- Thread starter
- #81
Thanks for clarifying!
Focke Wulf light fighter
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
(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 FW
I'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.
I've missed this post.
Saving 300 kg just from the structural weight is not an easy task on such as small aircraft, whose structural weight (ie. mostly the weight of the fuselage and wings) was already small. Eg. the whole wing assembly was just 1/3rd of the weight of the powerplant section, and we still have less firepower power than the 190As or the DB-605-powered 190s.
We can recall that l-w 190s proposals by Fw included cutting the weight of non-structural members, like removal of cowl MGs, wing cannons, respective ammo, protection for the pilot and fuel, but never the structural weight.
BMW 801 was with it's shortcomings, like that of the weight, fuel consumption, size (= will add drag vs. a powerful V12), and manufacturing time and cost. So in hindsight, having BMW to make DB 601/603/605 indeed has merit. The decision needs to be made a few years before the ww2, though.
Tank picked the BMW 139 to power his new fighter due to the promise of ~40% more power vs. the DB 601A back in 1938, as well as the expected low weight of the powerplant, while counting on lowering the drag via smart installation and taking advantage of the extra exhaust thrust vs. the 601A. Another drag reduction measure was the choice of the wing size, that was even smaller than what the 109 had. Cantilever tail, retractable tailwheel, fully covered U/C - the 1st Fw calculations hoped for 680 km/h (!!) with a 2750 kg aircraft (!).
However, the 820 kg BMW 139 was dumpster fire, and was replaced with the very heavy, if more reliable 801, the Fw 190 grew in size and weight, and the rest is history
- Thread starter
- #84
(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 FW
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.
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.
An Fw 190 (large/small wing) with ASh-82-FN would have been interesting, too.
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.
Not just what German engineers deemed important.
In general, firepower was meh, especially for standards of 1944-45, engine series was light and again well behind the curve (on same fuel, a Merlin III in 1939 is better even than the 105-PF2), fuel quantity was low, the drop-tank facility was not there. Soviet attempts in producing LR fighters resulted in over-weight and under-performing aircraft.
It might be argued that Yakovlev's engineers made probably the best game possible with the weak hand they were dealt, but making a good game with an excellent hand usually netted a much better end product. Soviets in general have had problems in making production aircraft to perform as good as the prototypes.
Yak-9U with a working VK-107 was, at least on the paper, about as good as the Fw 109D-9 with MW 50 or with C3 fuel. It carried one cannon less, and also less fuel. Again, the VK-107 was the Achiles heel.
'My' 190 lite should have the DB 605ASM (if not the 605D) in the nose by the time Yak-9U/107 is available. That is some 1550-1600 HP vs. 1300 at 6 km, and 1800-1850 HP at low level vs. 1600-1650.
(similar like P-51D vs. 109D-9?)
Better firepower for the 190, too.
We'd be getting a pretty even fight down low, with 190 lite getting the upper hand as the height increases? If the DB 605D can really push 2 ata with C3 + MW 50 for 2000+ HP, the 190 should be coming ahead at all altitudes.
Soviet engine reverts the weight spiral, so in theory it is a good move (bar the thing that Germans can barely land their hand on a fully functioning 82-FN).
If Germans can have G&R start making the 14R, that can help to turn the weight spiral of the complete aircraft down, too.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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.
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
BMEP.................................213lb/sq/in
take-off.............................1590hp/2600rpm/46.5in(1180mm) hg boost
rated power.....................1,660hp/2600rpm/3300ft(1000m)
..............................................1,580hp/2600rpm/16400ft(5000m)
Cruise.................................1,320hp/2400rpm/6,900ft(2100m)
...............................................1,230hp/2400rpm/19,700ft(6000m)
Take-off power is done with 100 octane gasoline.
The power down low might be do-able.
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?
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.
We might perhaps add another 5-6% to account to RPM going from 2400 to 2500 rpm for the emergency/all-out power - talk something worse than the BMW 801D in the low gear, but similar in the high gear?
(still worse than the 801E or S)
I don't buy the max power in the 2nd gear as listed in the Wikinison's book, , too.
They might've gotten the S/C right, though. An unit that is with curved inducer vanes, of sizable diameter (certainly more than the 280mm impeller of the 14N) and without the much clogged elbow intake. Nothing of a wonder when compared with Merlin's S/C, but more refined than what the BMW 801A/C/D or Hercules used?
- Thread starter
- #88
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?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
I don't know.
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.
- Thread starter
- #91
That's wise.
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
I would propose the following solutions for a lighter Fw190
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
3) Unrealistic: combine the previous proposals with the decision to accept a structure specifically for air combat. External stores capability limited to a fuel tank. Perhaps 200kgr could be removed .
That would require a different production line that would never be accepted.
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.
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
I would propose the following solutions for a lighter Fw190
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
3) Unrealistic: combine the previous proposals with the decision to accept a structure specifically for air combat. External stores capability limited to a fuel tank. Perhaps 200kgr could be removed .
That would require a different production line that would never be accepted.
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.
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.
2) 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.
High 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.
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.
Fuselage extension was probably a very light item, talk 20 kg?
Three 151/20s will weight more than what the 190D9 carried, and the D9 weighted some 4300 kg.
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.
They, together with other Italian fighters, took too much to produce, again not good when one is already badly outnumbered.
The smaller and faster MC.205V with the DB 605ASM or D would've indeed been very fast.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Germans had a few problems.
They needed bomber destroyers and fighters to deal with the escorts.
Allies (Americans) had a simpler problem, they needed to shoot down single and twin engine fighters, not four engine bombers.
Germans needing high performance fighters to take out the escort fighters while the bomber destroyers concentrated on the bombers was never going to work well. It didn't work well for the British during the BoB with the Hurricane and Spitfire and it didn't work well with 109F & G 'gunboats'. May not have worked well with jets in Korea? It needs too much communications/planning/teamwork to have the right formation of defending fighters at the right point in the sky at the right time.
Taking the Fw 190 and reducing it to a two gun fighter for better performance means you need a lot more 2 gun Fw 190s to get enough guns/ammo into the sky.
Russians used 2 gun LA-5/7s but they didn't like it and changed to 3 guns as soon as they got lighter guns that would allow it.
The Mg 151/20 was not ideal but it was about as good as the MK II Hispano and better than the ShVAK. But for shooting down bombers 4 was about the minimum number you want to deal with. Yes the MK 108 was better for bombers but not as good on fighters. The MK 103 was way too specialized. The wing root guns are a bit of problem in that the rate of fire is bit off, not as bad as the US .50 cal but still. But it looks like the Germans are stuck with it. New wing with paired guns just outboard of the landing gear?
Germans did themselves no favors using 3 different guns with different times of flight in the same plane. Forget about trajectory, at least at reasonable ranges. If you are deflection shooting and the projectiles don't arrive at the same time when the target crosses the sight line what are you hitting with? Make it as easy as possible for the pilot to get hits with.
Assumes you have the desired factory capacity for the guns/ammo you want. Might be a big assumption.
The Germans needed to replace the 109 in 1942/very early 1943, replace as in having it enter production. They needed a more streamline aircraft that had internal volume for more guns/ammo/fuel than the 109 had. Wither that is a Fw 190 Lite is a question. But pulling guns to get speed/climb is not a good answer.
They needed bomber destroyers and fighters to deal with the escorts.
Allies (Americans) had a simpler problem, they needed to shoot down single and twin engine fighters, not four engine bombers.
Germans needing high performance fighters to take out the escort fighters while the bomber destroyers concentrated on the bombers was never going to work well. It didn't work well for the British during the BoB with the Hurricane and Spitfire and it didn't work well with 109F & G 'gunboats'. May not have worked well with jets in Korea? It needs too much communications/planning/teamwork to have the right formation of defending fighters at the right point in the sky at the right time.
Taking the Fw 190 and reducing it to a two gun fighter for better performance means you need a lot more 2 gun Fw 190s to get enough guns/ammo into the sky.
