# Fw190D/Ta 152C vs. Latest Generation Allied Fighters



## spicmart (Jan 21, 2013)

[What measures were needed to make the Focke Wulf fighters competitive in the various flight regimes (maneouverability, climb, acceleration etc.) against the arguably last generation of allied fighter aircraft?
That is is the F8F / P-51H/ La-9 / Spitfire 21 / Spiteful / Sea Fury/ F4U, F2G.
Those appear to have lost weight compared to their predecessors to increase performance wheras the 190 and 152 (short wing) just became heavier.
Maybe build in the DB 603N and Jumo 213J/S or something?


----------



## vinnye (Jan 21, 2013)

I believe some LW fighters got heavier because they were being fitted with heavier armament (bigger cannons), heavier armour protection and heavier more powerful engines. These changes were brought about in some cases to improve aircraft survivability in combat and effectiveness in shooting down Allied bombers.
This would in some cases have detrimental affects on handling, which could have serious implications in a dogfight.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

I don't think that Allied fighters lost any weight, compared to the predecessors, bar P-51H. They gained weight, but also the engine power, most of them able to top 2000 HP, some going to almost 2500. IMO, the F8F does not have a direct predecessor, despite the existence of the F6F. Maybe the F4F was the predecessor? The light weight of the F8F being achieved by using a single stage engine, with less fuel, ammo guns than F6F F4U, so it can be a fine airplane under 20000 ft, but not so much above that, along with La-9, a plane from 1946/47. The Yak-9U/P can be in the consideration here for the Soviets, but that one also falling short vs. top 1945 hardware.
Another planes that need to be added here is the P-47M -N, those were real heavyweights.

Any of the German planes needs as powerful engine as is gets, the 2-stage Db-603 or Jumo 213 get my vote.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 21, 2013)

Jumo-222E. Not possible on the -109 airframe but the Fw-190 could possibly take one.


----------



## stona (Jan 21, 2013)

Aren't there some time line issues with the types you are comparing?
Just saying 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## vinnye (Jan 21, 2013)

I believe the Sea Fury was a lightened version of the Tempest ?
So this was one that got lighter?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

It was being intended as the lightened Tempest, but that was not so, especially the carrier compatibility was being engineered in.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 21, 2013)

You are of course correct Tommo.
I have just looked at the weights of the two and they are near identical.
The Sea Fury was about 30 mph faster - was this just down to extra hp from the engine?


----------



## spicmart (Jan 21, 2013)

stona said:


> Aren't there some time line issues with the types you are comparing?
> Just saying
> Cheers
> Steve


 
Yes, some of the allied planes are post war, right?, such the La-9 that was a '46 plane.

Tomo, I may be wrong about the weight assumption...

I mean the F6F as the predessor as an air superiority fighter to the F8F. Well, about the armament, some compare with the late war germans (Spitfire, Sea Fury) and some don't (F8F-1, P-51H).
As said the german fighters were also heavily armored as they carried the burden of being exposed to bombers's defensive fire and their escorts.
In order to achieve a superior (or at least on par) dogfighter maybe a specialized low alt version could be made of the 190 by making them lighter and using the Jumo 213S.

The La-9 featured impressive range while weighing not too much than a Me 109K.
With all that fuel just weighing a few 100 Kg more.
I wonder what drawbacks they were ready to accept to gain such a volume of fuel in such a small airframe.
According to GregP (Ray Hanna?) it was able to outroll and out-accelerate the Bearcat, quite a feat..

The La-7 was said to have matched 190 in rate of roll and control harmony so there should be not much to gain for a Dora-9 at low and med alt.
What disadvantages would a lightened Fock Wulf expect to get?

What power did the last Gen Spitfires' (21 and up) sport? About in the 2300PS range?





.


----------



## davebender (Jan 21, 2013)

That places time period in the fall of 1945. By then Fw-190 series would have numerous improvements.

Jumo 213J engine.
MG213 revolver cannon.
R4M FF rockets.
Gyro stabilized gun sight.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

vinnye said:


> You are of course correct Tommo.
> I have just looked at the weights of the two and they are near identical.
> The Sea Fury was about 30 mph faster - was this just down to extra hp from the engine?



I'm not sure the Sea Fury was faster than Tempest II (Centaurus engines), bot were capable to do 450 mph. Maybe you talking about Tempest V (Sabre engine)?
added: no 30 mph difference, Tempest V vs. Sea Fury, maybe some 10-15 mph?

Hi, spicmart,
Yu can check out here, Griffon 69: 
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffon-69.pdf
Basically, up to 2300 HP at 500 ft, 2060 HP at 15750 ft, 1800 HP at 21000 ft.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 21, 2013)

What about the DB 603N? Did the 603 series had more development potential than the 213?


