Fw 190D and Me 109K vs. Yak-3 and La-7 (1 Viewer)

[dedalos]

Personnaly i dont believe that operational D9s achieved700km/h. But even more i dont believe the russian performance claims in field conditions.
I would add that the russian fighters had more pilot work load and often did not provide even basic instruments. Their ultra light construction suffered quickly in field conditions .
With proper building quality , and Mw50, the D9 was probably equal below 3000m and superior above that altitude. The wide blade propellers of the later D series aircraft, the removal of the draggy cowling hmgs , two stage superchargers,and possible use of boosted ailerons provided overall a clearly better combat aircraft

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

Topic is specifically about individual qualities of the 4 fighter aircraft types. It is not about air supremacy, it is not about whether you have a striking force on on your disposal or not.

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.

VVS have had plenty of ground-striking aircraft. Il-2 and Pe-2 production & service use was in tens of thousand combined, and there were other 2-engined combat A/C in use, both Soviet and LL.

Soviets did lack an over-performing & reliable fighter of their own design & production in numbers before well in 1944.

 

[dedalos]

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.

How they would increase the boost levels given the lack of alloys to provide strength to the internal part of the engines? Or to construct proper spark plugs?
Anyway what output would you expect from the 213A at 2.02 ata and 2.2ata?And the DB 605DC at 2,2 ata?

 

[J_P_C]

Topic is specifically about individual qualities of the 4 fighter aircraft types. It is not about air supremacy, it is not about whether you have a striking force on on your disposal or not.



VVS have had plenty of ground-striking aircraft. Il-2 and Pe-2 production & service use was in tens of thousand combined, and there were other 2-engined combat A/C in use, both Soviet and LL.

Soviets did lack an over-performing & reliable fighter of their own design & production in numbers before well in 1944.

Sure they had plenty bombers - numbers which comes to my mind - IL2 ~35000 manufactured, number in service VE day 3200 well....

 

[Koopernic]

The Salvo weight of the Fw 190A (4 x 20mm + 2 x 13.2mm) is impressive by any standards and as J.P.C. said over twice that of the La 7 and more.
The Fw 190D9 had less, with only 2 x 20mm guns but it still had the 2 x 13.2mm MG over the La 7's 2 x ShVAK .
(note the 95 gram MG151/20 round has slightly more muzzle velocity than a 95 gram ShVAK round, 3% or so not much)

The Fw 190D13 with 3 x 20mm guns (with the central one motor mounted and no suffering synchronisation losses) started showing up I think Feb 1945. These are small numbers but reflected the breakdown of the Reichs manufacturing.

Some La 7 started leaving the factories in Jan 1945 with the 2 x ShVAK replaced by 3 Berezin B20. The gun wasn't more destructive and fired the same ammunition but it was much lighter allowing the additional gun.

The Luftwaffe used Fw 190F and Fw 190G for ground attack, these aircraft were fast enough to often avoid interception even when hauling a bomb load and the La 7 perhaps gave the VVS a chance to intercept. However since the Luftwaffe was moving to adopt the faster Fw 190D13 to ground attack with Ruckstatzes the speed advantage would likely be retained in the near future. La 7 deployment was running about 4 months ahead of Fw 190D and 6 months ahead of Fw 190D13 though the Fw 190D was an upgrade of the Fw 190A and production ramp up was rapid.

 

[Koopernic]

How they would increase the boost levels given the lack of alloys to provide strength to the internal part of the engines? Or to construct proper spark plugs?
Anyway what output would you expect from the 213A at 2.02 ata and 2.2ata?And the DB 605DC at 2,2 ata?

The power increase would be more or less linear. About 10% more. Clearly 2.02 ATA runs were made on the Dora 9 using B4+MW50.

I suspect C3+MW50 might allow 2.2 ATA for a limited time. The single stage supercharger would be incapable of sustaining this above a certain altitude.

Boost increase can come from one or a combination of factors: fuel, better liquid or air cooling, oil cooling, better spark plugs, strengthened components, better control, intercooling.

The Jumo 213EB definitely had more capable cooling.

 

[Juha3]

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).

