in 1945 but what can one achieve, or a squadron or even 1000 with all the backup they need?


----------



## GregP (Feb 12, 2021)

After you explain it, second Monday blues makes perfect sense. Once someone is "familiar" with a difficult task, they tend to get a bit complacent about it. I read in the NTSB Reporter in the 1980s that pilots with 500 - 700 hours were most likely to have a gear-up landing becasue they were familiar with the airplane and tended to not use checklists. They almost all returned to using checklists after the "big scare" or the accident ... at least accoirding to the article I read. Wonder if it is still true ...

We found the same tendencies when I went to high performance driving school at Bob Bondurant in the early 1990s. After 2 - 3 days of training, the drivers all seemed to forget to warm up the tires and brakes on the 4th day. That made teh 4th day hot lpas VERY interesting.

I was almost one of them but fortunately refrained from trying to set my fast time on the first lap. One thing those of us who were driving our own cars NEVER forgot was to cool down the engine and brakes with a slow lap at 2500 - 3000 rpm. The guys and gals who were driving school cars (Jack Roush Mustang GTs) almost always forgot that on day 4 and had to be reminded. But if you are paying for tires, brakes, and water pumps yourself, you don't tend to forget that stuff unless you are rich enough not to care about the expense. I wasn't.

About post #86, I don't believe anyone said the Luftwaffe was powererless in April 1945. I said they collapsed as an effective fighting force durign April 1945. The airplanes that got airborne with good pilots in them weren't magically rendered ineffective. They were just wildly outnumbered on the western front and didn't have much chance if they DID get airborne.

In the ETO, we lost 274, 299, and 419 fighters in Jan, Feb, Mar 1945. We lost 343 in April 1945 against *4,257 Luftwaffe losses*. The Luftwaffe losses in May were *750*. That's a difference of 3,507 losses. The combat reports I've read indicate to me that the ground losses dropped off because there was nothing new and undamaged to shoot at. So, sometime in April 1945, the Luftwaffe ceased being a good fighting force. We only lost 36 fighters in May 45, and 16 of those were to AAA. Of course, VE Day was 8 May ...


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> La-5/7 vs Fw 190 Eastern Front 1942-45 by Dmitriy Khazanov & Aleksander Medved
> Page 5:
> "Although the Focke-Wulf would remain a significant threat to the VVS-KA into
> early 1944, by then Soviet pilots had come to realize that most of the fighter units
> ...



Might be but according to the LW OoB on 9 April 1945 in Courland Stab, I. and II./JG 54 (84 Fw 190s); In East Prussia Stab/JG 51 (20 Fw 190s); Eastern Germany Stab and IV./JG 3 (65), I. and II./JG 6 (120), Stab, I. and III./JG 11 (113), so 402 Fw 190 fighters, and at least part of JG 301 also fought against VVS.

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


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> what configuration? combat loaded? full fuel? gap sealed? what engine condition? - should i proceed with more questions???



Out of production line and acceptance tested, weights declared in test reports, cannot say anything on whether gaps were sealed or not, but because test were made by the Scientific Institute of the VVS (Air Force) my guess is that they were as in those sent to the units, the idea was to monitor the quality of production aircraft, not to produce some nice procure figures, VVS was the customer.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Feb 12, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Might be but according to the LW OoB on 9 April 1945 in Courland Stab, I. and II./JG 54 (84 Fw 190s); In East Prussia Stab/JG 51 (20 Fw 190s); Eastern Germany Stab and IV./JG 3 (65), I. and II./JG 6 (120), Stab, I. and III./JG 11 (113), so 402 Fw 190 fighters, and at least part of JG 301 also fought against VVS.


Lw OoB www.oocities.org/sturmvogel_66/LWOB45.html

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 12, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Lw OoB www.oocities.org/sturmvogel_66/LWOB45.html



Immediately noticed one typo, IV./JG 3 was a Fw 190 Gruppe.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 13, 2021)

[QUOTE="GregP,

I'm under the impression the D-13 used the Jumo 213EB engine and an MG151 cannon instead of a Mk 108.

*Greg, just to be precise:
Fw 190D-13: Jumo 213F-1, 2050 ps.
Armament: 1 x Mk 151 + 2 x MG 151

Fw 190D-12: Jumo 213F
Armament: 1 x MK 108 + 2 x MG 151

The proposed Fw 190D-12/R25 was to have the Jumo 213EB installed.

I sometime get the MK 151 and 108 mixed up, so I am 90% sure the above is correct.
, Jeff*


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> To what end? A Ju 87 is airborne artillery only useful when used with the ground forces or perhaps sinking ships. An Fw 190 was still a potent aeroplane in 1945 but what can one achieve, or a squadron or even 1000 with all the backup they need?


Stukas were attacking the British 11 Armoured Division which was crossing the Weser, they bombed both the British bridgehead and troops preparing to cross, they were supporting German counterattack.


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 13, 2021)

GregP said:


> After you explain it, second Monday blues makes perfect sense. Once someone is "familiar" with a difficult task, they tend to get a bit complacent about it. I read in the NTSB Reporter in the 1980s that pilots with 500 - 700 hours were most likely to have a gear-up landing becasue they were familiar with the airplane and tended to not use checklists. They almost all returned to using checklists after the "big scare" or the accident ... at least accoirding to the article I read. Wonder if it is still true ...
> 
> We found the same tendencies when I went to high performance driving school at Bob Bondurant in the early 1990s. After 2 - 3 days of training, the drivers all seemed to forget to warm up the tires and brakes on the 4th day. That made teh 4th day hot lpas VERY interesting.
> 
> ...


As you see from my post #86 I was answering to Dedalos who's post was quoted in the post.
The LW losses, are they all LW losses or are they USAAF claims? If former, there were other main players like RAF, VVS etc. which made their contributions to the LW losses. And claims are only claims even if USAAF fighter pilots' claim accuracy in air-to-air combats was generally good in the ETO.


----------



## GregP (Feb 13, 2021)

Hi Jeff,

The MG 151/20 was a 20 mm cannon using 20 x 82 ammo with a 105 g projectile at 700 - 750 rpm. It wasn't as good a cannon as an Oerlikon FF L or a Hispano Mk V, but it was reliable. The shell had a fairly slow muzzle velocity compared with the best.

There was also an MG 151/15 MG using 15 x 96 ammo with 64.5 g projectile at 700 rpm. It was a pretty decent machine gun.

Hi Juha3. The German losses were from the Statistical Digest of World War II and were USAAF. If I am not mistaken, the Digest was based on claims vetted after WWII, but was likely still based largely on claims. There is an entire book that can be written about what constitiues a "victory," and I have addressed that before. However, there were an extraordinarily large number of aircraft destroyed on the ground in April 1945 by the USAAF no matter how you look at it. It was five or more times greater than any months in 1943-1944 and the first 3 months of 1945. That could only happen if either the AAA was dropping off, the airborne German fighter force was dropping off, or both. It was NOT going to happen if everything was running along as it had for the previous several years.

I am not wanting to make anything of it. I am just observing when the statistics say the aerial war was essentially won. April 1945 jumps out from the statistics as that time. I don't think the Germans "gave up," or that their pilots and/or aircraft were somehow less effective in April. I think the number of defenders was materially less than it had been. There were fuel shortage and propeller shortages, too. The Germans were not particularly short of fuel or props, but the airfields where the airplanes were based WERE short of fuel and parts because marauding Allied fighters were straffing anything that moved at that time. That made fuel deliveries and parts deliveries a problematic affair. If it was moving, it got straffed in April 1945, making effective defense a tough cookie to bake.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 13, 2021)

GregP said:


> Hi Jeff,
> 
> The MG 151/20 was a 20 mm cannon using 20 x 82 ammo with a 105 g projectile at 700 - 750 rpm. It wasn't as good a cannon as an Oerlikon FF L or a Hispano Mk V, but it was reliable. The shell had a fairly slowq muzzle velocity compared with the best.



MG 151/20 was a probably a better cannon than the FFL. Belt-fed from the get-go, earlier in actual service (despite the FFL being marketed even before ww2), ~50% better RoF, can be synchronized. 92-95g M-shell went at 800-790 m/s, the 117g shells were doing at 720-730 m/s; there was no 105g shell. FFL was firing the 130g shell at 750 m/s.
Hispano V was better than 151/20, but it was later by 3 years, and could not be synchronized.



> There was also an MG 151/15 MG using 15 x 96 ammo with 64.5 g projectile at 700 rpm. It was a pretty decent machine gun.



It was very powerful, but it was also heavy and bulky, even when compared some 20mm guns. FWIW, Germans quickly introduced the /20 version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 13, 2021)

For comparison, the main aerial guns of Yak-3 & La-7 at the beginning of 1945 were:
UB: 12.7 mm, muzzle speed: 860 m/s, Rof: 800/1000 non-sync/sync. 48 g projectile.
Penetration: 20mm @ 350 meters.
ShVAK: 20 mm, Muzzle speed: 800 m/s, Rof: 800 rpm. 96 g projectile.
Penetration: 25mm @ 150 m & 90 degree angle. 15 mm @ 300 m. & 90 degree angle.

Russian Yakovlev fighters of WW2

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 13, 2021)

It's strange that UB has better penetration of ShVAK, something is not right


----------



## pbehn (Feb 13, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Stukas were attacking the British 11 Armoured Division which was crossing the Weser, they bombed both the British bridgehead and troops preparing to cross, they were supporting German counterattack.


Did they stop anything? How many? How many bombs were dropped?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2021)

Vincenzo said:


> It's strange that UB has better penetration of ShVAK, something is not right



Well, the ranges are not the same but that is minor. 

next try work out the energy applied per unit of frontal area (size of the hole).

I don't think the right ammo is listed?
API came in serval types for both guns but one sources says thq 127mm used a 52gram AP projectile with 19,200 joules of muzzle energy.
In trying to punch a 12.7mm hole it is trying to remove 126.6 sq mm of material, this means 151.6 Joules per sq mm of area. 

The 20mm used a 99 gram AP projectile with 36,600 joules of muzzle energy. However a 20mm hole has 314 sq mm of area and so the projectile only has 116.5 joules of energy per sq mm of area. 
In theory Penetration is accomplished in one of two ways (or a combination). 1 is pushing the material that was occupying the hole to the side, the other is hit the armor hard enough that a plug of material is punched out of the armor matching the size of the projectile. In reality it is usually a combination of the two but the energy per unit of area formula usually works. 

Just as a comparison, the Hispano has about 46,900 joules or higher and would have 149.4 joules per sq mm of area. 
The American .50 has 17,400 joules for the M2 AP round. 

The ShVAK and it's short/ light projectiles didn't do well at armor punching.


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 14, 2021)

GregP said:


> Hi Koopernic,
> 
> Having lived in Arizona for 22 years, I am VERY familiar with Doug Champlin's Museum while it was in operation. The Fw 190D-13 is very impressive but was NEVER flightworthy. The engine has both an idle circuit and a run circuit in the injection system, and the run circuit had and is missing parts. So, yes, the aircraft did occasionally start, but also would NOT start about 1/3 of the times they tried. I was there for three attempts and it would not start one of those times. It is magnificent, to be sure, but with a series of only 17 airplanes, it was not a factor in the war. I think it was almost a Ta 152, which also wasn't a factor in the war and had a very meodiocre war record.
> 
> ...




Greg, I had thought I had removed my disagree rating, it had been there only 30 seconds.

It is possible to dismiss the Fw 190D12/D13, Ta 152C, Ta 152H even though they were issued to operational squadrons because there were so few (though the Ta 152H was issued in sizable numbers and the 190D9 close to 1000).

But there is another back story there. A big one.

The British and USA ran a massive and very successful bombing campaign against the 3rd Reich's aviation industry that not only reduced the quantity and quality of German aircraft but prevented the deployment of advanced types by 6-7 months. The story over Eastern front, the fight of the La 7 with the Fw 190 would be different as well.

I'll list several examples:
1 The deployment of the Me 109K was delayed at least 7 months, probably much more, by bombing which destroyed prototypes and critical plans. This means Me 109K would be deploying around March 1944 only 2-3 months after the P-51B began first missions in Europe and 3 months before D-day.

2 The DB603L/LA engine was delayed by a similar amount of time. These engines powered not only the Ta 152C but the Fw 190 D14 and D15 (broadly the Daimler Benz powered version of the Fw 190 D12/D13) which might have been deploying around the time of the Fw 190D9 before the Fw 190 D12 and Fw 190D13. There was also the DB603EM engine, likely delayed as well.

3 The Fw 190D9 itself suffered from simple manufacturing quality issues caused by the war such as deploying the emergency power systems to the aircraft and MW50 systems that would have made them combat worthy much earlier than October/November 1944. It also suffered from very basic airframe tolerance issues such as engine ceiling gap and wheel door covers airframe finish and other issues that would have seen the aircraft be a 437mph aircraft (at low altitude) and 443 with GM-1. It would likely have had access to large amounts of the C3 fuel, had more range for not having to use a tank for MW50 or had that tank available for GM-1 and long range tanks in the wing and there could have been a DB603EM powered version as well.

All of the above 3 aircraft would have been in service much earlier and much earlier than any P-51H, Sea fury or Superbolt because they represent an earlier generation of aircraft more in alignment with the P-51B/C/D.

Fw 190D13 received the Jumo 213F1 engine which was essentially a Jumo 213E1 without the intercooler. The Jumo 213EB, which did have an intercooler, was intended for the Fw 190D13 but was not available so the Jumo 213F1 was used instead. The Jumo 213EB was scheduled for production in June 1945. The Even more powerful Jumo 213J in November 1945.

I have seen numerous references to The Jumo 213E1 with MW50 producing 2350hp which corresponds to a 2.02 ata rating eg producing a speed of 407mph on the Ju 388 so the power level expected for the Jumo 213EB was likely to become available in the Ju 213E1.

