Fw 190D and Me 109K vs. Yak-3 and La-7

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

[QUOTE="Koopernic, post:
When "increased emergency power without C3 injection" was released for combat use in 1943 it allowed a boost pressure of 1.57 ata in 1st gear and 1.65 ata in second gear.
I have put together a quick reference for the Fw 190/Ta 152. The very limited sources I have
show that in mid-1943 BMW cleared C3 injection for low blower and 1.65 and on 20 Jan.
1944 BMW cleared C3 injection for high blower. In July 1944 the BMW 801D-2 became
equipped for emergency power boosting of 1.58 & 1.65 without C3 injection. I do not know
which S/C, high or low received which boost pressure. Please elaborate & clarify if you
have that information.

When the 801 TS came in to use to it incorporated improved supercharger fluid dynamics and modifications to improve cooling as well as improved components such as stronger gearbox and from the planned 801E such items as vacuum caste heads. The 1.65 ata time rating became unlimited. (So I've read on other forums)

Latter in Jan or Feb 1945 the 801TS was released for 1.82 ata with clarification sent out in March. Not clear on the dates but it did happen.
Koopernic, do you have official document information on when boosing to 1.65 and 1.82
commenced? All I have at this time is some performance testing at these settings.


Another type of emergency power was "increased emergency power with C3 injection" which came into use around the same time, 1943, or a little earlier for jabo ground attack aircaft. It involved injecting C3 fuel into the supercharger to get a charge cooling effect. Because of intake airflow limitations it ceased to increase power above 1500m and use above 1000m was restricted. Fuel was consumed at 60-65 LPM and since a 190 only carried 580L any time limitation was purely hypothetical.[/QUOTE]
 
GregP said:
Added length makes an airplane less maneuverable, not more maneuverable, in turning flight.
Click to expand...

Greg,

I agree with that statement but wonder if the CG was moved or allowed to sit further aft, which would give the plane better initial pitch response, as well as a better ability to hold speed in turns?

Cheers,
Biff
 
Hi Biff,
I was thinking of CG. No matter how long the fuselage is, there is a definite CG range.

I'm also thinking of the moment and moment of inertia. If the engine is situated farther forward (long fuselage), then the pitch moment of inertia, AND the engine moment are both greater, making it very hard to pitch as quickly as a shorter airplane. Of course, you COULD make a super-light fuselage and put a very big horizontal tail on and airplane and fly safely with a very rearward CG, but then you aren't talking about a fighter as we knew them in WWII.

Here's an example of a forward wing and long tail moment.


Yes, it flies, but it isn't exactly a fighter. Here's the other end of the spectrum:

The wing is WAY aft, as it most of the weight. The engines are aft of the wing trailing edge. The canard has to lift quite a bit, but there is a normal elevator at the rear. Nobdoy would mistake this aircraft as a maneuverable fighter.

For the WWII fighter world, we are talking about maybe 27 - 33% MAC for the most part, an aspect ratio of (5.2 - 6.5) : 1 or so, and normal percentages of wing area for the tail volume. Putting a long fuselage on an existing fighter wing almost didn't happen except for the Fw 190D series and Ta 152 series, which are essentially the same animal. The only other ones I can think of readily were the P-40 developed from the P-36 and the Ki-100 developed from the Ki-61.

The P-40 was less maneuverable in turning flight than the P-36 because of the engine moment / moment of inertia increase, and the Ki-100 was more maneuverable in turning flight than the Ki-61 for the opposite reason. So, I'm just thinking about real-world examples as a reasonability check. I'm sure there is an example of a longer airplane that was / is more maneuverable than the shorter version of the same airplane, but I'm wondering if it is a fighter of typical WWII fighter aircraft mass and loading, or perhaps it is an experimental unit not suited as a fighter.

Just thinking out loud here, no agenda.
 
Last edited:

There are different versions of Klubov's death. "Official" and the only one in the Soviet period says that the wheel of his La-7 went into the crater, the aircraft overturned and the pilot died because of the skull's fracture. Stories about malfunctions appeared in 1990s but as I remember, they were not confirmed by any document.
Pokryshkin was in charge of the division (9th GIAD) since June 1944 while Klubov died in November 1944. Interesting, that some Soviet stories clearly mention Pokryshkin as a commander of the regiment and Klubov as his deputy in November, despite that Pokryshkin biography was known in all details. I think there is something fishy and we still do not know the true details of the accident. Not very surprising, - if you know the Soviet history, you know what I mean.
No, P-63 was not operated at the Eastern Front. But at least one of the Pokryshkin's division regiment (104 GIAP) was equipped with P-63 after WWII.
 
