30 000 Fw 190s - how?

There are of course many way to get to the same result as one fancies. Me having had another look at Ju-88 production it seems no less than almost 3000 Ju-88R/G/S were powered by BMW-801 or Jumo-213 engines. So these are enough to power roughly 6000 of our 10 000 FW-190s. Those Ju-88 in turn would have to be powered by those extra Jumo-211s, for a bit lower performance true, but it will have to do.

Coupled with the DB-603 engines from the cancelled Me-410, we are almost there at 8500.

Another idea above was to focus on DB-603 instead of the doppelmotors, so if instead of the 8400 plus X/Y doppelunits we have say 4000 DB-601/605 and 4000 DB-603s from 1943 (i assume the larger 603 take longer to manufacture, plus there would be retooling disruption), now we have enough OTL engine options for all the FW-190s.

Finally that Ostmark factory, we can either have it part of DB and making DB-603s from the start, so let's say instead of the OTL 2900 units they make 4000 plus, OR we leave it with Junkers but have it make Jumo-213s from the start, for hopefully roughly the same numbers.

In addition to all this we still have some 4000 plus extra DB-601/605 engines that could go to either extra Me-110 (since the Me-210/410 are axed) or even better, more Bf-109F/G/Ks.

What is more, a majority of our extra FW-190s will be powered by B4 running Jumo-213/DB-603s, so there would less extra strain on the C3 supply. And we'd probably still have a few Jumo-213s or BMW-801s to go on the Ju-88, not as many as OTL true, but still some.

That's my Peter robbing Paul on this subject.

Hmm,
well, I tried to say that the Fw 190 designed around the DB601 around 1938 is not the Fw 190 we know, but a slightly smaller and only similar plane to the Fw 190A model, i.e. closer in size / weight / engine power to the V1 model.
And I have no doubt that, as such a "light" model, it would be even more formidable (and even a few years earlier) than the original version of the Fw 190A during, for example, 1940 - 1942. But if it is a smaller version of the real Fw 190, then we are (as with the Me 109 ) with a smaller aiframe limited to DB 601/605. And that's where the same problems start - too small an airplane for more weapons to fight flying fortresses, maybe too small for enough fuel, for the second generation of engines ( BMW 801 / Jumo 213/ DB 603 / jumo 222 /anything) etc...
That just means more light "Fw 190/DB 601/5" and less Me 109 ?

And on the other hand, if we assume that for the Fw 190/DB 601/5 light we can take a V1 airframe (adapted for an inline engine), what do we have left same with Fw 190A as it was ? It is enough to look at all the described differences between the V1 and A models. So, the heavyweight counterpart, i.e. the original Fw 190, is a separate plane from the Fw 190/DB 601/5, significantly more than the difference between the Yak-9 and the Yak-3.

Whether, I suppose, the better and more dangerous fighter component of the Luftwaffe '40 - '42 armed with light Fw version would have had a significant impact on course of war is a completely different discussion .
Although the "Fw 190 light" is a very interesting choice to supplement and replace the Me 109 after the F model, i.e. during 1942.

Zmauky said:

Hmm,
well, I tried to say that the Fw 190 designed around the DB601 around 1938 is not the Fw 190 we know, but a slightly smaller and only similar plane to the Fw 190A model, i.e. closer in size / weight / engine power to the V1 model.

Click to expand...

Fair points.
OTOH, we can take a look on Bf 109 for example, where the 109E and 109F didn't have the same wing, tail, tailwheel, cooling system, nose, yet both were the 109s. Or the P-51 and P-51D, that saw deepening the fuselage, cutting back the fuselage behind the cockpit, different cockpit canopy, internal changes and reinforcements in the wing so for different weapon set up and ability to carry external loads, a much different cooling system, finding the place for the fuselage tank, new engine and prop, increased 'kink' for the more beefy U/C - still, both were the P-51s. The lightweight Mustangs were again with a new fuselage, wing, tail engine section, cooling system, undercarriage, cockpit canopy, fuel system, yet these were again called P-51s.