Below is the cooling circuit for the Jumo 213EB, note the intercooler.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 14, 2021)

@ Corsning.
In one post you mentioned the max climb of the Fw 190D-9 as 4429 fpm and later 4330 fpm. I have seen both earlier esewhere. Why the difference?

A combat report gave a unit equipped with D-9s a kill/loss ratio of 115/5 at some date since the Battle of Berlin IIRC.
Anybody know more?

There was a comparative Soviet report which stated "absolute superiority of domestic fighters La-7 and Yak-3 over the Fw 190D-9 which onlx reached a speed of 624 kmh.".


----------



## spicmart (Feb 14, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> With this engine the Ta 152H with Jumo 213EB was as fast as the Jumo 213E variant but didn't need Nitrous Oxide to achieve 474mph and could do so at a lower altitude.
> 
> The Fw 190D13 EB was expected to achieve 488mph with this engine.



Where do you get the 488 mph figure?


----------



## spicmart (Feb 14, 2021)

[QUOTE="Koopernic, post: 1618556, member: 60966"
2 The DB603L/LA engine was delayed by a similar amount of time. These engines powered not only the Ta 152C but the Fw 190 D14 and D15 (broadly the Daimler Benz powered version of the Fw 190 D12/D13) which might have been deploying around the time of the Fw 190D9 before the Fw 190 D12 and Fw 190D13. There was also the DB603EM engine, likely delayed as well.

3 The Fw 190D9 itself suffered from simple manufacturing quality issues caused by the war such as deploying the emergency power systems to the aircraft and MW50 systems that would have made them combat worthy much earlier than October/November 1944. It also suffered from very basic airframe tolerance issues such as engine ceiling gap and wheel door covers airframe finish and other issues that would have seen the aircraft be a 437mph aircraft (at low altitude) and 443 with GM-1. It would likely have had access to large amounts of the C3 fuel, had more range for not having to use a tank for MW50 or had that tank available for GM-1 and long range tanks in the wing and there could have been a DB603EM powered version as well.

All of the above 3 aircraft would have been in service much earlier and much earlier than any P-51H, Sea fury or Superbolt because they represent an earlier generation of aircraft more in alignment with the P-51B/C/D.

Fw 190D13 received the Jumo 213F1 engine which was essentially a Jumo 213E1 without the intercooler. The Jumo 213EB, which did have an intercooler, was intended for the Fw 190D13 but was not available so the Jumo 213F1 was used instead. The Jumo 213EB was scheduled for production in June 1945. The Even more powerful Jumo 213J in November 1945.

I have seen numerous references to The Jumo 213E1 with MW50 producing 2350hp which corresponds to a 2.02 ata rating eg producing a speed of 407mph on the Ju 388 so the power level expected for the Jumo 213EB was likely to become available in the Ju 213E1.

Below is the cooling circuit for the Jumo 213EB, note the intercooler.

[/QUOTE]

Can you provide info about the Jumo 213EB?

The 437 mph at low alt is an estimate, I guess. Can you say about which height?

The D-14/15 had a drum radiator like the Ta 152. Where there any performance advatages to be expected?


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 14, 2021)

spicmart said:


> Where do you get the 488 mph figure?



Richard Smith and Eddie Creek quote on page 704 of "Focke Wulf 190 Volume 3" the speed for the Fw 190D12/R25 and Fw 190D13/R25 as;
613kmh/381mph at sea level and 770kmh/478mph at 9500m/31168ft. They also quote the engine as being 2250hp *(I believe the engine was 2350hp)*
Dietmar Hermann also quotes this saame figure on page 154 of Focke Wulf 190 "Long Nose".

The R25 was a conversion kit.

Also interesting is that Dietmar Hermann quotes on the same page that the Fw 190D9/R25 would apart from the Jumo 213EB have received 4 bag tanks in the wing (similar to the 6 of the Ta 152) and that this would extend range of the Fw 190D9/R25 to *1705km* (greater than the P-51B/C/D?). Note the above may be an typo in Hermann's book as I believe he meant Fw 190D12/R25. Nevertheless I can't see why the bag tanks couldn't be fitted to a Fw 190D9.

So I may be 478mph not 488mph but I'm pretty sure I did see that figure.

This chart shows the Fw 190D12/R25 with Jumo 213EB being of scale at about 770kmh or 790kmh.






The Jumo 213EB had the new cooling circuit and I believe bored out valves. The Jumo 213J had 4 valves and much higher RPM (3700rpm) so about 2700hp. Certainly capable of more than 488mph. (There was also a 2500hp Jumo 213S which was armoured for ground attack aircraft)

*"The D-14/15 had a drum radiator like the Ta 152. Where there any performance advantages to be expected? *"

The annular (drum?) radiator had a greater frontal area which meant the radiator needed to be less deep and this reduced pressure loss and therefore drag. These radiators did recover heat energy as 'thrust'. British used them on an experimental Tempest and found them superior but as it would have required manufacturing changes related to the C of G of the aircraft did not bother.

*"The 437 mph at low alt is an estimate, I guess. Can you say about which height? "*
It's not an estimate its a real aircraft running in good condition with the engine gape sealed using C3 fuel and with a bomb rack. no MW50.
18000ft or about 5500m.
Fw 190D and Me 109K vs. Yak-3 and La-7

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 14, 2021)

spicmart said:


> @ Corsning.
> In one post you mentioned the max climb of the Fw 190D-9 as 4429 fpm and later 4330 fpm. I have seen both earlier esewhere. Why the difference?
> 
> Both figures are from Dietmar Hermann's "Long-Nose". The 4429 or rather 22.5 m/s comes
> ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 14, 2021)

Hi Koopernic,

No worries. I was curious only, not trying to start anything that can be construed as unpleasant in any way. I am mostly a fan of the airraft themselves, not necessarily the war or units , etc. Call me an airplane nut. I have had the opportunity to speak with many WWII pilots, and have sort of a different opinion than many about the performance of WWII aircraft, particularly fighters.

When you talk with them one-on-one, they mostly say they tried to take care of their airplanes and hardly ever got to maximum speeds unless in a dive. Most said they either never used WER or only once or twice in their entire war experience. SOme used it more, not too many. Most said that if they used it, it was for escape, not for attacking. The last thing they wanted to happen was to abuse their engines over enemy territory, cause a failure, and wind up as a POW in self-induced captivity. That doesn't mean they didn't pull hard in a fight or use the fighter as a fighter, it simply means that most of them felt that the absolute maximums in performance were things factory test pilots did. They normally used miltary power when fighting, and accelerated from cruising speeds when joining combat, so they never really got to maximum fast speeds unless they traded altitude for airspeed on the way down.

Were there exceptions? Of course, and they likely got away with it, too.

If you look at aircraft powered by Allisons, for instance, some maximums for MAP saw 44", 47", 57", and 60", but both E and F-series Allisons, partlcularly 90 - 100 series dash numbers could operate at 75" without much chance of failure, especially as they went to the 12-counterweight crankshaft. Short forays into high MAP were OK, bit if you got used to doing it, you were going to experience an engine "incident," hopefully of the non-fatal variety.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kocur (Feb 14, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Empty weight of the Lavochkin La -7 was 2640kg. It had 1850 hp available.
> Empty weight of the Focke Wulf Fw 190A8 was 3200kg. It had 1980 hp at 1.63 ata available.
> The Fw 190A8 has 21% more weight than the La 7 for only 8% more power.
> 
> (I’m assuming this is empty equipped weight, but who knows I’m using wiki). Unless the Fw 190 gets to about 2250 hp it looks like it’s at a at serious power to weight ratio disadvantage. On top of that there is a higher wing loading on the German fighter.


Power you quoted is take-off power, not so relevant to air combat.

ASh-82 FN generated 1430 PS at 4,55 km (as per manual).
BMW 801 D at 1,65 ata generated ~1660 PS at 4,7 km (as per On big radials ).


----------



## dedalos (Feb 14, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Empty weight of the Lavochkin La -7 was 2640kg. It had 1850 hp available.
> Empty weight of the Focke Wulf Fw 190A8 was 3200kg. It had 1980 hp at 1.63 ata available.
> The Fw 190A8 has 21% more weight than the La 7 for only 8% more power.
> 
> ...



The needs of the western and eastern fronts were totaly different. West was requiring very heavy armament and armor and IFF and avionics. The problem was ,for production reasons, exactly the same aircraft was sent to the eastern front, to face the light soviet fighters.
Some units removed the unessacary avionics to save weight. Perhaps some A8 s lost for the same reason the external pair of cannons. (There s a big discussion about this)
The wide blade propellers in very late 1944 appears to have improved climbing and turning of the A8s.
I feei that an A8 with 1.65 ata clearance , wide blade propeller and no special avionics was competitive against the la7 and above 3000m propably had an edge. We must also remember that the automatic engine controls guaranteed optimum performance from the engine during the confusion of air combat. La7 had not such a feature
Now combining the light A4 airframe with a late 2000-2200ps BMW801 would create a formidable eastern front variant. But production required one version for every need.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 14, 2021)

dedalos said:


> The needs of the western and eastern fronts were totaly different. West was requiring very heavy armament and armor and IFF and avionics. The problem was ,for production reasons, exactly the same aircraft was sent to the eastern front, to face the light soviet fighters.
> Some units removed the unessacary avionics to save weight. Perhaps some A8 s lost for the same reason the external pair of cannons. (There s a big discussion about this)
> The wide blade propellers in very late 1944 appears to have improved climbing and turning of the A8s.
> I feei that an A8 with 1.65 ata clearance , wide blade propeller and no special avionics was competitive against the la7 and above 3000m propably had an edge. We must also remember that the automatic engine controls guaranteed optimum performance from the engine during the confusion of air combat. La7 had not such a feature
> Now combining the light A4 airframe with a late 2000-2200ps BMW801 would create a formidable eastern front variant. But production required one version for every need.



IMO - the Fw 190 was a considerably better aircraft than La-7. What La-7 was able to do in 1944, the Fw 190 was doing in 1941, and there was a number of tasks that left La-7 speechless when compared with Fw 190.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 15, 2021)

Kocur said:


> Power you quoted is take-off power, not so relevant to air combat.
> 
> ASh-82 FN generated 1430 PS at 4,55 km (as per manual).
> BMW 801 D at 1,65 ata generated ~1660 PS at 4,7 km (as per On big radials ).



im not convinced. If Soviet aircaft such as the IL-2 were attacking german supply columns, armour or infantry they would presumably be below 1000m and their escorts of La-7 at maybe 2000m. In that case the Power to Weight ratio advantage would likely remain. The wing loading as well. I’m not exactly aware of the typical engagement altitude but that sounds likely.


----------



## dedalos (Feb 15, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> im not convinced. If Soviet aircaft such as the IL-2 were attacking german supply columns, armour or infantry they would presumably be below 1000m and their escorts of La-7 at maybe 2000m. In that case the Power to Weight ratio advantage would likely remain. The wing loading as well. I’m not exactly aware of the typical engagement altitude but that sounds likely.



Well patrolling at 2000m , at slow speed, since you escort il 2 s, normally would be reciepe for disaster. You are target for boom and zoom attacks from above by fighterss with much higher energy status. You can not even prevent them continue to the bombers ,fire and then climb away. Except if you have 5-10 times more fighters and you completely hide the bombers. In any case the higher fluying attacker has no reason to slow down and turn fight


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 15, 2021)

dedalos said:


> Well patrolling at 2000m , at slow speed, since you escort il 2 s, normally would be reciepe for disaster. You are target for boom and zoom attacks from above by fighterss with much higher energy status. You can not even prevent them continue to the bombers ,fire and then climb away. Except if you have 5-10 times more fighters and you completely hide the bombers. In any case the higher fluying attacker has no reason to slow down and turn fight



From my understanding escort fighters weaved to maintain speed. i can not see combat taking place between escort fighters and interceptors at 4000 meters if the ground attack aircaft are at 1000. Furthermore what of the Fw 190F in the ground attack role, it too is at a power disadvantage when intercepted by the La 7. The wing loading disadvantage is also serious. Despite the superiority of the BMW 801 and its supercharger it won’t be evident at low altitude.
There would have been some BMW 801TS and TH with improved superchargerS.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 15, 2021)

dedalos said:


> Well patrolling at 2000m , at slow speed, since you escort il 2 s, normally would be reciepe for disaster. You are target for boom and zoom attacks from above by fighterss with much higher energy status. You can not even prevent them continue to the bombers ,fire and then climb away. Except if you have 5-10 times more fighters and you completely hide the bombers. In any case the higher fluying attacker has no reason to slow down and turn fight



Dedalos,

To escort at slow speed in enemy territory is to beg to be turned into a kill marker on your adversaries fighter. I have read that the Russians liked to go as fast as fuel would allow in the high threat areas (close to or beyond the front lines) and that would go for the IL-2s as well. Also someone recently posted a picture of how the Russians liked to stack their escorts which would be done to prevent or disrupt the hi to low high energy attacks by the Luftwaffe.

As for the boom and zoom it has its limits. An aircraft at its max speed will only go up so far once the pilot starts pulling. If he (the 109 / 190) is being tailed and the adversary starts lower but reaches his max velocity while still higher than the offender he is at an energy advantage.

Also stacking above your bombers can allows greater battlefield situational awareness in the form of earlier visual pick up of incoming threats, smoke on the ground in the distance (combat taking place, planes shot down, front changing location).

Also in the confines of the internet it’s easy to say a guy would not turn to engage, but realize it’s not that black and white in reality. If you can do a quick turn and kill someone why not. Now you won’t have to fight him, or more precisely his plane again. Adrenaline running high makes people do foolish things as well, IE turn when they should not.

