Favorite fighter/interceptor?
- Thread starter carpenoctem1689
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes fuel is noted on the charts, you'll see either (C3) or (B4) noted where used. About the engine gap well this seems to have been a rather unique problem with Werknr 0001 2, and not a problem with any other good condition production model. This can probably be attributed to an unusual bad finish of Werknr. 0001 2, there being no mentioning of this engine gap in reports about other production units.
Hi all!
The engine gap problem IMHO occured to all 190d a/c, prototype or serial production.
The reason for this gap is that the engine cowling was fitted to the engine. In flight the engine turns slightly (in the opposite direction of the prop,because of the great torque) in there elastic mountings and so the position of the cowling changed to the rest of the fuselage and wing, resulting in a gap and a speed loss of 10-15 km/h. Focke Wulf developed a cowling wich was fitted to the fuselage and tsteted it with the ta 152c successfully. For the d-9, Rechlin, for unknown reasons, rejected the idea of an rubber sealing for production d-9's. So there is no evidence that this problem was ever solved.
Greetings
Thrawn
The engine gap problem IMHO occured to all 190d a/c, prototype or serial production.
The reason for this gap is that the engine cowling was fitted to the engine. In flight the engine turns slightly (in the opposite direction of the prop,because of the great torque) in there elastic mountings and so the position of the cowling changed to the rest of the fuselage and wing, resulting in a gap and a speed loss of 10-15 km/h. Focke Wulf developed a cowling wich was fitted to the fuselage and tsteted it with the ta 152c successfully. For the d-9, Rechlin, for unknown reasons, rejected the idea of an rubber sealing for production d-9's. So there is no evidence that this problem was ever solved.
Greetings
Thrawn
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Hi,
Is there a source for this ? I`ve never seen it before, and it seem to me as an oddity, ie. the 109F-K had also a 'quick access' cowling and you can see the rubber sealing in it even today.
drgondog
Major
Kurfurst - there is a fair gap in operational details about the Dora and the Ta 152 which is understandable given the state of Germany in 1945.
As evidenced by the data presented from different sources it is clear that the fw 190D series was one helluva an airplane, but anecdotal eveidence also suggests that it rarely reached its theoretical performance potential perhaps because of combinations of factors.
It is clear to me that some excellent flight tests were performed with C3, probably using real methanol for MW50, and rendering the surface as closely as possible to wind test model (Engine cover seals, landing gear covers) etc., etc.
What is very obscure for me is how much ethanol, how much C3, or even if seals were applied in combat ops. It seems that all three of these deficiencies would take perhaps 20+kts away from the Test results often documented.
Because my German is non-existant I am also having trouble between theoretical results extrapolated from wind tunnel drag results and actual flight tests.
At any rate I love the airplane and personally not trying to detract from its capabilities - there just is a lot of confusing information out there.
Regards,
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Just a quickie.
Ie. here`s an anecdotal evidence I found in Caldwell`s JG 26 book (43-45), page 421.
After five months at the front, Karl-Heinz Ossenkop was now a proficient air fighter. His comments on his aircraft are worth noting:
"The Fw 190D-9 was quickly adopted by the pilots, after some initial reservations. They felt it was equal to or better than the equipment of the opposition. Its serviceability was not so good, owing to the circumstances. I felt that aircraft built at Sorau had the best fit and finish.They could be recognized by their dark green camouflage. I hit 600 kph [370 mph] in my "own" green aircraft, "black 8", withfull power and MW 50 [methanol injection], clean, 20-30 meters [65-100 feet] above the ground.
"Compared with the Fw I90A-8, the Dora-9:
1) with 40-50 more horsepower,had a greater level speed, climb rate, and ceiling,
2) had much better visibility to the rear, owing to its bubble canopy;
3) was much quieter - the Jumo 213A vibrated much less than the BMW 801; 4) handled better in steep climbs an turning, owing probably to its greater shaft horsepower at full throttle;
5) had less torque effect on takeoff or landing; and
6) had slightly greater endurance .
