Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

[DarrenW]

Are you still interested in those?

Hi Tomo yes I am. I see that the graph shows that while carrying Werfer-Granate 21 rocket launchers the aircraft reached a maximum speed of 594 km/hr (369 mph) at 6250 meters (20,505 feet), while with GM-1 a speed of 605 km/hr (376 mph) was reached at 8000 meters (26, 247 feet). Is this how you see it to be as well?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I see that the graph shows that while carrying Werfer-Granate 21 rocket launchers the aircraft reached a maximum speed of 594 km/hr (369 mph) at 6250 meters (20,505 feet), while with GM-1 a speed of 605 km/hr (376 mph) was reached at 8000 meters (26, 247 feet). Is this how you see it to be as well?

Yes, case '5' is when two 'Werfer-Granate 21' rockets launchers are attached under the wings ('u. d. Fl.' - unter dem Fluegel), gun armament was two MG 131s and two MG 151/20s for the case '5'.
The other cases are for different cannon set-ups for outer guns' positions, case '3' and '4' for under-wing cannons.

 

[DarrenW]

"Flat plate" is the area of a square, flat plate with the same drag as the aircraft. I tend to think it's a lousy measure, because a small aircraft with the drag profile of a barn door will have a smaller equivalent flat plate area than an efficient, larger aircraft.

Hi Swampyankee,

Found this on the web. It seems to mirror what you were saying earlier.

World Heritage Encyclopedia


Mathematically, zero-lift drag coefficient is defined as C_{D,0} = C_D - C_{D,i}, where C_D is the total drag coefficient for a given power, speed, and altitude, and C_{D,i} is the lift-induced drag coefficient at the same conditions. Thus, zero-lift drag coefficient is reflective of parasitic drag which makes it very useful in understanding how "clean" or streamlined an aircraft's aerodynamics are. For example, a Sopwith Camel biplane of World War I which had many wires and bracing struts as well as fixed landing gear, had a zero-lift drag coefficient of approximately 0.0378. Compare a C_{D,0} value of 0.0161 for the streamlined P-51 Mustang of World War II which compares very favorably even with the best modern aircraft.

The drag at zero-lift can be more easily conceptualized as the drag area (f) which is simply the product of zero-lift drag coefficient and aircraft's wing area (C_{D,0} \times S where S is the wing area). Parasitic drag experienced by an aircraft with a given drag area is approximately equal to the drag of a flat square disk with the same area which is held perpendicular to the direction of flight. The Sopwith Camel has a drag area of 8.73 sq ft (0.811 m2), compared to 3.80 sq ft (0.353 m2) for the P-51. Both aircraft have a similar wing area, again reflecting the Mustang's superior aerodynamics in spite of much larger size.[1] In another comparison with the Camel, a very large but streamlined aircraft such as the Lockheed Constellation has a considerably smaller zero-lift drag coefficient (0.0211 vs. 0.0378) in spite of having a much larger drag area (34.82 ft² vs. 8.73 ft²).

 

[DarrenW]

Yes, case '5' is when two 'Werfer-Granate 21' rockets launchers are attached under the wings ('u. d. Fl.' - unter dem Fluegel), gun armament was two MG 131s and two MG 151/20s for the case '5'.
The other cases are for different cannon set-ups for outer guns' positions, case '3' and '4' for under-wing cannons.

Thanks, I like this chart because it actually shows how the speed of the aircraft was affected by the different armaments it could carry.

Earlier you mentioned the 190F and G which I completely forgot about. I have always believed them to be used more for ground attack, and not so much for air to air combat. Have I been mislead at all?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Earlier you mentioned the 190F and G which I completely forgot about. I have always believed them to be used more for ground attack, and not so much for air to air combat. Have I been mislead at all?

The 190F was a fighter-bomber supposed to be employed as ground attacker, featuring many times increased armor. The 190F-8 featured the external air intakes so the air filters can be installed. Usualy the cowl guns were retained, outer guns deleted. Different combinations or extra armor, extra internal fuel tank and cowl guns were in use (one thing excuding another).
190G were intended for long range work, being usualy outfitted with wing drop tanks facility, so the external payload might involve either on bomb + 2 tanks, or 2 bombs + 1 tank. The 190G-8 was also featuring the extra fuselage tank, carry-over from A-8.

Both F and G versions were capable fighters once external payload was dropped (they were fighter-bombers, after all), for example Rudel claimed a number of Soviet A/C when he flew the 190F.

 

[DarrenW]

The 190F was a fighter-bomber supposed to be employed as ground attacker, featuring many times increased armor. The 190F-8 featured the external air intakes so the air filters can be installed. Usualy the cowl guns were retained, outer guns deleted. Different combinations or extra armor, extra internal fuel tank and cowl guns were in use (one thing excuding another).
190G were intended for long range work, being usualy outfitted with wing drop tanks facility, so the external payload might involve either on bomb + 2 tanks, or 2 bombs + 1 tank. The 190G-8 was also featuring the extra fuselage tank, carry-over from A-8.

Both F and G versions were capable fighters once external payload was dropped (they were fighter-bombers, after all), for example Rudel claimed a number of Soviet A/C when he flew the 190F.

