Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The stall speed is when the wing stops producing enough lift to keep the aircraft in the air. The analysis linked was done on the Spitfire MkIX which could out turn the Fw190, however this had identical wings to the MkV which was lighter and could only out turn the Fw 190 in instantaneous not sustained turn. The more powerful engine of the Mk IX made it not only faster and better climbing but it also turned better too because a turning aircraft has a massive increase in drag. The P 51 also stalled fairly harshly in heavy turns but was helped by using a few degrees of flap.I see your points Greg and they are well taken but in general doesn't wing loading have an effect on stall speed? Let's say you normally fly your FW-190A-8 in a "clean" configuration but you suddenly get orders and are tasked to carry a 500KG bomb on your centerline mount. Wouldn't that raise the stall speed of the machine? I'm just thinking basic physics here, but maybe I'm missing something with how the shape of the airfoil and it's loading effects when an aircraft enters a stall. I was also under the assumption that with any given airfoil shape more wing area = more lift = lower stall speed (weight of the machine being unchanged). Am I out in left field on this one too????
Which proves precisely nothing. There were cases where P-40s beat FW190s in combat. There are simply too many uncontrollable variables in picking "best fighter."Read somewhere that a late model Spit (XIV?) and a 190D had a mock combat and the Fw won.
That particular airplane will start, but cannot fly because some carburetor parts are missing and only the engine idle circuit is working. It starts up about half the times they try it. If they had a complete carburetor for the Jumo 213, it could fly. Perhaps they are looking and will find one sometime. It is a beautiful airplane up close.
Regarding the Ta 152H, it SHOULD have been somewhat of a pig down low due to the long wings when compared with the shorter-winged versions, but contemporary flight reports say otherwise. They say it retained good roll even with the long wings. To me, that is very interesting as most long-wing planes are not good rollers.
Here it is:
View attachment 478723
Altogether a beautiful plane. Seems a real shame it can't fly occasionally. But, that is just my opinion. Many would not fly it even if they could. The two schools of thought aren't likely to get together anytime soon.
That particular airplane will start, but cannot fly because some carburetor parts are missing and only the engine idle circuit is working. It starts up about half the times they try it. If they had a complete carburetor for the Jumo 213, it could fly. Perhaps they are looking and will find one sometime. It is a beautiful airplane up close.
...
...
p.s. Carburetor parts? I thought jumo 213 used injection
Does anyone have any information on the weight of armour fitted to the FW 190, Wiki states that the Typhoon was fitted with 370Kgs under the pilot and around engine and radiator.
Interesting points, dedalos. I will have to consider them. While I disagree it was a target in 1944 and later, you do make some points.
The Ta 152 series showed very good performance, despite any extra armor or armament, but there were never very many of them. Most Allied pilots considered the Fw 190D to be the best German fighter of the war. Tough to argue with them this many years later, at least with any authority. Maybe most of the good German pilots flew them after they came out, but the Fw 190D DID get the attention of the Allies and we DID tend to skip over the Ta 152 airfield guards for the jet airfields. The combination of the Ta 152s and the flak made hunting jets in the landing pattern a dicey affair, assuming decent Ta 152 pilots and veteran flak gunners.
Cheers.
Greg - I agree with the general comments as 'span loading' is largely tied to Aspect Ratio which as you know is a major component of Induced Drag.The long-wing Ta 152H had very good span loading for a fighter. Span loading is a good general indicator of high-altitude maneuverability, and also indicates the amount of vortex generation as the aircraft moves through the air. Lower span loading generates less vortex, losing less energy.
It is somewhat related to wing loading, but wing loading alone does not indicate maneuverability directly. But since the fighter designers were trying to optimize for mostly the same things, it is a very good indicator. Lower span loading indicates generally better high-altitude maneuverability, but not in all cases. There ARE a few where it fails to help as an indicator.
I don't think the long-wing Ta 152 was one of those. It SHOULD have been a VERY good plane way up high, despite not really being used there.
I see the words "small wing" used in here and want some clarification. The issue is wing loading, or normal gross weight divided by wing area. The ratio of the numbers doesn't change whether metric or English, so:
The Spitfire V had a normal gross weight of 6,784 lbs and a wing area of 242.0 sq ft, for a wing loading of 28.0 lbs/ sq ft.
The Fw 190 A3 had a normal gross weight of 8,530 lbs and a wing area of 197 sq ft, for a wing loading of 43.6 lbs/ sq ft.
While the Fw 190 A might SEEM like it has a high wing loading, the opposite is true; the Spitfire V has a very LOW wing loading. For comparison, the Bf 109E-3 had a wing loading of 31.7 and the Bf 109G-6 has a wing loading of 39.9 lbs/sq ft., so the 109G wasn't very far from the Fw 190. The P-51D had a wing loading of 39.5 lbs.sq ft., and the P-47D has a wing loading of 48.3 lbs/sq ft. The Fw 190 A3 falls right in the middle, and the P-47D did NOT have bad stall characteristics at all. The P-38J had a wing loading of 65.8 lbs/sq ft and turned very well, better than some single-engine fighters, if you believe the reports from combat pilots. It ALSO stalled quite benignly.
I see nothing strange about the wing loading of the Fw 190 series at all.
The stall-without-warning is another story entirely. THAT could easily have been changed. Most of the aerodynamic decisions regarding the Fw 190 were spot-on and correct, and I think that the wing could have been slightly larger, but it would not have materially changed the flight characteristics unless the stall warning were to be addressed. If so, the aircraft would have telegraphed an impending stall, allowing pilots to pull hard more consistently close to the limits in a safer manner.
Can't have everything, I suppose, and will always regard the Fw 190 as a VERY GOOD fighter for the time.