30 000 Fw 190s - how?

[Denniss]

was there a problem with the B4-fueled C-series engine (apart from less power) that prevented them from producing more A-2s?

 

[tomo pauk]

You need a lot more C3 fuel early on, otherwise it doesnt even matter if you make them. In fact Petersen (KdE Rechlin) stated that the Fw190 production had been capped at a set level for exactly this reason.

A host of German engines was working well with the B4 fuel. A fact that perhaps escaped to Mr. Petersen.

 

[Engineman]

Big supercharger should be a giveaway.
side elevation of the 605A
The Bf 109s with teh AS engines also required the curved engine bearer arm, see here.

Granted, the 605D looked a lot like the 605AS.

Unfortunately, the engine in the video seems like it lost it's S/C. OTOH, if the Wnr. of the aircraft is known, this might also give the clue about the engine version used.

The S/C case was Magnesium and all the mag parts of that engine have dissolved in the wet mud. However, this process does leave a lot of the Aluminium and Steel parts in good condition on recovery these days, so that can be a positive thing in some examples.
So, there are several things we can see on the video that prove this is a 605AS. The engine bearer could be one, but there is something specific on the engine that can be seen...?

Eng

 

[mack8]

You need a lot more C3 fuel early on, otherwise it doesnt even matter if you make them. In fact Petersen (KdE Rechlin) stated that the Fw190 production had been capped at a set level for exactly this reason.

On the issue of C3 fuel, several bomber/nightfighter models of Do-217, Ju-88, Ju-188 etc were fitted with BMW-801D engines or similar. Now i recall reading somewhere on the www that actually those bombers at least were running B4 fuel for their BMW-801s. Do you have by any chance information to confirm this? And if so, what kind of power level would a BMW-801D make on B4, presumably not much over the BMW-801C?

If they used C3 fuel for bombers that would of course been ridiculously wasteful.

And a bit of shameless plug, i did made a topic on a similar theme some time back, ie Luftwaffe with just B4 fuel, being particularily interested in the power ratings of the BMW-801D and later variants on B4, as well as DB-601N on same.

Luftwaffe with just B4 fuel

I was reading about the more difficult and resource intensive processes needed to obtain C3 fuel, of which they never had enough except for a part of Jagdwaffe. I recall seeing somewhere that they could only make 70% C3 fuel for any B4 quantity given, not sure how accurate that is. Now even...

ww2aircraft.net

For the purpose of this FW-190 timeline, even if they didn't have enough C3 fuel, could they have not built more BMW-801C-2 (or D if possible, derated of course) powered FW-190 models running on B4 fuel? It's performance was still very good at least until 1943, especially in the East?

 

[mack8]

Yes, for a He 177 to make sense, it needs to be designed with 4 separate engines from day one. Granted, even such bombers will still require escort.

The greatest advantage of a 4x Jumo-211 powered He-177 would have been using the excess Jumo capacity and those 7000 Jumo-211 sitting in depots, without affecting at all any other engine. The slightly reduced performance would have hardly mattered at least during night missions, and more than compensated by the far greater reliability and serviceability, a lot more He177s being in the air at any one time.

 

[mack8]

The double engine DB 606 and DB 610 motors did add up to about 4,210 double engines total production. That equates to about 8,420 component engines in the period 1941 to mid 1944. The actual drain on single engine equivalent production is probably more than 8,420 though, because the right hand component engine was mostly a "mirror image" engine and needed different production tooling and more work. In fact, there were many differences compared to the basic single engine, even a different firing order.
Some DB 610 left hand ( DB 605 X ) engines were rebuilt as DB 605 A engines with the different firing order. However, most of the RH (DB 605 W engines) would only provide some spare parts due to their mirror build. Bearing in mind the consumption of engines over the long period of the He 177 program, I would guess that only some 500 or so DB 605 engines were recovered, out of the 1,500 DB 610 engines built in 1944 before the program was scrapped. The amount of component recovery from the other parts of the DB 610 engines is unknown.

Eng

That's a great bit of insight. So going by the above, perhaps 10,000 plus normal DB-601/605s could have been made instead of the doppelmotors, enough for 6000-7000 extra Bf-109s (plus 1/3 of engines as spares), or 3000-3500 Me-110/ long fuselage Me-210 or whatever else the germans would have fancied. Any of them a far better use of those resources spent on the He-177.