Thanks for the run-down on their use, and I was unaware that Hans Rudel flew an FW 190 in combat. So basically what I'm seeing is the extra armor did not overtly affect handling or performance of the fighter. For the most part was this armor easy enough to remove in order to put its weight somewhere around what one would find with the A-8 model?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
So basically what I'm seeing is the extra armor did not overtly affect handling or performance of the fighter. For the most part was this armor easy enough to remove in order to put its weight somewhere around what one would find with the A-8 model?

Handling and climb were not that much affected, since it was most of the times 'item A out, install item B' procedure. However, speed was very much hurt when the 190F carried four wing racks and belly rack - a 35-40 km/h loss vs. 190A-6. Still can bag a mid-war Soviet fighter, or any 'frontline bomber' (Il-2, A-20, B-25 etc.) but will not cut it against the Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire IX or XII, or any later US or Soviet fighter.
The 190G was considerably faster than the 190F on same power, due to having less racks and less guns (= lower drag). 190G-8 was also much lighter than F-8 or A-8, by 300 kg, all for clean condition.

 

[wuzak]

The 109G was considerably faster than the 109F on same power, due to having less racks and less guns (= lower drag). 109G-8 was also much lighter than F-8 or A-8, by 300 kg, all for clean condition.

I assume these were all supposed to be 190 rather than 109?

 

[tomo pauk]

I assume these were all supposed to be 190 rather than 109?

Whoops
I'll edit that. The should've named the new fighter Fw 246, 311 or something

 

[pbehn]

The Fockerschmidt Anagram BfW 910 was a formidable machine

 

[DarrenW]

Handling and climb were not that much affected, since it was most of the times 'item A out, install item B' procedure. However, speed was very much hurt when the 190F carried four wing racks and belly rack - a 35-40 km/h loss vs. 190A-6. Still can bag a mid-war Soviet fighter, or any 'frontline bomber' (Il-2, A-20, B-25 etc.) but will not cut it against the Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire IX or XII, or any later US or Soviet fighter.
The 190G was considerably faster than the 190F on same power, due to having less racks and less guns (= lower drag). 190G-8 was also much lighter than F-8 or A-8, by 300 kg, all for clean condition.

As always excellent stuff Tomo.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The 190F was a fighter-bomber supposed to be employed as ground attacker, featuring many times increased armor. The 190F-8 featured the external air intakes so the air filters can be installed. Usualy the cowl guns were retained, outer guns deleted. Different combinations or extra armor, extra internal fuel tank and cowl guns were in use (one thing excuding another).

Hello Tomo Pauk,
Are you certain that the F-8 used external air intakes? There is a beautiful FW 190F-8 in the Udvar Hazy Smithsonian which appears to have normal intakes. Why would extra armour, cowl guns, and extra internal fuel tanks (behind cockpit?) be mutually exclusive?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far is that the F and G series were originally just factory Umrustbausatz special equipment versions of standard A series fighters.
The first F series fighters were just redesignations of ground attack versions of the A-4 series and continued through to factory modifications of the A-9 series
The first G series I believe began as a renaming of ground attack A-5 series.
The FW 190A-5/U8 that was in the USN test would be designated a FW 190G-2 later in the war.
The powerplants of these Jabo were calibrated differently and may have had different equipment but so far I have not been able to find anything that does a direct comparison between a fighter and a ground attack engine. Perhaps the A-5 in the test lacked a pressurized ignition system as I have seen described in other forums. That would explain the engine cut during service ceiling test.

- Ivan.

 

[icepac]

Hello Tomo Pauk,
Are you certain that the F-8 used external air intakes? There is a beautiful FW 190F-8 in the Udvar Hazy Smithsonian which appears to have normal intakes. Why would extra armour, cowl guns, and extra internal fuel tanks (behind cockpit?) be mutually exclusive?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far is that the F and G series were originally just factory Umrustbausatz special equipment versions of standard A series fighters.
The first F series fighters were just redesignations of ground attack versions of the A-4 series and continued through to factory modifications of the A-9 series
The first G series I believe began as a renaming of ground attack A-5 series.
The FW 190A-5/U8 that was in the USN test would be designated a FW 190G-2 later in the war.
The powerplants of these Jabo were calibrated differently and may have had different equipment but so far I have not been able to find anything that does a direct comparison between a fighter and a ground attack engine. Perhaps the A-5 in the test lacked a pressurized ignition system as I have seen described in other forums. That would explain the engine cut during service ceiling test.

- Ivan.

I think the one at the smithsonian was converted to F8 but, in times of war, they don't perform every detail modification in the conversion. They just needed it modded to perform a specific task.

 

[Zipper730]

The Spitfire had a good rate of turn, seemed to be a decent rate of roll for the most part, though not exactly the best. The XIV is best in climb from 15000-25000 feet, it's raw power would probably yield a good sustained turn rate.

I'm not sure how the A6M's climb rate is between 15000-25000 feet, though I assume much of it's performance would decay above 20,000 feet. It had a great rate of turn at low speeds, not sure about roll-rates (it seemed that at higher speeds it couldn't roll as good).