Focke Wulf light fighter

[spicmart]

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.

Despite more wet area the Dora was much more aerodynamic than the Antons.
Intuitively I wouldn't rate the roll rate as much worse, especially not when they were going for boosted ailerons.

How is the G.56 more streamlined? It had a ventral radiator but not one like the Mustang to make good use of the Meredith effect.
The annular/drum radiator of the Fw should be less draggy.
With wing tanks they should be on par.
Where was more reasonable potential of G.56?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

No, the mg131s eith their synchronization mechanisms were at least as heavy as a 20 mm cannon engine

Is this correct? Do you happen to have a source? I would be interested to read it

edit: Perhaps I misunderstood initially. Do you mean that x2 MG131 and associated gear weighed as much as a single motor-cannon? That would make more sense to me

 

[z42]

The 1700ps bmw 801D has a very bad p/w ratio even at low altitude. Above 6000m was a nightmare.

Ok, so lets wish away the 801 from existence then and have BMW run shadow factories for DB and/or Junkers V-12's, and focusing R&D efforts on jets. So we'd have the FW 190 initially with a 601 or 605, but roomier fuselage than the 109 so it can be adapted for the 603 or 213 once they become available.

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

Sure, the Germans could have done with different sized wings and different superchargers for fighters optimized for different altitudes. That being said, having a good two-stage supercharger with intercooler in volume usage by mid-war would have been even better.

It was not just the weight, it increased the wet area . Also it may have caused a slight reduction in rate of roll

Well, what are you going to do then? Not balancing the aircraft doesn't sound workable? I guess in principle you could move the wing, but probably they didn't do that because it would have required too much redesign. OTOH, if the FW190 were designed for a V-12 from the get-go then this could have been done at the design stage. Or put the radiator behind the pilot similar to the Mustang, that would move a quite substantial weight from the very front to quite far behind the CoG? Then again, Germans were very fond of their annular radiators.

Alternatively, would it be possible to move the engine backwards if one gets rid of the cowling MG's and (in some variants) the motor cannon? That could also improve pilot visibility. Though based on this cutaway picture there doesn't seem to be much free space between the supercharger and the feet of the pilot.

And where to locate the armament then if one gets rid of the cowling MG's and the motor cannon? Adopt the Allied approach and put 4 Mg 151/20's just outside the prop arc?

 

[spicmart]

The G.56 would have been the foil for the Dora/Ta 152C but gross weight was less than the 152's empty weight.
3.9 tons vs. 4 tons.
What made it so excessively heavy?
Were there (structural) weaknesses in the Italian plane?

 

[spicmart]

And where to locate the armament then if one gets rid of the cowling MG's and the motor cannon? Adopt the Allied approach and put 4 Mg 151/20's just outside the prop arc?

If you do that you erase the possibility of enhanced range which became a demand for the Begleitjäger (escort fighter).

 

[z42]

If you do that you erase the possibility of enhanced range which became a demand for the Begleitjäger (escort fighter).

Maybe there would be space for fuel tanks above the legs of the pilot where the cowling Mg's were, and in the wing roots instead of the wing root cannons and magazines?

 

[z42]

The british used different fighters for various altitudes . Tempest and LF spitfires for low altitude work

Forgot to mention this in my previous answer, but, it's not like the Tempest was purposefully optimized for low altitude work. Originally the Typhoon was supposed to be a successor to the Spitfire and Hurricane at all altitudes, but the disappointing high-altitude performance of the Sabre sort of forced the issue, and the Typhoon and Tempest were relegated to low altitude missions.

Or alternatively, the Merlin got massively improved for high altitude with the 60 series whereas Napier spent so much time fussing around getting those sleeve valves to work that they didn't have the resources or time left to develop a good two-stage supercharger.

 

[tomo pauk]

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

Bomb rack was probably a very small percentage of the total weight, but I agree that it induced a good deal of speed loss - some 21 km/h per this doc.
(a pair of MG FF cannons was 'guilty' for a 10 km/h loss; both speed figures for the Steig & Kampfleistung and high up)
BMW 801 being a thirsty engine was not helping out, so perhaps having earlier increse of internal fuel while deleting the ETC might've been a good idea? But then again, the weight of the clean A/C goes up - again a thing precluding the light fighter 190 to happen.
The A7 made the matters worse by having the draggy MG 131 installation (-10 km/h), and the A8 by having both increased internal fuel + ETC + MG 131 installation. Poor BMW was out of it's league by Autumn of 1943 for the ETO needs, not just because someone (RLM?) didn't green-lit the 801E production, while allowing BMW to burn the time and resources with the 802 and 803.