----------



## davebender (Jan 21, 2013)

That makes little difference. RLM wanted to mass produce the Jumo 213. They did not want to mass produce the DB603 engine so there won't be enough for all the Fw-190 airframes.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2013)

if we want compare the late Tank fighters we need choice allied fighters as they were in april '45


----------



## GregP (Jan 21, 2013)

Hi Tomo Pauk,

Not sure where you got the idea that the bearcat was a 20,000 foot and under aircraft, but that turns out not to be the case. The F8F-2 had a service ceiling of 40,800 feet and the supercharger was a variable speed hydraulic drive 2-stage centrifugal unit (-30W engine). Even the -10W was a 2-stage unit. If featured carburetor injection and a low-voltage distributor with remote coils near the spark plugs and was very much at home in the mid 30,000 feet arena. Performance was sparking and max speed was 455 mph ... about average for late war, but then again, nothing else wanted to catch it anyway since the 4 guns were 20 mm cannons in all but the very early F8F's and it was going to out turn them when they arrived.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2013)

spicmart said:


> Yes, some of the allied planes are post war, right?, such the La-9 that was a '46 plane.
> 
> Tomo, I may be wrong about the weight assumption...
> 
> I mean the F6F as the predessor as an air superiority fighter to the F8F. Well, about the armament, some compare with the late war germans (Spitfire, Sea Fury) and some don't (F8F-1, P-51H).



The US Navy was shifting to the F4U-4 for "air superiority", a fair number of the later ones had 4 20mm cannon. By 1946 they were ordering the F4U-5 which had a rather good performance at altitude.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Not sure where you got the idea that the bearcat was a 20,000 foot and under aircraft, but that turns out not to be the case. The F8F-2 had a service ceiling of 40,800 feet and the supercharger was a variable speed hydraulic drive 2-stage centrifugal unit (-30W engine). Even the -10W was a 2-stage unit. If featured carburetor injection and a low-voltage distributor with remote coils near the spark plugs and was very much at home in the mid 30,000 feet arena. Performance was sparking and max speed was 455 mph ... about average for late war, but then again, nothing else wanted to catch it anyway since the 4 guns were 20 mm cannons in all but the very early F8F's and it was going to out turn them when they arrived.



The F8F-2 was decidedly post war. The F8F-1 only just made it into service before the end of WW2, but didn't see action. 

The F8F-1 had a single stage supercharger.


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2013)

Yeah, a hydraulically-copupled single stage, much like the DB 601/3/5 the Germans flew, and I never hear THEY dind't have altitude capability, do I?

I'm talking late pistons, not specifically WWII, so the F8F-2 makes it in my book. If not in yours then show me an F8F-1 that can't make it to 38,000+ feet in stock trim, with ammunition. Can't, huh? 

Of course, today, none are running quite stock, are they? Rod Lewis' F8F-2 even has an air conditioner in the belly and still climbs over 6,000 feet per minute. Since he likes to fly it like a fighter, he never gets into IFR altitudes in it unless required by weather. If the weather is that bad, they don't usually fly the warbrds and use one of the bizjets instead.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yeah, a hydraulically-copupled single stage, much like the DB 601/3/5 the Germans flew, and I never hear THEY dind't have altitude capability, do I?



No Greg, the F8F-1 had either the R-2800-22W or -34W, both 2 speed single stage supercharged engines.

P&W only used the hydraulic coupling for 2 stage engines, as far as I am aware. 




GregP said:


> I'm talking late pistons, not specifically WWII, so the F8F-2 makes it in my book.



F8F-1 first delivery December 1944.
F8F-2 first delivery October 1947.

So, doesn't really "make it".




GregP said:


> If not in yours then show me an F8F-1 that can't make it to 38,000+ feet in stock trim, with ammunition. Can't, huh?



White's R-2800 P&W's Dependable Masterpiece has the service ceiling of the F8F-1 at 38,900ft. The F8F-2 at 40,700ft. 

But so what? Spitfire II had a ceiling of around 37,000ft in 1940. 
Spitfire Mk IIA Performance Testing

The Spitfire XII (with single stage Griffon) had a ceiling of just over 38,000ft in 1943.
Spitfire Mk XII DP.845 Report

White has the F8F-1 at 421mph @ 19,700ft, the F8F-2 447mph @ 28,000ft.

btw, F8F beats Spitfire 21 to 10,000ft - but not to 20,000ft.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

For comparison between single stage and 2 stage engine aircraft:

Spitfire XII: 392mph @ 24,000ft
Spitfire XIV prototype (Mk VIIIG): 440mph @ 24,000ft, 421mph @ 39,000ft.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> For comparison between single stage and 2 stage engine aircraft:
> 
> Spitfire XII: 392mph @ 24,000ft
> Spitfire XIV prototype (Mk VIIIG): 440mph @ 24,000ft, 421mph @ 39,000ft.



Perhaps not a fair comparison....

The XII was restricted to a maximum of +12psi boost.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The F8F-2 was decidedly post war. The F8F-1 only just made it into service before the end of WW2, but didn't see action.
> 
> The F8F-1 had a single stage supercharger.



Er..so did the F8F-2 (the "E Series" R-2800-32W was the two-stage "Sidewinder" version used in the F4U-5







(White page 204)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Not sure where you got the idea that the bearcat was a 20,000 foot and under aircraft, but that turns out not to be the case. The F8F-2 had a service ceiling of 40,800 feet and the supercharger was a variable speed hydraulic drive 2-stage centrifugal unit (-30W engine).



Wasn't it a single stage? When one compares a single-stage engined fighter vs. 2 stage engined, the 2-stager wins at altitude, hence my comment about the 'appropriate' altitude.



> Even the -10W was a 2-stage unit. If featured carburetor injection and a low-voltage distributor with remote coils near the spark plugs and was very much at home in the mid 30,000 feet arena. Performance was sparking and max speed was 455 mph ... about average for late war, but then again, nothing else wanted to catch it anyway since the 4 guns were 20 mm cannons in all but the very early F8F's and it was going to out turn them when they arrived.



