- Thread starter
-
- #81
Thanks for clarifying!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks for clarifying!Misspoke above -The simple equation for ROC is (T*V - D*V)/W
So, in yor example, the lighter of the two FW 190s assuming all else equal, will have a better rate of climb.
Where the W/L comes into play for your example is when parasite drag of the two are equal, but the wing area is different - is that for the same veocity the larger wing/smaller CL in this comparison - has less Induced drag, which influences the above equation.
The devil in the details is that for same airfoil and wing construction, the profile/parasite drag should be lower for the smaller wing area version perhaps offsetting higher Induced drag.
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. Would rather trust an inhouse FW design or ask Heinkel or NAA for that matter...
I've missed this post.Well, that's the Dora as-is, not a hypothetical lightweight one to compare with your 605 powered one. Sure, the Dora can't be lightened as much due to the heavier engine, but already if you save 300kg in structural weight you're on par with your 605 powered version in terms of power /weight. And it'll almost surely be faster due to more power with very similar drag.
Now, the big advantage of the 601/605 powered version is that it can be available much sooner than the versions that need to wait for the 603 or 213 to be available, by which point the LW has to a large extent ceased to exist as a significant force. But the RLM might refuse to go ahead with a bf109 alternative with the same engine. I think it was only after using a radial that Tank's fighter plans were looked on favorably by the RLM, as the DB engine supply was already spoken for. But assuming that hurdle can be overcome, might make sense to just cancel the 801 outright and have BMW run shadow factories for 601/605 production.
(my bold)
Back to this tidbit.
He 100 was probably the closest to a light fighter that LW might've gotten. Obviously, it is not a FWI'm not sure how viable would've been the mating of the wing design from the He 100 on a FW-designed fuselage (whether the modified one from Fw 190, or hopefully, something new), but potential for a low-drag and low-weight fighter was certainly there.
No need to mention that surface cooling is out of the question.
What might the l-w fighter looked like, and what to do with it? With a DB 601E or the down-rated 605A, it should've been no worse than the MC.205 or the Yak-3 (but better at higher altitudes than the Yak). With more power, eg. with the 605AM, it should've been as capable as the Yak-3 with the VK-107 engine (but with the far better reliability of the engine). Guns - for the extra light version, three sped-up MG FFMs with belt feed, and, for the West, replace the motor cannon FFM with MG 151/20 or with MK 108; no MGs what so ever.
Thing to note might be that German V12s were in general better engines than the Soviet V12s, if we look at combination of power at any altitude, weight penalty, and reliability. The VK-107 and -108 were very unreliable, and very late.It was the He 100 (did it have a laminar flow wing?) I was thinking of when I pondered about a German fighter in the extralight class of fighters like the Yak-3 which is touted the supreme dogfighter of the war. The Yak-3 with Vk-108 would be the opponent to beat (He 100 with DB 605D).
Yak fighters were all very light. They must have sacrificed something for that, something German designers deemed important...
The Yak-9U with VK-107 in the chart you posted is comparable your lw fw 190 but weighs 350 kg at least less. Was it a "better" fighter (1-on-1) then?
An Fw 190 (large/small wing) with ASh-82-FN would have been interesting, too.
An Fw 190 (large/small wing) with ASh-82-FN would have been interesting, too.
As Tomo has noted, very late. The VK-106 and VK-107 were in development in 1940. Then things get grey. They don't get developed in time forcing continued use of the VK-105. Even in 1946 production is stopped and restarted due to production/quality problems. Most sources don't say much more than that. I have no idea if in peace time they wanted better reliability/engine life over what they accepted in war time or if the new engines didn't mean wartime standards. If you are having trouble in 1946 the chances of them being useful in 1944 are about nil.Thing to note might be that German V12s were in general better engines than the Soviet V12s, if we look at combination of power at any altitude, weight penalty, and reliability. The VK-107 and -108 were very unreliable, and very late.
Again the GR 14R is sort of vaporware.If Germans can have G&R start making the 14R, that can help to turn the weight spiral of the complete aircraft down, too.
As before, I'd put greater credit to the German war-time data. Unlike the mr. Wiklinson, they were supposed to have the actual engine on the test stand to draw a pretty accurate picture of what the 14R-04/-05 were capable for.Again the GR 14R is sort of vaporware.