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

A Fw 190 with an engine that has a much better S/C than what was available would've been just great for all altitudes, but that never happened. See just how the A9 was better than the A8 at all altitudes, due to having an engine with an improved S/C and better power at any altitude.
Note that Tempest was mostly used under 20000 ft because of a bug (Sabre's weak S/C), not because it was a feature. Americans had no problems in using P-47s and P-38s at low altitudes, granted once LW was a spent force.

I would not remove any armor. I doubt that A4s were still operational when 1.65 ata became available for the bmw.

In that case, the 3700 kg target is not achievable, even if 3760 kg is still fairly light weight for the 190. Add the external intakes and the hi-alt capabilities gain another - if not big - increase.

It was not just the weight, it increased the wet area . Also it may have caused a slight reduction in rate of roll

It served the purpose of restoring the CoG into the safe zone, without the production taking a hit.
I doubt that there was any reduction of the rate of roll, since the plug was a light affair, and was very close to the datum line.

No, the mg131s eith their synchronization mechanisms were at least as heavy as a 20 mm cannon engine

You might be right.
My point is that counting on worthwhile weight reduction by installing the 3rd 151/20 instead the two MG 131 is far fetched.

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

If you intending to take the advantage of G.55s greater fuel and ammo potential, and couple that with it's bigger size, the end result is not an over-performer, but an under-performer. I'm not sure that an under-performer is a desired outcome.
The G.55 was indeed clocked at 1.30 ata and 2600 rpm, same as other Italian 5 series fighters, and came out as the slowest of them all. Even with the fully-rated DB 605A, having yet another 650 km/h fighter by the time Alies are fielding 680-700 km/h fighters and in greater numbers is not a recipe for success.

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

A Fw 190 with the same engine would've been even easier and faster to produce, it will have a lower drag and thus greater speed than the G.55, while still retaining the good features of the Fw 190 (cockpit, undercarriage, rate of roll, very useful internal volume both for firepower and fuel). Also far better and cheaper than the MTT heavy fighters.

Its extremely clear that mc202 amd mc 205 used far more efficiently the Db engines than the bf109.

More efficiently than the Bf 109E in the way of being faster - being two years late has its upsides, too. OTOH, Emil was one of the keys to the Germany's early conquest, so I'd say that 109 was a very, very efficient way of use of the DB engines. The MC.202 1st saw combat more than two years than the Emil - not sure that was very efficient by the Italians.
By that time, the Bf 109F was a very efficient use of the DB 601, with the 202 retaining only the better U/C as a plus?

MC.205 indeed have had a lot of pluses vs, the 109, like the better U/C and greater firepower without retorting to the gondolas and bulges. Just like the 202, it took inordinate time to manufacture.

 

[dedalos]

Despite more wet area the Dora was much more aerodynamic than the Antons.

9% less equivrlant front area. But without the extension would be even better even slightly

Intuitively I wouldn't rate the roll rate as much worse, especially not when they were going for boosted ailerons.

The D Series had very slightly inferior rate of roll. The boosted ailerons most probably did not have time to see operational use

How is the G.56 more streamlined? It had a ventral radiator but not one like the Mustang to make good use of the Meredith effect.
The annular/drum radiator of the Fw should be less draggy.
With wing tanks they should be on par.
Where was more reasonable potential of G.56?

The g56 prototype demonstrated the same speed with the D9 on similar power levels despite the fact it had a larger wing and three cannons. In comparison to the Anton series the efficiency of the italian airframe was even larger
I admit that i have no data for the stuctural strength of the italian series 5/6 fightres

 

[dedalos]

Is this correct? Do you happen to have a source? I would be interested to read it

edit: Perhaps I misunderstood initially. Do you mean that x2 MG131 and associated gear weighed as much as a single motor-cannon? That would make more sense to me

Yes i mean both the mg131s and their gear . They also caused drag with their openings

 

[marathag]

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.