Even the -8 was the two stage engine, does not mean it was 'plug play' with Bearcat's airframe. The 455 mph Bearcat is a non-ww2 airplane, even P-63E beats it in availability time, let alone P-51D/M/N, P-51-H, F4U-4, several British German planes etc. 

As for German planes being good at altitude - we all know that Germans were pushing for 2 stage engines from 1944, that can suggest they did not consider current planes to be that good at altitude.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 22, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> As for German planes being good at altitude - we all know that Germans were pushing for 2 stage engines from 1944, that can suggest they did not consider current planes to be that good at altitude.



They were just as good as the typical Allied planes of the time - P-51 or Spitfire - at the time at altitude, which is not surprise, since their high alt single stage DB engines were practically identical to the two stage Merlin in altitude power...

Altitude performance is not a direct function of wheter the supercharger being single stage or two stage - its a function of supercharger capacity. Russian and German engines were single stage both, but the former absolutely sucked at altitude (with few notable exception - see Mikulin series).

Things like the two stage Jumo 213E or the DB 605L, 603L/N series were pretty much an overkill for altitude performance, driven by overhyped concerns of B-29s.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Er..so did the F8F-2 (the "E Series" R-2800-32W was the two-stage "Sidewinder" version used in the F4U-5



I stand corrected.

btw, it is not necessary to post scans of pages of books. Just name the reference.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

Au contraire, the book scans are mandatory 



Tante Ju said:


> They were just as good as the typical Allied planes of the time - P-51 or Spitfire - at the time at altitude, which is not surprise, since their high alt single stage DB engines were practically identical to the two stage Merlin in altitude power...



Both the DB (AS/ASM) and Jumo 213 single stage engines were as good as 2 stage Merlin, one can expect so with engines of far greater swept voulme, being available 2 years after the 2 stage Merlin was in service, while the 213 was revving higher than Merlin. No matter how good those German engines were, the planes with them were still incapable to battle the P-51, P-47, Tempest and Spit XIV on anything more than even terms, let alone having a clear performance advantage. Hoping that Allied engines will remain at present state was not a good planing, Germans knew it, so they went for 2 stage versions of DB-603/605 and Jumo-213. 



> Altitude performance is not a direct function of wheter the supercharger being single stage or two stage - its a function of supercharger capacity. Russian and German engines were single stage both, but the former absolutely sucked at altitude (with few notable exception - see Mikulin series).



You know as good as I that every engine with 2-stage supercharger was providing more power than it's single-stage sibling. The two stage superchargers were produing better pressure ratios for power used, tables graphs are available on the 'net. Russian and German engine were of great swept volume, Mikulin and 603 going to almost 45 liters, so that count for something. As you said, the Soviet (ie. Klimov) engines sucked at altitude, kinda proves my point?



> Things like the two stage Jumo 213E or the DB 605L, 603L/N series were pretty much an overkill for altitude performance, driven by overhyped concerns of B-29s.



No overkill there. 
LW fighters of second half of 1944 (with single stage engines) were struggling with, basically, 1943 vintage opposition, so they needed 2 stage engines to gain at least some performance edge. Hoping that Allies will not introduce even better fighters is not going to make things easier.


----------



## Neil Stirling (Jan 22, 2013)

Something I put together last year.
Although the charts are headed 1946 fighters all the aircraft had flown by April 1945.
The F8F-1 was cleared (When?) for 70"hg, however, I cant find reliable performance figures and I am not confident estimating it.
During 1946 or 47 the -4 Corsair (Some not many) was fitted with the 42W engine and this produced around 2,780hp.
The Hornets performance is estimated from performance at +20lbs boost.
All aircraft clean no racks.
Fire Power from Flying Guns World War II by G.Williams and E. Gustin.

Neil.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 22, 2013)

Neil Stirling said:


> Something I put together last year.
> Although the charts are headed 1946 fighters all the aircraft had flown by April 1945.
> The F8F-1 was cleared (When?) for 70"hg, however, I cant find reliable performance figures and I am not confident estimating it.
> During 1946 or 47 the -4 Corsair (Some not many) was fitted with the 42W engine and this produced around 2,780hp.
> ...


 Excellent chart. There is one caveat here we must be aware of in comparing these test and that is fuel weight at test. Take for instance the P-51H compared to the Spitfire 22. Tested fuel quantity of the P-51H was 205 gallons. Max fuel of the Spitfire is 120 gallons or about 500 lbs less. Going into the charts, the P-51H with the same fuel weight as the Spitfire would climb at about 5600 ft/min compared to the Spitfires 5100 ft/min. Normalizing performance is often quite difficult. The two engined Hornet would require more fuel to do the same mission as the P-51 or Spitfire so tested fuel quantity would have to be adjusted to be equal. So true is the more powerful and thirsty radial engines of the P-47, F8F, F4U, and Tempest II. 

Too bad you didn't have the data on the lighter and better performing P-47M.

Note: I am assuming a gallon of fuel are in the same reference system, English or US.


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2013)

Hi Wuzak,

In the first couple of posts, I believe the author was talking last-generation piston fighters versus the Fw 190 / Ta 152. All of the post-war piston fighters were firmly rooted in WWII development because shortly after the war, we all went to jets, except for the piston attack planes (think Skyraider), and the pistons died away.

