- Thread starter
-
- #21
Its dimensions were smaller. Empty weight was the same though with 3200 kg.
Structurally the Fw 190 was just quite heavy for a reason.
Tank designed her as a cavalry horse.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Fw190A was smaller than a P-51D - there's really not much you can remove wing or fuselage wise and still have it be airworthy.
It's dimensions were smaller. Empty weight was the same though with 3200 kg.
Structurally the Fw 190 was just quite heavy for a reason.
Tank designed her as a cavalry horse.
That is of course an advantage for the Allies.Also a question of where it's going to be used. AFAIU LW was often operating from makeshift air bases, often with poor runways. Meanwhile half of southern England had been paved over with long and smooth runways.
The 801 was not all that much of a boat-anchor.As before - engine/powerplant was the heavy brute here, so replace it with DB 605 in order to be able to think about smaller & lighter wing, U/C etc.
Okay, let's put the Fw 190 on a diet.
F-W says that the BMW 801 powerplant will be heavier by 456 kg than the DB 605A powerplant for their spin-off of the Fw 187. Divided by two, difference of 278 kg. The 801s on the Fw 187 weight breakdown notes that two 801s will weight 2108 kg, with trapped fuel an oil. Armor is noted as weighting just 39 kg for the twin 801 installation, ie. ~20 kg per engine, however on the Fw 190 one engine there was 78 kg or armor for the oil system. If the 187 was projected to have the same armor as the Fw 190, the weight difference would've been up by ~120 kg.
The weight breakdown for these projects also notes the lower weight needed for the wing and U/C for the DB version, FWIW.
Back to a single 801 vs. 605A.
278 + 58 (= 78-20) = 366 kg weight reduction. The 605 allows for the motor cannon, so the MK 108 is installed instead of the cowl MG 131s and outer MG 151s. Less weapon drag even than what the D-9 had. Main gain is reduction of weapon-related weight (guns + ammo + mounts etc), circa 300 kg, at least going by this table. Or probably 250 kg in case the cowl guns are the MG 17s? Compared with Fw 190A-6, were down by some 600 kg of take off weight, clean, mostly thank to the engine change - not a minor save vs. a 4100 kg fighter.
Now undercarriage - our brave new fighter will not be lugging around heavy bombs, so introduce a lighter U/C, with smaller wheels and a bit shorter legs. Instead of 258 kg, we might probably go down to 200 kg? Yes, I'm shamelessly copying what the NAA did here.
A 15% weight reduction allows us to cut the wing area by 15%, while keeping the wing loading the same. I'd try to get rid off the central - ie. the thickest - wing section by some 12-13% worth of span. Wing assy of the 190A8 weighed 475 kg, so here we can also save another 50-60 kg, and some drag, too (wing-related-drag on the Fw 190D-9 was significant 37% total drag - a new spanking low-drag wing on the 190/152 line certainly had a place here).
We'd be getting the lower wing- and weapon-related drag even when compared with the 190D-9 here, and probably the lower cooling drag. Weight save will be amazing vs. Antons and Doras, and wing loading will not be worse. Mileage will be much better.
One MK 108, two MG 151/20s.But the armament with an MK 108 and two MG 17 is kind of meh. I know, not seriously. Late war in a dogfight you're at a disadvantage with the ballistics of the cannon and two pop guns.
Or maybe borrow some B-20s from the Soviets which weigh just 25 kg each. But German 20 mm mine shell are the most destructive.
To give it better turn performance and stay agile at high alt I wouldn't cut wing area too much, 1 to 1.5 sqm maximum.
Can you tell why the D-9 wing was so draggy and how this could be remedied?
One MK 108, two MG 151/20s.
We get rid of the wing MG 151/20s, as well as of cowl guns, be these the MG 171s or 131s.
Speed-up the MG FF/M and we're in the ballpark.
Actually, for the Eastern Front, three belt-fed MG FF/Ms, each firing at 600 rd/min (vs. 520 as it was the case) will represent a convincing firepower; wign FF/Ms go outside the prop arc, of course. Methinks that 17 sq m is okay for the 190 lite.
Usage of thinner profile might've still helped, like the outer 70% of the wing that Ta 152 used, or the outer 80% of the big-wing Fw 190 prototype. More advanced solution would've been the laminar-flow wings - nick the airfoil coordinates from the Me 309 perhaps?
Take a look at outer parts of the Fw 187 wing, for something 'classic'? See what the He 280 or Me 262 used, and copy the airfoil from there?
Not sure if they could have gotten the weapons bay-undercarriage-wing profile-positioning right with a thin laminar profile wing.
The regular 190 wing is rather thick up front which could to house the gun and the UC.
I wouldn't adopt anything from Messerschmitt fighters, too risky.
The Fw 187 had the same airfoil as the 190, hasn't it?
Okay, let's put the Fw 190 on a diet.
F-W says that the BMW 801 powerplant will be heavier by 456 kg than the DB 605A powerplant for their spin-off of the Fw 187. Divided by two, difference of 278 kg. The 801s on the Fw 187 weight breakdown notes that two 801s will weight 2108 kg, with trapped fuel an oil. Armor is noted as weighting just 39 kg for the twin 801 installation, ie. ~20 kg per engine, however on the Fw 190 one engine there was 78 kg or armor for the oil system. If the 187 was projected to have the same armor as the Fw 190, the weight difference would've been up by ~120 kg.