On another note it’s been mentioned in here that the late model Fw-190s and Ta-152s had boosted ailerons. Do you have any concrete evidence of that? I have Deitmars book but am out on the road.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 15, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> From my understanding escort fighters weaved to maintain speed. i can not see combat taking place between escort fighters and interceptors at 4000 meters if the ground attack aircaft are at 1000. Furthermore what of the Fw 190F in the ground attack role, it too is at a power disadvantage when intercepted by the La 7. The wing loading disadvantage is also serious. Despite the superiority of the BMW 801 and its supercharger it won’t be evident at low altitude.
> There would have been some BMW 801TS and TH with improved superchargerS.



Koopernic,

The escorts would intercept incoming adversaries at whatever altitude they could get to them. Disrupting earlier is better and more effective usually than later. However once the fight begins it almost always goes down.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2021)

From what I've read, Il-2 didn't sortie to attack at 1,000 m. It was more likely 50 - 150 m. Also, they weren't based a long way off from the front lines; they were based only a few miles from the lines and the bases were VERY temporary; sort of like tamped-down grass and tents, with fuel trailers on wheels and some wagons with tools, and a kitchen. So, there weren't a lot of high-flying German patrols that could sit up at several thoudand meters and bounce an incoming wave of attackers at any decent altitude. It was much more of some Il-2s and La-5/7s takeoff, fly pretty low, and hit the Germans troops within a few minutes' flying time.

Perhaps this wasn't awlays the case (no single situation really is always the case), but it was the case often enough to make it impossible for German fighters at higher altitudes to remain there and still effect any disruption of troop attacks. Most of the film clips I've seen in various shows over the years of Il-2s show them right at ground level. Any escorts were lower than 1,000 m.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Feb 15, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Dedalos,
> 
> To escort at slow speed in enemy territory is to beg to be turned into a kill marker on your adversaries fighter. I have read that the Russians liked to go as fast as fuel would allow in the high threat areas (close to or beyond the front lines) and that would go for the IL-2s as well.
> 
> ...


By mid 1944 soviets had so many fighter units that could provide not only close escort but also multi high covers in hot sectors. Lipfert describes that in late 1944 was being attacked by soviet fighters even as high as 6000m(usuallyu P39s), something previously unheard of. So it was impossible to set attacks on the bombers and it was then a series of dogfigts thay succed little more than increasing personal score
My sources are the war memoirs of Helmut Lipfert, Norbert Hanning, WilliRescke,Hartmann s biography, various unit histories, and magazine interviews of former german fightr pilots
Of course i appproach our conversation with respect and knowledge that while i have been flying Cessnas 152 you were flying F15.....(!!!!!)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> From what I've read, Il-2 didn't sortie to attack at 1,000 m. It was more likely 50 - 150 m. Also, they weren't based a long way off from the front lines; they were based only a few miles from the lines and the bases were VERY temporary; sort of like tamped-down grass and tents, with fuel trailers on wheels and some wagons with tools, and a kitchen. So, there weren't a lot of high-flying German patrols that could sit up at several thoudand meters and bounce an incoming wave of attackers at any decent altitude. It was much more of some Il-2s and La-5/7s takeoff, fly pretty low, and hit the Germans troops within a few minutes' flying time.
> 
> Perhaps this wasn't awlays the case (no single situation really is always the case), but it was the case often enough to make it impossible for German fighters at higher altitudes to remain there and still effect any disruption of troop attacks. Most of the film clips I've seen in verious shows over the years of Il-2s show them right at ground level. Any escorts were lower than 1,000 m.



Flying at tree top isolates the threat to above you. Most interceptions end up at the defenders six. It looks as if they were playing to the rear gunners “favor” (all the bandits will show up behind your 3-9 and at your altitude or above). Good luck.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## dedalos (Feb 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> From what I've read, Il-2 didn't sortie to attack at 1,000 m. It was more likely 50 - 150 m. Also, they weren't based a long way off from the front lines; they were based only a few miles from the lines and the bases were VERY temporary; sort of like tamped-down grass and tents, with fuel trailers on wheels and some wagons with tools, and a kitchen. So, there weren't a lot of high-flying German patrols that could sit up at several thoudand meters and bounce an incoming wave of attackers at any decent altitude. It was much more of some Il-2s and La-5/7s takeoff, fly pretty low, and hit the Germans troops within a few minutes' flying time.
> 
> Perhaps this wasn't awlays the case (no single situation really is always the case), but it was the case often enough to make it impossible for German fighters at higher altitudes to remain there and still effect any disruption of troop attacks. Most of the film clips I've seen in verious shows over the years of Il-2s show them right at ground level. Any escorts were lower than 1,000 m.



The intoduction of the german quadraple 20mm and single 37 mm flak guns forced even the IL2s somewhat higher.(Unless they were enganged in ground battles that it was often the case). Twin engined bombers(Boston, B25s,Tu2) always were flying higher.
But no german fighter would ever attack without reaching first some sort of good attacking position. attacking from the same alltitude was dangerous even in mid war. That meant that often scrabling german fighters would attack the Il2s in their return trip


----------



## Juha3 (Feb 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Did they stop anything? How many? How many bombs were dropped?



What I remeber from the history of the 11 ArmDiv, there was a hard fight. The air attacks were intensive for the time. The 58th LAA Rgt reported some 70 a/c attacking over a 2 hours period, 10 were Ju 87s, 10 Ju 88s, 6 Ju 188s, 6 Fw 190s, 2 Me 262s, one Ar 234, rest were Bf 109s. If you want to know more, do some digging. There is a new book on these battles, Theirs the Strife, seems to be very good. And of course there is at least the old duvision history, published c. 1946, but it is a good one. Probably Patrick Delaforce has written a more recent one.


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> From what I've read, Il-2 didn't sortie to attack at 1,000 m. It was more likely 50 - 150 m.



They attacked from various altitudes. According to Oleg Rastrenin (probably the best expert on everything related to Il-2 and Il-10):
_"the most effective attack was at an angle 25-30 degrees from the altitude 700-800 m. The speed at the start of the attack 270-280 km/h. Distance to the target: open fire 600-900 m, stop the fire 250-300 m. Altitude to break the attack 125 m. Minimum safe altitude 50 m. _"
My rough translation, this book.
More experienced pilots tried to attack at steeper angles, up to 40 degrees and that required higher altitudes. 
Il-10s in spring 1945 attacked from 800-1200 m and escaped at 50-150m.

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


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2021)

If you are based only a short distance away, you'd likely get attacks both outward and returning, but more likely, as you say, returning since they were such a short distance away that any "news" of attacking airplanes was likely too late for incoming engagement unless the defenders were already airborne and in the immediate area. What you said above, Dedalos, makes sense to me. The Soviet fighters also were not stupid and had greatly improved their tactics by late 43 early 44 and were no doubt expecting whatever tactics the Germans used. It would have been "interesting," if not downright deadly. Many Il-2 gunners were killed in returning Il-2 that landed saftely. 

Maybe Stalin didn't need for them to be armored as long as the pilot could bring it back. I bet the Gunners didn't see it that way.

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


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Feb 15, 2021)

Hi,

Given the discussion on Eastern Front combat altitudes, here are some details on engagements involving the 3rd Air Army, 15th Air Army, and VVS KBF over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in August and September 1944:

P-39s at 1,000 metres on air cover for troops fought with FW 190s
P-39s at 4,000 metres on air cover for troops spotted FW 190s at 1,500-2,000 metres
P-39s at 2,500 metres on air cover for troops fought with FW 190s
P-39s at 2,500 metres on air cover for troops and river crossings fought with FW 190s
P-39s at 400 metres fought with ground-attack FW 190s
P-39s at 1,000 metres on air cover for river crossings fought with FW 190s
P-39s at 1,500 metres on air cover for river crossings fought with ground-attack FW 190s
P-39s at 2,000 metres on reconnaissance met Ju 88
P-39s at 4,000 metres on reconnaissance were attacked by four FW 190s
P-39s at 2,000 metres on Pe-2 escort met FW 190s
P-39s at 1,000 metres on Pe-2 escort met FW 190s
P-39s at 4,000 metres on photographic reconnaissance attacked by FW 190s
Yak-1 at 800 metres on Il-2 escort combat with FW 190s
Yak-7s at 800 metres on Il-2 escort attacked by FW 190s
Yak-7s at 1,000 metres on Il-2 escort fought with FW 190s
Yak-9s at 800 metres on ship cover mission fought with Ju 87s and FW 190s
Yak-9s at 2,700 metres covering landing ships fought with FW 190s
Yak-9s at 1,200 metres on escort for Il-2s fought with FW 190s
Yak-9s at 2,000 metres covering troops fought with ground-attack FW 190s
Yak-9s at 3,000 metres on interception guided by radio station met ground-attack FW 190s
Yak-9s at 800 metres on Il-2 escort attacked by four FW 190s (six Il-2s failed to return)
Yak-9s at 1,800 metres on Pe-2 escort intercepted FW 190s
Yak-9s at 1,800 metres on Il-2 escort intercepted by two FW 190s
Yak-9s at 600-1,200 metres on Il-2 escort fought with FW 190s
LaGG-3s at 1,000 metres on Il-2 escort fought with FW 190s
La-5s at 1,500 metres covering landing boats fought with Ju 87s
La-5 at 2,000 metres on interception attacked an FW 189 without result

The average altitude that claims were made at by FW 190 pilots of I. and II./J.G. 54 against those three Soviet commands in the first fifteen days of August 1944 was 1,854 metres.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

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


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2021)

Any combat reports on Il-2/10s?


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Feb 15, 2021)

Hi,

Use Google Translate and you can read the whole war diary of Il-2 unit 225.ShAD here: 810 штурмовой авиаполк - ЖБД 1942 г., from 1942 to the end of the war. Attack altitudes are given for many missions.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 16, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Koopernic,
> 
> The escorts would intercept incoming adversaries at whatever altitude they could get to them. Disrupting earlier is better and more effective usually than later. However once the fight begins it almost always goes down.
> 
> ...



The Luftwaffe was in a quandary. It needed heavily armoured and armed aircraft to deal with B17/B24 at high altitude and a different aircraft to deal with the P-51/P-47/Spitfire. The situation in the East required aircraft optimised for lower altitudes and the VVS could deploy lighter less armed airframes.

There was a solution: The BMW801F of 2600hp which was intended for both the Fw 190A9 but also the Fw 190A10.

The A10 was meant to be entering production in March 1945 and featured an enlarged wing area. It was deprioritised behind the D series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> There was a solution: The BMW801F of 2600hp which was intended for both the Fw 190A9 but the Fw 190A10.
> 
> The A10 was meant to be entering production in March 1945 and featured an enlarged wing area. It was deprioritised behind the D series.



How and for what time frame is the BMW 801F a solution?


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Feb 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Luftwaffe was in a quandary. It needed heavily armoured and armed aircraft to deal with B17/B24 at high altitude and a different aircraft to deal with the P-51/P-47/Spitfire. The situation in the East required aircraft optimised for lower altitudes and the VVS could deploy lighter less armed airframes.
> 
> There was a solution: The BMW801F of 2600hp which was intended for both the Fw 190A9 but also the Fw 190A10.
> 
> The A10 was meant to be entering production in March 1945 and featured an enlarged wing area. It was deprioritised behind the D series.


So, to summarize, the German plan for 1945 was having the Fw 190 A-8/A-9 for dealing with Western bombers, Fw 190D-12/D-13 (and later Ta 152C) to fight Western fighters, and the Fw 190A-10 to deal with VVS fighters at low/medium altitude?

Would have been interesting to know what designs the Germans would have come up with if they had the luxuries of time and resources of the US to deal with the design challenges which all these threats amalgamated into


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 16, 2021)

afaik the Ta-152 was cancelled


----------



## Milosh (Feb 16, 2021)

Meanwhile on the western Allied side, there was the P-51H, P-47N, Hawker Fury, 20 series Spitfire and Spiteful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Feb 16, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> IMO - the Fw 190 was a considerably better aircraft than La-7. What La-7 was able to do in 1944, the Fw 190 was doing in 1941, and there was a number of tasks that left La-7 speechless when compared with Fw 190.


 
And what would that be?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 16, 2021)

spicmart said:


> And what would that be?



From carrying drop tanks, extra guns ranging from 7.9mm to 30mm, carrying wide array of bombs & rockets along with drop tank(s), perform as night fighter with on-board radar. Big bombs, up to 1800 kg. Torpedo-armed Fw 190 worked, as well as GM-1 outfitted one. Additional on-board fuel for 190 was a thing, not for La-7. Armored fighter version.
While it was not possible to do all of those things at once (as can be expected), those were workable options for the Fw 190 before La-7 fired shots in anger.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 16, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> From carrying drop tanks, extra guns ranging from 7.9mm to 30mm, carrying wide array of bombs & rockets along with drop tank(s), perform as night fighter with on-board radar. Big bombs, up to 1800 kg. Torpedo-armed Fw 190 worked, as well as GM-1 outfitted one. Additional on-board fuel for 190 was a thing, not for La-7. Armored fighter version.
> While it was not possible to do all of those things at once (as can be expected), those were workable options for the Fw 190 before La-7 fired shots in anger.



So the only thing which is the La-7's claim to fame was its superior dogfighting abilities although with good pilots and the right tactic the Dora could be seen as a fighting machine which was on par. So I understood.

There was a mention in one of the chronicles about the D-9 that since begin of the Battle of Berlin a unit achieved 115 aerial victories and 5 losse.
This is a very good ratio. Anybody know about it?


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Feb 16, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Meanwhile on the western Allied side, there was the P-51H, P-47N, Hawker Fury, 20 series Spitfire and Spiteful.


Very fearsome opponents indeed. I love the Allied super-props, but it would be interesting to speculate how the planned German stuff would have faired against it with all being equal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Feb 17, 2021)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Very fearsome opponents indeed. I love the Allied super-props, but it would be interesting to speculate how the planned German stuff would have faired against it with all being equal.