1944 book (and who knows were they got the information, the forward was written in Jan 1944 so the GR factory was still in German hands and would be for months)
gives the following.
Displacement..................38.7 L
CR........................................6.8 : 1
Supercharger ratios.....6.5 : 1
............................................9.0 : 1
Weight.............................1805lbs
fuel rating.........................92 octane
<snip>
Take-off power is done with 100 octane gasoline.
The power down low might be do-able.
I don't buy the max power in the 2nd gear as listed in the Wikinison's book, , too.The power in high gear is pretty unbelievable. That has got to be about the best 2 speed supercharger ever built.
Find another engine that gains 13,100ft (4000meters) and still makes 95% of its best low gear power.
They kept claiming similar high altitude power in the post war years.
I have no information on what kind of wonder supercharger they were using, like a Szydlowsky-Planiol or something else?
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.
The VK-108 had no chance of mass production before 1947 (and rather had no chance at all). It had a large number of serious flaws caused by overheating. As a result, Klimov abandoned its refinement in favor of jet engines.The Yak-3 with Vk-108 would be the opponent to beat (He 100 with DB 605D).
Why? The injection system was a copy of the BOSCH one. In reality, the M-82 was improved to an acceptable quality only after the war, when production of cylinders with parabolic profile became possible. On the other hand, the Soviets were fascinated by the German thrust control system on the BMW 801 (one lever instead of three), but clearly realized the impossibility of replicating it under Soviet conditions. It is difficult for me to estimate the significance of this factor, but I think it was noticeable.ASh-82-FN would have been interesting, too.
Many times the authors of what-if 'products' champion these too much to my taste. I'm usually trying to not over-sell my 'product', thus a bit conservative predictions for the 190 lite.You're implying that the K-4 was aerodynamically better than the Dora and the FW 190 lite?
How much of speed did a Dora gain with full U/C covers?
Soviets wartime standards of 'acceptable quality' were different than the Western standards, let alone than the post-war either Soviet or Western standards. Fighters powered by M-82 family of engines gave a good account on themselves, despite the engines not being perfect.In reality, the M-82 was improved to an acceptable quality only after the war, when production of cylinders with parabolic profile became possible.
Many times the authors of what-if 'products' champion these too much to my taste. I'm usually trying to not over-sell my 'product', thus a bit conservative predictions for the 190 lite.
1) While I don't agree that the BMW 801 was a terribly bad engine, I'd agree that the p/w ratio of it was low when compared with Allied best, especially above 6 km. Germans dropped the ball by not having, at least, the 801E in production.The fw190 was very heavy for its size. Three main reasons
1) the terribly bad bmw801 engine. Extremely low power to weight ratio even with c3 fuel
2) The lack of raw materials to produce light weight aviation alloys for structural elements
3)The unreasonable requirement that a single basic airframe should be able for ALL combat missions: air superiority, heavy bomber destroyer, ground attack (bomb load up to 1800kgr!), long range bomber, low altitude air combat, high altitude air combat. It was very natural that this requirement crippled the dogfighting ability of the mid/late fw190s
1) The most historically realistic: Stick a late Bmw801D engine (2000ps) to a fw190a4 airframe. Reduce the armament to the rwo wing roots mg151/20s. Use the low drag low weight underbelly fuel tank rack . Use the wing of the fw190a6.
I would hope for a normal take off weight of 3700 kgr or less and lower drag because of the removal of the mg17s.
2) Less realistic but still possible. A fw190 similar to the fw190 v13 but with the jumo 213 instead of the db603. No fuselage extension like the Dora. Armament 3x mg151/20s.
Use mw50 as early as possible.
I also would hope for 3700kgr ntw, but also 10-11% less drag, far better fuel consumption, better altitude performance. With the eventual introduction of mw50 such an aircraft would be competitive until the end of the war. If c3 could also be used , perhaps germans could get up to 2300ps from the jumo 213a, as the Frenchman did post war
But for germany , the easiest way would be probably to stick an db605asm to a fiat g55 and a c205veltro. And just try to make their production easier. Also the fiat g56 in my eyes looks far better air superiority fighter than the Dora.