"Compared with the Spitfire, the Dora-9:
1) had greater level, climbing, and diving speeds; and
2) was inferior in turns, especially in steep climbing turns typical of combat.
Compared with the Tempest, the Dora-9:
1) was better in the climb and in turns;
2), had the same or lower level speed, depending on its fit and finish; and
3) had a lower diving speed.
"Compared with the Thunderbolt , the Dora-9:
1) had a greater level and climbing speed;
2) had a better turning ability; and
3) was inferior past all hope in diving speed."
It would appear to me that the 600kph-ish speed were indeed achieved in service aircraft. It should be noted that those company curves and figures were guarenteed by Focke-Wulf within +/- 3% margin of error. B.A.L., the LWs Quality Control would simply not accept the planes that were not within tolerance. Not even in 1945.
Ie. here`s an anecdotal evidence I found in Caldwell`s JG 26 book (43-45), page 421.
After five months at the front, Karl-Heinz Ossenkop was now a proficient air fighter. His comments on his aircraft are worth noting:
"The Fw 190D-9 was quickly adopted by the pilots, after some initial reservations. They felt it was equal to or better than the equipment of the opposition. Its serviceability was not so good, owing to the circumstances. I felt that aircraft built at Sorau had the best fit and finish.They could be recognized by their dark green camouflage. I hit 600 kph [370 mph] in my "own" green aircraft, "black 8", withfull power and MW 50 [methanol injection], clean, 20-30 meters [65-100 feet] above the ground.
"Compared with the Fw I90A-8, the Dora-9:
1) with 40-50 more horsepower,had a greater level speed, climb rate, and ceiling,
2) had much better visibility to the rear, owing to its bubble canopy;
3) was much quieter - the Jumo 213A vibrated much less than the BMW 801; 4) handled better in steep climbs an turning, owing probably to its greater shaft horsepower at full throttle;
5) had less torque effect on takeoff or landing; and
6) had slightly greater endurance .
"Compared with the Spitfire, the Dora-9:
1) had greater level, climbing, and diving speeds; and
2) was inferior in turns, especially in steep climbing turns typical of combat.
Compared with the Tempest, the Dora-9:
1) was better in the climb and in turns;
2), had the same or lower level speed, depending on its fit and finish; and
3) had a lower diving speed.
"Compared with the Thunderbolt , the Dora-9:
1) had a greater level and climbing speed;
2) had a better turning ability; and
3) was inferior past all hope in diving speed."
It would appear to me that the 600kph-ish speed were indeed achieved in service aircraft. It should be noted that those company curves and figures were guarenteed by Focke-Wulf within +/- 3% margin of error. B.A.L., the LWs Quality Control would simply not accept the planes that were not within tolerance. Not even in 1945.
drgondog
Major
What isn't clear is whether Ossenkop refutes the JG 26 diary entries expressing concerns that the Mustang 'appeared' to be faster and out accelerate the Dora.
150 octane fuel was in wide use and the P-51B's were still in abundance, and the B with 1650-7 for WEP at 90" would perform at around 374mph at SL with 4380fpm climb from SL through 2,200 feet... all at 9335 pounds which is full internal fuel of 265 gallons and full ammo, external racks but no tanks. Those flight test data were also taken at Eglin in July (hot and humid) where the temperatures at sea level were 40 degrees above STP.. It might be intuited that flight tests in March 1945 in Germany would average surface temperatures in the 35-45 degree F - or 50 degrees below the P-51B-15 test conditions?
So,if Ossenkop was in a heavily loaded Dora the comparisons would be about the same would they not? and if the conditions were for reduced fuel in Ossenkop's Dora then the P-51B-15 (assuming good operational conditions for both a/c) would be favored slightly in speed, maybe acceleration, and again nearly equal in climb and turn - with edge to Dora for roll, for equal combat conditions.