The latest versions of the Fw190/Ta152 would be the final german piston engine fighters. Jets would be the replacements. The most advanced possible german fighter that i can imagine would be
D series fuselage, intergated engine cowling
Ta152 tail with the enlarged control surfaces
Ta 152C wings, (21m2 ), with boosted ailerons and bag type fuel tanks,deformation at high speeds turns deleted
Armament 3x20mm, r4m rockets,
Engines jumo213j or db603n
Such and aircraft would be pretty close to the latest western fighters. But it would still have the obselete wing profile of the originally Fw190( with minor modifications)


----------



## spicmart (Feb 17, 2021)

dedalos said:


> The latest versions of the Fw190/Ta152 would be the final german piston engine fighters. Jets would be the replacements. The most advanced possible german fighter that i can imagine would be
> D series fuselage, intergated engine cowling
> Ta152 tail with the enlarged control surfaces
> Ta 152C wings, (21m2 ), with boosted ailerons and bag type fuel tanks,deformation at high speeds turns deleted
> ...



The final incarnation of the Ta 152 would have featured the big Jumo 222 and a new shorter but larger laminar flow wing. This was abandoned due
to the less problematic Jumo 213 of which the J-version would have reached 2900 HP with MW50 and G3 fuel. Imagine that engine running on Allied high octane 130 or 150 fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2021)

A nice "what if," to be sure.

The first Junkers Jumo 222 ran 24 Apr 39. Testing went poorly for the Series I and Junkers went to the Series II. By late 1941, Junkers decided to make more radical changes. The Jumo 222C and D models were running at just under 3,000 hp in summer 1942. Only a handful were built. They then went to the Jumo 222 E and F engines, and they could make 1,930 hp at 9,000 m.

Things appeared to be pretty good except that Allied bombing made production almost impossible. The Jumo 222 G and H were only a few prototypes. The Jumo 222 was a massive and costly failure. Only 289 examples were ever built, none of which saw active service. It seriously hampered German engine design from 1940 to 1942. In the end, there was nothing to show for it and the Luftwaffe was flying updated versions of their pre-war engines. It was lucky for the Allies that the Luftwaffe pursued the Jumo 222, and got nothing from it in the end. There would be serious doubt the Ta 152 would ever have used it.

The Jumo 213J was projected to have 2,350 hp and had 4 valves per cylinder rather than 3 valves as had been the case up until the J model. There was not time to get the Jumo 213J into production before the war ended. They built about 9,000 Jumo 213s, most of which were Jumo 213As (1,750 hp or so). It was a good, solid engine, but they only really ever flew about 4,200 of them, most in twin-engine aircraft.

The only German single-seat aircraft that both had some numbers built and used the Jumo 213 were the Fw 190D series and the very small-run Ta 152 series (67 delivered, 2 were flyable at war’s end). The Fw 190D series had few vices and very good performance. Somewhere around 700 D models delivered to active units. Other than these, the only single seater using the Jumo 213 was the Messerschmitt Me 209V-6 with a total population of 1.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 18, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Jumo 213J was projected to have 2,350 hp and had 4 valves per cylinder rather than 3 valves as had been the case up until the J model. There was not time to get the Jumo 213J into production before the war ended. They built about 9,000 Jumo 213s, most of which were Jumo 213As (1,750 hp or so). It was a good, solid engine, but they only really ever flew about 4,200 of them, most in twin-engine aircraft.



I've seen figures for the 213J ranging from 2400 to 2700 HP. But I've asked Calum Douglas, apparently THE authority figure for Allied and Axis piston engines on the Western Front, and he gave the 2900 HP number.
He rated the Jumo 213J as perhaps the best liquid-cooled piston engine of the war and one with the most modern concepts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 18, 2021)

spicmart said:


> The final incarnation of the Ta 152 would have featured the big Jumo 222 and a new shorter but larger laminar flow wing. This was abandoned due
> to the less problematic Jumo 213 of which the J-version would have reached 2900 HP with MW50 and C3 fuel. Imagine that engine running on Allied high octane 130 or 150 fuel.



The Jumo 222E/F was scheduled for production in 1944/45. It was performing well enough, passing its tests, at 2800hp on B4+MW50 fuel. The decision was that it would be taken of the production schedule if it couldn't reach 3000hp. These kinds of decisions were often taken when allied troops were inside Germany. 

The DB603N was rated at about 2800hp but with C3+MW50 and the Jumo 213J I've seen 2600hp. 2700hp and 2900hp presumably also with C3+MW50.

With these sorts of engines offering 20% more power and even more jet thrust the aircraft would be capable of over 500mph (about 505 for a Ta 152 and 515 for a Fw 190D13/R25. (A Cube Root Law suggests 6% speed increase)

The Jumo 222E/F had a very good multispeed multistage supercharger and despite the the rated power levels being about the same the Jumo 222E/F was probably much better at altitude. It may not have made the aircraft faster because it was a physically larger engine.




SpicyJuan11 said:


> So, to summarize, the German plan for 1945 was having the Fw 190 A-8/A-9 for dealing with Western bombers, Fw 190D-12/D-13 (and later Ta 152C) to fight Western fighters, and the Fw 190A-10 to deal with VVS fighters at low/medium altitude?
> 
> Would have been interesting to know what designs the Germans would have come up with if they had the luxuries of time and resources of the US to deal with the design challenges which all these threats amalgamated into



I think that's how it would have worked out.

Enlarging a wing can't have been a welcome thing from a manufacturing point of view and perhaps that is why the Fw 190A10 didn't progress as fast as the D9, perhaps they used the wing box and wing of the Ta 152C but retained the tail of the Fw 190A or Fw 190D. A wing enlargement had already been carried out b for the Fw 190A6. The A8 and A9 were getting CoG issues developing with the rear tank and extra nose oil cooler armour (A9) or propeller weights (A8) were added. The Liquid cooled variants created a variant a lot faster with excellent high altitude performance.

There was the Ta 152C with BMW801R. The 801R engine incorporated a two stage 4 speed supercharger with intercooling, aftercooling and a variable pitch cooling fan. (Technology from the BMW 802). The engine, work shop was destroyed and the engine program never recovered. It would have been nice to have an engine that didn't loose coolant after 1 hit.

Focke-Wulf and Heinkel was working on ejection seats for the Ta 152 and 190. They got them to the point that the explosive (instead of compressed air) seat was only 19kg heavier than a normal seat. (In volume three of Smith and Creek) so that would have been added.




dedalos said:


> The latest versions of the Fw190/Ta152 would be the final German piston engine fighters. Jets would be the replacements. The most advanced possible German fighter that i can imagine would be
> D series fuselage, integrated engine cowling
> Ta152 tail with the enlarged control surfaces
> Ta 152C wings, (21m2 ), with boosted ailerons and bag type fuel tanks, deformation at high speeds turns deleted
> ...



I doubt the NACA 5 series wings were a serious impediment to level speed, the profile is still quite good today. I also suspect the Ta 152C didn't have the aeroelastic issues of the Fw 190. I think some software war game writer added that into his simulation by extrapolation I've never seen a report of it. The Ta 152H certainly didn't have it and Focke-Wulf understood it.

Nevertheless the Germans knew of laminar wings and they were used on the BV 155 and I believe the Me 309. Laminar type wings proposed for Do 335 and Ta 152. Probably not worth developing for so little gain in the case of the Ta 152

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mad_max (Feb 18, 2021)

Without MW-50 the 190D was around a 380 top speed fighter. To get close to that 426 mph top speed you'd have to push the teat as they say. Doing that most likely would be done only to evade, maybe catch up to a foe and not for dog fighting as your motor could go poof quicker than you think. Nothing worse than no power or fire in a dog fight. Contrary to the arm chair Sim pilots view that you can use WEP/over-boost all the time or until heat and/or the juice used up was normal operating procedure of the motor with no consequences; is a falsity.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 18, 2021)

mad_max said:


> Without MW-50 the 190D was around a 380 top speed fighter.
> 
> [QUOTE="GregP,
> *So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50?*
> ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2021)

I think Calum is, indeed our expert in here on engines, and I have two copies of his book. There's an Amazon story behind that one. Perhaps he IS "Snowy" about now, but I have seen NO evidence of the "grouch" part of his handle. 

But, the Jumo 213F never flew in a production airplane that saw combat. So, if we include an engine that never saw combat as a candidate for anything that could be expected to occur during the war, we're in "what if" territory and not realistic territory. It's OK to speculate, to be sure, but then we're not talking about what realistically could happen during the real event using products that were actually developed into workable war materiel.

If we are being realistic, we'd propose things that maybe happened but were never well-exploited; not pure conjecture. Did they make a Jumo 2123F? Yes. But it never saw light of day deployed in an airplane on active duty and I never saw 2,900 hp reported. I HAVE seen 2,350 hp reported, with 2,450 hp being the target. Multiple instances of 2,350 hp being reported are likely quoting from the same source or article. The "never on active duty" part makes it a non-starter in my book, but it would have likely been a good one had it been produced. 

I am a bit of an unbeliever when it comes to speculation on performance of an airframe with an engine that never saw production. I don't believe the XP-39 went 390 mph during flight test, but I have books that SAY it did. Methinks they are less than truthfully accurate, at least in the case of the XP-39. Perhaps the planned use of the Jumo 213F falls into the XP-39 performance mystery area, too, but I tend to have some faith in German performance calculations of piston airplanes. If performance was greatly exaggerated, it was likely to Hitler, not to service pilots. American, British, and German (as well as any other natilnality) slide rules all get the same answers.


----------



## mad_max (Feb 18, 2021)

But that was still over-boosting the motor over the normal 100% power. At 100% power that mill would still produce the 1726 hp as it would before the kit to increase the boost pressure and even that was not used 100% of the time. That's like saying the Merlin using 100-150 octane which could pull 72-80" of boost in emergencies and claim that as normal 100% power.

Comparing apples to apples is what needs to be done; no matter which country's aircraft tickles your fancy.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 18, 2021)

mad_max said:


> But that was still over-boosting the motor over the normal 100% power. At 100% power that mill would still produce the 1726 hp as it would before the kit to increase the boost pressure and even that was not used 100% of the time. That's like saying the Merlin using 100-150 octane which could pull 72-80" of boost in emergencies and claim that as normal 100% power.
> 
> Comparing apples to apples is what needs to be done; no matter which country's aircraft tickles your fancy.



I'm not sure when over-boosting became a dirty word. Over-boosting was done on purpose, and it mattered. Just like the afterburing matters for decades now.

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


----------



## mad_max (Feb 18, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure when over-boosting became a dirty word. Over-boosting was done on purpose, and it mattered. Just like the afterburing matters for decades now.



Not a dirty word, but a realistic word that means you are pushing the motor past the maximum power that it would normally operate and stay a functional engine. It's not a question of if, but when it will cause major problems that you won't like.

So if you're in a life or death situation, then of course you would use it as your life depended on it and you wouldn't care if the motor came apart. 99% of the time you would never abuse your motor with those high pressures and rpm's. They called those settings Emergency power of some type for a reason. For the Jumo 213 the settings were termed "increased emergency power" and "special emergency power"; now I wonder why that is?


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2021)

Good point, Tomo.

The afterburner DOES and HAS mattered, but it also doesn't tend to "blow up" a jet engine. The worst part of the afterburner is the speed with which the fuel gauge gets to empty, not the possibility you will crash from engine failure while there is still fuel.

Overboosting a big piston could be a non-event that just had to be logged, could be an engine change for the maintenance crew, or could be a nylon letdown ... and you could never tell when the last kind was coming down the pike. So, while WEP was certainly a resource, it also wasn't one you'd use without a very good reason to use it. Afterburner, on the other hand, is kind of normal for jet takeoffs. WEP is definitely not on the menu for piston takeoff.

I'm not saying we shouldn't know the performance at WEP power settings, I'm saying they didn't USE them very often, so the performance at normal or military power was used for the vast majority of piston combats. Like several WWII pilots have said to me, "maximum speed is somethign a test pilot discovered in a factory-fresh, clean airplane with a new prop, not something we used on missions." If you were at WEP, your wingman usually could not stay with you beacause he didn't have a power cushion to stay in formation when you turned away from him. Nobody wanted to lose a wingman in a combat zone and wind up with half the eyes looking around for an ambush. At least not very often. Many times, once was enough to kill you.

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


----------



## mad_max (Feb 18, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure when over-boosting became a dirty word. Over-boosting was done on purpose, and it mattered. Just like the afterburing matters for decades now.



One instance that has been put in writing about what using Special Emergency Power might cause.

"*Czypionka admired both the Mosquito and its crews. "That airplane, it was so beautiful, it flew so well, I almost hated to have to try and shoot at it." In truth, the Nachtjagdgeschwader pilots had little success against the roaming Mosquitos. "They would send us off just before the British were to arrive. Our only hope was to get up to ten or eleven thousand meters and dive on them to catch them. If they were flying higher than eight or nine thousand meters, we had little chance, they were so fast." *

* The young Leutnant nearly killed himself in October 1944, attempting to get a Mosquito. "The controller put me right up in front of a group of them, and I had the altitude to dive on them. One was caught by the searchlights, and I went after him. I was diving on him and he was still almost as fast as I was - it was such a beautiful plane! - so I pushed the throttle into over-boost, into takeoff power. I knew the engine wasn't going to like it, but I wanted to get him." *

*Czypionka dove from eleven to seven thousand meters with the searchlights sticking to the wild-flying Mosquito. Finally, just as he was about to pull into range, "The searchlights lost him and there I was in the darkness. And then, before I could throttle back, the engine exploded!" Oil burst from the engine all over the windscreen, and the engine compartment caught fire. "I was going to bail right out," he recalls, "and I got rid of the hood, but then the wind blew out the fire in the engine. It was definitely dead, but I stuck with it a little longer. I got all my gear and disconnected everything. I was really calm, much moreso than I would have expected. I could see the altimeter read almost five thousand meters when I got up on the back of the canopy, just like they instructed us, and pushed myself up so I would miss the rudder. There I was, falling up into space, and it was so beautiful in the night." He counted through several seconds of free fall, until he estimated his altitude at five hundred meters, at which point he pulled the ripcord.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 18, 2021)

Different nations may have had different standards for over boost. 

