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

[CORSNING]

Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
and Dmitry Komissarov.
Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading, best: 4.631 lb./hp., Wing Loading take-off: 48.69 lb./sq. ft.
La-7 Arkadi Shvetsov ASh-82FN 1,850 ps-1,825hp., 7,106 lb., 189.3 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading: 3.894 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 37.54 lb./sq. ft.

Surprisingly close in acceleration however the La-7 held the edge at low and
medium altitudes. The Lavochkin could outturn the Focke-Wulf at low and
medium altitudes also. Around 7,000 m. is where the Fw 190D began to take
charge. But it was no slouch even at the lower levels, especially when using
MW50. Late war Lavochkins were capable of climbing as fast as 4,762 fpm
initially. But even then its climb rate fell off faster than the Fw's.

PS: I forgot to add that the Dora could accelerate in a dive much quicker
and that the Focke-Wulf was the more rugged of the two.

 

[GregP]

MW50 doesn't last long in the D-9 and the La-7, unless I am not remembering correctly, didn't have a temporary "power-adder/boost" fluid or gas. It's speed and climb wasn't nearly as limited as was the volume of MW50 carried in a D-9. That doesn't eliminate the MW50, all it means is the German would not normally USE MW50 unless it was seriously needed. Of course, you wouldn't normally fly the La-7 at absolute maximum power for long periods ot time either.

So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50? I'm not too sure just now, but can look it up as well as anyone. Just thinking "out loud" on the keyboard.

Good comparison.

 

[spicmart]

Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
and Dmitry Komissarov.
Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading, best: 4.631 lb./hp., Wing Loading take-off: 48.69 lb./sq. ft.
La-7 Arkadi Shvetsov ASh-82FN 1,850 ps-1,825hp., 7,106 lb., 189.3 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading: 3.894 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 37.54 lb./sq. ft.

Surprisingly close in acceleration however the La-7 held the edge at low and
medium altitudes. The Lavochkin could outturn the Focke-Wulf at low and
medium altitudes also. Around 7,000 m. is where the Fw 190D began to take
charge. But it was no slouch even at the lower levels, especially when using
MW50. Late war Lavochkins were capable of climbing as fast as 4,762 fpm
initially. But even then its climb rate fell off faster than the Fw's.

PS: I forgot to add that the Dora could accelerate in a dive much quicker
and that the Focke-Wulf was the more rugged of the two.

The Dora weighs about a whole ton more than the La-7 (3240 kg to 4270 kg).
Power loading of the Soviet fighter was better as well.
That's really an enormous difference. They should have tried to lighten the Dora airframe.

 

[spicmart]

MW50 doesn't last long in the D-9 and the La-7, uoless I am not remembering correctly, didn't have a temporary "power-adder/boost" fluid or gas. It's speed and climb wasn't nearly as limited as was the volume of MW50 carried in a D-9. That doesn't eliminate the MW50, all it means is the German would not normally USE MW50 unless it was seriously needed. Of course, you wopuldn't normally fly the La-7 at absolute maximum power for long periods ot time either.

So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50? I'm not too sure just now, but can looki mit up as well as anyone. Just thinking "out loud" on the keyboard.

Good comparison.

The MW50 supply could be used for 10 minutes. After that you have to switch it off for 5 minutes before you can use another 10 minutes. After that another 5 minutes pause and then a final 10 minutes of use. So it can be used for a total of 30 minutes.
Afaik that is a lot more than with other fighters.

 

[spicmart]

At least 1800 PS down low with MW 50 - not too shabby

So it had almost the same power and wing loading like the La-7 down low. Dön't see any great disadvantage to the Lavochkin.

 

[tomo pauk]

So it had almost the same power and wing loading like the La-7 down low. Dön't see any great disadvantage to the Lavochkin.

Neither for the 109K-4.

 

[spicmart]

Neither for the 109K-4.

I meant the K-4.

 

[spicmart]

I meant the K-4.

Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
and Dmitry Komissarov.
Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading, best: 4.631 lb./hp., Wing Loading take-off: 48.69 lb./sq. ft.
La-7 Arkadi Shvetsov ASh-82FN 1,850 ps-1,825hp., 7,106 lb., 189.3 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading: 3.894 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 37.54 lb./sq. ft.

Surprisingly close in acceleration however the La-7 held the edge at low and
medium altitudes. The Lavochkin could outturn the Focke-Wulf at low and
medium altitudes also. Around 7,000 m. is where the Fw 190D began to take
charge. But it was no slouch even at the lower levels, especially when using
MW50. Late war Lavochkins were capable of climbing as fast as 4,762 fpm
initially. But even then its climb rate fell off faster than the Fw's.