All in all it is easy to conceive of III./JG54 and JG26 pilots not having a hoped for edge with fighters so closely matched?
As for the P-51D, the Dora should out climb it and be equal (+-) in turn, and superior in roll.
The 51D was also at 368mph at SL on a hot day and would be the same at altitude for speed. If a Dora could climb same as, or better than a 109 in a steep climbing turn, that would be difficult for a Mustang to match - otherwise the Mustang could manuever with it in everything but roll below 370+ mph
Anecdotally (pure subjective viewpoint of the survivor of encounters) the 355th experiences with the Dora, were favorable in impression compared to Fw 190A-8, but often remarked that it didn't stack up to a 109 pilot of great skill and experience in a dogfight. All this tells me is that tactical position and pilot skills comparisons are uncertain, particularly at this stage of the war.
The 355th lost one Mustang to a Dora, lost one chasing a Dora to flak and were awarded 9 Dora's (we need not debate awards process) in air to air combat - mostly against airfield defense units at places like Ludwiglust and Rheine.. But on January 14, 1945 they bagged four Dora's three A-8s and 4 109s in a 'squadron on squadron mix around Munster for no losses. The Dora's and 109s were flying top cover for about 20 'heavily loaded Fws' which I assume were A-8s.
Kurfurst- Summary for me is that the Dora-9 was an intermediate step up from the Fw 190A, was designed to meet a Mustang on equal terms - and it did. Maybe better in some envelopes and not as good in others - but for all intents and purposes a marvelous fighter.
When I looked at JG54 record, it did seem that a higher percentage of its victories were Spitfires than any other craft and 'broke even' against the Mustang, with favorable ratios against the P-47.
I wonder if Ossenkop had any meaningful encounters with Mustangs as he left them out of his comparison?
At any rate this has been a good debate.
Soren, thanks for explaining the difference between German 'max TO' and Emergency Boost comparisons - that helped explain such a large gap in actual vs theoretical performance in the March tests for the D-9 that we were debating. Has anyone basically presented the Test results you showed as a written (english) report explaining the test parameters?
Bill,
There are plenty of LW pilot reports which note reaching well past 600 km/h at SL in the Dora. One expression used "At max power and with ears laid back you could easily reach over 600 km/h at SL".
As for maneuverability, well the Dora-9 would out-turn the P-51B Mustang at low to medium altitude, the Dora-9 having a higher sustained turn rate, but this would turn around over 25,000 ft. The instantanous turn rate is very similar. The advantage the FW190 enjoys however is roll rate, and it enjoys a big advantage here being able to enter maneuvers much faster than the P-51. The much higher roll rate also enables the FW190 to easily Split S out of trouble, the fail safe maneuver with a Spit on the tail. So in terms of maneuverability the FW-190 has the edge.
The climb rate of a good condition production Dora-9 at SL is 4,430 ft/min clean, faster than the P-51B running at 75" Hg, but not by much.
Time to reach 6km for the Dora-9 with ETC-504 rack is 5.5 min and 10km is reached in 13.1 min. Cleanly loaded the Dora-9 is ~0.6min faster than this, reaching 6km in 5 min and 10km in 12.5 min.
The P-51B cleanly loaded at 9335 lbs and running at 75" Hg reaches 6km in 5.3 min and 10km in 12.2 min.
So climb performance is as follows:
FW-190 Dora-9 (MW50 clean)
Top SL speed: 612 km/h
Top speed at alt: 702 km/h at 5.7 km
Max climb rate: 4,430 ft/min
Time to climb;
3 km : 2.3 min
6 km : 5 min
10 km : 12.5 min
P-51B Mustang (75" Hg clean)
Top SL speed: 617 km/h
Top speed at alt: 710 km/h at 6.2 km
Max climb rate: 4,380 ft/min
Time to climb;
3 km : 2.5 min
6 km : 5.3 min
10 km : 12.2 min
They are very close competitors.