For the US the standard was that the engine, on a test stand, had to withstand the rated power for 7 1/2 hours, done 5 minutes at a time with 5 minute cool down periods between each 5 minute WEP run. That was the minimum. A manufacturer could choose to run the engine longer between cool down periods. 
This would be a fresh engine and not one with dozens (or over a hundred) hours on it, except for standard testing hours. 

SOme of these engines were rather sensitive as to the spark plugs used. There were often several different types approved for use but some spark plugs did better during overboost operations than others. 

Even so, US practice was to put a tell tale wire across the throttle so the crew chief would know if WEP was used during the flight and extra maintenance procedures might be used. 
More frequent plug changes were very common.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 19, 2021)

mad_max said:


> Without MW-50 the 190D was around a 380 top speed fighter. To get close to that 426 mph top speed you'd have to push the teat as they say. Doing that most likely would be done only to evade, maybe catch up to a foe and not for dog fighting as your motor could go poof quicker than you think. Nothing worse than no power or fire in a dog fight. Contrary to the arm chair Sim pilots view that you can use WEP/over-boost all the time or until heat and/or the juice used up was normal operating procedure of the motor with no consequences; is a falsity.



You are using data from the flight test campaign when the engine was limited to 1750hp. when the supercharger hadn't been improved and likely a few other issues with the airframe.

Speed was 408 mph with 1900hp, no MW50 needed. Increase power was just a boost increase that took power from 1750->1900.

Water injection "Special Emergency Power" took this to 426mph to 433 mph depending on condition of airframe and the type of MW50 system used (field retrofit blown in by supercharger or junkers fitted pumped in at high pressure). . The 1900 hp rating became indefinite while the 2100hp was 10 minutes continuous followed by a pause of 10 minutes (or latter 5). 

I believe the WEP rating on the BMW801TS was increased to an unlimited period (so long as the emergency shall last) and the temperature warnings didn't exceed limits.

There is a myth that Emergency Power was only available for 3 minutes or so. Possibly originates with the early problems with the SABRE.

10-15 minutes would be more common. Unlimited would also be common.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2021)

mad_max said:


> Not a dirty word, but a realistic word that means you are pushing the motor past the maximum power that it would normally operate and stay a functional engine. It's not a question of if, but when it will cause major problems that you won't like.



War was not a time of 'normal'. So people that were making decisions have had no problem of allowing the engines in service to be pushed beyond the 'normal', for short time, and when it mattered. Some engines were better in this, some countries have had access to 'better' fuel than others, some manufacturers used ADI while some others did not. Everyone was trying to extract extra HP from their engines, results ranged between performance increase and blowing off the engines (and killing pilots/crewmen in worst case). 



> *So if you're in a life or death situation, then of course you would use it as your life depended on it and you wouldn't care if the motor came apart.* 99% of the time you would never abuse your motor with those high pressures and rpm's. They called those settings Emergency power of some type for a reason. For the Jumo 213 the settings were termed "increased emergency power" and "special emergency power"; now I wonder why that is?



(my bold)
The bolded sentence covers a lot.
Jumo 213 have had no 'increased emergency power' - that was BMW 801D/E/S nomenclature (along with Notleistung). For Jumo 213, it was 'Notleistung' (emergency power) and 'Sondernotleistung' (special emergency power). Difference in power required difference in terminology.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> ...
> I believe the WEP rating on the BMW801TS was increased to an unlimited period (so long as the emergency shall last) and the temperature warnings didn't exceed limits.
> There is a myth that Emergency Power was only available for 3 minutes or so. Possibly originates with the early problems with the SABRE.
> 10-15 minutes would be more common. Unlimited would also be common.



Unlimited duration for Emergency power? Please, do tell, if possible without 'I believe' and 'possibly'.


----------



## mad_max (Feb 19, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> War was not a time of 'normal'. So people that were making decisions have had no problem of allowing the engines in service to be pushed beyond the 'normal', for short time, and when it mattered. Some engines were better in this, some countries have had access to 'better' fuel than others, some manufacturers used ADI while some others did not. Everyone was trying to extract extra HP from their engines, results ranged between performance increase and blowing off the engines (and killing pilots/crewmen in worst case).



I've personally in the past 40 years had chats with many (over 30) fighter pilots in the armed forces and most never used WEP in combat. The few that did use it said it was in desperation of usually trying to catch a fleeing enemy or in a non-combat situation to see what that extra power was like. All of them that were behind Merlins said they would operate at 61" of boost in combat though. Try as I might; I never got to have a chat with any German pilots to ask them the same questions.

Contrary to many I'll never accept that Emergency power was ever used over 5% of combat time. You just wouldn't do that to a motor that you need to have faith in to get you back on the ground without a silk ride.




tomo pauk said:


> (my bold)
> The bolded sentence covers a lot.
> Jumo 213 have had no 'increased emergency power' - that was BMW 801D/E/S nomenclature (along with Notleistung). For Jumo 213, it was 'Notleistung' (emergency power) and 'Sondernotleistung' (special emergency power). Difference in power required difference in terminology.



I found this video that was enlightening to me. It's worth the 19 mins. to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2021)

mad_max said:


> I've personally in the past 40 years had chats with many (over 30) fighter pilots in the armed forces and most never used WEP in combat. The few that did use it said it was in desperation of usually trying to catch a fleeing enemy or in a non-combat situation to see what that extra power was like. All of them that were behind Merlins said they would operate at 61" of boost in combat though. Try as I might; I never got to have a chat with any German pilots to ask them the same questions.
> 
> Contrary to many I'll never accept that Emergency power was ever used over 5% of combat time. You just wouldn't do that to a motor that you need to have faith in to get you back on the ground without a silk ride.



I have never spoken in person with any combat pilots. Best I can do is read a host of combat reports noting use of over-boost in order to catch and kill enemy aircraft (= an actual, real thing why fighter aircraft existed and still exist).
German pilots were often very lucky if the engine was capable making the 'book' power at the 1st place, especially if the DB 605A, DB 603A or BMW 801 was under the hood.



> I found this video that was enlightening to me. It's worth the 19 mins. to me.



Thank you for the video.

After all is said and done, seems like there was reasoning behind all of those emergency ratings after all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mad_max (Feb 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> You are using data from the flight test campaign when the engine was limited to 1750hp. when the supercharger hadn't been improved and likely a few other issues with the airframe.
> 
> Speed was 408 mph with 1900hp, no MW50 needed. Increase power was just a boost increase that took power from 1750->1900.



I'm relatively sure HP is PS in the figures your showing. 1750PS = 1726HP 1900PS = 1874HP. Yes I know not much difference and just wanting to be talking apples to apples, plus some on the forum might be new folks who wouldn't know the difference.

As for all motors a boost increase will raise power. On the Jumo 213 (most German engines from what I've read) to get this boost increase they used increased rpm of the motor which of course would increase the boost. They used every ounce of pressure the supercharger would provide at a given rpm and the only way increase boost on the 213A was by using 3250 rpm. In later model Jumo's they added superchargers that would deliver higher pressures without increasing rpm, but none of those saw combat in the 190D.

The US didn't increase the rpm usually to make more boost pressure; but could set up the over-boost protection system that protects the pilot from blowing up his engine, to use the unused boost from the super-charger or turbo. From experience in auto motors you can cause damage from either, but I'd rather add boost only and not push the rpms up. A small displacement motor eats rpm right up. A large displacement motor; no matter if auto, aircraft, etc., doesn't appreciate high rpms very much. The Jumo 213 is a heck of a huge motor with a longer stroke and with lots of weight being thrown around while it's operating.

Which way would be the best to raise boost without causing other problems is another question. I imagine I'd rather have a smaller motor turning 3000 rpm with increased boost than a larger motor with higher rpm to get that higher boost. Just saying.



Koopernic said:


> Water injection "Special Emergency Power" took this to 426mph to 433 mph depending on condition of airframe and the type of MW50 system used (field retrofit blown in by supercharger or junkers fitted pumped in at high pressure). . The 1900 hp rating became indefinite while the 2100hp was 10 minutes continuous followed by a pause of 10 minutes (or latter 5).



I'd have to see documents that state that 1900 PS was normal operating power indefinitely. See my other post with the youtube video) on Power of the Jumo 213.


----------



## mad_max (Feb 19, 2021)

Yes I've seen those pilot reports and just like pilot stories told; they were what the pilot "remembers" at the time he was engaged in catching, shooting or getting shot down. Those stories even include using 75" of boost in the merlin and British pilot reports state they were using 80" of boost.

So we can believe the pilot stories about exceeding the sound barrier with a prop plane? How about coming home on a jug or two missing? The the one where a pilot said his motor was running rough after a combat sortie, then later his mechanic told him a connecting rod exploded and there was just a bunch of metal pieces in the crankcase?



tomo pauk said:


> After all is said and done, seems like there was reasoning behind all of those emergency ratings after all.



I posted that Emergency power was used in times of need; such as closing the gap on a foe, evading or escaping a bad situation any time you were in a desperate situation. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Have you seen any pilot notes that said the foe and me were doing combat maneuvers and I used emergency power while doing it. I ask Bud Anderson what he mean't by pushing the throttle to full power in his story about the one foe at high altitude. His reply; full power mean't 100% power and that is I asked. The answer was 61".

So as I said and I believe it's the proper answer. 99% of flight time in combat was at nominal power and 1% was at emergency powers.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2021)

mad_max said:


> Yes I've seen those pilot reports and just like pilot stories told; they were what the pilot "remembers" at the time he was engaged in catching, shooting or getting shot down. Those stories even include using 75" of boost in the merlin and British pilot reports state they were using 80" of boost.
> 
> So we can believe the pilot stories about exceeding the sound barrier with a prop plane? How about coming home on a jug or two missing? The the one where a pilot said his motor was running rough after a combat sortie, then later his mechanic told him a connecting rod exploded and there was just a bunch of metal pieces in the crankcase?



You are comparing apples and oranges - pilot reports (= official documents) vs. war stories.



> I posted that Emergency power was used in times of need; such as closing the gap on a foe, evading or escaping a bad situation any time you were in a desperate situation. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Have you seen any pilot notes that said the foe and me were doing combat maneuvers and I used emergency power while doing it. I ask Bud Anderson what he mean't by pushing the throttle to full power in his story about the one foe at high altitude. His reply; full power mean't 100% power and that is I asked. The answer was 61".



I've heard you before.
Please refer to dozens of combat reports that cover use of over-boosting, starting from BoB-era reports where pilots reported the throttle lever pushed 'through the gate' - boost over +6.25 psi - with Merlin III under the hood.



> So as I said and I believe it's the proper answer. 99% of flight time in combat was at nominal power and 1% was at emergency powers.



Okay.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 19, 2021)

When Jeffrey Quill reported back to Supermarine after his stint of combat during the Battle of Britain, he said on patrols and normal operational work the squadron pilots always treated their engines with the utmost care and respect -- but when combat was joined they paid no attention to any limitations and taxed the engines to the full.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 19, 2021)

Well i think every skilled pilot have avoided using WEP except life saving measures - WEP it was and still is available in military powerplants as a real "red line" measure. Pilot may use it but he must realizing that price will be almost instant damage to the engine. I talked with former ground crew chief of 131 PAF fighter wing and he told me that Merlins have been ever replaced after overboost usage was reported by pilot - not very affordable situation with limited supply of replacement engines.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 19, 2021)

I am currently putting all the performance information I have on WW2 fighters
on Excel. This thread has stirred up my curiosity on the Fw 190 past what I have
in my files. Tonight I came across a 3 x 5 index card with the following information
concerning the Fw 190D-11.
*Gen. Qu 6 Abt.aircraft distribution plans March 1945.
Thirteen "standard" D-11s & four D-11s with the EZ 42 gun sight were delivered 
to operational units. It is possible that a few more were delivered in April 1945.
Production Fw 190D-11 fighters are known to have been issued to Stab JG 300
(Kommodore Major Rall). II/JG 300 (Major Baier) and the JV 44 Protection Staffel
("Wurgerstaffel") under Lt. Sacksen Berg.
Wing roots: 2 x MG 151, Outer wing: 2 x MK 108. 
Jumo 213F: 2050 PS with MW 50*

I remember this as being on an official distribution report but can't remember the
particulars. Anyone have more information on this?

PS: The reason I am asking is that I have some graphs and charts on the D-11 and 
am planning on adding them to Excel *IF* the information above is accurate. I am only
adding the performance of fighter aircraft that were actually in combat.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> Well i think every skilled pilot have avoided using WEP except life saving measures - WEP it was and still is available in military powerplants as a real "red line" measure. Pilot may use it but he must realizing that price will be almost instant damage to the engine. I talked with former ground crew chief of 131 PAF fighter wing and he told me that Merlins have been ever replaced after overboost usage was reported by pilot - not very affordable situation with limited supply of replacement engines.



"To hell with manuals, we're replacing the engines when we decide so" said no crew chief ever.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> Pilot may use it but he must realizing that price will be almost instant damage to the engine.




Hmmm, engine withstands 7 1/2 hours at WEP power on the test stand (test is stopped then, nobody knows how much further the engine can go) but in the aircraft using such a power setting will cause almost instant damage????

I guess the engine would only last a few minutes at military power as installed in the airplane despite lasting a number of hours on the test stand?

Pilot might only want to use take-off power sparingly (take-off at 90% of power)?

Seriously, the ratings were tested, extensively.
There were procedures for checking the engine, pulling the plugs, checking for metal in the oil, cross checking the engine hours already on the engine, and including how many times WEP had been used before. Engine with a lot of hours might get pulled if WEP used once, New engine with very few hours might get a plug change and be returned to service the next day. 

