FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?

[DarrenW]

Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190

FAA Hellcats did engage German fighters, but only once on May 8th, 1944. Do a search of this forum and I'm sure you will find more information about this exchange. From what I gather there is some confusion about whether there were FW-190s present or not.

And everything that I've read states that the Corsair was never involved in a combat with German fighters. But of course I haven't read everything so I could be wrong!

 

[GregP]

We have many WWII fighters flying, and the museum flies quite a few, including a real A6M5 and an Fw 190 replica with an R-2800 in it. We have a P-38J (a P-38J-20), several P-51s (two Ds and an A), a TBM, a P-47G, a P-40N, and a Yak-3 flying, as well as a A-1 Skyaider, an SBD (the only REAL one left flying), and have frequent Wildcat, Bearcat and Tigercat visitors and, very soon,will have out own Bearcat. We HAD a Hellcat but it has been years. For many years, we operated Spitfires (a Mk IX and XIV), a Hurricane, and a Martlett.

All the pilots say each has good and not-so-good points. Everyone likes the P-51, the F6F Hellcat, and the F8F Bearcat.

I wish I were one of the pilots, but that takes a pretty flush bucket of money!

 

[drgondog]

Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190

There were several encounters with FW 190 and Bf 109 and F6F - Operation Dragoon in Med and IIRC in North Sea area.

 

[swampyankee]

We need a thread: paean to FW190.

The Corsair, Hellcat, P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon, Lightning....have well-documented and universally agreed shortcomings; nobody is denying that, nor is anybody denying that they could not be beaten by contemporary aircraft, well-flown.

If neither the FW190 or Bf109 dominated as thoroughly as some posters seem to believe it, by rights, should have, we'd all be saluting to Deutchsland Uber Alles every morning and trying not to get killed by the secret police.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hello Tomo Pauk,

Where did this table come from? Do you read Russian as well?
(My Russian vocabulary is really rather poor.)
Column Headers:
Year of Issue
Airplane
Wing Loading
Power Loading
Speed at Earth (Sea Level)
Speed at Altitude
Landing Speed
Time to 5000 Meters
Ceiling Practical (Service Ceiling)
Duration of Flight
Distance of Flight
Turning Time (Seconds)

As you can tell by the changing wing and power loadings, there is quite a bit more going on than just year of manufacture or fit and finish. As strategic materials became less critical, many parts formerly made of wood were replaced with metal components which were generally lighter and stronger.

- Ivan.

Table is from Shavrov's 'bible' on Soviet aircraft of 1938-1950. Many of his tables are translated in Spanish, also from a book dealing with pre-1938 designs, can be read here. The last La-5 from the table I've posted was powered by the 18-cyl M-71 engine.
You're right about the columns. I can, passable, read Russian cyrilic, we were learning cyrilic back in the ex-Yu (I'm 47 y-o). Russian is also Slavic language, so I manage it somehow. Their technical nomenclature borrowed many words from German and French language, so that heps, too.

 

[DarrenW]

There's been a discussion between myself and others elsewhere in this forum about the drag coefficients of the FW-190A. I'd like to see data on this and later marks as well, such as the D series. I've relied on the data for the FW-190A-5 provided by Tomo and Ivan in another thread to get a rudimentary figure, using a known formula for calculating the zero-lift drag coefficient of an aircraft and came up with a figure of 0.0242.

Does anyone have actual wind tunnel test data for this or any other FW-190?

 

[tomo pauk]

If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
For the the D-9: 0.02426.

 

[DarrenW]

If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
For the the D-9: 0.02426.

Probably as good or better than my math skills!

 

[swampyankee]

If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
For the the D-9: 0.02426.

....numbers which are fairly typical or a bit on the high side for single-engined fighters of the day, which tended to run from about 0.022 to about 0.025, with the P-51 an outlier on the low end, at about 0.018, and the Bf109 an outlier on the high end, at about 0.029.

Expect total drag in cruise to be about twice those values.

 

[pbehn]

We need a thread: paean to FW190.

The Corsair, Hellcat, P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon, Lightning....have well-documented and universally agreed shortcomings; nobody is denying that, nor is anybody denying that they could not be beaten by contemporary aircraft, well-flown.