PS: I forgot to add that the Dora could accelerate in a dive much quicker
and that the Focke-Wulf was the more rugged of the two.

Do you have data on the Me 109K-4?

 

[CORSNING]

[QUOTE="GregP,
So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50?

The following figures relate to the early D-9 after the TAM conversion
kit was installed increasing PS power from 1,750 to 1,900 (1,726 to 1,874 hp)
and no ETC504 underbelly rack.

SL..........345 / 3680
1,000...359 / 3315
2,000...372 / 3060
3,000...384 / 3010
4,000...389 / 2970
5,000...400 / 2875
6,000...412 / 2420
7,000...403 / 1960
8,000...391 / 1505
FTH: 413 mph/6,050m.

 

[CORSNING]

Do you have data on the Me 109K-4?

This is a tough one. All the graphs and charts I have (or can find) at this time are Messerschmitt
calculated data for the following engine installations.
DB 605DC/ASC & No MW50
DB 605DB/ASB with MW50
DB 605D with MW50

The DB 605DB/ASB engine K-4 relates very closely to the graphs provided on wwiiaircraftperforman
that is listed as actual performance.
The Yak-3 performance figures are from Russian Graph 0227 (Best Fighters of WWII) and Graph 0217
(Beginning 1945).
Bf 109K-4 ( Yak-3 )
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / MPH / FPM
SL..........369 / 4360 ( 352 / 4136 )
1,000....383 / 4365 ( 367 / 4202 )
2,000....396 / 4202 ( 381 / 3779 )
3,000....404 / 4044 ( 384 / 3663 )
4,000....413 / 3890 ( 399 / 3360 )
5,000....422 / 3680 ( 405 / 2821 )
6,000....431 / 3552 ( 401 / 2277 )
7,000....441 / 3129 ( 396 / 1782 )
8,000....436 / 2480 ( 386 / 1287 )
9,000....430 / 1968 ( 372 / 792 )
10,000.421 / 1485 ( 355 / 297 )

Bf 109K-4: 1,850 ps- 1,824 hp., 7,497 lb., 173.34 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading @ take-off: 4.110 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 43.25 lb./sq. ft.

Yak-3: Klimov VK-105PF-2: 1,320 ps- 1,302 hp., 5,934 lb., 159.8 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading @ TO: 4.558 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ TO: 37.13 lb./sq. ft.

Acceleration was very close between these two at low and medium altitudes.
Roll and turn were greatly in the Yak's favor at low and medium altitudes. The
Yak-3's roll rate was likened to the Fw-190A in more than one of the USSR
fighter books I mentioned above.

 

[spicmart]

I meant the K-4.

This is a tough one. All the graphs and charts I have (or can find) at this time are Messerschmitt
calculated data for the following engine installations.
DB 605DC/ASC & No MW50
DB 605DB/ASB with MW50
DB 605D with MW50

The DB 605DB/ASB engine K-4 relates very closely to the graphs provided on wwiiaircraftperforman
that is listed as actual performance.
The Yak-3 performance figures are from Russian Graph 0227 (Best Fighters of WWII) and Graph 0217
(Beginning 1945).
Bf 109K-4 ( Yak-3 )
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / MPH / FPM
SL..........369 / 4360 ( 352 / 4136 )
1,000....383 / 4365 ( 367 / 4202 )
2,000....396 / 4202 ( 381 / 3779 )
3,000....404 / 4044 ( 384 / 3663 )
4,000....413 / 3890 ( 399 / 3360 )
5,000....422 / 3680 ( 405 / 2821 )
6,000....431 / 3552 ( 401 / 2277 )
7,000....441 / 3129 ( 396 / 1782 )
8,000....436 / 2480 ( 386 / 1287 )
9,000....430 / 1968 ( 372 / 792 )
10,000.421 / 1485 ( 355 / 297 )

Bf 109K-4: 1,850 ps- 1,824 hp., 7,497 lb., 173.34 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading @ take-off: 4.110 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 43.25 lb./sq. ft.

Yak-3: Klimov VK-105PF-2: 1,320 ps- 1,302 hp., 5,934 lb., 159.8 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading @ TO: 4.558 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ TO: 37.13 lb./sq. ft.

Acceleration was very close between these two at low and medium altitudes.
Roll and turn were greatly in the Yak's favor at low and medium altitudes. The
Yak-3's roll rate was likened to the Fw-190A in more than one of the USSR
fighter books I mentioned above.

Thanks. That's cool.
The Yak-3 (and La-7 as well) rolled as good as the Fw 190 due to its small wings. But ! never get why the roll rate of the Me 109 is always rated as bad. Its overall dimensions and weight was aboutthe same as that of the La-7. Why would the 109 not turn and roll as good?

 

[CORSNING]

I would not rate the Bf 109's roll rate as bad at all. I have read were it was
quite similar to the Merlin powered Mustangs. On this thread it is being
compared to three of the best rolling aircraft in WW2.
The turn rate of the 109 was not that bad either. The Bf 109K-4 could
outturn the Fw 190D-9 at low and medium speeds and most altitudes.
Once again it is in the company of very maneuverable Soviet aircraft.

 

[Koopernic]

MW50 doesn't last long in the D-9 and the La-7, unless I am not remembering correctly, didn't have a temporary "power-adder/boost" fluid or gas. It's speed and climb wasn't nearly as limited as was the volume of MW50 carried in a D-9. That doesn't eliminate the MW50, all it means is the German would not normally USE MW50 unless it was seriously needed. Of course, you wouldn't normally fly the La-7 at absolute maximum power for long periods ot time either.

So, what was the D-9 climb and speed without MW-50? I'm not too sure just now, but can look it up as well as anyone. Just thinking "out loud" on the keyboard.

Good comparison.

MW50 Sondernoteleistung (special emergency power) was 3 x 10 minute operations with 10 minute breaks in between.

 

[Koopernic]

Thanks. That's cool.
The Yak-3 (and La-7 as well) rolled as good as the Fw 190 due to its small wings. But ! never get why the roll rate of the Me 109 is always rated as bad. Its overall dimensions and weight was about the same as that of the La-7. Why would the 109 not turn and roll as good?

The Me 109 roll rate was good at low to medium speed. At higher speeds the ailerons stiffened and roll rate reduced. (Roll rate increased with the Me 109F/G with friese ailerons). The plans to remedy the high speed roll slow down was the use of servo spring tabs (often called flettner tabs). Some Me 109G and Me 109K may have had these installed. They tend to be finicky to set up. The stiffening of Me 109 ailerons is often attributed to Mach effects on the relatively thick wing tips. Irrespective of what caused it, the speeds WW2 fighters were reaching (around Mach 0.66) meant some kind of effective aileron force reduction technique was needed.

Late war Corsairs and Hellcats (1944) US Navy fighters used geared servo spring tabs. The P-51B/C/D used internal pressure balancing whereas the P-51A had a fairly modest roll rate since it lacked pressure balancing. Internal pressure balancing was possible because the P-51 was so thick it could fit the bellows (when high pressure air air from the deflected side is channelled to a bellows that relieves aileron forces)

 

[Koopernic]

Roll rate of the two was very similar from the books I have been reading
from Yefim Gordon, Erik Pilawskii, Sergey Komissarov, Herbert Leonard
and Dmitry Komissarov.
Fw 190D-9 Jumo 213A 2,100 ps - 2,071 hp. 9,590 lb. 196.98 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading, best: 4.631 lb./hp., Wing Loading take-off: 48.69 lb./sq. ft.
La-7 Arkadi Shvetsov ASh-82FN 1,850 ps-1,825hp., 7,106 lb., 189.3 sq. ft. wing
Power Loading: 3.894 lb./hp., Wing Loading @ take-off: 37.54 lb./sq. ft.

Surprisingly close in acceleration however the La-7 held the edge at low and
medium altitudes. The Lavochkin could outturn the Focke-Wulf at low and
medium altitudes also. Around 7,000 m. is where the Fw 190D began to take
charge. But it was no slouch even at the lower levels, especially when using
MW50. Late war Lavochkins were capable of climbing as fast as 4,762 fpm
initially. But even then its climb rate fell off faster than the Fw's.

PS: I forgot to add that the Dora could accelerate in a dive much quicker
and that the Focke-Wulf was the more rugged of the two.

