Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While everything you said is true, Tomo, there wasn't much development left in the Fw 190 airframe.
Since it was right near the top of the fastest piston fighters ever made, it wasn't going to get much faster no matter what they did ... unless you think there was some unexplored aerodynamic advantage that nobody else ever thought of lurking on the horizon.
It was a damned good airplane that came at a time when it could do no good as the war was well and truly lost by the time the very first Ta 152 service sortie took place. The only reason it didn't see decent-scale service is that all use of the Ta 152 stopped with the end of the war except for test flights of captured examples. Except for that it might have been a very good service aircraft.
The lower compression ratio of the Jumo 211F would be an advantage in that respect too, and may have managed power levels close to the 211J if it had been tested/rated for C-2 or C-3 fuel. (albeit lower critical altitudes for given power levels due to the lack of intercooling but also avoiding any added drag from the intercooler -more significant if an embedded low-drag radiator was used rather than the typical annular Jumo one)The DB605 rating seems to be for the problematical 1.42ATA that wasn't securely available till October 1943. The DB605 has a higher compression ratio which means that it expands its combustion products over a greater distance of travel and is therefore more efficient at converting hot gases into kinetic energy. The downside, especially for a fighter, is that there is now less energy available for jet thrust.
Had the structure been developed towards optimizations for a smaller, lighter powerplant early on (as was already the case to some degree on the early prototypes), much of that weight may have been avoided along with savings from using a lighter engine as well. Still, it would likely end up heavier than the Spitfire and 109, but then such was the case for the P-51, P-40, and even P-39.The Fw 190 was a much heavier aircraft than the Me 109 and Spitfire, I can't see it being competitive if equipped with a DB605 unless one is speaking of the 1944 water methanol injected ones or a possible version running on C3 96/125 fuel.
Did Jumo not have the same shortage on ball bearings that Daimler Benz had to deal with or were they already making heavier use of other bearing types in the Jumo 211 line? (without the overhead in debugging that DB's transition suffered)Interestingly some of the changes in technology from the DB601E to DB605A (such as changes in bearings) seem to have been a retrograde step that took a long time to debug. We would then have to ask as to whether a hypothetical DB603 that was not held up between 1937-1940 by Udet's decree is borrowing from 605 technology or DB601E technology.
The lower compression ratio of the Jumo 211F would be an advantage in that respect too, and may have managed power levels close to the 211J if it had been tested/rated for C-2 or C-3 fuel. (albeit lower critical altitudes for given power levels due to the lack of intercooling but also avoiding any added drag from the intercooler -more significant if an embedded low-drag radiator was used rather than the typical annular Jumo one)
With fighter engine development in mind for the 211, its performance may have stayed ahead of the DB-601E and DB-605 at least until the Jumo 213 entered production. (or at least the practical rated power levels with the timeline of limits placed on the DB engines)
Had the structure been developed towards optimizations for a smaller, lighter powerplant early on (as was already the case to some degree on the early prototypes), much of that weight may have been avoided along with savings from using a lighter engine as well. Still, it would likely end up heavier than the Spitfire and 109, but then such was the case for the P-51, P-40, and even P-39.
Ground attack versions with the added heavy armor would obviously be heavier in any case, while specifically lightened high altitude fighter/interceptor versions should be the lightest with compromises made to armament and fuel capacity too. (somewhat like the 801 powers light/high alt fighter variants except with the potential for a hub cannon; 3 20 mm cannons would seem likely, 5 on heavy interceptors)
Heavier DB-603 and Jumo 213 powered variants would certainly make sense too, or even the Bramo 329 had it been pursued. (though that seems better used on bombers and heavy night fighters) I still don't know much on the 329's development, but it seems like the design was progressing early enough to be in line with the BMW 801 or DB 603 in development (if not ahead -running and meeting its 2000 ps design goal in 1938 ) and much more likely to be useful in a far more timely manner than the Jumo 222, DB 604, or BMW 802. (let alone the 803 or 804) I'm not sure, but continuing with the BMW 139 may have had time to (reliable) mass production advantages over the 801 as well. (and lower weight)
Did Jumo not have the same shortage on ball bearings that Daimler Benz had to deal with or were they already making heavier use of other bearing types in the Jumo 211 line? (without the overhead in debugging that DB's transition suffered)
The DB605 rating seems to be for the problematical 1.42ATA that wasn't securely available till October 1943.