They were 'OK' with 10 for the Arado 234 and Me-262

Yes, the early turbojets had really low lifespans- but the engines were lighter, less vibration and really didn't use that many more special steels than a V12, and took less hours to produce, and could use kerosene, over decent AvGas.

But if you had to have a Vee, A clean sheet 72 degree bank inverted V10 of 2264 cubic inches, basically a reworked DB 603.
V10 over the V12 to have a shorter and stiffer crankshaft, that should make 3000rpm operation easier, as well as reduced overall length. a lighter and more compact engine.

Downside, not quite as smooth as a V12. However, balance shafts had been around since WWI, so that could be added in.
Still less whirling bits than a sleeve-valve.

 

[dedalos]

Bomb rack was probably a very small percentage of the total weight, but I agree that it induced a good deal of speed loss - some 21 km/h per this doc.
(a pair of MG FF cannons was 'guilty' for a 10 km/h loss; both speed figures for the Steig & Kampfleistung and high up)
BMW 801 being a thirsty engine was not helping out, so perhaps having earlier increse of internal fuel while deleting the ETC might've been a good idea? But then again, the weight of the clean A/C goes up - again a thing precluding the light fighter 190 to happen.
The A7 made the matters worse by having the draggy MG 131 installation (-10 km/h), and the A8 by having both increased internal fuel + ETC + MG 131 installation. Poor BMW was out of it's league by Autumn of 1943 for the ETO needs, not just because someone (RLM?) didn't green-lit the 801E production, while allowing BMW to burn the time and resources with the 802 and 803.



A Fw 190 with an engine that has a much better S/C than what was available would've been just great for all altitudes, but that never happened. See just how the A9 was better than the A8 at all altitudes, due to having an engine with an improved S/C and better power at any altitude.

True , A9 s engine was better than A8s but the germans managed again to cancel some of the benefit increasing again the weight of the aircraft

Note that Tempest was mostly used under 20000 ft because of a bug (Sabre's weak S/C), not because it was a feature. Americans had no problems in using P-47s and P-38s at low altitudes, granted once LW was a spent force.

I know the tempest problem but it does not change the fact that british were using different fighters for different altitudes
. No, p47 and p38 at low altitude 1vs1 against a bf 109G with mw50 or a fw190a8 1.65ata would be i trouble. Or against a tempest or a la5fn.

In that case, the 3700 kg target is not achievable, even if 3760 kg is still fairly light weight for the 190. Add the external intakes and the hi-alt capabilities gain another - if not big - increase.

It served the purpose of restoring the CoG into the safe zone, without the production taking a hit.
I doubt that there was any reduction of the rate of roll, since the plug was a light affair, and was very close to the datum line.

The cog could be corrected by reposition wing . I feel that could be even be achieved by internal equipment reoosition.
In every case production should recieve more changes. But what s the point to introduce a new engine in order to improve performance and then do changes that cancel the profit in order not to dlow production?

You might be right.
My point is that counting on worthwhile weight reduction by installing the 3rd 151/20 instead the two MG 131 is far fetched.

No i want the cannon engine because with 3 20 mm would be effective even for bomber interception
If we want absolute weight reduction i would keep the engine cannon and remove one of the wing root cannons . The engine cannon had better rof and did not need synchronization gear

If you intending to take the advantage of G.55s greater fuel and ammo potential, and couple that with it's bigger size, the end result is not an over-performer, but an under-performer. I'm not sure that an under-performer is a desired outcome.
The G.55 was indeed clocked at 1.30 ata and 2600 rpm, same as other Italian 5 series fighters, and came out as the slowest of them all. Even with the fully-rated DB 605A, having yet another 650 km/h fighter by the time Alies are fielding 680-700 km/h fighters and in greater numbers is not a recipe for success.

The g55 was as fast as the bf 109 g6 clean while carrying 3x20 mm cannons and more ammo . Its bigger but little heavier and with its big wing had a lower wing loading. With its greater range would allow the german formations to cover more area and position themselves better for attacks. Its under belly radiator, while not as efficient as p51s, was far better than bf 109s..
On all tests g55 demonstrated superior handling and manoeuvrability than bf 109, especially at medium high altitudes
In my opinion a AS powered g55 would achieve 670 km/h easily on fully cleared engine

A Fw 190 with the same engine would've been even easier and faster to produce, it will have a lower drag and thus greater speed than the G.55, while still retaining the good features of the Fw 190 (cockpit, undercarriage, rate of roll, very useful internal volume both for firepower and fuel). Also far better and cheaper than the MTT heavy fighters.

