LA-9 vs FW-190A8/9

[Knegel]

It's funny how the BMW801 always gets panned on this forum, yet I read mostly praise for it in interviews and publications(after the intitial overheating problems were fixed that is). There are even pilots who very much dislike the Jumo engined Fw 190s compared to the BMW801, even though from the desktop point of view it was much superior. It's not all in the statistics.

If a Pilot disliked the Jumo, it was the early one, without MW50 or a other boost, with just 1750PS. The very early D9 was not better below 5500m than the A8 at same time, only above the D9 was better.

I never saw praise of the BMW801, appart from its initial time, due to its extreme power advantage over the SpitV´s Merlin.
What got praised was the "Komandogerät" to provide a simple controll, but thats something different.

As soon as the aircombat shifted to height above 6500m(due to the 4 Mots) and as soon as the La5FN was available in high numbers, the BMW801 wasnt strong enough anymore to let the heavy 190A be a good fighter. From that time on, the 190A´s only could run away. Only when a allied pilot was stupid enough to follow the 190 below 1500m the odds got more even, but due to the poor climb ration, even then it would have been very difficult to gain and keep a advanced position.
The 190A9 just came one year to late, same like the DB605D.

Greetings,

Knegel

 

[riacrato]

From what I read in JG54 diaries barely anyone knew there was a LA-5FN nor was it felt as such a major step up combat wise. Fw 190s still could bounce on them with ease.

And about the Jumo vs BMW: That is your speculation. The interviews I read were from post-war and didn't mention whether or not the Jumo in question was with MW50 or not.

 

[Knegel]

The JG4 was located in an not that important area, also the FAF seldom saw La5´s up there, but on the main front areas it saw plenty of action. Even the Brewster Buffalow was successfull there.

You even can bounce on someone with a stone, but thats not what i would call fighter combat.
The 190A was not that much outperformed in the east like in the west, cause the VVS particular did fly some bad outdated planes, still it had way better oponents in high numbers since mid/late 1943.

Btw, with the Jumo, the plane got way to heavy, even with only two cannons it was as heavy as the clean 190A8 with 4 cannons, still it was much faster in all altitudes and specialy above 5500m.

Imho the 190 airframe never got a good engine. The BMW was poor in high alt, the Jumo made the plane heavy, what wasnt good with the smal wings. As result they had to reconstruct it(Ta152C and H), cause it clearly missed slowspeed turn manouverability.

 

[riacrato]

Being the second most successful wing in history I discard your negative comments on JG54 thank you. And there were plenty of the latest Russian types encountered. That the Fw 190 was so popular with this wing is even more astonishing since it entered the scenario only when it began to lose its definite superiority over the contemporaries (i. e. early 1943).

The weight difference between late Anton and Dora variants is insignificant. My data shows the Dora as slightly lighter when loaded than the Anton, I don't know what you're getting at.

And if you call boom and zoom not fighter combat than I'm very sorry for you that east, west and Pacific alike this was the preferred type of combat for anyone who wanted to stay alive

 

[Vincenzo]

Hi,

the 1st SpitIXc´s arrived in mid 1942(Merlin61), 1943 was the year of the Merlin61 and Merlin63 SpitIXc, with the ongoing year they used the SpitVc mainly with a upgraded low level engine with an outstanding climb performence and often with clipped wings. Already in mid 1943 even the SpitVIII arrived.

The fall of 1943 the Merlin66 powered Spits arrived and by the end of the year they was alredy wide spreaded.

In early 1943 the Luftwaffe also mainly had 190A3´s and A4´s(build till march 1943). Sure there was still some Merlin45 powered SpitVB´s and SpitVc´s around, but the SpitIXc + VIII (Merlin61/63/66/70) and also the was very common late in 1943 and appart from very low level and the Merlin61 powered planes, they all outclassed the FW190A5/6 as fighter(not as attacker or jabo, just as fighter).

