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

[CORSNING]

[QUOTE="Juha3, post:
One point, generally Soviets thought that "Messers" were more dangerous opponents than "Fokkers",
I believe this was because the Bf 109s were more dangerous in the vertical plane and had a better
sustained turning ability.

 

[Milosh]

Most of the Fw190s on the EF were ground attack a/c. They were heavier than the fighter version.

 

[Dimlee]

Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...

Just for the sake of accuracy: Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin (Grob in Russian).

 

[Dimlee]

One point, generally Soviets thought that "Messers" were more dangerous opponents than "Fokkers",

It depends on the Soviet source. There are derogative descriptions of FW 190 as "easy prey" in the Soviet pilots' memoirs. But those are mostly the memoirs of fighter pilots served in 1944-1945, who enjoyed air superiority and encountered mostly FW 190Fs. We need to consider also the survivor bias. And bomber pilots respected FW 190.

 

[Koopernic]

I wouldn't worry too much about the Fw 190D-13s. They delivered a total of 17 of them. A series of 17 is basically a prototype series. They tend to go rapidly out of service since they are new, untried, and there are no spares. Generally, unserviceable airplanes are the spare parts logistics pile.

For any airplane, you have about 1/3 or so fully operational, with about another 1/3 in maintenance, and another 1/3 ready for maintenance. If the ones ready for maintenance are flyable, I'll say half, then they had about 8 - 10 Fw 190D-13s available for missions, assuming they were all delivered in a short time, which may or may not be the case. Either way, there weren't enough Fw 190D-13s to worry about.

1,805 of the 1,850 Fw 190D models were D-9s, so that is the airplane in the D series to worry about.

It was a very good airplane, but not really too much ahead of the La-7s at typical combat altitudes. Let's not forget that whatever number of Fw 190Ds were on the Russian Front, they were flying in the same conditions the Lavochkins were flying in and likely had similar weather-related in-service issues, and probably more since the Russians were very familiar with conditions there and the Germans weren't. Neither the La-7s nor the Fw 1909Ds were likely giving maximum flight test performance numbers.

The Fw 190D13 entered service. It would have been produced in higher numbers but for the collapse of the Reichs manufacturing capacity, bombing and loss of territory.

Casting the Fw 190D13 as a "prototype series" doesn't represent the fact that it was a relatively minor modification of the Fw 190D9 which itself was a relatively minor modification of the Fw 190A9. The Fw 190D13 was essentially a Fw 190D9 ahead of the firewall. There was very little new in it. There is not going to be a big logistical trail if a part gets bent or shot up for instance a cockpit canopy, ailerons, tail, radiator, undercarriage etc. It's all about certain parts of the engine and propeller.

Even the Jumo 213F engine is very similar to the Jumo 213A. It had for instance the same radiator on the Fw 190D9 and D13. The Jumo 213F1 was the same as the Jumo 213E1 (as used on the Ta 152H1 also in service) except for the absence of the intercooler. The first 200 Jumo 213F0 and Jumo 213E0 had a too weak supercharger shaft that locked out 3rd gear but it didn't effect the Jumo 213F1 and E1 which did enter service.


The other thing to point out is that the road map for the Fw 190D series is that the aircraft was being transitioned more into a ground attack roll. The Ta 152C would have been the aircraft fighting the La 7 in a dog fight or maybe a Me 109K4/K14. The Fw 190D13 I think the Fw 190D13 R25 was the ground attack version) but would have remained a potent and fast fighter in its own right.

We even have a flightworthy Fw 190D13 whose engine starts. "Yellow 10" (serial 836017) was delivered to Jagdgeschwader 26 in March 1945, within two months of VE-Day. It was flown by Maj. Franz Goetz (63 victories), the last JG-26 commander, who retained the Pik As (ace of spades) emblem of his previous unit, JG-53. Yellow 10 (Goetz's "lucky number") was one of five long-nose 190s taken to the U.S. for evaluation. Of those, only three remain including two owned by the National Air and Space Museum. Subsequently 836017 was donated to Georgia Tech, and after years of neglect it was acquired by David Kyte in California. Doug Champlin learned of the derelict fighter and in 1972 purchased it for shipment to Germany. There Art Williams of Guenzburg began a four-year restoration with assistance from Prof. Kurt Tank. Many missing parts had to be found or manufactured but the project was largely completed in 1976 and returned to the U.S. As the only privately-owned 190D, the "Dora" was the crown jewel of the Champlin collection in Mesa, Arizona. In 2001 a complete rebuild was begun by Gosshawk Aviation, directed by Dave Goss at Falcon Field. The result is perhaps the most authentic, airworthy Luftwaffe aircraft in North America. Yellow 10 now resides in her new home at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington.