There are stories of P-38 pilots at the end of the war ferring aircraft pretty much from the factory to the scrap yards and using WEP power from take-off until backing off for landing, no blown engines.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> Well i think every skilled pilot have avoided using WEP except life saving measures - WEP it was and still is available in military powerplants as a real "red line" measure. Pilot may use it but he must realizing that price will be almost instant damage to the engine. I talked with former ground crew chief of 131 PAF fighter wing and he told me that Merlins have been ever replaced after overboost usage was reported by pilot - not very affordable situation with limited supply of replacement engines.


That may be the situation on fighters but most Merlins were put in bombers. If a Lancaster or Halifax lost two engines the remaining two were massively overworked, between throwing out any excess weight and pushing the engines as far as possible the only important factor was maintaining altitude and getting back. The choice was bailing out or possibly blowing up the engines and then bailing out, so long as you stay above a height that you can bail out why wouldn't you risk it? There is massive survivor bias in these anecdotes, we don't read about those whose engines blew up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2021)

I have a total of 3 D-0s, 3 D-1s, 2 D-2s, 1805 D-9s, 17 D-11s, 3 D-12s, and 17 D-13s accepted. I do not have a total for them delivered to active combat units, but I do not believe anywhere near the entire total of D-9s saw active service, and VERY certainly not all at the same time. I'd guestimate maybe a maximum total of about 600 - 700 in operation at most, at the same time. spread over wherever the Luftwaffe wanted them. Likely that was the about the max and was considerably less most of the time.

By that, I mean something similar to the Me 262: We all know there were about 1,430 Me 262s built, but according to Adolf Galland, who certainly should know, there were never more than about 50 - 60 in operation at any one time, and no more than about 300 ever saw combat. That from the guy who was charged with their operation. More than 500 were destroyed by bombing raids before they could leave the factory. Reported kills were either 509 or 542, edepending on who you believe against 100 combat losses.

So, all in all, it didn't do quite as well in combat as the F4F Wildcat, which had an overall 6 : 1 kill-to-loss ratio. I don't have the operational losses, but we KNOW many went down with mechanical issues and likely not a few to running out of fuel. Pilots just weren't used to anything with legs as short as the early jets ... definitely shorter time aloft than a Bf 109, which was the standard for "short range."


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 19, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Unlimited duration for Emergency power? Please, do tell, if possible without 'I believe' and 'possibly'.



Most of what we now know has come to light because of a combination of aircraft restorations and on line gammers improving their simulations. That’s what I have to rely on hence my cautious language, neverthless all are backed by official documents.. What BMW allows differs from what Focke-Wulf Wulf allows differs with what the Luftwaffe technical office allows.

When “increased emergency power without C3 injection” was released for combat use in 1943 it allowed a boost pressure of 1.57 ata in 1st gear and 1.65 ata in second gear. Tests confined the engine did not overheat. Neverthless Caveat restrictions were that the engine were initially set to a 10 minute limit or untill the engine overheats, whichever comes first. The pilot was advised not to use increased emergency power for climbing extended periods when possible. The is in the 190A8 flight manual. It’s clear the concern was overheating and warnings were given not to use it during climbing too long as this would reduced speed, airflow and cooling.

When the 801 TS came in to use to it incorporated improved supercharger fluid dynamics and modifications to improve cooling as well as improved components such as stronger gearbox and from the planned 801E such items as vacuum caste heads. The 1.65 ata time rating became unlimited. (So I’ve read on other forums)

Latter in Jan or Feb 1945 the 801TS was released for 1.82 ata with clarification sent out in March. Not clear on the dates but it did happen.

Another type of emergency power was “increased emergency power with C3 injection” which came into use around the same time, 1943, or a little earlier for jabo ground attack aircaft. It involved injecting C3 fuel into the supercharger to get a charge cooling effect. Because of intake airflow limitations it ceased to increase power above 1500m and use above 1000m was restricted. Fuel was consumed at 60-65 LPM and since a 190 only carried 580L any time limitation was purely hypothetical.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> ...
> When the 801 TU and TS came in to use to it incorporated improved supercharger fluid dynamics and modifications to improve cooling as well as improved components such as stronger gearbox and from the planned 801E such items as vacuum caste heads. The 1.65 ata time rating became unlimited.



Source for the unlimited duration of 1.65 ata for BMW 801?



> Fuel was consumed at 60-65 LPM and since a 190 only carried 580L any time limitation was purely hypothetical.



580L carried by Fw 190 - any source for that?


----------



## Kocur (Feb 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> im not convinced. If Soviet aircaft such as the IL-2 were attacking german supply columns, armour or infantry they would presumably be below 1000m and their escorts of La-7 at maybe 2000m. In that case the Power to Weight ratio advantage would likely remain. The wing loading as well. I’m not exactly aware of the typical engagement altitude but that sounds likely.


First of all, the La-5 and La-7 job units was not Il-2 close escort. That was Yak units job. If Las participated, they did high cover.

Apart from that, main Las units job was escorting bombers and fighter sweeps.

As to heights at which Las usually operated, let me us words of a VVS vet:


> - And yet, did not our fighters try to take over German tactics?
> - In its pure form - no. Then, when we had more fighters, we happened, and singled out a "clearing group", whose task was to get ahead and tie up enemy fighters in the bombing area (just like this did the Germans). Such a group did not always stand out. Basically - with cover for bombers (attack aircraft in the overwhelming majority cases were managed with one direct cover). Of the "yaks", the "clearing group" was rarely made, usually from the "aircobras" or "lavochkins". It was smart. First, of these three types of fighters The yak, as a close cover fighter, was the best. Secondly, the "clearing group" often entered the battle at 4500-5000, and sometimes up to 7000 meters. For a yak with its low-altitude engine, this is a bit high.


It's form excellent Artem Drabkin's book "Ja drialsa s asami Luftwaffe" - a collection of interviews with VVS veterans (sorry for Google translation).

As you can see, engine power at 4500-5000 meters was vital for La-5 or La-7, not at ground level and not even at say 2000 meteres.

Il-2 attack was a fragment of a mission, most of which was flying towards the target and back. If weather permitted they would go to the targer at 1000-1500 meters, if not, at tree tops, which was also how they usually retreated. Yaks of close escort rarely exceeded 2000 meters.



Koopernic said:


> From my understanding escort fighters weaved to maintain speed. i can not see combat taking place between escort fighters and interceptors at 4000 meters if the ground attack aircaft are at 1000.


Soviet fighters were very short-legged if they used high power settings. I guess that was the reason why Il-2 close escort didn't weave:


> The Sturmoviks were covered at their speed, we rarely weaved


( "Штурмовиков прикрывали на их скорости, редко когда делали «качели».".)


----------



## Milosh (Feb 20, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> 580L carried by Fw 190 - any source for that?



Good question. 524 ltr in 2 main tanks plus 85 ltr in aux tank = 609 ltr


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 20, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Good question. 524 ltr in 2 main tanks plus 85 ltr in aux tank = 609 ltr



Probably for the Fw 190 A6 it was an 85 (associated with GM-1 use as well)

For the A8 
http://www.qattara.it/Documents/fw190a8.pdf
524 in two main and 115 for the auxiliary would be 639
Possibly not all usable.


----------



## dedalos (Feb 20, 2021)

GregP said:


> I have a total of 3 D-0s, 3 D-1s, 2 D-2s, 1805 D-9s, 17 D-11s, 3 D-12s, and 17 D-13s accepted. I do not have a total for them delivered to active combat units, but I do not believe anywhere near the entire total of D-9s saw active service, and VERY certainly not all at the same time. I'd guestimate maybe a maximum total of about 600 - 700 in operation at most, at the same time. spread over wherever the Luftwaffe wanted them. Likely that was the about the max and was considerably less most of the time.
> 
> By that, I mean something similar to the Me 262: We all kinow there were about 1,430 Me 262s built, but according to Adolf Galland, who certainly should know, there were never more than about 50 - 60 in operation at any one time, and no more than about 300 ever saw combat. That from the guy who was charged with their operation. More than 500 were destroyed by bombing raids before they could leave the factory. Reported kills were either 509 or 542, edepending on who you believe against 100 combat losses.
> 
> So, all in all, it didn't do quite as well in combat as the F4F Wildcat, which had an overall 6 : 1 kill-to-loss ratio. I don't have the operational losses, but we KNOW many went down with mechanical issues and likely not a few to running out of fuel. Pilots just weren't used to anything with legs as short as the early jets ... definitely shorter time aloft than a Bf 109, which was the standard for "short range."


 
So the conclusion is thst F4F wilcat is superior to the Me262


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 20, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> "To hell with manuals, we're replacing the engines when we decide so" said no crew chief ever.


of course every time when pilot have decided to use WEP the engine is in "straight out of assembly line condition" like during stand test????? and of course ground test is replicating all combat loads imposed to powerplant?? come on guys - please be little bit more realistic and slightly with bigger distance to "engine manual said" type knowledge. I'm more in position to believe in opinion expressed by guy who spend 35 years in aviation business including 6 years maintaining airplanes in war condition, than to what you are able to find in what left out of manuals. I think none of us have doubts that theory sometimes is quite far from reality - aviation in general, and topic of this particular discussion is no exception from this rule.


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That may be the situation on fighters but most Merlins were put in bombers. If a Lancaster or Halifax lost two engines the remaining two were massively overworked, between throwing out any excess weight and pushing the engines as far as possible the only important factor was maintaining altitude and getting back. The choice was bailing out or possibly blowing up the engines and then bailing out, so long as you stay above a height that you can bail out why wouldn't you risk it? There is massive survivor bias in these anecdotes, we don't read about those whose engines blew up.[/QUOTE
> excellent comment - that was my point - WEP was thought especially for cases like this - it is matter of picking what is more important - proceeding with your mission or engine - in combat reality economic damage to the equipment is part of calculated risk factor but it does not means that it was part of everyday flying drill (you have something like this but please never use - unless you are really forced to)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 20, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There are stories of P-38 pilots at the end of the war ferring aircraft pretty much from the factory to the scrap yards and using WEP power from take-off until backing off for landing, no blown engines.



WEP is not a matter just putting engine control lever in specific position - it is also matter of changing engine tune (removing WEP limiters) - factory personnel haven't been authorized to do so on military accepted airplanes - i wouldn't like to said that events described by you haven't happened D let's be realistic) but it wasn't common practice for sure.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 20, 2021)

J_P_C said:


> of course every time when pilot have decided to use WEP the engine is in "straight out of assembly line condition" like during stand test????? and of course ground test is replicating all combat loads imposed to powerplant?? come on guys - please be little bit more realistic and slightly with bigger distance to "engine manual said" type knowledge. I'm more in position to believe in opinion expressed by guy who spend 35 years in aviation business including 6 years maintaining airplanes in war condition, than to what you are able to find in what left out of manuals. I think none of us have doubts that theory sometimes is quite far from reality - aviation in general, and topic of this particular discussion is no exception from this rule.



I have no problems with people having opinons, and sometimes not doing the things by the book. However, a story of outright replacing engines when WER (or it's equivalent, depending on nomenclature of a service/county) was used belongs to the same universe with XP-39 making 400 mph and Yak-3 deciding the outcome of the Kursk battle.


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 20, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> I have no problems with people having opinons, and sometimes not doing the things by the book. However, a story of outright replacing engines when WER (or it's equivalent, depending on nomenclature of a service/county) was used belongs to the same universe with XP-39 making 400 mph and Yak-3 deciding the outcome of the Kursk battle.


agree 100% - this is why discussions like this one always leading to the dead end - combat reality is far too complex to give answer based on numbers from manuals.


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2021)

Post #167, saying the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently, goes against every other reference I have read, and all of the Soviet reports I have read that mention altitude. That amounts to very many reports of heavily low-altitude operation.

Of course they had a few high-altitude squadrons operating sometimes experimental high-altitude fighters and fighter prototypes, but they didn't represent the vast majority of PVO or even VVS. The MiG-3 was capable of higher operation and was likely the most often operated at higher altitudes. The I-211 (MiG-9) was capable, too, but they only built 1. The La-5 was also high-altitude capable but, according to most of what I have read, did not often fight there. The La-7 had a service ceiling about 3,000 feet lower than the La-5. The I-222 and I-224 were very-high-altitude prototypes, but they only made 1 of each.

The Pashini I-21 could get decently high, but they only made 5. Nobody is going to seriously suggest the Pe-3 was a high-altitude unit. It may seem unlikely that a biplane could be a high-altitude fighter, but the I-153 had a service ceiling a bit over 37,000 feet and they made 3,437 of them. But I have never seen them described as being assigned to high-altitude missions. The Polikarpov I-180 could get to over 37,000 feet, but they only made 16 of them. The I-185 could not even get to 34,000 feet and only 4 were built. The Polikarpov ITP could almost reach 39,000 feet, but development was slow and other aircraft gave similar performance, so they only made 2 and cancelled it in 1944.

The Sukhoi SU-2/I-330 could get above 42,000 feet, but the turbos gave a LOT of trouble and they only built 1. They only built 1 Su-3 and 1 Su-5, too. Thgere was 1 Su-6 that was converted into an Su-7 (designation letter reused for the jet Fitter), but it was only a prototype. There was only 1 Tairov Ta-3 built, too.

The Yak-3 could get high, but was not generally used there. The Yak-7 and Yak-9 could also get 34 - 36,000 feet, but also were seldom used for high-altitude work. They were sort of like the P-40. They could get there, but really didn't have fighter-like performance if they did. The Borovkov-Florov I-207 could reach 34,000 feet, but they only built 1 and it was a biplane.

While the USSR DID have high-altitude capability, my reading and talking with 3 former Soviet VVS pilots tells me they heavily preferred NOT to use it very much. They operated very much mostly in support of ground operations, which generally don't manage to get to high altitudes.