Greetings,

Knegel

in the july of '43 RAF in british islands has 7 Spit IX squadrons, 8 Spit IX&V squadrons and 24 Spit V squadrons, 2 squadrons with Spit XII and 4 high altitude squadrons with Spit V,VI,VII and an other 40 squadrons with not Spit fighter. the 1st jan '44 the most common was ever Spit V but now IX was near, squadrons 24 and 20.
the first july the most common 190, in fighter unit, was A-5 (the A-3 was less of 1/12 of all anton), the 1st january '43 the A-4 (the A-3 was around 1/5 of all anton)

 

[vanir]

The DB605A was alloed to use WEP from late 1943 onward, the limitation was, like in most cases, the octan related problems(overheat due to detonations). With C3 fuel WEP wpuld have been combat climb.
If there would have been another WEP stage i cant say, but WEP as combat climb would have been a huge step forward for the 109´s in late 1943 early 44.

Okay I'll try again. The problem was overheating which caused predetonation, it wasn't the other way around so octane wasn't a fix for the problems with the 605A. Here's what happened, the motor ran hot on B4 at more than 1.35ata and it then did two things, it predetonated under loading and it opened up the seals and flamed. C3 cannot help this.
In order to put C3 into a 605A and up the boost you need to use MW50, so you might as well raise the boost all the way to 1.7ata which was done when MW50 was fitted from Feb44 and C3 could finally be used in the 605A.

Otherwise to use C3 just on its own you needed the D series block or else you're just going to flame the engine even if you can sort out the pinging due to higher running temperature (not the other way around). Using just C3 without MW50 you can get 1550PS out of the 605 (demonstrated), but it has to be the D block because it runs too hot for the A block.

Its possible that even the DB601E could have been upgraded by this.

The 601N used C2/3 for extra performance but the 601E was a further refinement and switched back to B4. According to German sources B4 was definitely the preferred fuel type because the additives used to make C3 (C2 was passing out of availability) lowered the engine life dramatically and raised maintenance. It hurt the valve gear, ran through plugs quickly and generally wasn't the better option.
In any case the 601E gave better performance than the 601N with a better rated altitude and better WEP, mostly due to redesign of the combustion chamber and piston crowns which were quite advanced, and carefully tuned valve timing and heads redesign. Using C3 would basically give roughly the same performance but drop the rated altitude with the higher compression by up to a thousand metres, which is undesirable. You could install a larger supercharger casing to compensate, but this would reduce low altitude performance, which was undesirable. The 601E was a pretty damn good engine on B4 and about the limit of 601 development, no need to mess with it.

The smart option was a new engine, anything else immediately available was underpowered, inappropriate or still in development and the 605 was a good shortcut to squeeze some more life out of the 109. Anyway I think by this time it was clear the 190 was the new kid on the block.

 

[Kurfürst]

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).

To my best knowledge, the problems with the DB 605A-1 were not related to the B-4 fuel. Before the new engine went operational, the earliest batch had troubles with cylinder heads burning through, but this was fixed just by the time it went into operation. The lasting problem was insufficent lubrication of the bearnings, and this probably boiled down to the more powerful oil pump of the 605s; fitting an oil dearator finally solved this in the summer-automn of 1943.

See:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605_142ban_June1942.html
http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_GLmeeting_September1943.html

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.

605AM and ASM specification allow the Sondernotleistung for the same period as on the D engines: 10 minutes.

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).

That would be curious, because the DC and DB are the same engine: they only differ in how they are set up/calibrated. There's no seperate DB or DC manual - there is but one, for the DB/DC. Any DB could be converted into a DC and vica versa in no time. So I kinda doubt it, its actually a 'theory' Mr. Williams pushes but cannot prove. Even his own documentation disproves it..

 

[vanir]

To my best knowledge, the problems with the DB 605A-1 were not related to the B-4 fuel. Before the new engine went operational, the earliest batch had troubles with cylinder heads burning through, but this was fixed just by the time it went into operation. The lasting problem was insufficent lubrication of the bearnings, and this probably boiled down to the more powerful oil pump of the 605s; fitting an oil dearator finally solved this in the summer-automn of 1943.