So, if you're sticking to within-WWII, then you are right. If we're talking last-gen pistons, then they all are fair game.

No sense debating if you aren't both on the same subject, is it? I like the -10W or the-30/32W variants of the R-2800 and all their sophistication as opposed to early, mechanically-driven variants. If we're talking performance, why not go with the best variant you can? The latest variant of the Fw 190 line was the Ta 152, and that's what was being talkled about in the subject line ... and some of the others in the subject line are post-war. 

So, perhaps this seem rather like maybe we need to get the subject straight. 

The Bearcat was never the fastest WWII fighter ... until it became so (and still is) with Lyle Shelton at the controls. But it was a sterling climber, a very good dogfighter, had very good acceleration, and it had a very good ceiling in all variants. Had the war gone on, and I'm glad it didn;t, I think it would have made its mark quite handily. Thankfully, it didn't have to do so.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

Greg,
It is a touch harsh comparing a 1947 development of an aircraft with one whose development was cut off in 1945.

Other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, had developments that weren't put into production (100 series Griffons with 3 speed superchargers and contra props).


----------



## Aozora (Jan 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Greg,
> It is a touch harsh comparing a 1947 development of an aircraft with one whose development was cut off in 1945.
> 
> Other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, had developments that weren't put into production (100 series Griffons with 3 speed superchargers and contra props).



All of the technology in the F8F-2 was essentially late-WW2; the E Series R-2800 was designed, built and had passed its 500 hour test by May 1945, while design of the two-stage -32W started in March 1945. (White, page 199-200) Okay, it's a fine line, but the three-stage Griffon was more of a post-WW2 development than the engine fitted in the F8F-2.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

I've got the graphs for the La7, (here), even while the speed measured is IAS, the top speed at SL is under 600 km/h, on 'augmented power', or 'forsage'.

and posted it on wrong thread


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2013)

Post war research, development and production all slowed down. By how much (what percentage) compared to the last year of the war I have no idea but it did slow down some. 

The "E" series engine was planned from the beginning but had development problems. First 20mm armed prototype flew in June of 1945, fist 100 production cannon armed planes were built intermingled withe machine gun armed planes. Last 126 F8F-1Bs were built in two continuous blocks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

deleted


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

Aozora said:


> All of the technology in the F8F-2 was essentially late-WW2; the E Series R-2800 was designed, built and had passed its 500 hour test by May 1945, while design of the two-stage -32W started in March 1945. (White, page 199-200) Okay, it's a fine line, but the three-stage Griffon was more of a post-WW2 development than the engine fitted in the F8F-2.



I would say the R2800-30W and the Griffon 100 series were contemporary. If not, the Griffon was ahead.

rated altitude | gear | engine | 1946 | 0062 | Flight Archive


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2013)

Hi Wuzak,

I thought that was the whole purpose of the thread, to compere the late Fw 190 designes with the last-gen piston fighters that were flown just before jets took over. If not, then I missed the intent of the comparison.

You may very well be right.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Wuzak,
> 
> I thought that was the whole purpose of the thread, to compere the late Fw 190 designes with the last-gen piston fighters that were flown just before jets took over. If not, then I missed the intent of the comparison.
> 
> You may very well be right.



I thought it was to compare the late Fw 190 designs with their contemporaries. Not things that came 2 years later.


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2013)

OK, we thought differently. maybe the autor of the thread can elucidate ... meanwhile, we need a beer. A Spitfire Ale.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2013)

GregP said:


> OK, we thought differently. maybe the autor of the thread can elucidate ... meanwhile, we need a beer. A Spitfire Ale.



The problem with comparing the Ta 152C with the F8F-2 is that there may have been more development to come in the two intervening years, especially with regards to engine performance. 

In any case Germany had largely abandoned "Otto" engined aircraft development (as in new aircraft) before the end of the war, preferring to pursue jet aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The problem with comparing the Ta 152C with the F8F-2 is that there may have been more development to come in the two intervening years, especially with regards to engine performance.
> 
> In any case Germany had largely abandoned "Otto" engined aircraft development (as in new aircraft) before the end of the war, preferring to pursue jet aircraft.



So did Brits, therefore there was no Hawker Fury or MB 5 production. Only chance was FAA because of long pooling time of 45 jet engines


----------



## spicmart (Jan 23, 2013)

GregP, yes I'd like to compare the latest Focke Wulf fighters and their development potential to the latest generation of allied fighters, be it postwar of not. 
What would it take to stay competitive in the various tasks that a fighter should fulfill: pure dogfighter, interceptor, low med high alt fighter, long range, jack of all trades etc..


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2013)

I think it would take further development on the part of the German aircraft industry, and that stopped with the war's end. German equipment was very good and I have no doubt that with continued development, the Germans would hve been good at the game. But by early 1945, it just wasn't going to be.

In my mind, the best pistons were the last of the breed, the Bearcat, the Sea Fury, the La-9 / -11, the P-51H, the F4U-5 and possibly a few others. Their potential superiority was short-lived as planes like the F-86 were coming out at the same time and the P-80 was out before the end of the war. While the Sabre could not dogfight with a Bearcat or a Sea Fury, the Sabre COULD dictate the terms of engagement, so the handwriting was on the wall. 