If neither the FW190 or Bf109 dominated as thoroughly as some posters seem to believe it, by rights, should have, we'd all be saluting to Deutchsland Uber Alles every morning and trying not to get killed by the secret police.

There are a few reasons for this.
1 Frequently people compare fighters performance 1 on 1 when in WW2 by the time 1944 came around it was frequently 10 to 1.
2 The war in the air was sometimes important but frequently it wasn't. For all the kills the LW made in N Africa it had no effect on the conflict because elsewhere the Axis powers had lost the ability to send supplies. For all the huge number of kills recorded by LW aces they didn't even scratch the surface of the Soviet machine. Since there were (according to Wiki) about 600 LW aircraft opposing operation Bagration it is quite possible that thousands of Russian soldiers didn't see any for weeks if at all.
3 Many German machines quoted like the Fw 190 Dora and the Do 335 were introduced after the LW had effectively ceased to exist.

 

[tomo pauk]

....numbers which are fairly typical or a bit on the high side for single-engined fighters of the day, which tended to run from about 0.022 to about 0.025, with the P-51 an outlier on the low end, at about 0.018, and the Bf109 an outlier on the high end, at about 0.029.

Expect total drag in cruise to be about twice those values.

The Bf 109 varied aplenty. MTT data shows 0.023 for the 109F4. The 109E and 109G-5 and later were much draggier.
The Fw 190A-6 and earlier will be less draggy than A-6 and later, and still less draggier with a pair of two pairs of guns removed.

 

[swampyankee]

There's been a discussion between myself and others elsewhere in this forum about the drag coefficients of the FW-190A. I'd like to see data on this and later marks as well, such as the D series. I've relied on the data for the FW-190A-5 provided by Tomo and Ivan in another thread to get a rudimentary figure, using a known formula for calculating the zero-lift drag coefficient of an aircraft and came up with a figure of 0.0242.

Does anyone have actual wind tunnel test data for this or any other FW-190?

Wind tunnel data are not easily compared; in airfoil testing different tunnels show significantly different values (When I was doing aero for a living, I saw a lot of tunnel data)The only way to get a reliable comparison of tunnel data between aircraft is full scale tests in either the same tunnel or in tunnels that have been well-characterized, so that their differences can be compensated for. If we had data for these aircraft, we would still have the micturation contest about how unfair the tests were to the <pick your aircraft>

 

[DarrenW]

Wind tunnel data are not easily compared; in airfoil testing different tunnels show significantly different values (When I was doing aero for a living, I saw a lot of tunnel data)The only way to get a reliable comparison of tunnel data between aircraft is full scale tests in either the same tunnel or in tunnels that have been well-characterized, so that their differences can be compensated for. If we had data for these aircraft, we would still have the micturation contest about how unfair the tests were to the <pick your aircraft>

I see your point perfectly and it's a very sound one. I too work in a test chamber environment and understand what "characterization" means and it's importance to overall test validity. Thanks for clarifying this for everyone.

 

[alejandro_]

My take is that fit & finish of Soviet aircrat improved after 1942, and especially after 1943. For example, they measured some 15 km/h improvement for Yak fighters manufactured in 1943 vs. those from 1942, and up to 30 km/h for LaGG-3, all for same engine power.
La-7 was barely faster than La-5 where attention was paid to the fit and finish for both machines.

There was a program by TSaGI to improve the La-5FN aerodynamics, and also work by Lavochkin to reduce the weight (*). The war situation allowed the use of metal/alloys, which had not been the case before. The main improvements were:

- Metal spars.
- Redesigned air intake and oil intake cooler
- New VISh-105V-4 propeller
- Improved engine cowling

(*) The first prototype was 121 lbs lighter.

 

[DarrenW]

We have many WWII fighters flying, and the museum flies quite a few, including a real A6M5 and an Fw 190 replica with an R-2800 in it. We have a P-38J (a P-38J-20), several P-51s (two Ds and an A), a TBM, a P-47G, a P-40N, and a Yak-3 flying, as well as a A-1 Skyaider, an SBD (the only REAL one left flying), and have frequent Wildcat, Bearcat and Tigercat visitors and, very soon,will have out own Bearcat. We HAD a Hellcat but it has been years. For many years, we operated Spitfires (a Mk IX and XIV), a Hurricane, and a Martlett.