 

[tomo pauk]

That'a great bit of insight. So going by the above, perhaps 10,000 plus normal DB-601/605s could have been made instead of the doppelmotors, enough for 6000-7000 extra Bf-109s (plus 1/3 of engines as spares), or 3000-3500 Me-110/ long fuselage Me-210 or whatever else the germans would have fancied. Any of them a far better use of those resources spent on the He-177.

Italians were very engine-hungry, too, meaning eg. that Fiat G.50V ended up stillborn, and Reggianne reverting to the radial engines between the 2001 and 2005. Any 2-engined Italian aircraft was out of the question if the DB engine was to power it, including the promising Ro.58.

A DB 605 in the nose of a Fw 190 produces the German equivalent of the MC. 205N or the Re.2005.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

A host of German engines was working well with the B4 fuel. A fact that perhaps escaped to Mr. Petersen.

The 801 is an AIR COOLED engine, the ONLY German air cooled engine of WW2 to be used on mass produced single engine fighters.
As a consequence the knock limit is lower, and therefore to achieve the same boost requires a higher grade fuel.

All this is in my book which you claim to have (but I do not think have ever read ), it even shows the production plan graph for the
190 which is clearly capped at a flatline level.

I suggest you get the book and go to:

page 224, LH column paragraph 1.
page 436: LH column, paragraph 2.
page 436: GL production plan for Fw 190, Bf 109, Me 309 from 19th May, 1942 > end of 1945

As he was in charge of the entire Luftwaffe test unit at Rechlin (KdE = Kommandeur der Erprobungstellen), I think he probably knows more than you or I do about the matter.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 801 is an AIR COOLED engine, the ONLY German air cooled engine of WW2 to be used on mass produced single engine fighters.
As a consequence the knock limit is lower, and therefore to achieve the same boost requires a higher grade fuel.

Several things are obvious:
-BMW 801 worked on the 87 oct fuel
- V12 engines worked on 87 oct fuel, too
- Fw 190 worked when powered by V12 engines

All this is in my book which you claim to have (but I do not think have ever read ), it even shows the production plan graph for the
190 which is clearly capped at a flatline level.

If I've never read you book, I'd never send you the feedback on it. I certainly wouldn't keep recommending it to the other people.
The production of the 190s took a hit due several factors. One of them being the lack of engines, that meant that ~25% of Fw 190s produced from December of 1941 and end of August of 1942 were delivered without the engines (ohne Motoren).



That a V12-powered Fw 190 was not in the cards until too late was 100% on the German planers.

I suggest you get the book and go to:

page 224, LH column paragraph 1.
page 436: LH column, paragraph 2.
page 436: GL production plan for Fw 190, Bf 109, Me 309 from 19th May, 1942 > end of 1945

The average production of 190s was about 300 pcs/month in 1st ten months of 1943, despite the plan calling for 200/month. In March of 1943, it was ~550 pcs (after the slump in February that saw jut 300 pcs, and ~380 in January).

As he was in charge of the entire Luftwaffe test unit at Rechlin (KdE = Kommandeur der Erprobungstellen), I think he probably knows more than you or I do about the matter.

He was certainly excellent in running the unit he was commander of.
That he was right about the Fw 190 being able to do it's job only if C3 fuel is around - I disagree, and so are the people that were instrumental in installing engines that worked on B4 fuel on the fighters, including on the Fw 190, that 1st took flight and gave bloody nose to the RAF while using B4 fuel.

 

[Denniss]

The Do 217 never got the C-3 fueled 801G and switched to DB 603 in late 42 or early 43 (cant remember exactly)
Ju 88 nightfighters and Ju 188 started with C3-eating 801G in about autumn 43 but were switched to Jumo 213 in spring/summer 44

 

[Zmauky]

Well, we can turn numbers up or down, it's a closed circle. I'm not sure it's a game of chess we can win.

We can either reduce the number of produced other planes (Me 410 / Do 217 / Ju 88/ 188) or think about replacement engines (for them or Fw 190 ).
Historically the Fw 190 was used the BMW 801, DB 603 and Jumo 213.
And I agree that the first versions of the BMW 801 were only slightly stronger than the DB 605, but by the time we get to the AS and D variants (so over 1700 hp) we are already too late. So I don't think that the 'light' version with engines of approx. 1500 hp is profitable.
I'm also not really sure that it would be a good idea to abolish all twin-engine bombers (and anyway we need night fighters, so either weaker variants like the historical Me 110 or better Ju 88, but those use BMW 801/Jumo 213, so engines for Fw 190).