The last piston's short-lived glory days were enjoyed by the pilots, but the war was over and they faded away.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 23, 2013)

Tomo, going back to the Sea Fury Tempest V top speed figures. (Post 11)
Wiki has ;
Tempest V Maximum speed: 432 mph (695 km/h) Sabre IIA at 18,400 ft (5,608 m), Sabre IIB 435 mph at 19,000 ft (700 km/h at 5,791 m) and,
Sea Fury ; Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
These figures may not be accurate, but they were what I found?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2013)

Indeed, you're right.
The maximum power, in high gear, for Tempest V with Sabre IIA, was 1830 HP at 11500 ft, no ram. For Sabre IIB, it was 2050 HP at 13750 ft, no ram. 
The Centaurus in Tempest II was rated 1950 HP at 16500 ft, high gear. Since the maximum speed was usually (always?) achieved with engine running in second gear (for planes with 2 supercharger gears), my take is that better altitude capacity of Centaurus was providing better speed, than the high power of Sabre, that was achieved at lower altitude. Hence the difference of 15-20 mph.
The Centaurus in the Sea Fury was (should be) an up-rated version, the speed gain was some 10+ mph vs. Tempest II, 25-30 vs. Tempest V.

engine speed data from wwiiaircraftperformance.com

added: the Sea Fury have had the wing area of 280 sq ft, the Tempests of 302 sq ft - the smaller wing area can add some speed. Wing span was also smaller, by some 2.5 ft.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The problem with comparing the Ta 152C with the F8F-2 is that there may have been more development to come in the two intervening years, especially with regards to engine performance.
> 
> In any case Germany had largely abandoned "Otto" engined aircraft development (as in new aircraft) before the end of the war, preferring to pursue jet aircraft.


My thoughts exactly. By 1946 I assume the majority of whatever is left of the Luftwaffe fighter squadrons (depending of course on when your 'what-if' starts), will be equpped with Me 262s and He 162s. I guess the Ta 152 C will be the 'all-weather' fighter-bomber it was designed to be and the Ta 152 H the high altitude fighter / interceptor. They will be numerically significant but still kind of a niche in the whole picture.


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2013)

I believe they got about 300 Me 262's into comabt and about 100 of them were shot down. I'd stick with the pistons with a record like that or close to that and continue jet development.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 24, 2013)

That's your opinion but not theirs. Bf 109 production was to end with the K and the Ta 152s aside from the H (which filled a felt need that the jets couldn't fill) were essentially already fighter-bombers in the sense that air-superiority and interception was to be done by different aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2013)

I have brought it up before but post war development was longer than war time. Hours put in the R&D people dropped from 12-14 hours per day to 8-10 hours. Sundays were taken of (for the most part) instead of being work days (or part work days). Saturdays were half days or reduced hour days, not full days like war time. People took vacations for the first time in years. 

How this affects a time scale of months/year I don't know but it did exist. There is also the condition that with the war over, putting planes/engines into service that were not quite right but were accepted due to the war time conditions was less likely to happen. This also lead to longer development times.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2013)

For a light fighter (<7000lb empty), the Germans would need a 2200-2400 hp engine (DB 603LA?), for a heavy fighter, 2800-3500 hp. The Ta 152C could do it for a light fighter but it needed to lose weight. 

In reality, without gas turbine engines and supersonic propellers, propeller planes had pretty well reached their peak and additional performance would be difficult to obtain.


----------



## GregP (Jan 24, 2013)

Yep, it's my opinion and 109 production would have ended anyway since the factoies were in rubble. Had they the chance, Germany would have flown any warplnes they could get their hands on, but most ended the war without any fuel and many without any propellers. The end of the war brought about peace through inability to continue development or prosecution of the conflict. So jet development, too, came to a halt due to cessation of hostilities and reduction in development hours for the Allies ... as it should have.

No sense in continuing wartime expenditures when the war is over.

Good post, davparlr ... they HAD reached their zenith and were into the limits of propeller-driven aircraft when they died out.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 24, 2013)

Thanks for the excellent explanation Tommo.
I see where your interpretation of figures makes more practical sense than just plain top speed figures alone. An aircrafts useable power spread is very important and the altitudes at which it performs best, including its climb, turn and dive rates are what get people out of trouble or into good firing positions.
I had not taken note of the differing wingspan and wing area - they could easily account for speed differentials. Thanks again for the input.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 24, 2013)

OOPs!


----------



## vinnye (Jan 24, 2013)

Shortround, you are correct about the rates of development being slower in peace time than when countries are on a war footing and give good examples of why that happens. Another factor is the urgent that everyone feels when at war. In peace time far less people feel "driven", unless they feel that war is imminent - like RJ Mitchell designing the Spitfire pre-war. 
Frank Whittle and his team made slow progress before the war, and during the early stages as the powers that be did not understand his work or realise how important it would be. Greater progress was made when support was given to him and his team, especially when news of German developments in this technology circulated.


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2013)

One thing you cannot do in the Centaurus is increase the rpm. In you run the Centaurus more than about 150 rpm faster than rated rpm, it will grenade in a short time right at the sleeve valve mechanism. It was basically a 2,700 rpm engine MAX. At 2,900 rpm it was pretty sure to be scrap metal soon if not already. Later models were 2,500 - 2,650 HP MAX. So any additional power will have to come from more boost, displacement increase, efficiency increase, or perhaps power recovery turbine(s). 