----------



## Ovod (Feb 20, 2021)

Kocur said:


> First of all, the La-5 and La-7 job units was not Il-2 close escort. That was Yak units job. If Las participated, they did high cover.
> 
> Apart from that, main Las units job was escorting bombers and fighter sweeps.
> 
> ...



Wouldn't you need oxygen equipment to fly at 7,000 metres (23,000 feet) - or even to reach 5,000 metres (16,700 feet)? At what altitude is an oxygen supply a necessity? I don't think many Soviet pilots had oxygen equipment on their aircraft.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 20, 2021)

War Emergency use in the VVS.

Conversations with N.Golodnikov. Part Three. P-39 Airacobra and Yaks – Lend-Lease

Question: Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra (P-39) really contend with the BF-109G and Fw-190
in aerial combat?
Nikolay: Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed
all the German fighters.
I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17
air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability.
It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it.* Either you flew it in such 
a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed
120 hours of engine life.*


----------



## Kocur (Feb 20, 2021)

GregP said:


> Post #167, saying the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently, goes against every other reference I have read, and all of the Soviet reports I have read that mention altitude. That amounts to very many reports of heavily low-altitude operation.


Said post doesn't say they did that frequently. In the scale of whole VVS and whole war that was surely infrequent. I mean vast majority of VVS combat was indeed at low altitude, as it was indeed closely related to Il-2s and fighters attacking ground targets (the latter early, often armed with RS rockets). Those flew low and fighters escorting them did too. Only later in war Soviets had enough fighters to provide high cover and escorting twin-engined bombers was relatively minor proportion of all missions.

Please note that my post was in conversation about La-7, a late-war type.



GregP said:


> Of course they had a few high-altitude squadrons operating sometimes experimental high-altitude fighters and fighter prototypes, but they didn't represent the vast majority of PVO or even VVS.


Mr. Kozhemyako fought in frontline air armies.



GregP said:


> The La-5 was also high-altitude capable but, according to most of what I have read, did not often fight there. The La-7 had a service ceiling about 3,000 feet lower than the La-5.


Well, there's no reason for that, since engine was the same as was airframe geometry and La-7 was lighter.

Service ceiling was that important in practice as it was about 10000 meters. What mattered more was that La-5 FN and La-7 reached their top speed at first supercharger speed at about 3000 meters and at second at about 6000 meters. 



GregP said:


> While the USSR DID have high-altitude capability, my reading and talking with 3 former Soviet VVS pilots tells me they heavily preferred NOT to use it very much. They operated very much mostly in support of ground operations, which generally don't manage to get to high altitudes.


That's surely true. Yet there were times and units in frontline air force which operated as high as 4500 - 5000 m or even 7000 meters. Those surely were exceptions in the scale of the whole war and whole frontline VVS.
Another piece from Drabkin's book (again, sorry for the Google translation):


> During the battles on the Kursk Bulge, the "cobras" of our corps initially occupied a height of 5 thousand meters. They spent there all day, and the Germans just didn't go to this height. This is understandable - "Messers" go where the attack aircraft (and therefore the "yaks"). We (like the regiment armed with "lavochkins") led the hardest air battles, losses were heavy, but the "cobras" land, and almost every report of their pilots: "There were no enemy aircraft." The corps commander raged: “How was it not ?! And where do the "yaks" and "lavochkins" find Germans ?! " "Aircobras" at that time shot down only those who left us to the height. This is how they caught single "messers", clamped them in pincers and knocked them down. Then the corps commander began to set tasks for "cobras" at low altitude - 3,000 and below. And losses of the cobras went up, because at this altitude, the cobra's maneuverability is not very different from the maneuverability of the sturmovik. It's good that this happened already at the end of the Battle of Kursk, otherwise the losses of the "Cobras" would have been even greater. Above 3 thousand, the "Airacobra" greatly added, and above 4 thousand, the advantage from the "yak" was already unambiguously transferred to the "Aircobra".


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2021)

There well may be no reason for a lower service ceiling of La-7, yet is reported that way in most references. Could be induction, could be airfoil, could be different propeller. I wasn't trying to justify it or even say I agreed with it, I was stating a fact as reported from a reference; the La-7s service celing is about 3,000 feet lower than the La-5s in many references. As far as fighting in front-line armies, the PVO and VVS WERE front line air entities. 

I did not mean to imply in my post that they never operated at high altitude, just that they avoided it for the most part. They certainly investigated high altitude combat with a rather large number of high-altitude prototypes. They just didn't seem to follow through and produce them to any great degree other than the MiG-3 and possibly the Ha-5. I think less than 15% of the high-altitude aircraft were actually used that way most of the time, and there weren't really all than many times they needed to get high over the Russian steppes. They wouldn't have BEEN in the steppes if there weren't German troops advancing through them. So the troops were the natural targets, there being almost nothing else there in the steppes other than animal herds, very tall grass, mud, and flies.


----------



## J_P_C (Feb 21, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Wouldn't you need oxygen equipment to fly at 7,000 metres (23,000 feet) - or even to reach 5,000 metres (16,700 feet)? At what altitude is an oxygen supply a necessity? I don't think many Soviet pilots had oxygen equipment on their aircraft.


3600m is the celling when you are starting observing oxygen starvation symptoms, right now this is the limit, above equipping airplane with life support system is obligatory

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 21, 2021)

GregP said:


> Post #167, saying the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently, goes against every other reference I have read, and all of the Soviet reports I have read that mention altitude. That amounts to very many reports of heavily low-altitude operation.
> *Low and medium altitudes is where the majority of combat was conducted on the
> Eastern Front. Nikolay mentions in his interview that he flew as high as 8,000 m.
> in the P-39 with no trouble. He does not expand on what the circumstances were
> ...


*Agree. The Germans were forced to come to them.*


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 21, 2021)

[


GregP said:


> Post #167, saying the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently, goes against every other reference I have read, and all of the Soviet reports I have read that mention altitude. That amounts to very many reports of heavily low-altitude operation.



The author of post #167 quoted VVS pilot memoirs with the reference to one type of operation. Neither the author of the post nor the VVS pilot said that "the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently".
But even if someone says something like that, I think that we need to agree on terminology before arguing. What is high and low on that theater and what is frequently and seldom.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 21, 2021)

Then the corps commander began to set tasks for "cobras" at low altitude - 3,000 and below. And losses of the cobras went up, _because at this altitude, the cobra's maneuverability is not very different from the maneuverability of the sturmovik.
*The Cobra's losses went up because it was seeing more combat at the lower levels
NOT because of a lack of maneuverability. The Cobra did just fine on the deck.
Just ask Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin who scored most of his 59 kills in the P-39 and
chose it over the Yak-3, Yak-9 or even La-7 for his squadron because of its 
ruggedness, performance and reliability.*_


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 21, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> Then the corps commander began to set tasks for "cobras" at low altitude - 3,000 and below. And losses of the cobras went up, _because at this altitude, the cobra's maneuverability is not very different from the maneuverability of the sturmovik.
> *The Cobra's losses went up because it was seeing more combat at the lower levels
> NOT because of a lack of maneuverability. The Cobra did just fine on the deck.
> Just ask Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin who scored most of his 59 kills in the P-39 and
> ...



Inferior agility of P-39 at lower altitudes is mentioned more than once in various Russian language sources. Saying that I have never seen any test results confirming or disproving that. 
As for Pokryshkin, the (higher) altitude was one of the components of his famous "altitude-speed-maneuver-fire" formula. It was typical to deploy P-39s at altitudes higher than other frontline fighters.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 22, 2021)

Dimlee said:


> Inferior agility of P-39 at lower altitudes is mentioned more than once in various Russian language sources. Saying that I have never seen any test results confirming or disproving that.
> *There is no question that the P-39N/Q was not as agile as the Yak-3 and La-7. They both had excellent
> roll rates and the Airacobra did not. They could both out climb the Airacobra also. The P-39 could
> out dive the Soviet fighters. The P-39(D)'s best roll rate was 75 deg./sec. at 235 mph, less than
> ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Feb 24, 2021)

Interesting. I wonder why the VVS gave right and left turn times for German fighters but not for their own planes.

Why is the 1944 Yak-3 so much better than the version from 1943?

I'm amazed that the Me 109 is worse even though it had similar wing loading than the La-7. Might that be because of higher power loading?

Normal weight for A-8 and D-9 should be similar and the D-9 is said to be a much better turner. Only at high speed though. All 190s were 
horrible low speed turners.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 24, 2021)

spicmart said:


> Interesting. I wonder why the VVS gave right and left turn times for German fighters but not for their own planes.
> 
> Why is the 1944 Yak-3 so much better than the version from 1943?
> 
> ...



My assumption on the right / left data for some planes and not others is that it’s only published when relevant (aircraft that have a significant difference between left and right).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2021)

spicmart said:


> ...
> Why is the 1944 Yak-3 so much better than the version from 1943?
> ...



The 1st series-made Yak-3 was delivered in February 1944. In 1943, there were just a few prototypes around.
Initial batches of Yak-3 were heavier than prototype, and about 10 mph slower. The low quality of manufacture rendered 800 of Yak-3 being withdrawn from operations. A few batches, manufactured in 1944, were with one cannon + one HMG.

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


----------



## spicmart (Feb 24, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> My assumption on the right / left data for some planes and not others is that it’s only published when relevant (aircraft that have a significant difference between left and right).
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



The Dora was a quite good turner, only at high speed though. IIRC in that it could almost compete with the Spitfire Mk XIV in a right hand turn. Reason was that its propeller turned to the right and the Spitfire Mk XIV to the left.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 24, 2021)

*I forgot to add that the P-39's fire power was another big reason that Pokryshkin chose it.
One of his friends was killed in a landing accident when his La-7s landing gear failed. That
was a main reason Pokryshkin had his squadron remain with the P-39.*



spicmart said:


> Interesting. I wonder why the VVS gave right and left turn times for German fighters but not for their own planes.
> *I have several VVS aircraft with right & left hand turn times. They just were not always
> listed.*
> 
> ...



*Who said the D-9 was a much better turner?*

*Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary
Volume Two 1943-1945". December 17,1944; "The new airplane lacked the high turn rate
and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. Its 2,240 hp*
with MW 50 gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and*
*dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with
tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was a bit faster.
* Actually 2,100 PS.*

*Page 121 Long-Nose by Deitmar Hermann: 
"Take-off and climb were rather better than in the A-8. It was possible to make tighter 
turns before the onset of flow separation. In a dive, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8
with its drag-producing radial engine"*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 24, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> That
> was a main reason Pokryshkin had his squadron remain with the P-39.



Just for the sake of accuracy. Not the squadron but the whole division.

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


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 24, 2021)

I was in a hurry. So, now that I have the time, the following is concerning Aleksandr
Pokryshkin and his decision to stay with the Airacobra:

"Finally, in 1944, he found an aircraft that he was willing to convert to: the Lavochkin
La-7. One of his close friends, Soviet 50 kill ace Alexander Klubov, was killed in a landing
mishap while converting to the La-7. The crash was blamed on the malfunction of the
plane's hydraulic system. Pokryshkin subsequently cancelled his *regiment's* conversion,
and there are multiple reports that they instead began flying Bell P-63 Kingcobras."

I was wondering when another off-topic A/C (P-63) was going to be mentioned to
counter the off-topic Fw 190A-8 mentioned earlier. ...or even the Yak-9U...?


----------



## spicmart (Feb 24, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> *I forgot to add that the P-39's fire power was another big reason that Pokryshkin chose it.
> One of his friends was killed in a landing accident when his La-7s landing gear failed. That
> was a main reason Pokryshkin had his squadron remain with the P-39.*
> 
> ...



I read it a couple of times, here, there (once in a book by Heinz Nowarra) that it turned better.due to more power and better aerodynamics.
That contradicts other sources like the one you stated. Donald Caldwell, did he interview German pilots about that?
Just by going b y intuition I would rate the rate of roll as not that much worse. Later Doras were to have boosted ailerons.
And if its turn rate at speed narrows down to the Spit 14's it should well be better than the Antons.

What does it mean that it makes "tighter turns before the onset of flow separation? Don't know about it.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 24, 2021)

What does it mean that it makes "tighter turns before* the onset of flow separation?* Don't know about it.[/QUOTE]

*That is an excellent question. Biff, are you out there? We could use your experience here sir.*


----------



## Milosh (Feb 24, 2021)

Flow separation. The air flowing over the wing, loose and the wing stalls.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 24, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> What does it mean that it makes "tighter turns before* the onset of flow separation?* Don't know about it.



*That is an excellent question. Biff, are you out there? We could use your experience here sir.*[/QUOTE]

I believe Milosh is correct and that is referring to the stall. IIRC the FW-190 would bite in a stall (wing would drop dramatically). Also a reduced / idle power stall will not usually be as abrupt as a power on. High power aggravated by abrupt pulls can be even worse.

Modern fighters will stall, but usually that word isn’t used in the debrief as you fight well past / below flying airspeed. Buffet occurs prior to the stall, and depending on weight, speed, g load, external configuration (assuming missiles and no tanks) could start at 350+ kts and continue to below 100kts ( and still hold level flight or climb at that speed). I recall in excess of +60 degrees of pitch and airspeed in the vicinity of 65-70kts while climbing (LOW fuel weight, 5k altitude, and an early A model with no bullets, 1 training heat seeker missile, and missing electronic gear - really light jet).

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Koopernic (Feb 25, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> *That is an excellent question. Biff, are you out there? We could use your experience here sir.*
> 
> I believe Milosh is correct and that is referring to the stall. IIRC the FW-190 would bite in a stall (wing would drop dramatically). Also a reduced / idle power stall will not usually be as abrupt as a power on. High power aggravated by abrupt pulls can be even worse.
> 
> ...