All the pilots say each has good and not-so-good points. Everyone likes the P-51, the F6F Hellcat, and the F8F Bearcat.

I wish I were one of the pilots, but that takes a pretty flush bucket of money!

Greg, you must be living the dream... at least my dream anyway!

 

[drgondog]

CDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:

1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
3.) at high M range CD is also non-linear increasing as a function of CL

All of the Parasite Drag increments (CDo + CDm + Cd (CL)) are non linear at increasing RN and M numbers.

All are required to develop POWER REQUIRED as Power Available factor in THP plus Power Available Delta's due to Prop Efficiencies and Exhaust Thrust (= f(Boost and mass flow rate)). Additional parasite drag items like bomb racks/bombs and fuel tanks also come into play as 'deltas' to the Base Parasite Drag.

Then another iteration on power required must be developed based on the Pressure drag of the immersed airframe in the prop vortex.

Tea anyone?

 

[pbehn]

CDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:

1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
3.) at high M range CD is also non-linear increasing as a function of CL

All of the Parasite Drag increments (CDo + CDm + Cd (CL)) are non linear at increasing RN and M numbers.

All are required to develop POWER REQUIRED as Power Available factor in THP plus Power Available Delta's due to Prop Efficiencies and Exhaust Thrust (= f(Boost and mass flow rate)). Additional parasite drag items like bomb racks/bombs and fuel tanks also come into play as 'deltas' to the Base Parasite Drag.

Then another iteration on power required must be developed based on the Pressure drag of the immersed airframe in the prop vortex.

Tea anyone?

That's easy for you to say

Milk and no sugar please, would you like an angel cake, they are home made!

 

[swampyankee]

CDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:

1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
3.) at high M range CD is also non-linear increasing as a function of CL

All of the Parasite Drag increments (CDo + CDm + Cd (CL)) are non linear at increasing RN and M numbers.

All are required to develop POWER REQUIRED as Power Available factor in THP plus Power Available Delta's due to Prop Efficiencies and Exhaust Thrust (= f(Boost and mass flow rate)). Additional parasite drag items like bomb racks/bombs and fuel tanks also come into play as 'deltas' to the Base Parasite Drag.

Then another iteration on power required must be developed based on the Pressure drag of the immersed airframe in the prop vortex.

Tea anyone?

No Earl Grey please.

Bluff bodies frequently have reduced drag coefficients as Reynolds' number increases; laminar flow is more prone to early separation. Of course, one wants to avoid separation.

Most component drag data are measured at multiple Reynolds' numbers; airfoil data are always done at several, usually at high enough values so the reported polars are valid at operational conditions. There are also very good correlations for skin friction drag coefficient vs Reynolds number. When I was directly involved in tunnel testing, we went up to about M=0.8; much above that and tunnel design gets very difficult. Supersonic tunnels are easier than transonic ones. Long before my time, the NACA was investigating the effects of compressibility on airfoils and nacelles (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=...930091746|20090014717|20090015023|20090015112, http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930091566)


As an aside, do remember that 1) aerodynamicists are all going to be working from the same basic assumptions 2) NACA went to a great deal of effort and expense to make wind tunnels, such as the variable density wind tunnel, to achieve full-scale Reynolds' numbers and subsonic Mach numbers and 3) many of the reported Cd0 values are from flight test data. Or, largely bad, from handbook data.

 

[pbehn]

Drgondog and Swampyankee, were there any areas of design that weren't known to designers of WW2 aircraft that led them up blind alleys looking back?

 

[GregP]

I suppose it could be called living a dream. But, I don't get to fly them, and rightly so since most of my flight time is in Cessnas and Pipers, with a smattering of odd time in a few diverse types.

I DO get to help fabricate restoration and repair parts, and get in a lot of riveting and general fabrication, and I never thought I'd get to do that. Volunteering at a museum that flies warbirds DOES help a lot. Anyone can do that if they are lucky enough to live near such a museum. As it happens, I do.

You might try volunteering when you get near retirement. I learned my sheet metal skills within a couple of years of starting, and have been doing it now for about 10 years. I DID get to make a few parts for some rather interesting restorations. I'm really looking forward to seeing our Bell YP-59A fly! It has a lot of my own work in it, along with a LOT of work from about 100 other guys, including real restoration experts who work for and with Steve Hinton.