I didn't say it was related to B4 fuel?? What I wrote is accurate. Also oiling does more than lubricate bearings, it cools the piston floors, helps reduce cylinder temperatures.

605AM and ASM specification allow the Sondernotleistung for the same period as on the D engines: 10 minutes.

apparently not in practise. The document I read specified dramatic reduction in engine life with these setups (dozens of hours), and was quite literate about the ten minute limitation on use being unrealistic, and for extreme emergencies only. The cooldown period was ten minutes.

That would be curious, because the DC and DB are the same engine: they only differ in how they are set up/calibrated. There's no seperate DB or DC manual - there is but one, for the DB/DC. Any DB could be converted into a DC and vica versa in no time. So I kinda doubt it, its actually a 'theory' Mr. Williams pushes but cannot prove. Even his own documentation disproves it..

I'm well aware of this, although the tuning changes are important (higher boost, different magneto setups). For simplicity sake the B4/MW50 or straight C3/1550PS are referred to as the DB motor and the C3/MW50 setup as the DC. This follows general notation. What I said is true for the point there is no evidence the 605D ever used C3/MW50 in service, and there is similarly no evidentiary support for the ASC engine ever being fitted (which ostensibly follows the same rules ASB/ASC).

This wasn't my preferred assumption, I in fact argued that it is likely field use differed from red tape bureacracy particularly during the last months of the war. I cited there was no reason to my mind field mechanics could not get any G-10 or K-4 in the field and tweak it for use of C3 stocks held for 190A's, thus there is no reason there might not have been individual examples of 2000PS Me-109's running around. But the counter argument was this does not appear in any documentation, that the 605D or ASB were never cleared for use of C3/MW50 (ie. 1.98ata) in the field by the administration.

Let me put it another way for simplicity sake, saying exactly the same thing. The highest boost rating cleared for the Me109 was 1.8ata, this other business was about reiterating that C3 could not be used with an A block without MW50 because it already ran hot and burned pistons on B4 fuel, and it was a problem unrelated to predetonation (but in fact caused it).



Just curious Kurfürst, what exactly do you think the difference is between the 605A and the 605D specifically, aside from the supercharger and larger oil cooler? Over 30 months of redevelopment, were they smoking joints in the back room?

 

[Knegel]

Being the second most successful wing in history I discard your negative comments on JG54 thank you. And there were plenty of the latest Russian types encountered. That the Fw 190 was so popular with this wing is even more astonishing since it entered the scenario only when it began to lose its definite superiority over the contemporaries (i. e. early 1943).

The weight difference between late Anton and Dora variants is insignificant. My data shows the Dora as slightly lighter when loaded than the Anton, I don't know what you're getting at.

And if you call boom and zoom not fighter combat than I'm very sorry for you that east, west and Pacific alike this was the preferred type of combat for anyone who wanted to stay alive

Hi,

i dont wrote anything bad regarding the JG5, its a fact that the noth front wasnt seen as important as the middle and south, as such the VVS concentrated their forces rather there. They main target was germany, not the baltics and finland at that time.

Yes, the Anton was more light than the Dora, the 190 just never got a good engine(light + powerfull in the needed altitude), as such the outstanding airframe only short time gave the pilots a real superiority and that at a time, when there was no direct frontline to the west.

Late in 1943 the 190A was just a good plane, but already turned to be to heavy(what a outstanding wingload). That the german pilots particular did so well with it is rather related to them than to the plane. Same like the Brewster, MS405 and Hawk75 in the hands of the FAF turned to be a good weapon at a time when this planes was already badly outdated.

 

[Knegel]

Okay I'll try again. The problem was overheating which caused predetonation, it wasn't the other way around so octane wasn't a fix for the problems with the 605A. Here's what happened, the motor ran hot on B4 at more than 1.35ata and it then did two things, it predetonated under loading and it opened up the seals and flamed. C3 cannot help this.
In order to put C3 into a 605A and up the boost you need to use MW50, so you might as well raise the boost all the way to 1.7ata which was done when MW50 was fitted from Feb44 and C3 could finally be used in the 605A.