That means in the real world appr 520 fighters, did not bother to check which of the two JG 5 Gruppen served against the Soviets and which against the British, they change the Gruppen time to time so all got their share of northern action and also the time in protecting coastal convoys against the RAF. Check at least the basic facts, e.g. the sizes of the LW formations and units.
Yes, training, tactics etc were very important, I agree with that. But I'm not sure on your claim that ""delta wood" soaking moisture like sponge", I have not seen that claim in Finnish reports, we used three LaGG-3s in active service, they had many other problems, but so war booty planes often had (lack of manuals, spare parts etc.)

There were also Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish AFs, IIRC Italians were out after Stalingrad or at least shortly after that.

 

[Juha3]

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.

Have you ever read German division histories? Plenty of complains on VVS attacks, not necessarily in scale of that in the ETO in 1944 - 45 but still important sometimes having even strategic significance.

 

[J_P_C]

That means in the real world appr 520 fighters, did not bother to check which of the two JG 5 Gruppen served against the Soviets and which against the British, they change the Gruppen time to time so all got their share of northern action and also the time in protecting coastal convoys against the RAF. Check at least the basic facts, e.g. the sizes of the LW formations and units.
Yes, training, tactics etc were very important, I agree with that. But I'm not sure on your claim that ""delta wood" soaking moisture like sponge", I have not seen that claim in Finnish reports, we used three LaGG-3s in active service, they had many other problems, but so war booty planes often had (lack of manuals, spare parts etc.)

There were also Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish AFs, IIRC Italians were out after Stalingrad or at least shortly after that.

HAHAHAHA- Finnish AF have used Buffalo without complaining as well - only aircraft i'm awared of which forced your pilots to complain was CR714 but it was a crap by any measure. You are mentioning LaGG - first of the bread - well i wonder why Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

HAHAHAHA- Finnish AF have used Buffalo without complaining as well - only aircraft i'm awared of which forced your pilots to complain was CR714 but it was a crap by any measure. You are mentioning LaGG - first of the bread - well i wonder why Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...

Perhaps you should try to answer an educated post with some data to support your claims instead of simply replying as this forum is Twitter.

For example, Luftwaffe OB for Kursk in that sector alone included some 186 fighters in 1 Fliegerdivison, 184 in Fliegerkorps VIII and some 30 hungarian fighters in FK VIII. Some 400 fighters, to which you have to add those to the far north, north and south of Kursk.

VVS OB in Kursk was 455 serviceable fighters (of 526 in total) in 16 VA, 389 (of 474) in 2 VA and 163 (of 206) in 17 VA. Some 1.007 (of 1.206). Idem for LW in other sectors.

In regard of the Buffalo, don't supose it was a crap because it get trashed in the Pacific and SEA. There were more reasons of why it fared bad in those theathers than because it was a bad plane, such as bad pilot training, wrong tactics, lack of proper maintenance, lack of early warning that lead to a bad tactical position to oppose the enemy.

 

[Juha3]

HAHAHAHA- Finnish AF have used Buffalo without complaining as well - only aircraft i'm awared of which forced your pilots to complain was CR714 but it was a crap by any measure. You are mentioning LaGG - first of the bread - well i wonder why Soviet pilots decoded LaGG acronym as a Lacquered Guaranteed Grave...

Don't make your ignorance so obvious. Finns got almost a Gruppe worth of Bf 109 G-2s in early 1943, or was it also a s**t plane according to you? Surely some of our aces complained that the view out of its cockpit was poor, that it was not as rugged as the US fighters, especially Hawk 75A, or Fiat G. 50. And was less maneuverable than they. Of course they liked its speed and roc and its cannon. And Brewster Model 239 was not a bad plane in 1941-42, it turned very well, rolled well and its controls remained light even at high speeds. It was a good low- and medium altitude fighter at its time, not a overburden beast as F2A-3 was. Several Finns did not rate Hurricane very high, maybe partly because we did not have 100 octane fuel. And many complained the armament of Fiat G.50 and its difficult maintenance, same goes to MS 406.

 

[tomo pauk]

Any chance that we steer to the merits (and lack of those) of the aircraft that are topic? Lest it becomes another P-39 debate.

 

[CORSNING]

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 160 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.

 

[dedalos]

it s obvious from the above data sheets that the performance of the D9,D13 was good for the eastern front but totaly inadequate for the western front. Most late war anglo american fighters, using 150 grade fuel, were achieving 400mph at 0m.
Additionaly several aerodynamic improvements , were ready, but impossible to serial produced
Is there any photo of any D series aircraft with fully covered wheels? Even the D13 yeppow 10 has not such wheel covers

 

[GregP]

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.