There are plenty of LW pilot reports which note reaching well past 600 km/h at SL in the Dora. One expression used "At max power and with ears laid back you could easily reach over 600 km/h at SL".
As for maneuverability, well the Dora-9 would out-turn the P-51B Mustang at low to medium altitude, the Dora-9 having a higher sustained turn rate, but this would turn around over 25,000 ft. The instantanous turn rate is very similar. The advantage the FW190 enjoys however is roll rate, and it enjoys a big advantage here being able to enter maneuvers much faster than the P-51. The much higher roll rate also enables the FW190 to easily Split S out of trouble, the fail safe maneuver with a Spit on the tail. So in terms of maneuverability the FW-190 has the edge.
The climb rate of a good condition production Dora-9 at SL is 4,430 ft/min clean, faster than the P-51B running at 75" Hg, but not by much.
Time to reach 6km for the Dora-9 with ETC-504 rack is 5.5 min and 10km is reached in 13.1 min. Cleanly loaded the Dora-9 is ~0.6min faster than this, reaching 6km in 5 min and 10km in 12.5 min.
The P-51B cleanly loaded at 9335 lbs and running at 75" Hg reaches 6km in 5.3 min and 10km in 12.2 min.
So climb performance is as follows:
FW-190 Dora-9 (MW50 clean)
Top SL speed: 612 km/h
Top speed at alt: 702 km/h at 5.7 km
Max climb rate: 4,430 ft/min
Time to climb;
3 km : 2.3 min
6 km : 5 min
10 km : 12.5 min
P-51B Mustang (75" Hg clean)
Top SL speed: 617 km/h
Top speed at alt: 710 km/h at 6.2 km
Max climb rate: 4,380 ft/min
Time to climb;
3 km : 2.5 min
6 km : 5.3 min
10 km : 12.2 min
They are very close competitors.
The Rechlin statement is from Dietmar hermann. Its written in his books about the Fw and at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com as a comment to the dora charts. I think he is credible on this. But i think its possible that later the rubber seal was used, but no documentary was found yet. I also find it odd that the germans were trying all with MW50 and higher manifold pressure to gain some km/h more and on the other side they are willing to lost 15km/h because they don't want so seal a simple gap.
Btw, drgondog, I think the methanol in MW50 was only used as an anti-freeze, while the evaporating water sinks the engine temp to allow a higher power output. So pure water will be more effective but it will freeze and cause corrosion. So the Power output will be similar.
Greetings
Thrawn
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Interesting stuff guys - BTW pure "distilled" water will not corrode a coolant system providing there are no other loose impurities within the system.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Bill, since you are our resident Mustang expert with outstanding credentials in that area, I have a question: Is the laminar flow wing more or less sensitive in terms of the finish being clean or smooth with regard to the effect on drag or lift compared to other wing configurations and how would ice or snow or salt water scale effect the lift characteristics of the laminar flow wing? Let me slip in another question: We know the Navy fighters had shorter takeoff distances than the AAF fighters. Was that a function of more wing area, angle of incidence, wing cross section(more camber) or a combination of factors? Thank you.
That question is easily answered Renrich; Yes, the laminar flow wing is very sensitive to the finish of the wing, any small lumbs ruining the laminar flow, hence why no -51 in service ever achieved fully laminar flow over its wing.
The Navy fighters used higher lift airfoils, namely the NACA 23000 series as used by the FW190. The F6F had a very high CL, while the F4U's was more modest because of the radiators in the wing root's leading edge and the gull wing. The F4U benefitted from a good high lift flap system though.
Hope that answered your question Renrich.
The Navy fighters used higher lift airfoils, namely the NACA 23000 series as used by the FW190. The F6F had a very high CL, while the F4U's was more modest because of the radiators in the wing root's leading edge and the gull wing. The F4U benefitted from a good high lift flap system though.
Hope that answered your question Renrich.
drgondog
Major
Soren - I think that is what we said earlier, and I agree.