Zmauky said:

And I have no doubt that, as such a "light" model, it would be even more formidable (and even a few years earlier) than the original version of the Fw 190A during, for example, 1940 - 1942. But if it is a smaller version of the real Fw 190, then we are (as with the Me 109 ) with a smaller aiframe limited to DB 601/605. And that's where the same problems start - too small an airplane for more weapons to fight flying fortresses, maybe too small for enough fuel, for the second generation of engines ( BMW 801 / Jumo 213/ DB 603 / jumo 222 /anything) etc...
That just means more light "Fw 190/DB 601/5" and less Me 109 ?

Click to expand...

As-is, already the Fw 190V1 was supposed to carry more than 500L of fuel in it's tank, the next types fixed that to 525L in two tanks, so I see no need to skimp on that. Wing was still big enough for two synchronized MG 151s in the roots, and even if these can't fit in the outer wing, the MG FFMs will. I'd keep the "190 lite" without the cowl guns what so ever, so there is possibility for a prop gun to be installed.
Against the Bf 109, the '190 lite' will have more fuel, better cockpit & canopy, better firepower without the need of going for gondola cannons, lower drag, better U/C.

Zmauky said:

And on the other hand, if we assume that for the Fw 190/DB 601/5 light we can take a V1 airframe (adapted for an inline engine), what do we have left same with Fw 190A as it was ? It is enough to look at all the described differences between the V1 and A models. So, the heavyweight counterpart, i.e. the original Fw 190, is a separate plane from the Fw 190/DB 601/5, significantly more than the difference between the Yak-9 and the Yak-3.

Click to expand...

I'd say - more difference than it was between the 190A and 190D, and probably less difference than it was between the Yak-1 and -3.
(we can recall that Yak-3U - the one with radial engine - was still called the Yak-3 despite the wholesale changes to it, including reverting back to the big wing, with area like that Yak-1/-7/-9 had)
But, at any rate, what interests me more is whether the net gain in capability can be had, and earlier, that the nomenclature

Zmauky said:

Whether, I suppose, the better and more dangerous fighter component of the Luftwaffe '40 - '42 armed with light Fw version would have had a significant impact on course of war is a completely different discussion .
Although the "Fw 190 light" is a very interesting choice to supplement and replace the Me 109 after the F model, i.e. during 1942.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

FWIW, some options with the BMW 801, that can avoid the need for C3 fuel and still be very worthy of service. Will probably require BMW cancelling any other engine that is not the 801, though.
- install the better, debugged parts from the 801D (like the chrome-coated valves and spark plugs, etc) on the 801C, so the reliability is where it should be
- 2700 rpm operation for 2nd gear as standard for the 801C, as it was supposed to be from late 1941 on (keeps the 190 competitive at high altitudes until mid/late 1943)
- retrofit the supercharger system from the 801E on the power section of the 801C, for the better power all-around (hopefully in ballpark of normally rated 801D)
- later, cut the CR even further so that engine (801C with E's S/C) can play well with the turbo while still on B4 fuel
- MW 50 system for the 801s all-around, also for the turbo version
- external air intake, where high altitude performance is needed; these are also conductive for the installation of dust filters
- devise the better external air intakes, that are more streamlined for lower drag and better speed
- not a part of the engine, but ditch the cowl MGs ASAP

tomo pauk said:

Or - how to have Germany make an extra 10000 of Fw 190s in the time of 1940-45? That is with campaigns/milestones of the war (BoB, OP Barbarossa, US entry in the war, invasions of Italy, German retreat from Soviet Union etc.) unfold pretty much as they did historically. Obvously, it will require robbing Paul (= not making something else, or change something else on production lines) to pay Paul (= make more 190s).