The real Centaurus is pretty much maxed out for available power and, if operated within recommended settings, is also pretty reliable. 

So far, the real Achilles heel seems to be getting cylinders done once they wear. Joe Yancey has that figured out and can hone them round while almost everyone else seemingly cannot get it right (that is what is reported to us by 5+ users). We just finished doing 25 cylinders for one owner and he is now reassembling his Centaurus and hopes to have his Sea Fury flying again within the year. I like seeing one with the original powerplant and seeing it do big powerful aerobatics.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 25, 2013)

The Sea Fury is a beautiful plane.


----------



## Neil Stirling (Jan 25, 2013)

Centaurus 2,900rpm. bristol centaurus | 1949 | 1484 | Flight Archive

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/Sleeve.pdf Page 14

Neil.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 25, 2013)

+1 on the Sea Fury being a great looking plane. Not a bad performer either!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2013)

Great looker, performer mature fighter, the Sea Fury.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 25, 2013)

GregP said:


> One thing you cannot do in the Centaurus is increase the rpm. In you run the Centaurus more than about 150 rpm faster than rated rpm, it will grenade in a short time right at the sleeve valve mechanism. It was basically a 2,700 rpm engine MAX. At 2,900 rpm it was pretty sure to be scrap metal soon if not already. Later models were 2,500 - 2,650 HP MAX. So any additional power will have to come from more boost, displacement increase, efficiency increase, or perhaps power recovery turbine(s).
> 
> The real Centaurus is pretty much maxed out for available power and, if operated within recommended settings, is also pretty reliable.
> 
> So far, the real Achilles heel seems to be getting cylinders done once they wear. Joe Yancey has that figured out and can hone them round while almost everyone else seemingly cannot get it right (that is what is reported to us by 5+ users). We just finished doing 25 cylinders for one owner and he is now reassembling his Centaurus and hopes to have his Sea Fury flying again within the year. I like seeing one with the original powerplant and seeing it do big powerful aerobatics.



Way OT: according to White Pratt Whitney seriously investigated using sleeve valves for the R-2800, but, instead of using Roy Feddon's design of five triangular ports -three inlet, two exhaust - P W looked at six rectangular ports, four inlet, two exhaust. (R-2800 pages 219-220). Roy Feddon on sleeve valves: Flight Archive 1939


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2013)

My info is from 5+ owners and people who race at Reno (nobody races a Centaurus). I have nothing against the sleeve valve, but the implementation in the Centaurus is rpm-limited (that is from the users, not from me). Papers notwithstanding, we know of 3 users who have destroyed one at 2,800 rpm or so. The users who stay within recommended speeds seem to have pretty good luck with their operation until they need overhaul and the cylinders need to be made round again.

Nobody who owns or flies one today will run it at elevated rpm, so we pretty much believe that is the limit and the weak link.

I am a big Sea Fury fan myself and one of the Sanders Sea Furies puts on a great demo at our airshow almost every year in Chino. Argonaut used to have an R-3350 in it but now sports an R-2800. Almost can't tell the difference in the big, liong-vertical climbs, but I notice it isn't exactly burning up the course at Reno, either. Like it used to do with the R-3350.

Too bad we are out of R-3350 main bearings! If there were some more around, they'd fly longer ... but they are on borrowed time right now. When the mains go, the engine is pretty much a museum piece unless you can find one in a crate in Vietnam, that is. I cannot see it being econimically possible to make mew mains since the hydraulic press would never get paid for, much less any additional equiipment and time! There just aren't enough R-3350's around to justify specialty part development and FAA acceptance.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jan 25, 2013)

GregP

I'm not really aware of the WW2 sports scene but I have always wondered if modern ignition units, bearing materials, piston, piston ring valve materials along with modern oils/treatments/additives would raise those low rpm levels without problems arising.
I know engines can be limited by cylinderhead flow efficiency rates too but as most of these motors seem to run either super or turbo charging is that a big factor?
Or is it a case of throwing everything else out if you were to try to fit stuff like titanium valves etc?

Sorry if this is way OT, I hope you guys don't mind, but I'm just wondering (do such things exist, do people commission bearings to be manufactured to modern standards?).


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2013)

I can address some of these questions.

The steel in Allisons (and Merlins, Pratts, etc. not limited to Allisons) is better than ANY steel we get today. We have crankshafts that have sat in open air inside the hangar for 20 years and have not rusted. The steel is VERY hard and wears VERY well. There are people who say we can do better than we did in WWII today, but the steel we SEE doesn't bear that out at all. Modern rings are not as good, but we have had some made to our specs and they wear OK, if not as good as originals as a test. Modern bearings are nothing compared with WWII bearings. We know about 4-5 shops that can overhaul WWII bearings and plate them to spec ... and yet we still have to scrape them (a lost art in most places) so they test OK with plastigage. 

So, the WWII stuff is very hard and long-wearing and the new stuff simply isn't. I can tell you this, go buy an old Williams or Cornwell wrench and then get one from Home Depot or Lowes and THEN try to turn something that is rusted together. The old wrenches will DO it and new ones will too, but not without damage. The old wrenches are unmarked.