 

[Koopernic]

Fw 190D-12
FYI from Dietmar Herman's "Long-nose": Graphs dated 12/15/44 and 1/3/45
had the same curve for the Fw 190D-12
Meters...MPH/KPH
S.L........375/604
1,000...387/623
2,000...400/644
3,000...413/664.5
4,000...415/668
5,000...427/687
6,000...439/706
7,000...448/721
9,000...449/722
10,000.448/721
11,000.437/734
12,000.422/680

FTHs: 413.5mph/3,100m., 448mph/6,800m., 450 mph/9,750m.
The D-12 armament: 1 x 30 mm Mk 108 hub mounted + 2 x 20 mm MG 151 nose
mounted.

Fw 190D-13 specifications & performance
Take-off Weight: 9,790 lb.
Range: 463 ml. internal fuel, 776 ml. with auxiliary tank.
Speed:
355 mph/S.L. (378 mph with MW50)
458 mph/37,720 ft.
Climb:
Initial: 4330 fpm.
3,000 m./3.6 min.
6,000 m./7.6 min.
8,000 m./10.7 min.
10,000 m./14.7 min.
From www.indianamilitary.org: By April 1945, yellow 10 (Fw 190D-13, werk No.836017)
was in service with JG 26 and was the personal mount of Major Franz Gotz, a Knight
Cross holder with 63 confirmed victories. 836017 was one of two D-13s that can be
documented as being in squadron service before the end of the war. Although exact
numbers built will probably never be known, Yellow 10's werk number would seem to
indicate that at least sixteen other airframes were manufactured before it.

Fw 190D-9 's performance is listed on two charts in Hermann's "Long-nose"
The following is from pages 122 and 137 dated 10 October 1944.
Speed:
380 mph/S.L.
436 mph/5,700 m.
Climb:
3641 fpm. (4330 fpm with MW50)
10,000 m./12.5 minutes
Service Ceiling: 35,424 ft.

If anyone has any more information on the Fw 190D-13, sharing with us would
be greatly appreciated.

Just a note: the Fw 190D12 and Fw 190D13 were essentially the same aircraft. They differed only in that the D12 had a MK108 canon and the D13 MG151/20 in the engine mounted canon. Differences in performance probably represent other factors.

The Fw 190D13 had a defect in that the same radiator was used as the Jumo 213A of the Fw 190D9. At high altitude, where the two stage supercharger was providing more air and more power, there was also more heating load and the cowling cooling fins would open slowing the aircraft down after about 60 seconds. The aircraft sill had a higher ceiling, more acceleration, better turn etc but it lost some sustained top speed.

This was well understood and expected however rather than go through the cost of developing and manufacturing a larger radiator it was deemed best or quicker to wait for the Jumo 213EB engine. This engine featured a heat exchanger that cooled the engine block, intercooler and oil cooler. It could fit into both the Ta 152H1 and the Fw 190D13 so the Fw 190D13 gained an intercooler.

With this engine the Ta 152H with Jumo 213EB was as fast as the Jumo 213E variant but didn't need Nitrous Oxide to achieve 474mph and could do so at a lower altitude.

The Fw 190D13 EB was expected to achieve 488mph with this engine.

The ground attack variant would have featured fuel tanks where the outer wing guns were, a TSA 2D toss bombing sight and likely all sorts of navigation equipment.

 

[J_P_C]

Let me ask basic question - most of you are trying to make judgement based on available test data and manual performance curves. Is anybody here familiar with differences in methodologies of test which lead to creating this data? are you sure you are really compering apple to apples???

Just for the sake of accuracy: Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin (Grob in Russian).

correct - i just thought this translation is more appealing to english speaking peoples

 

[dedalos]

Let me ask basic question - most of you are trying to make judgement based on available test data and manual performance curves. Is anybody here familiar with differences in methodologies of test which lead to creating this data? are you sure you are really compering apple to apples???

correct - i just thought this translation is more appealing to english speaking peoples

I absolutely agree, that diferent method of testing, create misleading data sheets. I was always sceptical about the claims of certain nations and companies.
But since its not easy to prove the suspitions, we have to use, at least as a basis, the existing data sheets

 

[Koopernic]

Empty weight of the Lavochkin La -7 was 2640kg. It had 1850 hp available.
Empty weight of the Focke Wulf Fw 190A8 was 3200kg. It had 1980 hp at 1.63 ata available.
The Fw 190A8 has 21% more weight than the La 7 for only 8% more power.

(I'm assuming this is empty equipped weight, but who knows I'm using wiki). Unless the Fw 190 gets to about 2250 hp it looks like it's at a at serious power to weight ratio disadvantage. On top of that there is a higher wing loading on the German fighter.

1.82 ata boost was being flown on some Fw 190A9 but that gets us to about 2200hp. It seems to have been authorised in Feb 1945 without MW50.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg

The 2400hp to 2600hp was being promised by the BMW 801F engine.

Power levels above 2200hp looks like being reached by the Jumo 213 earlier than the BMW 801 plus the Jumo 213 has a two stage supercharger.

The La 7 simply had a power to weight ratio advantage and wing loading advantage arising from a lighter smaller structure. Parity would have been restored with the release of 1.82 ata. The higher wing loading of the Fw 190 might still be a disadvantage but should also provide a higher speed.

Its more or less the same story with the Yaks.

The 190 had more firepower, could take more damage, more armour and more range but on the parameters needed to wing a dog fight it was at a disadvantage. If the Soviets had to build fighters to intercept heavily armed 4 engine bombers the La 7 and Yaks would tend to be too weak and under armed.

 

[GregP]

Hi Koopernic, in post #55, just as a matter of curiosity and / or discussion, what exactly do you disagree with? No agenda here.

 

[Juha3]

Most of the Fw190s on the EF were ground attack a/c. They were heavier than the fighter version.

Not necessary up to autumn 1943, even at the time of the Kursk battles most of 190s on the Eastern Front were fighters, after JG 51 converted almost totally back to 109s your claim is true, but in 1945 after most of the JGs moved to the EF appr. 45 % of the 190s there were fighters.

 

[Juha3]

Just for the sake of accuracy: Lacquered Guaranteed Coffin (Grob in Russian).

Shortly on LaGG-3s, late production batches having lighter, aerodynamically cleaned structure, lighter armament and slats and with low-level engine giving more power at lower altitudes, were much better aircraft, some 50 km/h faster and not so underpowered.

 

[Juha3]

It depends on the Soviet source. There are derogative descriptions of FW 190 as "easy prey" in the Soviet pilots' memoirs. But those are mostly the memoirs of fighter pilots served in 1944-1945, who enjoyed air superiority and encountered mostly FW 190Fs. We need to consider also the survivor bias. And bomber pilots respected FW 190.

I agree with the last sentence, the armament of 190 As was devastating against Soviet bombers and very effective even against Sturmoviks. Because this thread is on fighter versus fighter comparison I thought only that. I have Golubev's memoirs, he fought through the whole of the Great Patriotic War over the Baltic and fought against 109s and 190 As, I should find some time to read it. The survivor bias is a factor in all memoirs, a must to take into account but probably not slew off so much the opinions on the comparisons on the merits of the enemy a/c.

 

[Juha3]

Let me ask basic question - most of you are trying to make judgement based on available test data and manual performance curves. Is anybody here familiar with differences in methodologies of test which lead to creating this data? are you sure you are really compering apple to apples???

correct - i just thought this translation is more appealing to english speaking peoples

At least on the Soviet tests it is important to check is the tested aircraft a pattern aircraft (handmade prototype) or a production a/c, the former always performed better in the tests.
German speed figures were sometimes compression corrected, sometimes not, best are those with both figures, showed the effect of the correction at certain speeds.

 

[J_P_C]

At least on the Soviet tests it is important to check is the tested aircraft a pattern aircraft (handmade prototype) or a production a/c, the former always performed better in the tests.
German speed figures were sometimes compression corrected, sometimes not, best are those with both figures, showed the effect of the correction at certain speeds.

what configuration? combat loaded? full fuel? gap sealed? what engine condition? - should i proceed with more questions???

 

[Dimlee]

I agree with the last sentence, the armament of 190 As was devastating against Soviet bombers and very effective even against Sturmoviks. Because this thread is on fighter versus fighter comparison I thought only that. I have Golubev's memoirs, he fought through the whole of the Great Patriotic War over the Baltic and fought against 109s and 190 As, I should find some time to read it. The survivor bias is a factor in all memoirs, a must to take into account but probably not slew off so much the opinions on the comparisons on the merits of the enemy a/c.

Vasiliy Golubev, I guess. His books were better than many others. But, still, they were all written in the Soviet period. That meant censorship, political bias, etc.

 

[dedalos]

Not necessary up to autumn 1943, even at the time of the Kursk battles most of 190s on the Eastern Front were fighters, after JG 51 converted almost totally back to 109s your claim is true, but in 1945 after most of the JGs moved to the EF appr. 45 % of the 190s there were fighters.