It is also required here that Bf 109 is produced in historical numbers at least. Ditto for night fighters and jet fighters. The number of BMW 801 engines produced is as historical, too.

Click to expand...

Wondering whether there would've been enough new Jagdfliegern to use those extra airframes...

Only if you increase wooden glider production for basic training

Barrett said:

Wondering whether there would've been enough new Jagdfliegern to use those extra airframes...

Click to expand...

There should be new-produced Bf 110s, 210s or 410s to be used as long-range fighters, fighter-bombers and interceptor fighters, so the pilots historically piloting these will pilot the 190s instead. Schlachtfliegern will fare better in 190s than in Ju 87s or Hs 129s.
New Jagfliegern should find the 190 easier to master, not just because of the better undercarriage that does not want to wreck itself on a non-ideal landing. A bombed-up 190, even the one with the small wing that I'm championing, should be better than a bombed-up 109, that struggled when tasked to carry a bomb heavier than 250kg.

Axis allied pilots, like these from Finland, Italy, Romania or Hungary will find this a better fighter or fighter-bomber than the Hurricanes, MS.406s, Buffaloes, G.50s or Re.2002s they were driving. Same as the Allied pilots were better off when in Spitfire, Mustang, Tempest, Hellcat or Thunderbolt, rather than in Hurricane, Wildcat, Yak-1/-7/-9 or a P-40.

tomo pauk said:

FWIW, some options with the BMW 801, that can avoid the need for C3 fuel and still be very worthy of service. Will probably require BMW cancelling any other engine that is not the 801, though.
- install the better, debugged parts from the 801D (like the chrome-coated valves and spark plugs, etc) on the 801C, so the reliability is where it should be
- 2700 rpm operation for 2nd gear as standard for the 801C, as it was supposed to be from late 1941 on (keeps the 190 competitive at high altitudes until mid/late 1943)
- retrofit the supercharger system from the 801E on the power section of the 801C, for the better power all-around (hopefully in ballpark of normally rated 801D)
- later, cut the CR even further so that engine (801C with E's S/C) can play well with the turbo while still on B4 fuel
- MW 50 system for the 801s all-around, also for the turbo version
- external air intake, where high altitude performance is needed; these are also conductive for the installation of dust filters
- devise the better external air intakes, that are more streamlined for lower drag and better speed
- not a part of the engine, but ditch the cowl MGs ASAP

Click to expand...

Very interesting your comments re BMW-801 and B4, which goes to answer in part something similar i asked in another what-if topic (BMW-801 power evolution on just B4, as well as same for DB-601N).

While at it, regarding the bombers that flew BMW-801D that were derated to run on B4, is there any info as to what ata were they derated to, is it 1.32 ata like the C or 1,35 ata like the derated D? I'm just trying to figure if 1.35 ata can be run with B4 for the purpose of this ATL.

Also i read a tidbit on the www that seems to say that the CR of the BMW-801E/F (and presumably TS?) was raised to 8.3:1, is this correct? .

mack8 said:

Also i read a tidbit on the www that seems to say that the CR of the BMW-801E/F (and presumably TS?) was raised to 8.3:1, is this correct? .

Click to expand...

Book 'Flugmotoren & Strahltriebwerke' says 7.2:1 for the E, ie. same as on the 801D.

tomo pauk said:

option for the external air intakes was there for the 190s, it was not proceeded with apart for few prototypes/modified 'normal' 190s. Most of the exhausts on the 801 were single, it was just one pair that was welded together.
Good call on the need to reduce the power of the fan - perhaps use slower gearing, once the engine is debugged? Halving the power needed = leaves about 35 PS down low, and perhaps 20 at the rated altitude? BMW and FW need probably to tackle the forced cooing via use of exhaust gasses, despite the good results of the experiments undertaken.
What the 801 needed, IMO, was sorting out it's supercharger for the mass use.

Click to expand...

Surely there was still some thrust from the fan out of the cowl?