Fw190D-13
- Thread starter bob44
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's at least partly to do with the increasing weight of the aircraft. A 200x60 tailwheel tyre was rated by the Germans as good for a 200Kg static load whereas a 290x110 tyre was rated for 450kg.
Sengfelder alludes to the later tyre types having a much longer service life but doesn't specifically apply this to tailwheels.
Most late war German fighters were supposed to have tailwheels that retracted (at least partially). Unfortunately the retraction systems,particularly on Messerschmitt fighters,were not always reliable.
Steve
Starting the engine of the D-13:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y5LBUVS1T8
With hand-cranked inertia starter it can be tedious. Engine starting from 4:30.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y5LBUVS1T8
With hand-cranked inertia starter it can be tedious. Engine starting from 4:30.
First thanks for the answer.
Sure but the allied late war fighters had retractable tailwheels that were smaller than their german counterparts despite the fighters being heavier. Maybe they were not airfilled as the german ones thus didn't have their longevity?
British fighters usually had inflatable tailwheel tyres.
I've just looked at some photos of a late Mark Spitfire tailwheel and a much earlier Defiant tailwheel,both complete with inflated tyre. I'm not convinced that they are much smaller than German equivalents! It's hard to tell without a scale or direct comparison but here's a Spitfire tailwheel.
The design of the tailwheel,and the tyre,on tail draggers may also have something to do with the need to prevent shimmying. Off the top of my head neither the Fw 190 nor the Bf 109 had any means of locking the tailwheel for take off (or landing) as,for example,the P-51 did.
Steve
I've just looked at some photos of a late Mark Spitfire tailwheel and a much earlier Defiant tailwheel,both complete with inflated tyre. I'm not convinced that they are much smaller than German equivalents! It's hard to tell without a scale or direct comparison but here's a Spitfire tailwheel.
The design of the tailwheel,and the tyre,on tail draggers may also have something to do with the need to prevent shimmying. Off the top of my head neither the Fw 190 nor the Bf 109 had any means of locking the tailwheel for take off (or landing) as,for example,the P-51 did.
Steve
The locking mechanism of the tailwheel at the FW190 was controlled by the stick. The tailwheel was free when the control stick was pushed fully forward and was locked at all other positions of the stick. Not sure how the mechanism at the Bf109 worked but it could be locked too of course.
Cimmex
Cimmex
Shortround6
Major General
Planes do not always have the same weight on each wheel even if the planes weigh the same.
Tyre weight rating can also depend on the construction of the tire and it's inflation pressure in addition to the size.
The British air ministry forbid new designs to use more than 35psi in the tyres in the 1930s to prevent causing ruts in the grass airfields. Perhaps the Germans wanted bigger tyres for operating from rough airfeilds?
A 4 ply tyre can can handle more weight than a 2 ply tyre of the same size. Problems with tyre construction or material supply? just guessing here.
Tyre weight rating can also depend on the construction of the tire and it's inflation pressure in addition to the size.
The British air ministry forbid new designs to use more than 35psi in the tyres in the 1930s to prevent causing ruts in the grass airfields. Perhaps the Germans wanted bigger tyres for operating from rough airfeilds?
A 4 ply tyre can can handle more weight than a 2 ply tyre of the same size. Problems with tyre construction or material supply? just guessing here.
So the Fw 190 was similar to the P-51.
The tailwheel on the Bf 109 E had no lock. I'd need to check later types.
Hans-Curt Graf von Spenneck wrote that after many accidents occurred on the concrete or wooden runways typical of Norway:
"....the cause of these crashes was the non-lockable tailwheel of the Messerschmitts. The units equipped with the Bf 109 stationed in Norway were subjected to the dangers of swerving on the concrete or wooden runways of the Norwegian air bases and were therefore equipped with a tailwheel locking device which had been devised by a repair facility at Stavanger-Forus."
Not standard equipment.
Also the technique taught for taking off in a Bf 109 would tend to negate the need for such a lock in this phase at least.
Ernst Schroder explained:
"Take off in the 109 was different to the Fw 190 in that the tail had to be raised during the run. The control column had to be pushed forward......"
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
The Do 335 used hydraulic boost and Ive come across one reference that says even the He 162 did. One would need to find a hydraulic pump on the Fw 190d13.
It and the hydraulic lines were in the fuselage of the D-13. They were blanked off because the "wrong" D-9 wings did not have the boosted ailerons. I can only assume that during the second restoration,when the correct wings were fitted that the system was hooked up though I don't know that.
Cheers
Steve
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
Interesting.
I have often wondered if the Ta 152 was an unnecessary dillution of effort - or was it the Fw 190D?
By the time you get to the D-13 spec is there such a lot of difference in performance as to make the Ta 152 superflous - particularly as the jet was imminent in widespread use had things gone on?
I have often wondered if the Ta 152 was an unnecessary dillution of effort - or was it the Fw 190D?
By the time you get to the D-13 spec is there such a lot of difference in performance as to make the Ta 152 superflous - particularly as the jet was imminent in widespread use had things gone on?
The entire D-9 and D-11 series were a stop gap whilst the Ta 152 and later D series were developed.
This is explicit in the construction description for the D-9 issued by Focke-Wulf on 23 September 1944.
"The Fw 190 D-9 represents an intermediate solution until the series start of the Fw 190 D-12 or Ta 152 and will be issued in limited numbers"
The D-12 never entered production,effectively being merged into the D-13 program.
Cheers
Steve
This is explicit in the construction description for the D-9 issued by Focke-Wulf on 23 September 1944.
"The Fw 190 D-9 represents an intermediate solution until the series start of the Fw 190 D-12 or Ta 152 and will be issued in limited numbers"
The D-12 never entered production,effectively being merged into the D-13 program.
Cheers
Steve
Anybody know how much the aileron boost did improved the roll rate?
I have often wondered if the Ta 152 was an unnecessary dillution of effort - or was it the Fw 190D?
AFAIK after the war Kurt Tank (think so) commented that it would have been wiser to concentrate the efforts on the later Doras as they were better as pure fighters as the 152 but also due to latter's complexity.
The 152 had more range and could carry more heavy guns. It was not possible to install an intercooler in the Dora airframe, at least not initially, but with the late D models it was possible.
I have often wondered if the Ta 152 was an unnecessary dillution of effort - or was it the Fw 190D?
AFAIK after the war Kurt Tank (think so) commented that it would have been wiser to concentrate the efforts on the later Doras as they were better as pure fighters as the 152 but also due to latter's complexity.
The 152 had more range and could carry more heavy guns. It was not possible to install an intercooler in the Dora airframe, at least not initially, but with the late D models it was possible.
Last edited:
