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

Vincenzo said:
It's strange that UB has better penetration of ShVAK, something is not right
Click to expand...

Well, the ranges are not the same but that is minor.

next try work out the energy applied per unit of frontal area (size of the hole).

I don't think the right ammo is listed?
API came in serval types for both guns but one sources says thq 127mm used a 52gram AP projectile with 19,200 joules of muzzle energy.
In trying to punch a 12.7mm hole it is trying to remove 126.6 sq mm of material, this means 151.6 Joules per sq mm of area.

The 20mm used a 99 gram AP projectile with 36,600 joules of muzzle energy. However a 20mm hole has 314 sq mm of area and so the projectile only has 116.5 joules of energy per sq mm of area.
In theory Penetration is accomplished in one of two ways (or a combination). 1 is pushing the material that was occupying the hole to the side, the other is hit the armor hard enough that a plug of material is punched out of the armor matching the size of the projectile. In reality it is usually a combination of the two but the energy per unit of area formula usually works.

Just as a comparison, the Hispano has about 46,900 joules or higher and would have 149.4 joules per sq mm of area.
The American .50 has 17,400 joules for the M2 AP round.

The ShVAK and it's short/ light projectiles didn't do well at armor punching.
 


Greg, I had thought I had removed my disagree rating, it had been there only 30 seconds.

It is possible to dismiss the Fw 190D12/D13, Ta 152C, Ta 152H even though they were issued to operational squadrons because there were so few (though the Ta 152H was issued in sizable numbers and the 190D9 close to 1000).

But there is another back story there. A big one.

The British and USA ran a massive and very successful bombing campaign against the 3rd Reich's aviation industry that not only reduced the quantity and quality of German aircraft but prevented the deployment of advanced types by 6-7 months. The story over Eastern front, the fight of the La 7 with the Fw 190 would be different as well.

I'll list several examples:
1 The deployment of the Me 109K was delayed at least 7 months, probably much more, by bombing which destroyed prototypes and critical plans. This means Me 109K would be deploying around March 1944 only 2-3 months after the P-51B began first missions in Europe and 3 months before D-day.

2 The DB603L/LA engine was delayed by a similar amount of time. These engines powered not only the Ta 152C but the Fw 190 D14 and D15 (broadly the Daimler Benz powered version of the Fw 190 D12/D13) which might have been deploying around the time of the Fw 190D9 before the Fw 190 D12 and Fw 190D13. There was also the DB603EM engine, likely delayed as well.

3 The Fw 190D9 itself suffered from simple manufacturing quality issues caused by the war such as deploying the emergency power systems to the aircraft and MW50 systems that would have made them combat worthy much earlier than October/November 1944. It also suffered from very basic airframe tolerance issues such as engine ceiling gap and wheel door covers airframe finish and other issues that would have seen the aircraft be a 437mph aircraft (at low altitude) and 443 with GM-1. It would likely have had access to large amounts of the C3 fuel, had more range for not having to use a tank for MW50 or had that tank available for GM-1 and long range tanks in the wing and there could have been a DB603EM powered version as well.

All of the above 3 aircraft would have been in service much earlier and much earlier than any P-51H, Sea fury or Superbolt because they represent an earlier generation of aircraft more in alignment with the P-51B/C/D.

Fw 190D13 received the Jumo 213F1 engine which was essentially a Jumo 213E1 without the intercooler. The Jumo 213EB, which did have an intercooler, was intended for the Fw 190D13 but was not available so the Jumo 213F1 was used instead. The Jumo 213EB was scheduled for production in June 1945. The Even more powerful Jumo 213J in November 1945.

I have seen numerous references to The Jumo 213E1 with MW50 producing 2350hp which corresponds to a 2.02 ata rating eg producing a speed of 407mph on the Ju 388 so the power level expected for the Jumo 213EB was likely to become available in the Ju 213E1.

Below is the cooling circuit for the Jumo 213EB, note the intercooler.

 
@ Corsning.
In one post you mentioned the max climb of the Fw 190D-9 as 4429 fpm and later 4330 fpm. I have seen both earlier esewhere. Why the difference?

A combat report gave a unit equipped with D-9s a kill/loss ratio of 115/5 at some date since the Battle of Berlin IIRC.
Anybody know more?