I highly doubt that the Germans could be interested in an engine with a 20 hour service life (a typical value for the M-82FN in 1944), even if airplanes powered by it demonstrated relatively good flight performance.Soviets wartime standards of 'acceptable quality' were different than the Western standards, let alone than the post-war either Soviet or Western standards. Fighters powered by M-82 family of engines gave a good account on themselves, despite the engines not being perfect.
Also the fiat g56 in my eyes looks far better air superiority fighter than the Dora.
Fuselage extension was probably a very light item, talk 20 kg?
I have no idea of what the Fw 190 fuselage weighed.That is surprisingly light. I'm a bit amazed about structural strength of the narrow tail section which at least doesn't look to be very high on an otherwise rugged airframe.
That is surprisingly light. I'm a bit amazed about the structural strength of the narrow tail section which at least doesn't look to be very high on an otherwise rugged airframe.
I have no idea of what the Fw 190 fuselage weighed.
Fuselage for the P-51B/C weighed 509lbs, this does not include the engine section (or vertical fin?)
The 1700ps bmw 801D has a very bad p/w ratio even at low altitude. Above 6000m was a nightmare.1) While I don't agree that the BMW 801 was a terribly bad engine, I'd agree that the p/w ratio of it was low when compared with Allied best, especially above 6 km. Germans dropped the ball by not having, at least, the 801E in production.
I kindly disagree. The A4 version was a hot rod. Then they lengthened the fuselage in front of the cocpit , added heavy and draggy bomb rack , deleted the main wheel's covers. All these modifications in order to better carry bomb loads. Certainly the A5,6,7,8 versions were excellent multimission platforms but at significant cost in air superiority performance2) I'd disagree.
IMO, there was no actual requirement to do all of these things.
It transpired that the Fw 190 was found to be well suited for a few additional tasks as the war progressed, just as it was found out that other people's fighter were found to be much more capable than the engineers or the air ministries expected before these fighters entered the production. Eg. see Spitfire, that even became fully navalized, and powered with engines doing more than 100% more HP than in the day one.
Usually but not always. The british used different fighters for various altitudes . Tempest and LF spitfires for low altitude work, Spitfires with normal wings and superchargers for high altitude. The germans with exactly the same aircraft were trying to fight p47s and p38s at 9000m and yaks, las, and tempests at deck levelHigh altitude combat was a function of having a suitable engine. It was not Fw 190's fault that Germans didn't have the engine for that task until too late, let alone that RLM didn't pressed hard for, at least, a no-nonsense big V12 to be installed on the 190 for series production.
It was also not the fault of Fw 190 that Germans didn't made airborne cannons that can be a leap ahead vs. the MG 151/20, without these being too big and awkward (MK 103), or with the too low MV (MK 108).
A fighter that is doing well the air-superiority missions is usually also doing well the hi-alt air combat.
I would not remove any armor. I doubt that A4s were still operational when 1.65 ata became available for the bmw.FWIW, when Fw did the similar exercise, they attained the 3660 kg TO weight by removing all weapons but the wing root 151/20s, and also all protection for tanks and pilot bar the armored windscreen. Weight of the protection removed was about 95 kg.
The fully-rated 801D on the 190A4 with over-boost should be able to make 1900+ PS.
It was not just the weight, it increased the wet area . Also it may have caused a slight reduction in rate of rollFuselage extension was probably a very light item, talk 20 kg?
No, the mg131s eith their synchronization mechanisms were at least as heavy as a 20 mm cannon engineThree 151/20s will weight more than what the 190D9 carried, and the D9 weighted some 4300 kg.
They were bigger, but still quite lighter! And much more streamlined. And with bigger wings .And more fuel.And more ammo. And more potential.Fiat G.55 (and 56) were even bigger than the Fw 190 line, and was the slowest among the series 5 fighters. Being bigger = drag problem = lower speed = not good.
A fiat g55 took 15000 hours to be produced.it could be improved , maybe to 9000 hours. It would have far less landing accidents than the bf109, far better range, more ammo, so far more efficient .And still could be produced instead of the Me410 and bf 110G zerstorcher As bomber interceptor would be faaar better and cheaperThey, together with other Italian fighters, took too much to produce, again not good when one is already badly outnumbered.
Its extremely clear that mc202 amd mc 205 used far more efficiently the Db engines than the bf109.The smaller and faster MC.205V with the DB 605ASM or D would've indeed been very fast.