 

[CORSNING]

[QUOTE="GregP,
Either way, there weren't enough Fw 190D-13s to worry about.

True that. There were about ten Dornier Do 335A-0, eleven A-1 and a couple of
A-12. None made it to combat that I am aware of. However, their performance
and history are still very interesting. I would greatly like to know much much more
about their performance and history also.

, Jeff

 

[CORSNING]

FYI Turn Rates:

Yak-3 1943 5,945 lb.: 19-21 seconds/1,000 m.
Yak-3 1944 5,945 lb.: 17 seconds/1,000 m. & 20 seconds/4,000 m.
La-7 1944 7,126 lb: 20-21 seconds/1,000 m. & 19.5 sec./4,000 m.
La-7 1945 7,276 lb: 19 sec./1,000 m.
Fw 190D-9 9,254 lb: 22-23 sec./1,000 m. & (24 sec./4,000 m. @ 9,591 lb.)

I do not have any turn times actual or calculated for the Bf 109K. however,
a Bf 109G-2 loaded to 7,485 lb. was capable of 22.6L and 22.8R./1,000 m.
A Bf 109G-6 loaded to 7,224 lb. was capable of 21.8 sec./4,000 m.

 

[Juha3]

So back to the original question, at the low- and medium level which were the altitudes that really mattered at the Eastern Front there were not very big differences between the types mentioned. But as combat planes the German planes had a couple advantages, they were more robust and pilots were better protected so they were more difficult to shot down, and their engine controls were much more automatic, so pilots could much better concentrate the actual fighting.

One point, generally Soviets thought that "Messers" were more dangerous opponents than "Fokkers", this was other way round than how the British tended to see it, that includes both 190 As and Ds . Soviets maybe undervalued 190 Ds because it seems that they tested them without working MW 50 system.

 

[GregP]

Hi Corsning,

I agree. Their performance is very interesting. Their combat effectiveness isn't because they had almost zero impact operationally due to a combination of factors including:

1) Very few deilvered.
2) No spare parts.
3) Rapidly deteriorating war situation.

In Jan, Feb, Mar 45, the USAAF destroyed 465, 460, and 750 enemy aircraft in the ETO. Then, in Apr 45, they destroyed 4,367 enemy aircraft. That from the Statistical Digest of WWII. Interestingly, the sortie count went from 111,472 in Mar 45 to 79,402 in Apr 45, when the great pile of aircraft were destroyed. 3,703 of them were destroyed on the ground. That tells me that the Luftwaffe ceased being an effective fighting force in April 1945, right when the Ta 152 and Do 335 were being deployed in very small numbers. Their absoultely mediocre-to-bad war records were not a reflection of their performance, but rather the rapidly worsening war situation, with the few German airplanes being hunted by packs of Allied fighters on the prowl.

I'm pretty sure had either the Do 335 or the Ta 152 been released a year earlier, they would have had spectacular results, assuming they were deployed in some numbers greater than what were actually fielded in 1945. But, it's a "what if" I can't really get behind because it never happened. I'll just say that I am a fan of both the Ta 152 and the Do 335 while realizing they didn't actually affect the war at all. Still, the aircraft themselves were at the pinnacle of piston development, right up there with the Tempest and P-51H and probably also the F4U-4 and F8F. These "super pistons" never really fought each other, but all of them were definitely hot airplanes that any decent fighter pilot would delight in flying. As a last point, I said the Ta 152 and Do 335 didn't affect the war at all.

In point of fact, neither did any other of the super pistons affect the war to any great degree except for the Tempest, which was deployed about Apr 44 or so.

In Apr 45, Closterman encountered a Do 335 in his Tempest but could not close with it. The Tempest achieved a ratio of 7:1 in air combat, with many being V-1s. The ratio against single-seat fighters was about 2:1. The P-51H and F4U-4 barely saw operations and did not see combat in the ETO.

 

[CORSNING]

Hi Corsning,
The P-51H and F4U-4 barely saw operations and did not see combat in the ETO.

I remember reading that the P-51Hs flew just a few sorties before the war officially ended
in the Pacific. The F4U-4 became operational at Okinawa in May 1945 and did enter
combat. But even so, the F4U-4 would have made about as much difference as the Ta 152H-0.