Loading...
Dimlee my friend you are absolutely correct about the many stories
of Klubov's death. Here is another one;
"On the morning of 1 November, some pilots of the 16 GIAP made flight tests on La-7s
at the airport of Jezowe, in Poland, close to the front line.
The fourth flight of that day was made by Cap. Klubuv, a very skilled pilot that made a
superb acrobatic exhibition to demonstrate the characteristics of the new plane. His
flight ended in (a) fatal way. During the landing run, a cross wind pushed the plane out
of the runway, where it flipped on its back, killing the pilot."

aircrewremembered.com/pokryshkin-aleksandr.html
Another story concerning the VVS use of the P-63.
"Pokryshkin subsequently cancelled his regiment's conversion (to La-7), and there
are multiple reports that they instead began flying Bell P-63 Kingcobras."
"By the lend-lease agreement with United States, the Soviet Union was not allowed
to use P-63s against Germany; they were given only to be used in the eventual
battle with Japan. Thus it is quite understandable that no mention of this appears
in any official records. However, personal accounts of German pilots and flack
crewmen who encountered P-63s in the skies of Eastern Prussia as well as the
memoirs of one of the pilots in Pokryshkin's squadron appear to confirm that
claim. It is reported that 9th IAD was given some 36 P-63s but these were not
used while the fighting was in progress."

I am very much in agreement with Dimlee, that the Soviet government made
the truth a hard thing to find.
 
Last edited:

IMHO without photos of P-63 wreck(s) from E Prussia I would not to put too much weight on German pilots or AA gunners accounts on what they saw in the skies of Eastern Prussia. Humans tended to saw what they expected, up to USN pilots seeing Bf 109s in the Pacific, was that in Coral Sea or Midway. Misidentifications of enemy planes were common. Much worse identification errors occurred than mixing P-39Q with P-63.
 
GregP said:
Also, after the war was over, the Soviets COULD use P-63s anywhere, and it is possible a P-63 wreck in the "wrong place" could be post-war. It is also possible the Soviets used the P-63 werever they wanted them. Tough to tell for sure.
Cheers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There were definitely P-63s in VVS units in post-war Austria, for example.
 

German pilots reported "Martin bombers" and "Boeing fighters" on the Eastern Front. Soviet and even post-Soviet/Russian historians wrote about He-113 in the Battle of Moscow. Alexander Yakovlev wrote in his memoirs about He-100 operated by LW in 1941. There was one Finnish pilot who claimed P-38 in 1943 or 1944 if I'm not mistaken.
 

IIRC VVS-KBF pilots operating from their airbase near Hanko in 1941 claimed among others 30 Finnish Spitfires. Probably because they were not yet aware that Finns had got Curtiss Hawk 75As but probably had hear that Finns had tried to acquire Spitfires before the Winter War.

Yes, Juutilainen claimed 2 I-153s and a P-38D on 10 July 1943 near Seiskari/Ceckap, according to him they were part of a big Soviet formation (c. 15 I-153s, 2 Pe-2s and 2 "P-38Ds"), VVS-KBF reported no losses, not even encounters with enemy planes but Soviet ground observers reported 7 enemy planes performing reconnaissance flights over Isles area during the day and 10 I-153s from 10 GvIAP KBF transferred from Seiskari to Kronstadt on that day. IIRC Intelligence had warned Finnish pilots of possibility of encountering Soviet Lightnings little earlier. So...
 

I-153s, Pe-2s and P-38s flying together in formation is a spectacle I'd very much like to see...
 


Hi Corsning. Do you mind if I use these stats for another page?
 
This has been an enjoyable read, my understanding of Luftwaffe aircraft fighter performance was degraded by the erratic delivery of low grade 87 0ctane fuel & the only reason some parity was reached in performance regardless of altitude was the injection of MW 50. Since this was only available for literally minutes of use in operation, especially true for the Fw 190 D. Otherwise it's performance wasn't too spectacular according to Soviet sources evaluating captured examples. it's very commendable the Luftwaffe performed as well as it did. As for the Soviet aircraft running on I guess ? 100 octane fuel, their engine performance was pretty good in lightweight sleek airframes of mixed construction in the Yak family of aircraft. The Lavochkins despite their wooden construction when married to the Shvetsov ash 82 radials became a formidable machines from the La 5FN onwards when the engines were producing1850 hp from late '43 /'44. Regrettably, the even more capable all metal La 9 just missed service in WW II. Should it have seen any action, the results of it's operational use would have made interesting reading !
 
BiffF15 said:
Greg,

I agree with that statement but wonder if the CG was moved or allowed to sit further aft, which would give the plane better initial pitch response, as well as a better ability to hold speed in turns?

Cheers,
Biff
Click to expand...

Hi Biff,

I'm thinking of polar moment of inertia in pitch, not CG or CL, but I could be mistaken. We'd need data to prove or disprove. Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
751
Jerrybandit67
J
J
BF-109K-4 aerial victories
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
CHen10
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2
Replies
25
Views
626
yulzari
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register