...
.The Fw 190 was a much heavier aircraft than the Me 109 and Spitfire, I can't see it being competitive if equipped with a DB605 unless one is speaking of the 1944 water methanol injected ones or a possible version running on C3 96/125 fuel
It needs a DB603, jumo 213 or possibly Jumo 222.
...
The Jumo 211 seems to have been a solid engine and given the Jumo 211N was 1420hp and the Jumo 211P 1500hp they might indeed have offered as much as the BMW801D2 (around 1700hp) with C3 fuel perhaps more depending on grade. I don't know why it wasn't produced. I suspect the decision to make a large leap to the Jumo 213 came out of the need to not just match but substantially exceed BMW801 power which reached over 2000hp 1943/44.
The BMW801 was only 51 inches in diameter, any version to replace it would have to be no greater diameter.
Higher supercharger gear ratios applied earlier in the 211's life might also have allowed for more competitive altitude performance. (probably best applied in conjunction with the intercooler addition of the 211J) That of course, assumes that the existing supercharger (of the 211F/J -much improved over the 'spouted' earlier design) had headroom for reasonably efficient operation at higher speeds. Without the intercooler (or water injection) it may not have been worth the effort.The 211P was produced IIRC, granted the 213A (and subsequent) make far more sense from late 1943 on. In order to match the 801D and the fully rated 605A, it needs a 'faster' supercharger, and that is what is the Jumo 211R all about - gains at altitude, while sacrificing low level power. The 211R probably never powered an operational aircraft, though.
What were the practical limits of the BMW 801D powered Fw 190 can be found in this test report. The Fw 190A3/U7 clocked 694 km/h at 7400 m (431 mph at 24278 ft), parly due to weight and drag reduction, partly by using external ram air intakes that increased usage of ram (not sure what is a proper term) to 60-95% vs. the internal intakes with the same value down to 22%.
What were the practical limits of the BMW 801D powered Fw 190 can be found in this test report. The Fw 190A3/U7 clocked 694 km/h at 7400 m (431 mph at 24278 ft), parly due to weight and drag reduction, partly by using external ram air intakes that increased usage of ram (not sure what is a proper term) to 60-95% vs. the internal intakes with the same value down to 22%.
I always wondered what would be the performance of the A4 airframe in combination with the later BMW 801s of the 2100 ps. It would be an excellent vertion for the Eastern front. But the RLM could think of nothing else than more and more guns and more and more armour
The heavy A-8 variant was more optimized for ground attack and other low altitude work with weight gain from heavy armor to protect against ground fire. They were also the heaviest armed with 4 MG 151/20 cannons and 2 MG 131s.Was that a case of wanting to make it more effective at shooting down USAAF heavy bombers?
What were the practical limits of the BMW 801D powered Fw 190 can be found in this test report. The Fw 190A3/U7 clocked 694 km/h at 7400 m (431 mph at 24278 ft), parly due to weight and drag reduction, partly by using external ram air intakes that increased usage of ram (not sure what is a proper term) to 60-95% vs. the internal intakes with the same value down to 22%.
No armor vs ground attack in A-8, that's the F-8. Armament was already available in the A-7. Major diff between A-7 and A-8 is the option to install an aux fuel tank (standard autumn 44). Some weight was gained with adoption of 801Q-2 engine (summer/autumn 44, larger oil tank with thicker armor).The heavy A-8 variant was more optimized for ground attack and other low altitude work with weight gain from heavy armor to protect against ground fire. They were also the heaviest armed with 4 MG 151/20 cannons and 2 MG 131s.
The Fw 190 received two incremental wing area increases after the A3 variant and this would add some drag though not much.
I also forgot to mention earlier that the added external ram air intakes added more to altitude performance but not much/any advantage at low level given the drag imparted, so the A-8 was already optimized for mid/low alt fighter duties as it was. (a BMW powered variant to be more directly competitive with the D-9 likely should have adopted those intakes though)No armor vs ground attack in A-8, that's the F-8. Armament was already available in the A-7. Major diff between A-7 and A-8 is the option to install an aux fuel tank (standard autumn 44). Some weight was gained with adoption of 801Q-2 engine (summer/autumn 44, larger oil tank with thicker armor).