Reading soviet tests of the fw190, all the time say how much superior their fighters were. And indeed the Fw190A was obsolete by 1945. However , in Kurland pocket , just two gruppen of Jg54 , fought for six months against thousands soviets aircraft, and managed to keep the ports operating. And at the end they escaped to the british occupation zone. I dont see much sovier fighter superiority there
Until the last day luftwaffe was flying missions against the soviets, if fuel was available with any type of aircraft. From training biplanes to jets . Lipfert was even flying in his own initiative in order to get his 200th kill. Against the western alleis they could not even take off. Soviet superiority was basically in numbers, LA7 and yak3 were good but we should not exaggerate their abilities

 

[GregP]

Hi Koopernic,

Having lived in Arizona for 22 years, I am VERY familiar with Doug Champlin's Museum while it was in operation. The Fw 190D-13 is very impressive but was NEVER flightworthy. The engine has both an idle circuit and a run circuit in the injection system, and the run circuit had and is missing parts. So, yes, the aircraft did occasionally start, but also would NOT start about 1/3 of the times they tried. I was there for three attempts and it would not start one of those times. It is magnificent, to be sure, but with a series of only 17 airplanes, it was not a factor in the war. I think it was almost a Ta 152, which also wasn't a factor in the war and had a very meodiocre war record.

I'm under the impression the D-13 used the Jumo 213EB engine and an MG151 cannon instead of a Mk 108.

In any "what if" situation, there are always extenuating circumstances. Sure, had they been able to do so, they would have built more Fw 190 D-13s, but they didn't. If you want to believe they were a factor in the war, that's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am a fan of the type, but there were simply too few to be of any real use to the German war effort. Same can be said of the Ta 152, amazing though it was.

About the Ta 152, they apparently built some 150 airframes, but only delivered some 67 aircraft to the front line units. They were basically a group of small-run airplanes with no spares and when the war ended, there were exactly two Ta 152Cs still opertional with front line units. The Luftwaffe grounded all Ta 152Hs, an ignominious end for an aircraft with such great potential. I do not know why they were grounded, but I am sure they could have been corrected and returned to flight status had the war not been essentially over at the time. That does not constitute much of a threat in my book, and they didn't achieve much in real life.

Do I respect them as adversaries one-on-one? You bet I do; the Fw 190D-13, too. I would not especially want to meet one flown by a competent pilot if I were one-on-one with it. But they can hardly be considered as a factor in the war. The Fw 190D-13 and Ta 152 richly deserve a place among the pinnacle of piston fighter design, but they weren't a lot better than the other pinnacle pistons that were produced, also in small numbers. I'm referring to the P-51H (made WWII, but did not see combat), the unproduced Superbolt (prototype only), the Seafang (18 built, did not make WWII), the Sea Fury (1st flight Feb 45), etc. Last-gen pistons). None were factors in WWII, but they did display wonderful performance just before being retired to make way for jets.

All very good airplanes, but not in time to be war winners, at least not in WWII. But, you are correct, they were among the best piston fighters ever built.

 

[CORSNING]

La-5/7 vs Fw 190 Eastern Front 1942-45 by Dmitriy Khazanov & Aleksander Medved
Page 5:
"Although the Focke-Wulf would remain a significant threat to the VVS-KA into
early 1944, by then Soviet pilots had come to realize that most of the fighter units
equipped with the Fw 190 had been posted back to Germany to defend its cities
against daylight bomber raids being mounted by the USAAF's Eighth and Fifteenth
Air Forces. Indeed, by the spring of 1944 most Fw 190-equipped Gruppen on the
Eastern Front were Schlacht (ground attack) units. These machines were not flown by
Experten who had amassed vast experience engaging Soviet fighters, but by ex-Ju 87
and Hs 129 pilots with only limited knowledge of aerial combat. The Focke-Wulf
gradually became a less dangerous foe for the Soviet fighter pilots as a result, although
the Bf 109G/K remained a threat through to war's end."

 

[GregP]

Bomber pilots never spent much time hard-maneuvering and almost zero time inverted, even in a split-S, loop, or simple peel-off, so they weren't exactly up to par when it came to basic fighter maneuvers. But I'd bet former-bomber pilots turned fighter pilot survivors of air combat got better at pretty quickly, even if not exactly turning into "experten." The problem was surviving for 7 - 10 combat missions. Atfer that, you'd generally pretty much know what was goping to happen and be fairly ready for it.

Getting through the first several combat missions was likely a 20 - 40% survival thing late-war. Not really glowing future prospects.