There was a comparative Soviet report which stated "absolute superiority of domestic fighters La-7 and Yak-3 over the Fw 190D-9 which onlx reached a speed of 624 kmh.".
 
Koopernic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the 488 mph figure?
 
[QUOTE="Koopernic, post: 1618556, member: 60966"
2 The DB603L/LA engine was delayed by a similar amount of time. These engines powered not only the Ta 152C but the Fw 190 D14 and D15 (broadly the Daimler Benz powered version of the Fw 190 D12/D13) which might have been deploying around the time of the Fw 190D9 before the Fw 190 D12 and Fw 190D13. There was also the DB603EM engine, likely delayed as well.

3 The Fw 190D9 itself suffered from simple manufacturing quality issues caused by the war such as deploying the emergency power systems to the aircraft and MW50 systems that would have made them combat worthy much earlier than October/November 1944. It also suffered from very basic airframe tolerance issues such as engine ceiling gap and wheel door covers airframe finish and other issues that would have seen the aircraft be a 437mph aircraft (at low altitude) and 443 with GM-1. It would likely have had access to large amounts of the C3 fuel, had more range for not having to use a tank for MW50 or had that tank available for GM-1 and long range tanks in the wing and there could have been a DB603EM powered version as well.

All of the above 3 aircraft would have been in service much earlier and much earlier than any P-51H, Sea fury or Superbolt because they represent an earlier generation of aircraft more in alignment with the P-51B/C/D.

Fw 190D13 received the Jumo 213F1 engine which was essentially a Jumo 213E1 without the intercooler. The Jumo 213EB, which did have an intercooler, was intended for the Fw 190D13 but was not available so the Jumo 213F1 was used instead. The Jumo 213EB was scheduled for production in June 1945. The Even more powerful Jumo 213J in November 1945.

I have seen numerous references to The Jumo 213E1 with MW50 producing 2350hp which corresponds to a 2.02 ata rating eg producing a speed of 407mph on the Ju 388 so the power level expected for the Jumo 213EB was likely to become available in the Ju 213E1.

Below is the cooling circuit for the Jumo 213EB, note the intercooler.

[/QUOTE]

Can you provide info about the Jumo 213EB?

The 437 mph at low alt is an estimate, I guess. Can you say about which height?

The D-14/15 had a drum radiator like the Ta 152. Where there any performance advatages to be expected?
 
Last edited:
spicmart said:
Where do you get the 488 mph figure?
Click to expand...

Richard Smith and Eddie Creek quote on page 704 of "Focke Wulf 190 Volume 3" the speed for the Fw 190D12/R25 and Fw 190D13/R25 as;
613kmh/381mph at sea level and 770kmh/478mph at 9500m/31168ft. They also quote the engine as being 2250hp (I believe the engine was 2350hp)
Dietmar Hermann also quotes this saame figure on page 154 of Focke Wulf 190 "Long Nose".

The R25 was a conversion kit.

Also interesting is that Dietmar Hermann quotes on the same page that the Fw 190D9/R25 would apart from the Jumo 213EB have received 4 bag tanks in the wing (similar to the 6 of the Ta 152) and that this would extend range of the Fw 190D9/R25 to 1705km (greater than the P-51B/C/D?). Note the above may be an typo in Hermann's book as I believe he meant Fw 190D12/R25. Nevertheless I can't see why the bag tanks couldn't be fitted to a Fw 190D9.

So I may be 478mph not 488mph but I'm pretty sure I did see that figure.

This chart shows the Fw 190D12/R25 with Jumo 213EB being of scale at about 770kmh or 790kmh.



The Jumo 213EB had the new cooling circuit and I believe bored out valves. The Jumo 213J had 4 valves and much higher RPM (3700rpm) so about 2700hp. Certainly capable of more than 488mph. (There was also a 2500hp Jumo 213S which was armoured for ground attack aircraft)

"The D-14/15 had a drum radiator like the Ta 152. Where there any performance advantages to be expected? "

The annular (drum?) radiator had a greater frontal area which meant the radiator needed to be less deep and this reduced pressure loss and therefore drag. These radiators did recover heat energy as 'thrust'. British used them on an experimental Tempest and found them superior but as it would have required manufacturing changes related to the C of G of the aircraft did not bother.