Otherwise to use C3 just on its own you needed the D series block or else you're just going to flame the engine even if you can sort out the pinging due to higher running temperature (not the other way around). Using just C3 without MW50 you can get 1550PS out of the 605 (demonstrated), but it has to be the D block because it runs too hot for the A block.



The 601N used C2/3 for extra performance but the 601E was a further refinement and switched back to B4. According to German sources B4 was definitely the preferred fuel type because the additives used to make C3 (C2 was passing out of availability) lowered the engine life dramatically and raised maintenance. It hurt the valve gear, ran through plugs quickly and generally wasn't the better option.
In any case the 601E gave better performance than the 601N with a better rated altitude and better WEP, mostly due to redesign of the combustion chamber and piston crowns which were quite advanced, and carefully tuned valve timing and heads redesign. Using C3 would basically give roughly the same performance but drop the rated altitude with the higher compression by up to a thousand metres, which is undesirable. You could install a larger supercharger casing to compensate, but this would reduce low altitude performance, which was undesirable. The 601E was a pretty damn good engine on B4 and about the limit of 601 development, no need to mess with it.

The smart option was a new engine, anything else immediately available was underpowered, inappropriate or still in development and the 605 was a good shortcut to squeeze some more life out of the 109. Anyway I think by this time it was clear the 190 was the new kid on the block.

What make you believe that the DB605A wouldnt run cooler with C3 fuel??

The overheat problems was solved and the bearing problems as well. Iam pretty much sure, if they would have had C3 fuel, they would have found a way to use it. So they did in the DB601A and in the BMW801D. They dont had it, cause the BMW+ FW190 needed it(without that plane was dead meat), as such they had to rebuild the engine to run on higher presure without C3 fuel.

Afaik the problem is not heat iselft, its the detonations that happen when the engine is hot and higher octan = higher possible temp before the detonations happen.

 

[Knegel]

in the july of '43 RAF in british islands has 7 Spit IX squadrons, 8 Spit IX&V squadrons and 24 Spit V squadrons, 2 squadrons with Spit XII and 4 high altitude squadrons with Spit V,VI,VII and an other 40 squadrons with not Spit fighter. the 1st jan '44 the most common was ever Spit V but now IX was near, squadrons 24 and 20.
the first july the most common 190, in fighter unit, was A-5 (the A-3 was less of 1/12 of all anton), the 1st january '43 the A-4 (the A-3 was around 1/5 of all anton)

Yes, and guess how it did look in late 1943 and the in late 1943 used SpitV´s was the SpitVB´s anymore, that was so much inferior in 1941/42.

The 190A5/6 was already 100-200kg more heavy than the A3, while the late SpitVc´s engine also got uprated and particular the SpitV´s was real low level beasts, with clipped wings and a powerfull Merlin50 engine.
All over the 190A lost the initiative, they wasnt able to escort bombers, cause they missed manouverability and climb ratio, and they had trouble to intercept bombers in high alt.
They just was good attackers by then.

 

[Vincenzo]

The 190A5/6 was already 100-200kg more heavy than the A3, while the late SpitVc´s engine also got uprated and particular the SpitV´s was real low level beasts, with clipped wings and a powerfull Merlin50 engine.
All over the 190A lost the initiative, they wasnt able to escort bombers, cause they missed manouverability and climb ratio, and they had trouble to intercept bombers in high alt.
They just was good attackers by then.

the allied test on 190 all tell that 190 was highly manouvrable but in turning, and in high speed also the turning capablity was not bad (this is not from allied report), climb ratio of 190 in mid '43 was not so bad. what's high alt for you?