So, replacement engines remain an option (if we stick to the actual numbers of BMW 801 and Jumo 213 engines produced).
The first possibility is the Jumo 222, starting from the first variant A/B of those magical 2000 hp. Even the weaker variant with approx. 1800 hp is quite enough power for all twin-engine bombers and night fighters. A little too heavy for the Fw 190 until the Tank moves, for balance, (and increases) the wings and creates the Ta 152. And that factory in Austria would not stand unused either.
So there we get: 4000 pieces (some BMW 801 and some DB 603 for Fw 190C ) only from Do 217, then all fighter variants Ju 88 and Ju 188, and we can throw in Me 410. Maybe not exactly 10000, but still close.

For all other applications, transport, maritime reconnaissance, (and possibly bombers) ... so if Junkers extracted approx. 1000-1200 hp from a 16.7 liter diesel (Jumo 207), why not continue the development of the Jumo 204 (with 28 liters) . This is almost 60% more volume, so it is not impossible that a 1600-1900 hp engine could be developed.
Admittedly, they could not use those engines in the Fw 190, but they could get all the engines from, say, the Ju 290 ( all 240 pieces) but also the Ar 234, Ju 352...
In addition, the larger production of diesel engines (for example Ju 52, Fw 200 ...) could perhaps stop (much earlier) the production of BMW 123 and Bramo 323, and this would free BMW for more produced '801. And not to mention cheaper fuel.

 

[tomo pauk]

And I agree that the first versions of the BMW 801 were only slightly stronger than the DB 605, but by the time we get to the AS and D variants (so over 1700 hp) we are already too late. So I don't think that the 'light' version with engines of approx. 1500 hp is profitable.

Horsepower is/was not everything.
A V12 will cut the drag, and, in case of DB 601/605 vs. BMW 801, the weight. As for the 1500 HP engines not being much, we can see eg. the Fw 190D-9 supposedly doing 675 km/h on less than 1500 HP at 6,6 km (ie. on Kampfleistung and with ram, for actual 1480 HP, of course; on Notleistung - extra 100 HP - it was supposed to do 10 km/h more).
Drag is/was cruel, and Fw 190 took advantage of that fact when the switch was made from Anton to Dora. That speed figure was better than what any in-service, not stripped Anton did at that altitude. The 190D-9 was of the same weight as the A-8 or A-9.
Let's swap the Jumo 213A with DB 605A, but do it in late 1943. At the discussed altitude (6.6 km with ram), we'd get 1350 HP. The 213 with 10% more gets to 675, so we can expect a loss of speed of 2-3%? 3% or 675 = 20 km/h. Means that we're as fast as the 109A6.
I didn't took into account that the DB 605A might have a bit lower cooling drag than the 213A, and that draggy cowl HMGs can be substituted with one motor-cannon for greater punch and better speed. Lighter engine means no need for the tail plug to be devised and installed, despite the engine being longer. Lighter fighter = better RoC than the Fw 190A of the time. We don't need C3 fuel, range/radius is far better than on the 190A, Notleistung can be used for 5 minutes, not 3. The high rate of roll, payload capability, very good U/C, and cockpit of the 190 is retained.

Granted, a second line of Fw 190s, starting with the small wing as on the 1st prototypes and powered by V12s from late 1930s/early 1940s would've been even lighter and less draggy. Basically the German Yak-3, but in 1941 and longer-ranged.

 

[z42]

How to make 10k more FW190's without increasing BMW 801 production?