Gimme and old Kwik-Way valve ginder before a Sioux, and BOTH are out of production now. If you don't HAVE them, you can't overhaul the old valves with any confidence. If you can't run a manual engine lathe, you can't DO an overhaul. You need to be able to remove a broken stud and not ruin the hole and threads. There are a lot old "repair" techniques that are less well known today, but are required to build an Allison or a Merlin or a Pratt, Wright, or BWM or DB. You need surface ginders and knee mills and the ablity to use them properly. That is fading today.

We found a Sunnen line boring machine and bought it as scrap. After overhaul (can still get parts), sanding, prime, new paint, etc. ... it looks and runs like new. So we CAN line bore a Merlin or an Allison that had had a rod put through the case. Wr won't DO it yet for Allisons that go into aircraft because we don't HAVE to yet, but we CAN. Right now, a repaired case is a good tractor or boat engine ... not one to go FLY.

Heck, they are flying Merlin parts today that they would have thrown away 20 years ago. The same will come for the Allison, but not for awhile. We wish they had the parts they threw away now ...


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2013)

Sorry Greg, I disagree.

If you have a sufficient need a modern steel manufacturer could match the composition and properties of the Allison crankshaft steel. Probably what you are comparing to is cheaper stuff.

Spanners (wrenches): I am going to go out on a limb and say that Lowes and Home Depot sell cheap grade products to home handymen, rather than products for professionals.

I know nothing of valve grinders. What do professional car engine builders use?


----------



## Aozora (Jan 26, 2013)

GregP said:


> I can address some of these questions.
> 
> The steel in Allisons (and Merlins, Pratts, etc. not limited to Allisons) is better than ANY steel we get today. We have crankshafts that have sat in open air inside the hangar for 20 years and have not rusted. The steel is VERY hard and wears VERY well. There are people who say we can do better than we did in WWII today, but the steel we SEE doesn't bear that out at all. Modern rings are not as good, but we have had some made to our specs and they wear OK, if not as good as originals as a test. Modern bearings are nothing compared with WWII bearings. We know about 4-5 shops that can overhaul WWII bearings and plate them to spec ... and yet we still have to scrape them (a lost art in most places) so they test OK with plastigage.
> 
> ...



Sorta getting back on thread, do you know how the steels and alloys used by the Allied aero engine manufacturers during WW2 compare with those used by the Germans? Reading a NACA report on the  supercharger of a Junkers Jumo 211F  there are a few comments on how rough and unfinished some components were.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 26, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Sorry Greg, I disagree.
> 
> If you have a sufficient need a modern steel manufacturer could match the composition and properties of the Allison crankshaft steel. Probably what you are comparing to is cheaper stuff.
> 
> ...



I would assume a higher chromium content in WW2, modern steels use more exotic additives, and if you specify it you can use far more advanced metals these days with far more exact quality control than they ever could back then!


----------



## vinnye (Jan 26, 2013)

Considering the advances post war in metallurgy, they did an amazing job with what they had and what they knew!


----------



## Gixxerman (Jan 26, 2013)

Thanks. 
Really interesting stuff guys. 
Somehow I had it in my mind that 2000rpm rev ranges were down to primitive materials oils nothing like what a good set of modern ignition components, bearings, pistons, rings, valve springs titanium valves would allow.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2013)

Part of the rev limit was due to the size of the cylinders. The gas/air mixture burns at a certain number of feet per second or minute. You want the burn to complete with the piston at about 20 degrees after top dead center. This limits the bore size to just over 6 in even with dual ignition. Piston speed was limited to around 3000fpm (with a few exceptions). 

For a little perspective a 1938 Auto Union 3-Litre V-12 Grand Prix engine turned 7,000rpm and had a piston speed of 3444fpm. The 1939 Mercedes-Benz 3-Litre V-12 Grand Prix turned 7500rpm but due to a 5mm short stroke it's piston speed was almost identical.
Neither ran on gasoline and the Mercedes weighed 1.26lb per HP. It was a rare race car engine that had a better power to weight ratio than most WW II high powered aircraft engines until the late 50s or 60s. 

A lot of the high revving post war race care engines had strokes under 50mm, 1/3 that of a Merlin or Allison. Modern Materials help. SO does the fact that with a race car you can _walk_ back to the pits after a rod goes through the side of the block.


----------



## GregP (Jan 27, 2013)

Hi Wuzak,

Not saying your are wrong, but apparently nobody has sufficient need since the steel we se today is not anywhere NEAR the WWII steels. They may well be able to MAKE it, but if they DON'T, what is the difference?

In 1965, you could buy a drill press in Sears from Craftsman and it was pristine. Today the floor models are rusted while on display! It doesn't stop there ... it goes on.

So, while you may be right, you are not in a practical sense. That is, if I order a modern part, it doesn't come in TO ME anywhere NEAR as good as an old part ... even if it COULD ... it just DOESN'T. Ergo, it is of a lower quality ... because that is what I experience.

One example ... the water jacket hold down nuts have very little clearance in the Allison. You need a 7/8" wrench that is heavily ground down so it clears. An old Williams or Cornwell will do the job. A modern Craftsman will do the job, once ground down, for a few heads ... and then fails. I have ground down two so far and one has failed and the other seems to be about to do so by the feel of it (getting soft at the end of travel). I already have plans to get another. The old Williams wrench just keeps on working despite being very thin around the diameter and here's the thing ... it has been good for more than 20 years at the same task, while ALL otehrs have failed very quickly.