The Fw 190A had a twin spar wing. This structure provided a torsional rigid wing that didn't have a tendency for aileron reversal hence the legendary high roll rate. Unfortunately, despite its rigidity when under high load at high G the wing tips twisted so as to *increase* the angle of attack. This could bring on a stall with limited annunciation and flip into a part spin, however once the load was of the aircraft recovered quickly. Fock-Wulf pilots used it as an escape manoeuvre. (Norbert Hanning describes using this) Washout was just over 2 degrees at the 87.5% mark. In a low G stall (say while landing) the Fw 190 stall was mild and well annunciated. Allied test pilots commented on it but it seems the German once did develop a sense of incipient stall.

Interestingly the Spitfire's single spar wing tended to aileron reversal however its aeroelastic properties under load must have been the opposite and it twisted to decrease angle of attack therefore delaying wing tip stall. Fock-Wulf was aware of the issue and it seems it disappeared in the Ta 152H, the aircraft reputedly mushing into the stall.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Feb 25, 2021)

KOOPERNIC. Indeed the Luftwaffe Flugzeugführer noted that the Dora stalled very easily and used it as an evasive manoeuver no enemy plane could emulate. 1500 m of height loss was needed for recovery though. As mentioned in Urbanke's book.

Maybe the lengthening of the rear fuselage contributes to a tighter turn, too. Leverage increased.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 25, 2021)

Added length makes an airplane less maneuverable, not more maneuverable, in turning flight.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 25, 2021)

[QUOTE="Koopernic, post:
When “increased emergency power without C3 injection” was released for combat use in 1943 it allowed a boost pressure of 1.57 ata in 1st gear and 1.65 ata in second gear. 
*I have put together a quick reference for the Fw 190/Ta 152. The very limited sources I have 
show that in mid-1943 BMW cleared C3 injection for low blower and 1.65 and on 20 Jan.
1944 BMW cleared C3 injection for high blower. In July 1944 the BMW 801D-2 became 
equipped for emergency power boosting of 1.58 & 1.65 without C3 injection. I do not know
which S/C, high or low received which boost pressure. Please elaborate & clarify if you 
have that information.*

When the 801 TS came in to use to it incorporated improved supercharger fluid dynamics and modifications to improve cooling as well as improved components such as stronger gearbox and from the planned 801E such items as vacuum caste heads. The 1.65 ata time rating became unlimited. (So I’ve read on other forums)

Latter in Jan or Feb 1945 the 801TS was released for 1.82 ata with clarification sent out in March. Not clear on the dates but it did happen.
*Koopernic, do you have official document information on when boosing to 1.65 and 1.82
commenced? All I have at this time is some performance testing at these settings.
*

Another type of emergency power was “increased emergency power with C3 injection” which came into use around the same time, 1943, or a little earlier for jabo ground attack aircaft. It involved injecting C3 fuel into the supercharger to get a charge cooling effect. Because of intake airflow limitations it ceased to increase power above 1500m and use above 1000m was restricted. Fuel was consumed at 60-65 LPM and since a 190 only carried 580L any time limitation was purely hypothetical.[/QUOTE]


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 25, 2021)

GregP said:


> Added length makes an airplane less maneuverable, not more maneuverable, in turning flight.



Greg,

I agree with that statement but wonder if the CG was moved or allowed to sit further aft, which would give the plane better initial pitch response, as well as a better ability to hold speed in turns?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Milosh (Feb 26, 2021)

Why was the rear fuselage extended on the D-9?


----------



## GregP (Feb 26, 2021)

Hi Biff,
I was thinking of CG. No matter how long the fuselage is, there is a definite CG range.

I'm also thinking of the moment and moment of inertia. If the engine is situated farther forward (long fuselage), then the pitch moment of inertia, AND the engine moment are both greater, making it very hard to pitch as quickly as a shorter airplane. Of course, you COULD make a super-light fuselage and put a very big horizontal tail on and airplane and fly safely with a very rearward CG, but then you aren't talking about a fighter as we knew them in WWII.

Here's an example of a forward wing and long tail moment.






Yes, it flies, but it isn't exactly a fighter. Here's the other end of the spectrum:




The wing is WAY aft, as it most of the weight. The engines are aft of the wing trailing edge. The canard has to lift quite a bit, but there is a normal elevator at the rear. Nobdoy would mistake this aircraft as a maneuverable fighter.

For the WWII fighter world, we are talking about maybe 27 - 33% MAC for the most part, an aspect ratio of (5.2 - 6.5) : 1 or so, and normal percentages of wing area for the tail volume. Putting a long fuselage on an existing fighter wing almost didn't happen except for the Fw 190D series and Ta 152 series, which are essentially the same animal. The only other ones I can think of readily were the P-40 developed from the P-36 and the Ki-100 developed from the Ki-61.

The P-40 was less maneuverable in turning flight than the P-36 because of the engine moment / moment of inertia increase, and the Ki-100 was more maneuverable in turning flight than the Ki-61 for the opposite reason. So, I'm just thinking about real-world examples as a reasonability check. I'm sure there is an example of a longer airplane that was / is more maneuverable than the shorter version of the same airplane, but I'm wondering if it is a fighter of typical WWII fighter aircraft mass and loading, or perhaps it is an experimental unit not suited as a fighter.

Just thinking out loud here, no agenda.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 26, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> I was in a hurry. So, now that I have the time, the following is concerning Aleksandr
> Pokryshkin and his decision to stay with the Airacobra:
> 
> "Finally, in 1944, he found an aircraft that he was willing to convert to: the Lavochkin
> ...



There are different versions of Klubov's death. "Official" and the only one in the Soviet period says that the wheel of his La-7 went into the crater, the aircraft overturned and the pilot died because of the skull's fracture. Stories about malfunctions appeared in 1990s but as I remember, they were not confirmed by any document.
Pokryshkin was in charge of the division (9th GIAD) since June 1944 while Klubov died in November 1944. Interesting, that some Soviet stories clearly mention Pokryshkin as a commander of the regiment and Klubov as his deputy in November, despite that Pokryshkin biography was known in all details. I think there is something fishy and we still do not know the true details of the accident. Not very surprising, - if you know the Soviet history, you know what I mean.
No, P-63 was not operated at the Eastern Front. But at least one of the Pokryshkin's division regiment (104 GIAP) was equipped with P-63 after WWII.

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


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 26, 2021)

if i remember right the P-63 was not operated in the soviet western front but was operated in the soviet eastern front 

i hope is clear )

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 27, 2021)

Loading...
Dimlee my friend you are absolutely correct about the many stories
of Klubov's death. Here is another one;
"On the morning of 1 November, some pilots of the 16 GIAP made flight tests on La-7s
at the airport of Jezowe, in Poland, close to the front line.
The fourth flight of that day was made by Cap. Klubuv, a very skilled pilot that made a
superb acrobatic exhibition to demonstrate the characteristics of the new plane. His
flight ended in (a) fatal way. During the landing run, a cross wind pushed the plane out
of the runway, where it flipped on its back, killing the pilot."

aircrewremembered.com/pokryshkin-aleksandr.html
Another story concerning the VVS use of the P-63.
"Pokryshkin subsequently cancelled his regiment's conversion (to La-7), and there
are multiple reports that they instead began flying Bell P-63 Kingcobras."
"By the lend-lease agreement with United States, the Soviet Union was not allowed
to use P-63s against Germany; they were given only to be used in the eventual
battle with Japan. Thus it is quite understandable that no mention of this appears
in any official records. However, personal accounts of German pilots and flack
crewmen who encountered P-63s in the skies of Eastern Prussia as well as the
memoirs of one of the pilots in Pokryshkin's squadron appear to confirm that
claim. It is reported that 9th IAD was given some 36 P-63s but these were not
used while the fighting was in progress."

I am very much in agreement with Dimlee, that the Soviet government made
the truth a hard thing to find.

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


----------



## Juha3 (Mar 2, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> ...
> aircrewremembered.com/pokryshkin-aleksandr.html
> Another story concerning the VVS use of the P-63.
> "Pokryshkin subsequently cancelled his regiment's conversion (to La-7), and there
> ...



IMHO without photos of P-63 wreck(s) from E Prussia I would not to put too much weight on German pilots or AA gunners accounts on what they saw in the skies of Eastern Prussia. Humans tended to saw what they expected, up to USN pilots seeing Bf 109s in the Pacific, was that in Coral Sea or Midway. Misidentifications of enemy planes were common. Much worse identification errors occurred than mixing P-39Q with P-63.

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


----------



## GregP (Mar 2, 2021)

Also, after the war was over, the Soviets COULD use P-63s anywhere, and it is possible a P-63 wreck in the "wrong place" could be post-war. It is also possible the Soviets used the P-63 werever they wanted them. Tough to tell for sure. 
Cheers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 2, 2021)

GregP said:


> Also, after the war was over, the Soviets COULD use P-63s anywhere, and it is possible a P-63 wreck in the "wrong place" could be post-war. It is also possible the Soviets used the P-63 werever they wanted them. Tough to tell for sure.
> Cheers.



Exactly. There were definitely P-63s in VVS units in post-war Austria, for example.


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 2, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> IMHO without photos of P-63 wreck(s) from E Prussia I would not to put too much weight on German pilots or AA gunners accounts on what they saw in the skies of Eastern Prussia. Humans tended to saw what they expected, up to USN pilots seeing Bf 109s in the Pacific, was that in Coral Sea or Midway. Misidentifications of enemy planes were common. Much worse identification errors occurred than mixing P-39Q with P-63.



German pilots reported "Martin bombers" and "Boeing fighters" on the Eastern Front. Soviet and even post-Soviet/Russian historians wrote about He-113 in the Battle of Moscow. Alexander Yakovlev wrote in his memoirs about He-100 operated by LW in 1941. There was one Finnish pilot who claimed P-38 in 1943 or 1944 if I'm not mistaken.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Mar 2, 2021)

Dimlee said:


> German pilots reported "Martin bombers" and "Boeing fighters" on the Eastern Front. Soviet and even post-Soviet/Russian historians wrote about He-113 in the Battle of Moscow. Alexander Yakovlev wrote in his memoirs about He-100 operated by LW in 1941. There was one Finnish pilot who claimed P-38 in 1943 or 1944 if I'm not mistaken.



IIRC VVS-KBF pilots operating from their airbase near Hanko in 1941 claimed among others 30 Finnish Spitfires. Probably because they were not yet aware that Finns had got Curtiss Hawk 75As but probably had hear that Finns had tried to acquire Spitfires before the Winter War.

Yes, Juutilainen claimed 2 I-153s and a P-38D on 10 July 1943 near Seiskari/Ceckap, according to him they were part of a big Soviet formation (c. 15 I-153s, 2 Pe-2s and 2 "P-38Ds"), VVS-KBF reported no losses, not even encounters with enemy planes but Soviet ground observers reported 7 enemy planes performing reconnaissance flights over Isles area during the day and 10 I-153s from 10 GvIAP KBF transferred from Seiskari to Kronstadt on that day. IIRC Intelligence had warned Finnish pilots of possibility of encountering Soviet Lightnings little earlier. So...


----------



## Just Schmidt (Mar 2, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Yes, Juutilainen claimed 2 I-153s and a P-38D on 10 July 1943 near Seiskari/Ceckap, according to him they were part of a big Soviet formation (c. 15 I-153s, 2 Pe-2s and 2 "P-38Ds"), VVS-KBF reported no losses, not even encounters with enemy planes but Soviet ground observers reported 7 enemy planes performing reconnaissance flights over Isles area during the day and 10 I-153s from 10 GvIAP KBF transferred from Seiskari to Kronstadt on that day. IIRC Intelligence had warned Finnish pilots of possibility of encountering Soviet Lightnings little earlier. So...



I-153s, Pe-2s and P-38s flying together in formation is a spectacle I'd very much like to see...


----------



## GregP (Mar 2, 2021)

I know for sure that London Bridge is in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, U.S.A., too ...


----------



## spicmart (Mar 9, 2021)

CORSNING said:


> The following performance information for a mid-production La-7. It comes
> from NII VVS graphs 0216 / 0217 Beginning 1945 located on the rkka.es site.
> Information for the Fw 190D-9 comes from a graph in Dietmar Hemann's
> "Long-Nose" book in which he states this performance is typical of the
> ...




Hi Corsning. Do you mind if I use these stats for another page?


----------



## CORSNING (Mar 10, 2021)

spicmart said:


> Hi Corsning. Do you mind if I use these stats for another page?


Not at all spicmart. Be my guest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## steveinns (Jun 9, 2022)

This has been an enjoyable read, my understanding of Luftwaffe aircraft fighter performance was degraded by the erratic delivery of low grade 87 0ctane fuel & the only reason some parity was reached in performance regardless of altitude was the injection of MW 50. Since this was only available for literally minutes of use in operation, especially true for the Fw 190 D. Otherwise it's performance wasn't too spectacular according to Soviet sources evaluating captured examples. it's very commendable the Luftwaffe performed as well as it did. As for the Soviet aircraft running on I guess ? 100 octane fuel, their engine performance was pretty good in lightweight sleek airframes of mixed construction in the Yak family of aircraft. The Lavochkins despite their wooden construction when married to the Shvetsov ash 82 radials became a formidable machines from the La 5FN onwards when the engines were producing1850 hp from late '43 /'44. Regrettably, the even more capable all metal La 9 just missed service in WW II. Should it have seen any action, the results of it's operational use would have made interesting reading !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 9, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Greg,
> 
> I agree with that statement but wonder if the CG was moved or allowed to sit further aft, which would give the plane better initial pitch response, as well as a better ability to hold speed in turns?
> 
> ...



Hi Biff,

I'm thinking of polar moment of inertia in pitch, not CG or CL, but I could be mistaken. We'd need data to prove or disprove. Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jun 11, 2022)

C
 CORSNING

Do you happen to have performance figures of the late mark Spitfires to compare to the Doras'?


----------