 

[Juha]

Nothing to do with the title of this thread but
IMHO British had Fw 190A more or less under control in 43. On 1.1.43 RAF had in first line sqns in UK 162 Spit IXs, c. 200 Typhoons and a bit under 250 Mustang Is/IAs. LW had against them, IIRC, c. 250 109Gs and Fw190As. So especially in low level fighting RAF had a/c to combat LW fighters. During 43 RAF got longer range radars for fighter control over France and improved its tactics, so it's not surprising that with increasingly powerful and effective USAAF in its side RAF began gaining upper hand during the later part of 43. On 30 Jun 43 RAF had c. 170 first class Spits (IXs, XIIs and VIIs), c. 350 Typhoons and c. 250 Mustang Is/IAs in first line sqns in UK, With 8th AF that was clearly enough against LW fighters stationed alongside NW Europe coastal areas.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Juha i'm agree that western allied have more fighter of luftwaffe but if you want tell that for this we can do'nt take in count the large numbers of Spit V in RAF side i'm not agree.

I remembered wrong and i see lw fighter for 1st july '43 and not for 1st january , but for july i find a strenght of around 700 lw fighter in western (JG 1, 2, 5, 11, 26) i see fast maybe iìm wrong in some, you're sure for 250? yours it's strenght or ready?

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
JG 5 was in Norway, part along its western coast and part in Northern Norway and Northern Finland operating against Soviets, so it was well outside ranges of RAF single-engined fighters, IIRC also parts of JG 1/11 were outside the the ranges of RAF single engined fighters.

Juha

 

[vanir]

What make you believe that the DB605A wouldnt run cooler with C3 fuel??

engineering realities. For me personally, experience setting up and running race engines through various stages of modification (ie. various classes of racing). I stuck with the same engine type through all these so it was instructive particularly about running temperatures vs modification and the role of octane.

I could speak either anecdotally or simply reiterate the engineering guidelines. Increasing octane does absolutely nothing to solve a high running temperature, but it can help with pinging except for one major problem you introduced. You want to raise the octane used by the 601A to C3 fuel and raise the boost for higher climb rating output, to 1475PS at the climb setting no less. Aside from the fact that 605D running C3 can only manage 1300PS at steigleistung, your engine idea still runs just as hot as before, and any benefit regarding predetonation of simply raising fuel octane gets blown out of the water by use of a higher boost.
So you've got an engine which burns pistons under loading, and if it runs at high power settings for any length of time it opens up the seals and bursts into flames, which is just what the 605A used to do on B4.
So let's say you used C3 and didn't raise the boost, it has the same output as before so that's no improvement (raising octane does not improve output by itself) but it won't burn pistons as easy, then again it will be higher maintenance due to the additives being more corrosive in C3 than B4 (stipulated by German wartime fuel production/research documents available on the web). And you've still got the problem about overheat/flaming inherent to the A block. The problem was inadequate oiling for what is basically a 601E with a greater internal capacity. More cubic inches means more cfm means higher operating temperatures.

The overheat problems was solved and the bearing problems as well. Iam pretty much sure, if they would have had C3 fuel, they would have found a way to use it. So they did in the DB601A and in the BMW801D. They dont had it, cause the BMW+ FW190 needed it(without that plane was dead meat), as such they had to rebuild the engine to run on higher presure without C3 fuel.

The overheat problems were never solved for the A block ostensibly until 1945 in the ASB/ASC, which probably uses the bottom end of the D block. The reason for the 605D development was to allow higher boost ratings to be used with the 605 engine, this is not about tensile strength but about operating temperatures. Piston burn was largely solved, but only for the throttle settings used on the 601E which were carried over to the 605A. For a little while it had to be detuned. The way they solved it was reshaping the piston crowns for better excavation of the cylinder, which helps with cylinder temperatures. It still couldn't exceed 1.42ata though, this measure just brought the 605A back to 601E tuning.

Afaik the problem is not heat iselft, its the detonations that happen when the engine is hot and higher octan = higher possible temp before the detonations happen.