The statistics you give show the Fw 190D9 as having a much higher wing loading and much lower power to weight ratio. I'm a little sceptical about them but the difference is enormous and make it difficult for the Fw 190D9 to beat the La 7. Did the La 7 actually have 1850hp in 1944?
I think there are a couple of points though.
-Fw 190D9 was an interim aircraft being replaced by the Fw 190D13. The Fw 190D13's new Jumo 213F engine featured a two stage supercharger and 3 speeds, improved armament and improved aerodynamics.
-The Fw 190D13 itself was being replaced by the Ta 152C and Ta 152H particularly in the fighter role.
-The Fw 190D13's job would become fighter bomber, Fuel tanks being added to where the outboard guns were once installed. The Fw 190D13's Jumo 213F itself was being replaced by the Jumo 213EB which now featured a intercooler and an estimated speed of 488mph. The relatively high wing loading of the Fw 190D would be what makes it fast down low hauling a bomb.
-I suspect there is nothing stopping the Jumo 213A being evolved to accept 2.02 ata (test flights were conducted) or perhaps latter 2.2 ata. If there are production issues with the Jumo 213F the Jumo 213A could probably be almost as good at low altitude.

 

[J_P_C]

German fighters offered at least two times salvo weight - considering Yak-3 fragile structure (everything sacrificed in favour of weight due to weak engine) it must be pretty destructible advantage, La-7 was slightly better but low muzzle velocity Shvak cannon may be found still inferrior in compare to MG151, La had tendence to poison pilot with carbon monoxide due to inadequate sealing of the cokpit area from the engine (never really fixed). Russians had problem with cockpit glazing - material used by them quickly detoriated from UV radiation and because of this almost all time they have flown with open cokpits - theoretical performance curves had nothing with reality. Interesting fact is that Soviets have introduced to their line service most of taken FW-190D - two of Baltic Fleet fighter regiments were equipped with this type.
If you consider fact that past Stallingrad Germans had just 2 (TWO!!) fighter regiments permanently allocated to the eastern front and Russians never achieved total aerial supremacy you may comes to the interesting conclusions.
Soviets won? - yes for sure, on the ground, and with price in manpower which was totally outside acceptable for other nations limits
Did WWS had crated serious threat for Luftwaffe? - rather not, Soviets just won in the air with western allies hands, Germans simply had no available air force to allocate to the eastern front

 

[tomo pauk]

German fighters offered at least two times salvo weight - considering Yak-3 fragile structure (everything sacrificed in favour of weight due to weak engine) it must be pretty destructible advantage, La-7 was slightly better but low muzzle velocity Shvak cannon may be found still inferrior in compare to MG151,

Difference in muzzle velocities was under 5% (Shvak vs. M-shell from MG 151/20); the HE and incendiary shells from MG 151/20 were slower than the counterparts for the Shvak. Shvak also fires a bit faster.
Granted, German shells were either with much greater HE content, or/and heavier.
Muzzle velocity of the MG 131 was lower than of the UB. The MV of MK 108 was very low (no wonder, it used the long & heavy M-shell from the powerful MK 101 or 103, and about 1/4 of propellant what MK 101 or 03 used).

La had tendence to poison pilot with carbon monoxide due to inadequate sealing of the cokpit area from the engine (never really fixed). Russians had problem with cockpit glazing - material used by them quickly detoriated from UV radiation and because of this almost all time they have flown with open cokpits - theoretical performance curves had nothing with reality. Interesting fact is that Soviets have introduced to their line service most of taken FW-190D - two of Baltic Fleet fighter regiments were equipped with this type.

It took some doing before Fw 190D-9 achieved the projected figures, too.
Soviets didn't have habit to waste anything. They pressed in use German tanks from Pz-III onwards (whether as-is or modified), the 5 cm pak etc. Despite their own mass production and LL.

If you consider fact that past Stallingrad Germans had just 2 (TWO!!) fighter regiments permanently allocated to the eastern front and Russians never achieved total aerial supremacy you may comes to the interesting conclusions.
Soviets won? - yes for sure, on the ground, and with price in manpower which was totally outside acceptable for other nations limits
Did WWS had crated serious threat for Luftwaffe? - rather not, Soviets just won in the air with western allies hands, Germans simply had no available air force to allocate to the eastern front

It was Germany's fault to bite off more than they could chew.
Interesting conclusion is that Germans, despite having either air parity of air superiority didn't crashed the Soviets. War on the Eastern front was the war on the ground, those aircraft that trashed the VVS still needed to land sometimes.

 

[Juha3]

German fighters offered at least two times salvo weight - considering Yak-3 fragile structure (everything sacrificed in favour of weight due to weak engine) it must be pretty destructible advantage, La-7 was slightly better but low muzzle velocity Shvak cannon may be found still inferrior in compare to MG151, La had tendence to poison pilot with carbon monoxide due to inadequate sealing of the cokpit area from the engine (never really fixed). Russians had problem with cockpit glazing - material used by them quickly detoriated from UV radiation and because of this almost all time they have flown with open cokpits - theoretical performance curves had nothing with reality. Interesting fact is that Soviets have introduced to their line service most of taken FW-190D - two of Baltic Fleet fighter regiments were equipped with this type.
If you consider fact that past Stallingrad Germans had just 2 (TWO!!) fighter regiments permanently allocated to the eastern front and Russians never achieved total aerial supremacy you may comes to the interesting conclusions.
Soviets won? - yes for sure, on the ground, and with price in manpower which was totally outside acceptable for other nations limits
Did WWS had crated serious threat for Luftwaffe? - rather not, Soviets just won in the air with western allies hands, Germans simply had no available air force to allocate to the eastern front

Tomo already answered to Shak vs MG 151 comprison.
To my understanding the problems with cockpit glazing material was more acute during the early part of the Great Patriotic War, not so much in the later part.
Only two LW JGs (not so equivalent with Soviet fighter regiments which had 63 planes in 1941 and 34 mid 1943, the latter being smaller than German Gruppe saying nothing on Geschwader) permanently allocated to the Eastern Front after Stalingrad? Really, on 27 May 1943 there were:
most of JG 54
most of JG 3
JG 52
JG 51
½ of JG 5 operated against Soviets the other half operated from middle and Southern Norway against the Western Allies
I would say about 4 Jagdgeschwadern.

 

[J_P_C]

Tomo already answered to Shak vs MG 151 comprison.
To my understanding the problems with cockpit glazing material was more acute during the early part of the Great Patriotic War, not so much in the later part.
Only two LW JGs (not so equivalent with Soviet fighter regiments which had 63 planes in 1941 and 34 mid 1943, the latter being smaller than German Gruppe saying nothing on Geschwader) permanently allocated to the Eastern Front after Stalingrad. On 27 May 1943 there were:
most of JG 54
most of JG 3
JG 52
JG 51
½ of JG 5 operated against Soviets the other half operated from middle and Southern Norway against the Western Allies
I would say about 4 Jagdgeschwadern.

than in best case 240 fighters - for the almost 4000km frontline - vs enemy who had in opposition around 3000 fighters. Personally i wouldn't call this great respect for the opponent. My point is that eastern front didn't broken the Luftwaffe, it was done by sum of German mistakes, USAF and RAF and wise selection of pivotal elements of German economy which has been targeted. VVS input was important but not decisive by any measure, exactly in reverse to Soviet land forces efforts, here it was major force who smashed Wehrmacht.
Also i'm surprised by admiration for the numbers and performance curves presented on this forum, you have to remember that all this data are not covering important factors related to real battle condition - maintenance, tactics, reliability and the quality of the equipment, training of the personnel quality and many others (above all - who would like to fly in combat in the Yak or La equipped with usually not working radio - rise your hand please, or who is interested in flying in airframe made of "delta wood" soaking moisture like sponge? - i can assure you that, after one month in field conditions, none of La fighters was capable of reaching performance curves from manual).

 

[J_P_C]

Difference in muzzle velocities was under 5% (Shvak vs. M-shell from MG 151/20); the HE and incendiary shells from MG 151/20 were slower than the counterparts for the Shvak. Shvak also fires a bit faster.
Granted, German shells were either with much greater HE content, or/and heavier.
Muzzle velocity of the MG 131 was lower than of the UB. The MV of MK 108 was very low (no wonder, it used the long & heavy M-shell from the powerful MK 101 or 103, and about 1/4 of propellant what MK 101 or 03 used).



It took some doing before Fw 190D-9 achieved the projected figures, too.
Soviets didn't have habit to waste anything. They pressed in use German tanks from Pz-III onwards (whether as-is or modified), the 5 cm pak etc. Despite their own mass production and LL.



It was Germany's fault to bite off more than they could chew.
Interesting conclusion is that Germans, despite having either air parity of air superiority didn't crashed the Soviets. War on the Eastern front was the war on the ground, those aircraft that trashed the VVS still needed to land sometimes.

exactly that was my point - discussion about advantage of specific airframe is pointless in situation when air supremacy is not giving you edge because you have no striking force which may stop your opponent. As you said war on east was land war - germans have not enough bombers and assault airplanes to stop Red Army and also VVS have not enough ground striking aircrafts to really harass Wehrmacht. That was exactly in opposition to the western front - here air supremacy was major winning factor for allies.