The weight breakdown for these projects also notes the lower weight needed for the wing and U/C for the DB version, FWIW.
Back to a single 801 vs. 605A.
278 + 58 (= 78-20) = 366 kg weight reduction. The 605 allows for the motor cannon, so the MK 108 is installed instead of the cowl MG 131s and outer MG 151s. Less weapon drag even than what the D-9 had. Main gain is reduction of weapon-related weight (guns + ammo + mounts etc), circa300200kg, at least going by this table. Or probably250150 kg in case the cowl guns are the MG 17s? Compared with Fw 190A-6, were down by some600500 kg of take off weight, clean, mostly thank to the engine change - not a minor save vs. a 4100 kg fighter.
Now undercarriage - our brave new fighter will not be lugging around heavy bombs, so introduce a lighter U/C, with smaller wheels and a bit shorter legs. Instead of 258 kg, we might probably go down to 200 kg? Yes, I'm shamelessly copying what the NAA did here.
A 15% weight reduction allows us to cut the wing area by 15%, while keeping the wing loading the same. I'd try to get rid off the central - ie. the thickest - wing section by some 12-13% worth of span. Wing assy of the 190A8 weighed 475 kg, so here we can also save another 50-60 kg, and some drag, too (wing-related-drag on the Fw 190D-9 was significant 37% total drag - a new spanking low-drag wing on the 190/152 line certainly had a place here).
We'd be getting the lower wing- and weapon-related drag even when compared with the 190D-9 here, and probably the lower cooling drag. Weight save will be amazing vs. Antons and Doras, and wing loading will not be worse. Mileage will be much better.
edit: haven't accounted for the MK 108 + it's ammo weight in the 1st go; still a 600 kg decrease vs. the 190A-6 with lighter wing accounted for
Replacement for the Bf 110 used in the East and Med, plus for the Bf 109, plus something that Axis allies can actually get?What's the timeline here? Is this a replacement for the FW190A or FW190D?
Oh, I'm avoiding the bulges by nixing the cowl gunsIf the former, the 605A was introduced in 1942, a bit later than the FW190A was introduced historically. Though AFAIU the mountings for the 601 and 605 were identical, so one could start with the 601 and later the 605 upgrade would be straightforward. Particularly if the cowling isn't as tight as on the 109 so you can avoid all the bulges. Another problem is that the Mk 108 was introduced in 1943. Start with a Mg 151/20 motor cannon?
If the latter, what is the power/weight comparison between this suggested lightweight FW190 and doing a similar lightweighting exercise except using the Jumo 213?
Laminar-flow wings were thick on the Mustangs (16% at root) and P-63. Lightweight Mustangs were still with the thick profile (15%).
Note that Fw 190 had no problems in housing even the MK 108 in the thinner, outer part of the wing, and I've suggested going with the less bulky U/C for the lw 190s.
An ironic swipe at Messerschmitt design bureau as I often got the impression that their developments were less practically sound and reliable than e.g. comparable Focke Wulf's or Heinkel's. I just didn't insert a smiley.Why do you think so?
Okay, roger that.An ironic swipe at Messerschmitt design bureau as I often got the impression that their developments were less practically sound and reliable than e.g. comparable Focke Wulf's or Heinkel's. I just didn't insert a smiley.
The lw 190 would climb a bit slower than a Me 109 with the same propulsion as weight is a tad higher whereas it should be faster because of less radiator configuration drag.
The D-9, though a bigger airframe, was less draggy than a 109G IIRC. Not sure about the 109K.
Okay, roger that.
OTOH - MTT's wing design on the Me 163 and 262 was probably the best in the world? Even the wing of the Me 309 receives probably more credit than the complete Me 309 fighter. A new book is worth looking at, FWIW.
109K incorporated what was supposed happen in 1943, like the streamlined cowling (that were in some late 109Gs, however) for MG 131s, better tail and tail wheel that was now again retractable, as well as wheel well covers. Net result being ~20 km/h gain vs. the 109G-10 with the same engine.
FWIW, the MG 131 installation seems to lower top speed by 10 km/h vs. the MG 17 installation on the 190, at least per this.
You will understand me being skeptical on that.There had been a heavily modified Me 109K which was estimated to be a full 60 km/h faster (though Messerschmitt was notoriously known for overestimating figures) but was rejected for being too much of effort to alter production:
Always helpful that you provide sources.
Would an lw 190 be structurally strong enough to perform manoeuvers a regular 190 was known for?
You will understand me being skeptical on that.
For my money, a Bf 109 aimed for 750+ km/h would've need a brand new wing and radiator set-up (both were getting too draggy for the speed levels hoped for), indeed the newer cockpit canopy (with a more slanted windscreen), and probably the DB 605L in the nose.
It would've been even stronger, since most of the weight reduction was from change/removal of the non-structural members, like powerplant group and guns/ammo; wing is smaller, too.
Of course.
DB 605D or L would have made this one a nice performer.
Of course.
With the 605AS and 605D it would've hopefully been in-between the 109G-10 and K-4, and what is more important, in the ballpark of the Merlin Mustang speed-wise, while climbing better due to the lower weight.
Would an lw 190 be structurally strong enough to perform manoeuvers a regular 190 was known for?
Of course.
With the 605AS and 605D it would've hopefully been in-between the 109G-10 and K-4, and what is more important, in the ballpark of the Merlin Mustang speed-wise, while climbing better due to the lower weight.