"The 437 mph at low alt is an estimate, I guess. Can you say about which height? "
It's not an estimate its a real aircraft running in good condition with the engine gape sealed using C3 fuel and with a bomb rack. no MW50.
18000ft or about 5500m.
Fw 190D and Me 109K vs. Yak-3 and La-7
 
Last edited:
 
Hi Koopernic,

No worries. I was curious only, not trying to start anything that can be construed as unpleasant in any way. I am mostly a fan of the airraft themselves, not necessarily the war or units , etc. Call me an airplane nut. I have had the opportunity to speak with many WWII pilots, and have sort of a different opinion than many about the performance of WWII aircraft, particularly fighters.

When you talk with them one-on-one, they mostly say they tried to take care of their airplanes and hardly ever got to maximum speeds unless in a dive. Most said they either never used WER or only once or twice in their entire war experience. SOme used it more, not too many. Most said that if they used it, it was for escape, not for attacking. The last thing they wanted to happen was to abuse their engines over enemy territory, cause a failure, and wind up as a POW in self-induced captivity. That doesn't mean they didn't pull hard in a fight or use the fighter as a fighter, it simply means that most of them felt that the absolute maximums in performance were things factory test pilots did. They normally used miltary power when fighting, and accelerated from cruising speeds when joining combat, so they never really got to maximum fast speeds unless they traded altitude for airspeed on the way down.

Were there exceptions? Of course, and they likely got away with it, too.

If you look at aircraft powered by Allisons, for instance, some maximums for MAP saw 44", 47", 57", and 60", but both E and F-series Allisons, partlcularly 90 - 100 series dash numbers could operate at 75" without much chance of failure, especially as they went to the 12-counterweight crankshaft. Short forays into high MAP were OK, bit if you got used to doing it, you were going to experience an engine "incident," hopefully of the non-fatal variety.
 
Power you quoted is take-off power, not so relevant to air combat.

ASh-82 FN generated 1430 PS at 4,55 km (as per manual).
BMW 801 D at 1,65 ata generated ~1660 PS at 4,7 km (as per On big radials ).
 

The needs of the western and eastern fronts were totaly different. West was requiring very heavy armament and armor and IFF and avionics. The problem was ,for production reasons, exactly the same aircraft was sent to the eastern front, to face the light soviet fighters.
Some units removed the unessacary avionics to save weight. Perhaps some A8 s lost for the same reason the external pair of cannons. (There s a big discussion about this)
The wide blade propellers in very late 1944 appears to have improved climbing and turning of the A8s.
I feei that an A8 with 1.65 ata clearance , wide blade propeller and no special avionics was competitive against the la7 and above 3000m propably had an edge. We must also remember that the automatic engine controls guaranteed optimum performance from the engine during the confusion of air combat. La7 had not such a feature
Now combining the light A4 airframe with a late 2000-2200ps BMW801 would create a formidable eastern front variant. But production required one version for every need.
 

IMO - the Fw 190 was a considerably better aircraft than La-7. What La-7 was able to do in 1944, the Fw 190 was doing in 1941, and there was a number of tasks that left La-7 speechless when compared with Fw 190.
 
Kocur said:
Power you quoted is take-off power, not so relevant to air combat.

ASh-82 FN generated 1430 PS at 4,55 km (as per manual).
BMW 801 D at 1,65 ata generated ~1660 PS at 4,7 km (as per On big radials ).
Click to expand...

im not convinced. If Soviet aircaft such as the IL-2 were attacking german supply columns, armour or infantry they would presumably be below 1000m and their escorts of La-7 at maybe 2000m. In that case the Power to Weight ratio advantage would likely remain. The wing loading as well. I'm not exactly aware of the typical engagement altitude but that sounds likely.
 