I cant see the fw use the db 605 without MAJOR redesign. It was too heavy. Also i appears all italian series 5 fighters had more efficient wings than their german counterparts
I also feel that Tank, in order to make his fighter easy to produce and service sacrificed both weight and aerodynamic efficiency

More efficiently than the Bf 109E in the way of being faster - being two years late has its upsides, too. OTOH, Emil was one of the keys to the Germany's early conquest, so I'd say that 109 was a very, very efficient way of use of the DB engines. The MC.202 1st saw combat more than two years than the Emil - not sure that was very efficient by the Italians.
By that time, the Bf 109F was a very efficient use of the DB 601, with the 202 retaining only the better U/C as a plus?

MC.205 indeed have had a lot of pluses vs, the 109, like the better U/C and greater firepower without retorting to the gondolas and bulges. Just like the 202, it took inordinate time to manufacture.

In my opinion the mc202/205 airframe on a given engine produced a clearly better performance and operational envelope than the bf109. Yes the 109 was cheap. And good value for money
Well ,in life, you get what you are paying for.

 

[tomo pauk]

The cog could be corrected by reposition wing . I feel that could be even be achieved by internal equipment reoosition.
In every case production should recieve more changes. But what s the point to introduce a new engine in order to improve performance and then do changes that cancel the profit in order not to dlow production?

The profit was not cancelled - D9 was both faster and climbed better than the Antons at the altitudes where LW was at it's greatest disadvantage.
I'm afraid that you paint the repositioning of the wing as something that can be done easily and fast, while being suitable for mass production on short notice. I also think that you are trying to put too much of a fault to the decision to go ahead with the tail plug.

No i want the cannon engine because with 3 20 mm would be effective even for bomber interception
If we want absolute weight reduction i would keep the engine cannon and remove one of the wing root cannons . The engine cannon had better rof and did not need synchronization gear

I know that you want the cannon from the previous post. My point is that you want your cake and eat it, too - ie. retain all the good stuff from the D9, while having them being 600 kg lighter.
The 'absolute weight reduction' probably stands the best chances by replacing the heaviest part of the machine - powerplant centered around the BMW 801 - with something a lot lighter and more streamlined. Opting for just two cannons in an asymmetric layout (talk about the whole new level of thinking out from the box...) does not solve the Germans problems by 1943-ish.

The g55 was as fast as the bf 109 g6 clean while carrying 3x20 mm cannons and more ammo . Its bigger but little heavier and with its big wing had a lower wing loading. With its greater range would allow the german formations to cover more area and position themselves better for attacks. Its under belly radiator, while not as efficient as p51s, was far better than bf 109s..
On all tests g55 demonstrated superior handling and manoeuvrability than bf 109, especially at medium high altitudes
In my opinion a AS powered g55 would achieve 670 km/h easily on fully cleared engine

The 670 km/h figure for the AS-powered G.55 does seem realistic.
Put the AS engine on the Fw 190 and it should be a tad faster, no?

I cant see the fw use the db 605 without MAJOR redesign. It was too heavy. Also i appears all italian series 5 fighters had more efficient wings than their german counterparts
I also feel that Tank, in order to make his fighter easy to produce and service sacrificed both weight and aerodynamic efficiency

My idea is that a DB 605-powered Fw 190 would've been a) easier to make than the historical V12-powered types exactly because the DB 605 was a smaller and lighter engine, and b) that such a version would've been a very good fighter.

Tank had to make a fighter around a very heavy engine, and he did a fine job there. Any problems the Fw 190 had were engine-related (1st due to unreliability, later due to the lack of a good S/C); Tank, good engineer as he was, was never employed by an engine company.
Weight can't be sacrificed in this context, and aerodynamic efficiency was there, and was 'continued' into the Ta 152 series.

 

[spicmart]

And where to locate the armament then if one gets rid of the cowling MG's and the motor mcannon? Adopt the Allied approach and put 4 Mg 151/20's just outside the prop arc?

Not sure if it was easy to reconstruct the wings to house such an armament. Messerschmitt tried it unsuccessfully with the Me 109K but, then again, that's Messerschmitt.

