Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
August 2003Since then Ray has made his first ( and successive ) flights and has stated that he thinks it out performs a Bearcat or a Sea Fury.
Sorry, I can't see any more similarity beyween these two aircraft, and any other two radial engined, low-winged fighters of the time:
.
Looking at these two aircraft you can see the similarities between the silhouete of the planes . How much of the LA-9 design was copied from the fw-190 and how would they compare in flight with each other had the war lasted a little longer ?
The La9 would outperform the 190A as dofighter, same like the La7 did, due to the much smaler weight with similar power.
The FW190A is imho the most overvalued fighter in WWII, only cause it had so much success within a rather unimportant year, vs SpitV´s, it get praised like mad.
The airframe was for sure very good, but what is a fighter worth, without a fitting and good working engine??
The heavy FW190 would have needed a 2000HP engine in early 1943 or a much more streamlined and light airframe + DB605A and that with C3 fuel and later with MW50 + C3 fuel.
Like it was it was outclassed as fighter latest late in 1943, when the Merlin66, the La5, the P47C and Yak9´s was available in bigger numbers. From that moment onward the FW190A was more or less derated to an Attacker, while the 109F and G still could go into a dogfight..
The FW190A initially was like the P40E in the pacific, but then all, not just a few, enemy planes turned to be Ki61´s and Ki44´s, which was able to do almost all as good.
the LA7 didn't outperformed the A8 , at low altitude (under3000m)yes, not at up high.But the La7 still couldn't catch the old A5/6 Jabo with C3 injection under 1000m
The SpitIXc wasnt a whole new model, it was a SpitVc with Merlin61, while the Merlin61 dont got used that often as i wrote above. It got replaced rather fast with the Merlin66.Not only against the spit5, also against the spit9 m61.From 6500up, the spit whas superior but under this altitude, the planes clearly equivalent to eachother, just like the english test shown. Not bad for a plane that was in service more than a year against a whole new model built expressly to beat it,no?
Also, not forgetting the A4 send from dec42 on the eastern front, find me one bad comment from a pilot of the JG54 about the fw190
The problem was that its performence was poor with combat climb(1750/1800PS was WEP) specialy above 1000m and then again above 5000m, while the combat in the west tool place mainly above 5000m and in the east there was the La5 and La7 with a better performence in low alt.And what was the pb with the 801D2? highr power controled by an mechanical computer, leaving the pilot do his job instead of constantly moving throttles and pushing buttons.Easy to access, well armored.
And why?1820ps is enough for a plane of 4000kg weight fully loaded. As about it's streamline, the 190 was more clean than spits, even with a bigger front area (a radial, it's big), it's total cx was still lower than the spits.
The datasheets, the (german)pilot comments.aah? and in what could the M66 be better than an A5 with new modified engine? (first half 43, 801D2 received several parts of the 801F allowing higher pressure thus output.for all further production)
What tells you it was outclassed?the spits.
The P40 got way more modification than the FW190A. They started with just 1000HP and ended with 1550. The A8 for sure dont had the same flight characteristics like the A2. Even the clean A8 had 400kg more weight and the power above rated alt still was the same. A such the service ceilling of the A8 was good below that of the A2.In difference to the P40, the 190A was always modified and upgraded through the years, engine included.
If you compare an A2 from41 to an A8 from45, you'll see the same power/weight ratio. the plane keeping it's easy flying caracteristics.
While a number of fighters were designed to take different engines from the start it was more common to design fighters to take one type (air cooled radial vrs liquid cooled engine) of engine. While some designs were able to switch at a later date other designs were not. Some attempted conversions had trouble with airflow break down in the transition from the fat radial to the skinny fuselage of the V-12 fighter and higher than expected drag and some even had problems with turbulent air flow over the tail surfaces.Also while there are cases of a specific fighter model being purposely designed around a specific engine type, what generally happens is airframe design and aero engine fitment are two completely independent projects. The La-5/7/9 series airframe began life as the LaGG-1/3 inline engine fighter roughly similar to a British Hurricane performance wise.