The P-51B loses in raw firepower and roll, gains in everything but roll at medium to high speeds at 25,000 and above, neutral in 15,000 to 25,000 and is at disadvantage below that. In all cases the victor is the best tactical situation or the best pilot when no advantage is present..
This has been an interesting debate for me - I think I know more about the Dora than I did before. BTW I sent Don an email today to see if he got any adverse reactions from any of the LW vets on reproduced statements contained in his book. I'll send you an email when I hear back from him.
ccheese
Member In Perpetuity
If I read this poll correctly, the question was what was your favorite
fighter/interceptor. Doesn't say anything about performance, rate of
climb, can it turn on a dime, can it out dive a ME-262. It said favorite...
While the poll is an old one, I think I missed it somehow. So, my "favorite"
is the P-38. Doesn't mean it was the best, fastest, sleekest.... it was my
'favorite'.
Charles
fighter/interceptor. Doesn't say anything about performance, rate of
climb, can it turn on a dime, can it out dive a ME-262. It said favorite...
While the poll is an old one, I think I missed it somehow. So, my "favorite"
is the P-38. Doesn't mean it was the best, fastest, sleekest.... it was my
'favorite'.
Charles
drgondog
Major
Depends. Mud and other debris, local damage to leading edge would affect the flow in that area. Ice affects ALL airfoils, don't believe snow fall per se unless it adhered to surface and was not cleared before take off, or accumulated in flight - in which case yes.
A 51 fully loaded (internally) had about 1020+ feet to normally clear a 50' obstacle.. this would vary on the skill of the pilot, the temperature and altitude of the airfield. For England in the winter, less - for Colorado Springs in the summer, more. The CLmax of the 51 wing in general was less than the Navy fighters, and the Drag coefficient was (much) lower.
The weight was not as important as the wing loading at Gross takeoff weights and the Max power thrust to weight ratio at takeoff roll. The latter determines the acceleration to rotation airspeed, the former determines how fast it gains enough altitude to clear an obstacle.
I once had a piece of a Mitsubishi MU-2 and learned how important that thrust to weight and wing loading combination was on a flight out of Addison airport in Dallas in August. We lost an engine right after take off, put the nose down to level flight and flew in a straight line for a couple of miles past TI before we had enough airspeed to safely turn around and return for landing. I sold my 'piece' two weeks later. If I had been in left seat that day, who knows?
That's why the Jug was such a long runner - and why an F4U fully loaded may not have had a shorther run than the 51. I would have to do some checking.
drgondog
Major
That makes sense Thrawn..
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Thanks to both of you for your answers. Bill, according to Dean, and these data are from USAAF and USN wartime references and are with full load ammo and internal fuel, hard surface, zero wind, sea level and takeoff power. P51D at a gross weight of 10176 lbs took 1185 ft to takeoff. P47D25 @ GW of 14411 lbs took 2540 ft. F4U1 @ GW 12676 took 750 ft. F4U4 @ 12281 GW took 630 ft. F6Fs took slightly longer. P51A took longer than P51D. Bill, I have a friend, a lady from Houston, very well off whose daddy used to have a Bearcat and raced it. They had a MU2 and I seem to remember an incident like you mentioned. Could it be the same airplane?
drgondog
Major
That F4U figure at 12K sounds like strictly internal load? where the 51D would have about 9600 pounds for full internal fuel, oil and ammo... at any rate the 51 take off roll sounds about right.
As to MU-2, who knows? Having said that it was two of us in 1983. I never flew it again. I also didn't like the way it landed. It was my first spoiler equipped (and last) a/c and was hard (for me) to fly a smooth coupled approach and seemed to always bang hell out of nosewheel when it finally lost enough lift to stay on the ground..
I loved the speed and it was a lot smoother ride in rough weather than say a King Air or Baron.. but like the monkey fornicating with a skunk, I enjoyed all I could stand.