It overheated and then started pinging. If it didn't overheat it would run just fine at 1.42ata just like the 601E did. Secondly, even if the pilot carefully controlled the pinging (overheating engines ping worse under loading), like Marsielle did the overheating still caused the seals to open up and the engine flamed. The pilot could die this way, like Marsielle did.
So the motor was derated, I'd say Marsielle's death was the catalyst for this.
Even when piston crowns were improved in various batch redesigns, the engine remained derated for quite some time (it was an on again, off again situation as Kurfürst outlines citing documentation). Even when it was finally cleared for 1.42ata it was still a hot running engine compared to the 605D which has no recorded inherent reliability issues I've seen, and there are plenty of sources which state 1944 605A running with MW50/C3 had a dicey sondernot which could easily damage the engine within a few minutes. I've read nothing other than a reliable 10min sondernot for a 605D on MW50/B4 and a higher boost.
That alone should say something, and it directly infers precisely what I've been saying in mechanical terms.


Hey don't get me wrong, I'll stand corrected as readily as the next bloke, but I'm using clear logic here, with at least some historical reference and see no mechanically sound counter argument.

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo
JG 5 was in Norway, part along its western coast and part in Northern Norway and Northern Finland operating against Soviets, so it was well outside ranges of RAF single-engined fighters, IIRC also parts of JG 1/11 were outside the the ranges of RAF single engined fighters.

Juha

i checked the bases of JGs (only1,5,11), for JG 5 it's ok Norge it's away, for JG 1 i think all the bases are enough near for take in the battle (some are a bit away but the fighters don't fight only over their fields), for JG 11 i think that only II was enough near, so we have a strenght of 450 fighters in 1st jan '43 (1, 2, 26) and of 480 fighters in 1st july '43 (same more +II/11)

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
IIRC JG 11 was formed in spring 43, and at the beginning of 43 III/JG 1 was at Kjevik, which sounds definitely Scandinavian name, I and IV/JG 1 were in NW Germany and IMHO much more headache of 8th AF than RAF so IMHO at the beginning of 43 JG 2, 26 and II/JG 1 were units that were major opponents of FC.

In 1 July 43 LW had some 980 serviceable fighters, it had one Geschwader in Scandinavia (5), 3 in MTO (27, 53 and 77) and at least 4 in Soviet Union (3, 51,52 and 54) and something in Germany so IMHO 480 capable to operate regularly against FC is too high number. Without checking I would guess 300+ would be nearer to truth.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vincenzo
IIRC JG 11 was formed in spring 43, and at the beginning of 43 III/JG 1 was at Kjevik, which sounds definitely Scandinavian name, I and IV/JG 1 were in NW Germany and IMHO much more headache of 8th AF than RAF so IMHO at the beginning of 43 JG 2, 26 and II/JG 1 were units that were major opponents of FC.

In 1 July 43 LW had some 980 serviceable fighters, it had one Geschwader in Scandinavia (5), 3 in MTO (27, 53 and 77) and at least 4 in Soviet Union (3, 51,52 and 54) and something in Germany so IMHO 480 capable to operate regularly against FC is too high number. Without checking I would guess 300+ would be nearer to truth.

Juha

for JG 11 true this is the reason beacuse in 1st jan '43 it were not in the sum. true kjevik it's near oslo, jever it's not so away 280 miles from norwich, gladbach is 260 miles from ipswich, deelen it's a 250 miles (and if it's the dutch deelen it's a 200 miles), rheine is a 270 miles. so take out the III/JG 1 we have around 400 fighter in 1st january '43, for the 1st july ever 480 (the III/JG1 go back in nederland). the 1st july '43 the strenght of jagdverbande was around 1800 fighters.

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
As I wrote, the number of serviceable single engine fighters was 980 according to Price, see Luftwaffe Order Of Battle on 17 May 1943 - The Air Combat Wiki
My memory made a trick on date , the right one is 17 May 43, Price usually gives July figure but not for 43.

But you are right that LW had in its first line units 1849 single-engine fighters on 30 June 43 according to Williamson Murray. If the Price's figure is correct, LW serviceably rate was even worse than I remembered, c. 55% (I used 31.5.43 strength figure as a base) 27 May was a bit bad date for LW, for ex JG 77 was in very bad shape. On 31 Aug 43 serviceable rate was 64,4% (1019 out of 1581 according to Williamson Murray.

Juha