• Most four-engine projects are cancelled. Germany will never have the capacity to produce the vast armadas of four-engined bombers like the UK and US, so don't try to win the war via carpet bombing in the first place. As a result of this the Jumo 222 is also cancelled, causing Junkers to instead focus on improving the 211 leading to the 213 quicker than in the OTL.
• Rather than heavy bombers, what Germany needs is a Mosquito-style fast 2-man bomber / strike aircraft as a replacement for the He111/Ju88/Do17. Install extra fuel tanks in the bomb bay, and maybe it can be used as a semi-long-range maritime patrol aircraft as well. For engines, unitized installation using BMW 801 / Jumo 213 / DB 603 depending on availability.
• DB cancels all the 'doppelmotoren' projects and instead concentrates on the 603. As a result the 603 is available much sooner, and is produced in much larger numbers than historically.
• As a result of the above, the FW 190D / Ta152 can be delivered much sooner, with DB 603 or Jumo 213 used interchangeably depending on availability.
• As the inline FW 190 ramps up, the radial versions are still kept in full scale production, over time slowly ramping down to fulfill the need for F/G fighter-bomber/strike variants as the inline variants take over 'pure' fighter roles.
  
  
  

 

[z42]

The 801 is an AIR COOLED engine, the ONLY German air cooled engine of WW2 to be used on mass produced single engine fighters.
As a consequence the knock limit is lower, and therefore to achieve the same boost requires a higher grade fuel.

Yes, but, why is 'same boost' a goal, per se? Or, if you also give the inlines C3, they could still increase boost further (had the German inlines been otherwise capable of using the extra headroom afforded by C3) and still be ahead of the 801. So the air cooled engine can never catch the inline in terms of boost with the same fuel, it must make do with other qualities making it attractive.

Now, in the situation Germany found itself at the time, with the inlines being incapable of using the full potential of C3, and with the FW 190 in need of a performance boost to keep up with the new allied fighters coming into service (Spit IX with the 2S2C SC in particular?), dedicating C3 to the FW190 made sense for them, maybe even to the point of limiting aircraft production to ensure the planes in use had sufficient fuel available. But AFAIU, this is more about the particular situation in which they found themselves, rather than something inherent to radials vs. inlines?

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Yes, but, why is 'same boost' a goal, per se? Or, if you also give the inlines C3, they could still increase boost further (had the German inlines been otherwise capable of using the extra headroom afforded by C3) and still be ahead of the 801. So the air cooled engine can never catch the inline in terms of boost with the same fuel, it must make do with other qualities making it attractive.

Now, in the situation Germany found itself at the time, with the inlines being incapable of using the full potential of C3, and with the FW 190 in need of a performance boost to keep up with the new allied fighters coming into service (Spit IX with the 2S2C SC in particular?), dedicating C3 to the FW190 made sense for them, maybe even to the point of limiting aircraft production to ensure the planes in use had sufficient fuel available. But AFAIU, this is more about the particular situation in which they found themselves, rather than something inherent to radials vs. inlines?

Because it was not the dominating fighter it needed to be when it was hamstrung by -20mph when de-rated. Its much heavier than a 109, and has a more primitive supercharger meaning poor high altitude performance, so it really needed to maximise what it was good at, which is low and medium level air superiority, which it doesn't achieve on B4.

 

[tomo pauk]

As the inline FW 190 ramps up, the radial versions are still kept in full scale production, over time slowly ramping down to fulfill the need for F/G fighter-bomber/strike variants as the inline variants take over 'pure' fighter roles.

That was basically German plan by late 1944, obviously it was too late.

DB cancels all the 'doppelmotoren' projects and instead concentrates on the 603. As a result the 603 is available much sooner, and is produced in much larger numbers than historically.

Already the de-rated DB 603A might be interesting, in the same vein that DB 605A was for the Bf 109 and Italian fighters before the de-bugging in 1943. Ban the Notleistung, and there is still 1500 HP at 5.7 km vs. 1440 HP on the 801D, 30 min duration vs. 3 min duration; even with limiting the Kampfleistung to 15 min is still worth it. Uses B4 fuel, lowers the drag in the vein the Jumo 213A installation did, has better ram air intake, and gets better mileage. It also offers a smooth transition once the DB 603 is also debugged, as well as take advantage of the 603E when available.

 

[Zmauky]

I admit that the "light Yak-3" variant of the Fw 190 sounds tempting.
Let's say on the small wings of the V-1 prototype with a narrower fuselage and smaller than the A model. Admittedly, that's what K. Tank wanted, but he had to accept that he wouldn't get DB engines. But it is only Fw 190 look alike not some re engined version.

Speaking of which, are there any sketches or descriptions of Tank's project of inline powered pre radial Fw 190 (and after Fw 159) ?