Both the M-80 and the higher powered M-70 started development in 1937-38. The M-80 eventually became the M-82/ASh-82 while the M-70 finally turned into the ASh-73that powered the TU-4 bomber. The M-71 that powered the I-185 was a beast of an engine, an 18 cylinder 3,643cu in (59.7 litres) device. Basically two wright 1820s ( or Russian equivalents )on a common crank. This can explain the high performance but using an under developed Russian version of a Wright R-3360 can also explain the lack of production, along with factory evacuations. Given the 3-6 year development times of engines and the 2-4 year development tomes of airframes I think it is much more parallel development than anybody coping anybody else.Two high performance radial engines were under codevelopment in Russia in 1941 (the other one was a 2000hp engine to the M-82's 1500hp, the M-84 iirc but I think it had reliability problems), these had an entirely new prototype the I-185 built around them which had spectacular performance but it never entered production. I assume to speed things up the succeeding engine type was fitted to the LaGG-3 to produce the La-5. Then aircraft in continuing production became increasingly modified/refined as necessary, following typical WW2 Russian aero manufacturing procedure.
So I don't think there's any way to compare the La-9 with the Fw-190A-9 except to compare two completely independent radial engine fighters.
...
The 190 airframe, slimmed down to use the DB605A would have had a weight of maybe 3300kg and would have been nice streamlined. Then the DB605A would have had the C3 fuel to produce 1475PS sea level as combat/climb. That plane would have been fast, manouverable, good climbing and good at high alt. With the BMW801 the 109´s lost the needed high octan fuel, so the DB605A lost in comparison to the merlins and so germany in late 1943/ early 44 only had a down rated DB605 and a still to bad uprated BMW801 vs Merlin powered planes that could use higher and higher presures due to better fuel.
...
Both the M-80 and the higher powered M-70 started development in 1937-38. The M-80 eventually became the M-82/ASh-82 while the M-70 finally turned into the ASh-73that powered the TU-4 bomber. The M-71 that powered the I-185 was a beast of an engine, an 18 cylinder 3,643cu in (59.7 litres) device. Basically two wright 1820s ( or Russian equivalents )on a common crank. This can explain the high performance but using an under developed Russian version of a Wright R-3360 can also explain the lack of production, along with factory evacuations. Given the 3-6 year development times of engines and the 2-4 year development tomes of airframes I think it is much more parallel development than anybody coping anybody else.
Then the DB605A would have had the C3 fuel to produce 1475PS sea level as combat/climb.
Thanks for the correction Shortround, great info! (I had read about it only in passing and memory fails, but I didn't know anything so detailed in the first place, much appreciated)
Respectfully I don't think it was so easy. The 605A was already having problems with piston burn and overheating/seal integrity using B4 fuel, the original modification of basically upsizing the 601 internally for more power is an old engineering shortcut and the problems with it were those experienced with the 605 series until the D was developed with better oiling under the pistons and journals throughout (it was a new block from the 605A).
You needed a 605D to use C3 and 1550PS, which weren't available until ~September 44 and by then it needed sonder WEP anyway to remain competitive in a tight spot. For most of 1943 all you're going to see out of a 605A is about 1320PS at sea level and 1250PS at the rated altitude and even this would be safer for ten-twenty min rather than the 30min normal rating.
The really great thing about the 605A in '43 was a pretty effortless output particularly in the cruise/climb regimes. It could take a great load up very high pretty smartly and always entered combat at a good speed even out of the cruise. It handled very well at airspeeds of 300-700km/h, with a predictable stall and good speed characterstics at 6-7000m.
Flat out though, even with C3 and MW50 in Feb44 you're looking at 1500PS under sondernot at the combat height using a DB603 supercharger fitment (AS motor) and the regular 605A supercharger had its rated altitude reduced to 4000m, so only had average late 43 performance at the combat height (1250PS at ~6000m).
And here's the thing, without the improved D block and oiling you only had 1-2min of sondernot to work with, max. I saw a report once saying it shouldn't really be used at all unless the pilot is in imminent danger of being shot down.
Really in terms of combat rating you're talking about 1250PS for the 605A until late 44 where it becomes 1600PS for 5-10min and then about 1300PS normally for extended periods at the combat altitude in the D block.
Also there is no evidence the 605DC or ASC were ever actually fitted to Messerschmitt in service, all evidence points to DB or ASB engines only (1850PS max sea level up to around 2000m).
I'm still trying to figure out the exact differences in engineering terms between the ASB/C to the DB/C, the designation suggests a bottom end change to the AS motor where the D series is a new block, perhaps production ease was the consideration for it, but the ASB/C has better cruise output than the D series (so it would have better range and loadbearing in normal flight) but otherwise maximum outputs are identical. In any case the ASB/C are a 1945 engine.