Russians used 2 gun LA-5/7s but they didn't like it and changed to 3 guns as soon as they got lighter guns that would allow it.
The Mg 151/20 was not ideal but it was about as good as the MK II Hispano and better than the ShVAK. But for shooting down bombers 4 was about the minimum number you want to deal with. Yes the MK 108 was better for bombers but not as good on fighters. The MK 103 was way too specialized. The wing root guns are a bit of problem in that the rate of fire is bit off, not as bad as the US .50 cal but still. But it looks like the Germans are stuck with it. New wing with paired guns just outboard of the landing gear?
Germans did themselves no favors using 3 different guns with different times of flight in the same plane. Forget about trajectory, at least at reasonable ranges. If you are deflection shooting and the projectiles don't arrive at the same time when the target crosses the sight line what are you hitting with? Make it as easy as possible for the pilot to get hits with.
Assumes you have the desired factory capacity for the guns/ammo you want. Might be a big assumption.
The Germans needed to replace the 109 in 1942/very early 1943, replace as in having it enter production. They needed a more streamline aircraft that had internal volume for more guns/ammo/fuel than the 109 had. Wither that is a Fw 190 Lite is a question. But pulling guns to get speed/climb is not a good answer.
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.
- Thread starter
- #96
I wonder how good the G.56 was as an alternative to the Fw 190D?
Maximum t/o weight of the G.55 was 3720 kg.
The dry mass of the DB 605A is 756 kg, that of the DB 603 is 920 kg.
So swapping the engine makes a G.56 which weighs in at about 3900 kg (any additional weight one has to add to that?), Spitfire XIV gross weight. About 300 - 400 kg less than a D-9.
High-alt capability should be better with the craft which has lower wing-loading.
Range seems to go to the G.55 as well unless wing tanks would be implemented in the Dora as was planned.
In this case ballistic armament carried is in favor of the Italian craft which can carry cowl guns together with an engine cannon.
Not sure if installation of an intercooler was possible with such an armament?
I doubt that one can have three fuselage guns together with an intercooler.
The Dora had a roomier fuselage there and had problems housing an intercooler. Later variants solved this issue.
If given the same propulsion down low the Dora would have some speed advantage while being somewhat worse in climb and turn at any height. Dive and roll-rate would be superior anywhere.
If one wants a Dora with similar characteristics one could use the 20.3 sqm wing of the Fw 190H and doesn't have to invest too many man-hours per plane manufactured.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #97
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.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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?)
P-51 fuselage averaged around 22lbs per foot from the firewall to the tail. Even if I am off by 10-15% Tomo's estimate for the Fw-190 doesn't seem to be out of line.
Whole tail section of the Fw 190V5k weighted 99 kg, including the retractable tailwheel.
(for comparison, the most over-weight part of a 190 - it's propulsion group, including the fuel system - was at ~1660 kg by the time Fw 190A8 is around)
A function of the tail 'plug' was not only to use it's weight to counter-balance the much heavier V12 powerplant, but also to 'push' backwards the tail assy so there is a greater leverage, again to help counter-balance the heavy nose.
The 1700ps bmw 801D has a very bad p/w ratio even at low altitude. Above 6000m was a nightmare.
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 performance
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 level
. Jg 26 , on the same day, on the morning should intercept spitfires lfs, and in the midday b17s at 7000m
I would not remove any armor. I doubt that A4s were still operational when 1.65 ata became available for the bmw.
It was not just the weight, it increased the wet area . Also it may have caused a slight reduction in rate of roll
No, the mg131s eith their synchronization mechanisms were at least as heavy as a 20 mm cannon engine
They were bigger, but still quite lighter! And much more streamlined. And with bigger wings .And more fuel.And more ammo. And more potential.
By the way , i feel the speed numbers that we have for the 5 ,series fighters were with engines cleared for 1.3 ata. By the time 1.42 ata was cleared italy had changed sides
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 cheaper
Its extremely clear that mc202 amd mc 205 used far more efficiently the Db engines than the bf109.