On the other hand, the early variants of the Hohenjager (if we don't count the BMW powered '190B'), which resulted in the Fw 190C, started with the DB 603 and not the smaller (and much more reachable / lighter / in mass production ) DB 605.
So I assume that Kurt had the reason for that choice.

 

[tomo pauk]

I admit that the "light Yak-3" variant of the Fw 190 sounds tempting.
Let's say on the small wings of the V-1 prototype with a narrower fuselage and smaller than the A model. Admittedly, that's what K. Tank wanted, but he had to accept that he wouldn't get DB engines. But it is only Fw 190 look alike not some re engined version.

Tank probably wanted the BMW 139 as the 1st choice, since it was supposed to offer 40% more power than the DB 601A, with installed weight similar to the DB 601A installation. Drag of the powerplant was to be kept low by the smart layout of the nose (too smart for it's own good, as it played out) and the engine not being particularly bulky, as well as blending the ram air intake in the wing root. Drag of the wing vs. the same on the 109 was very low via choice of the airfoil and wing area. Designer(s) also counted on the exhaust thrust to help out.
High power will also provide a high RoC, on an aircraft initially set to the very optimistic goal of 2750 kg take-off weight.

Speaking of which, are there any sketches or descriptions of Tank's project of inline powered pre radial Fw 190 (and after Fw 159) ?

I'm not aware of any such things.
FWIW, the initial design for the future Fw 190 is dated 25th July 1938, proudly with the radial in the nose.

On the other hand, the early variants of the Hohenjager (if we don't count the BMW powered '190B'), which resulted in the Fw 190C, started with the DB 603 and not the smaller (and much more reachable / lighter / in mass production ) DB 605.
So I assume that Kurt had the reason for that choice.

Tank was aiming for an actual improvement vs. the 'normal' 190s, not for a mere equalization.

 

[Zmauky]

Tank was aiming for an actual improvement vs. the 'normal' 190s, not for a mere equalization.

Maybe that was the case, but then why would we agree to a weaker version ( DB 605 engined ) ?
The discussion is that the differences (in that period of time) in power BMW 801 vs DB 605 are not significant, but it is question of time.
The time spent on development (during 1942 ie when the DB 605 became available) is the same as for the DB 603 ( and it was done mainly because of Jumo 213 delay ). Previously we only had (of that power) the DB 601 on c3 fuel.
If, on the other hand, we start the development in parallel with the radial version, then the growth (or reduction) of the construction ie size of airframe is similar to the growth and differences in the prototypes (V1 - V5g), i.e. the standard Fw 190 is a bit too big for the db 601 (i.e. the engine is too weak)?

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe that was the case, but then why would we agree to a weaker version ( DB 605 engined ) ?
The discussion is that the differences (in that period of time) in power BMW 801 vs DB 605 are not significant, but it is question of time.
The time spent on development (during 1942 ie when the DB 605 became available) is the same as for the DB 603 ( and it was done mainly because of Jumo 213 delay ). Previously we only had (of that power) the DB 601 on c3 fuel.
If, on the other hand, we start the development in parallel with the radial version, then the growth (or reduction) of the construction ie size of airframe is similar to the growth and differences in the prototypes (V1 - V5g), i.e. the standard Fw 190 is a bit too big for the db 601 (i.e. the engine is too weak)?

Start the discussion ASAP, ie in 1938.
The growth in weight from V1 onwards was due to the many factors, with the switch from the light and short 139 to the heavy and longer 801. Add the introduction of the armored oil system, and weight climbs by 25% just because on these changes. heavier front end required relocation of the cockpit back, I don't know what weight gain was due to that. Fuselage will need to be heavier to support the heavy nose. Wing needs to grow, since the original small wing will not offer the desired wing loading figure; bigger wing = heavier wing. Undercarriage also needs to be stronger = heavier. More guns are envisioned, with their ammo, since now there is extra volume between the engine and cockpit = weight grows again.

Change from the 139 to the DB 601 removes the need for all these changes to be made, aircraft is kept light and with even lower drag. By all means, develop the heavyweight counterpart of the design, that still uses best part of the fuselage, tail, fuel system and wings' parts of the lightweight 190, and keep talking with DB for the 603 (as they did already in 1941).

DB 601E is in the ballpark with the BMW 801C above 3 km, while being lighter, less draggy, more reliable, all while using less fuel.