Well patrolling at 2000m , at slow speed, since you escort il 2 s, normally would be reciepe for disaster. You are target for boom and zoom attacks from above by fighterss with much higher energy status. You can not even prevent them continue to the bombers ,fire and then climb away. Except if you have 5-10 times more fighters and you completely hide the bombers. In any case the higher fluying attacker has no reason to slow down and turn fight
 

From my understanding escort fighters weaved to maintain speed. i can not see combat taking place between escort fighters and interceptors at 4000 meters if the ground attack aircaft are at 1000. Furthermore what of the Fw 190F in the ground attack role, it too is at a power disadvantage when intercepted by the La 7. The wing loading disadvantage is also serious. Despite the superiority of the BMW 801 and its supercharger it won't be evident at low altitude.
There would have been some BMW 801TS and TH with improved superchargerS.
 

Dedalos,

To escort at slow speed in enemy territory is to beg to be turned into a kill marker on your adversaries fighter. I have read that the Russians liked to go as fast as fuel would allow in the high threat areas (close to or beyond the front lines) and that would go for the IL-2s as well. Also someone recently posted a picture of how the Russians liked to stack their escorts which would be done to prevent or disrupt the hi to low high energy attacks by the Luftwaffe.

As for the boom and zoom it has its limits. An aircraft at its max speed will only go up so far once the pilot starts pulling. If he (the 109 / 190) is being tailed and the adversary starts lower but reaches his max velocity while still higher than the offender he is at an energy advantage.

Also stacking above your bombers can allows greater battlefield situational awareness in the form of earlier visual pick up of incoming threats, smoke on the ground in the distance (combat taking place, planes shot down, front changing location).

Also in the confines of the internet it's easy to say a guy would not turn to engage, but realize it's not that black and white in reality. If you can do a quick turn and kill someone why not. Now you won't have to fight him, or more precisely his plane again. Adrenaline running high makes people do foolish things as well, IE turn when they should not.

On another note it's been mentioned in here that the late model Fw-190s and Ta-152s had boosted ailerons. Do you have any concrete evidence of that? I have Deitmars book but am out on the road.

Cheers,
Biff
 

Koopernic,

The escorts would intercept incoming adversaries at whatever altitude they could get to them. Disrupting earlier is better and more effective usually than later. However once the fight begins it almost always goes down.

Cheers,
Biff
 
From what I've read, Il-2 didn't sortie to attack at 1,000 m. It was more likely 50 - 150 m. Also, they weren't based a long way off from the front lines; they were based only a few miles from the lines and the bases were VERY temporary; sort of like tamped-down grass and tents, with fuel trailers on wheels and some wagons with tools, and a kitchen. So, there weren't a lot of high-flying German patrols that could sit up at several thoudand meters and bounce an incoming wave of attackers at any decent altitude. It was much more of some Il-2s and La-5/7s takeoff, fly pretty low, and hit the Germans troops within a few minutes' flying time.

Perhaps this wasn't awlays the case (no single situation really is always the case), but it was the case often enough to make it impossible for German fighters at higher altitudes to remain there and still effect any disruption of troop attacks. Most of the film clips I've seen in various shows over the years of Il-2s show them right at ground level. Any escorts were lower than 1,000 m.
 
Last edited:
By mid 1944 soviets had so many fighter units that could provide not only close escort but also multi high covers in hot sectors. Lipfert describes that in late 1944 was being attacked by soviet fighters even as high as 6000m(usuallyu P39s), something previously unheard of. So it was impossible to set attacks on the bombers and it was then a series of dogfigts thay succed little more than increasing personal score
My sources are the war memoirs of Helmut Lipfert, Norbert Hanning, WilliRescke,Hartmann s biography, various unit histories, and magazine interviews of former german fightr pilots
Of course i appproach our conversation with respect and knowledge that while i have been flying Cessnas 152 you were flying F15.....(!!!!!)
 

Flying at tree top isolates the threat to above you. Most interceptions end up at the defenders six. It looks as if they were playing to the rear gunners "favor" (all the bandits will show up behind your 3-9 and at your altitude or above). Good luck.

Cheers,
Biff
 

The intoduction of the german quadraple 20mm and single 37 mm flak guns forced even the IL2s somewhat higher.(Unless they were enganged in ground battles that it was often the case). Twin engined bombers(Boston, B25s,Tu2) always were flying higher.
But no german fighter would ever attack without reaching first some sort of good attacking position. attacking from the same alltitude was dangerous even in mid war. That meant that often scrabling german fighters would attack the Il2s in their return trip
 
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
753
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
676
yulzari
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register