The g56 prototype demonstrated the same speed with the D9 on similar power levels despite the fact it had a larger wing and three cannons. In comparison to the Anton series the efficiency of the italian airframe was even larger
I admit that i have no data for the stuctural strength of the italian series 5/6 fightres

The G.56 was powered by DB 603 and achieved the same speed, 685 km/h, as the Dora-9 with Jumo 213A without MW50 (704 km/h with it iirc).
Was this top speed of the G.56 with or without MW50 injection?

Now, the DB 603 powered Doras were actually better-performing than the D-9.
You would have to compare those to the G.56.
Have to recheck the aviation magazine with that article.

I cant see the fw use the db 605 without MAJOR redesign. It was too heavy. Also i appears all italian series 5 fighters had more efficient wings than their german counterparts.

What was too heavy? The airframe or the engine? The airframe redesign is actually what tomo proposed with his Fw 190 "lite" earlier in this thread.

About armament: With 3 x 20 mm guns and 650 (200 + 250 + 200) rounds the G.56 is not better armed than D-13 which had 660 (220 + 220 + 220) or possibly 720 (250 + 220 + 250) rounds.

About weight: The coolant ducts for the ventral radiator also take more space and weight than when mounted at the front.

 

[z42]

Not sure if it was easy to reconstruct the wings to house such an armament. Messerschmitt tried it unsuccessfully with the Me 109K but, then again, that's Messerschmitt.

Maybe. But at least two of them should be easily doable, as some of the FW190A variants had two Mg151/20 outside the prop arc. Assuming you don't redesign the supercharger to make use of the space directly behind the engine, might as well keep the motor cannon then. But yes, forget the cowling Mg's. So with 3 unsynchronized Mg 151/20's, that's still a pretty decent armament.

 

[z42]

Ok, so lets wish away the 801 from existence then and have BMW run shadow factories for DB and/or Junkers V-12's, and focusing R&D efforts on jets. So we'd have the FW 190 initially with a 601 or 605, but roomier fuselage than the 109 so it can be adapted for the 603 or 213 once they become available.

Continuing this train of thought, if the 801 is not to be for whatever reasons, then the RLM could instead shovel money to DB to develop the 603. Historically the 603 was on hold for a couple of years due to DB concentrating on other projects, mainly 601 and 605 obviously. Thus, if the 603 were available a couple of years earlier than historically, perhaps it could have been used from the get-go in the 190. Obviating the need to somehow rebalance the plane due to later on switching to the bigger and heavier 603 or 213.

This could also have been politically more doable, as historically the RLM weren't interested in FW fighters that used the then available DB inlines as they were already spoken for. They became interested in the FW 190 only once it was using the 801 which wasn't in high demand by other types. Designing the FW 190 around the 603 would also clearly position it as a next-generation fighter after the 601 powered Bf 109.

Then add 3 Mg 151/20 guns, one motor cannon and two outside the prop arc, per my proposal above. Use the space historically used for the cowl Mg's and the wing root cannons for extra fuel tanks.

Depending on the timetable of the 603, this could have been available not much later than the historical FW 190A, and with continued development of the 603 series could have been competitive for the remainder of the war, and/or until replaced by jets.

Not really a 'light-weight' 190, per the topic of the thread (well, threads tend to drift from the original topic, no big deal). The 603 was lighter weight than the 801, but I suspect once you add a radiator it's about equal, so presumably the entire plane would be quite close to the historical FW 190. But it would have been a better 190, IMHO.

 

[spicmart]

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 200kg, at least going by this table. Or probably 250 150 kg in case the cowl guns are the MG 17s? Compared with Fw 190A-6, were down by some 600 500 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

Tomo. Would you mind if I copy and paste your 190 lite in another group? Of course mentioning you as author.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo. Would you mind if I copy and paste your 190 lite on another group? Oc course mentioning you as author.

No problems.

 

[spicmart]

Weight will surely increase as the engine gets more powerful.
How much heavier were the later DB 605 engine variants than the A version (DB 603 s/c, MW 50 and/or GM-1)?
Is there a chart?

 

[spicmart]

if I were to design an aero engine now,
I`d pretty much scale down a 213J and maybe just opt for a Merlin 2-piece block sandwiched liner attachment..

Calum wrote this.
Would that be feasible/possible to scale down a Jumo 213J for the light fighter design's purposes?