So... if they CAN do it right today, why can't I FIND it and GET it? And at a resaonable price? It's cheaper and works better to find the old wrenches at a yard sale and then use them forever.

Sorry, you may well be right, but I see no evidence of it. So. I stand by what I said as far as I can tell.

Maybe send me some Tasmanian wrenches that are of good quality and I can verify that by using them and having them last as well as the old Williams / Cornwell / Snap On stuff we have in the shop ? ... Most will need to be ground down for clearance in tight spots. I can DO that, but the wrenches usually then fail unless they are old steel. 

Fortunately, we can still find old steel tools at auctions and yard sales.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 27, 2013)

GregP said:


> Not saying your are wrong, but apparently nobody has sufficient need since the steel we se today is not anywhere NEAR the WWII steels. They may well be able to MAKE it, but if they DON'T, what is the difference?



Price is one factor.




GregP said:


> In 1965, you could buy a drill press in Sears from Craftsman and it was pristine. Today the floor models are rusted while on display! It doesn't stop there ... it goes on.



I would surmise that is more to do with the care taken by sales staff to keep the tool in that condition rather than the materials used. And/or the new ones are cheap because they use cheap materials.




GregP said:


> So, while you may be right, you are not in a practical sense. That is, if I order a modern part, it doesn't come in TO ME anywhere NEAR as good as an old part ... even if it COULD ... it just DOESN'T. Ergo, it is of a lower quality ... because that is what I experience.



How do you define good? Material specs? Tolerances? Shininess?




GregP said:


> One example ... the water jacket hold down nuts have very little clearance in the Allison. You need a 7/8" wrench that is heavily ground down so it clears. An old Williams or Cornwell will do the job. A modern Craftsman will do the job, once ground down, for a few heads ... and then fails. I have ground down two so far and one has failed and the other seems to be about to do so by the feel of it (getting soft at the end of travel). I already have plans to get another. The old Williams wrench just keeps on working despite being very thin around the diameter and here's the thing ... it has been good for more than 20 years at the same task, while ALL others have failed very quickly.



I would suggest that the Craftsman is a cheapie too.




GregP said:


> So... if they CAN do it right today, why can't I FIND it and GET it? And at a resaonable price? It's cheaper and works better to find the old wrenches at a yard sale and then use them forever.
> 
> Sorry, you may well be right, but I see no evidence of it. So. I stand by what I said as far as I can tell.
> 
> ...



We don't have any indigenous tools. Stanley Tools used to manufacture here, not sure if they do any more. Snap On is apopular brand - why don't you get them? Sidchrome is also a famous brand in Australia

Sidchrome

I can't speak to the merits of these brands, since I personally am not on the tools. I will try to find out some more.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 27, 2013)

Here are two NACA reports from the 1940s on radial engine cylinder barrels and tests of Nitrided-steel piston rings, plus a NASA history and analysis of steel roller bearings from 2012.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 27, 2013)

As a man who earns his living using spanners and owns probably £60,000 plus worth of tools aquired over nearly 40 years I can honestly say that if you buy a piece of cheap crap from a department store stamped out of god only knows where it came from steel in some place no one has ever heard of in China you shouldnt be surprised it breaks. I would only use junk like Craftsman as a door stop. 

I still have to buy tools occasionally and will only touch Gedore spanners, Wiha Screwdrivers and keys and Koken sockets these days I know they will last and will bend rather than crack and risk me busting a knuckle. Even Snap On isnt what it was twenty years ago now they concentrate on the shiny tool colectors rather than selling stuff to mechanics. 

The reason why old tools are good is simply because all the stuff with a flaw in it has broken long ago and been binned plus steel ages the crystalline structure changing slowly over the years and becomes better with use.


----------



## GregP (Jan 27, 2013)

I aggree in many ways and stick with the ones that work. For us, the older wrenches and steels work the best. I have seen very little evidence of great modern steel that doesn't come with a ridiculous price.

Gedores are nice but about 4 times as expensive as the excellent-quality older tools we are getting. Right now, I'll stick with the older stuff since we can find it and still get it. When that goes away, we'll HAVE to identify suitable alternatives, won't we?


----------



## silence (Jan 28, 2013)

I remember watching a documentary about restoring a Bf 109. The museum sent the original engine to Rolls-Royce, who, went they sent it back, informed to museum to take especial care of the engine because the driveshaft (I think it was) was so finely engineered that RR could not replicate or replace it. And just think how many DB engines were produced wartime under conditions at times bordering on apalling.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 28, 2013)

silence said:


> I remember watching a documentary about restoring a Bf 109. The museum sent the original engine to Rolls-Royce, who, went they sent it back, informed to museum to take especial care of the engine because the driveshaft (I think it was) was so finely engineered that RR could not replicate or replace it. And just think how many DB engines were produced wartime under conditions at times bordering on apalling.



Groan not this old chestnut again. Shock horror a company that makes gas turbines out of 21st C materials and hasnt built a piston engine in 60 years couldnt make a crankshaft. Its like sending Apple a Commodore 64 and expecting them to make a new proccessor for it.


----------



## silence (Jan 28, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Groan not this old chestnut again. Shock horror a company that makes gas turbines out of 21st C materials and hasnt built a piston engine in 60 years couldnt make a crankshaft. Its like sending Apple a Commodore 64 and expecting them to make a new proccessor for it.



Sorry. Could you please return my 2-cents?


----------

