davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's not the end of the world as long as the aircraft has excellent roll.
Optimize the FW190 for the Eastern Front
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Fw 190A-6 was at 4100 kg fully loaded, clean, 18.3 m^2 wing area. Works at 45.89 lbs/sq ft. Even the 190A-8 is at 48.12 with 4300 kg (not that I champion the A-8 ).
Just how much the fuselage MGs are worth in combat; LMG vs. HMG; how big there is a save/gain/loss with HMGs installed and outer cannons deleted?
Just how much the fuselage MGs are worth in combat; LMG vs. HMG; how big there is a save/gain/loss with HMGs installed and outer cannons deleted?
Tests of the Fw 190A-4 with over-boosted engine, March-April 1943: link.
Max boost was 1.7 ata at SL at max possible speed (= max ram), gain in power was judged to be at 450-500 PS (roughly 2150-2200 PS total). Tests only for 1st S/C gear.
Max boost was 1.7 ata at SL at max possible speed (= max ram), gain in power was judged to be at 450-500 PS (roughly 2150-2200 PS total). Tests only for 1st S/C gear.
The primary reason that they were able to over boost the engine was the improvement in C3 fuel. I posted a link to Allied intelligence files at
fischer-tropsch.org in this forum that I can't find right now.
Basically C3 fuel, starting in 1940-1943 was 92/110, 93/115,94/120, 96/125 and continued to grow nearly reaching the standard of allied 100/130. The last figure in 1943 seems to coincide with the increase of maximum allowable boost from 1.42 ata to 1.65 ata. This took power of the BMW 801D2 from 1700hp to 1900hp at sea level in 1943. In early 1944 another modification was introduced in which much of the C3 fuel was sprayed into the eye of the supercharger instead of directly injected into cylinders. This could give as much as 2050hp. The injection into the supercharger precooled the air, contracting it, and allowing more air and fuel mass to be forced into the cylinders. This was refered to as "C3 einspritzung". This was initially only available below 1000m and only applied to the ground attack versions of the Fw 190 (the G and F) which were in need of a way of overcoming their speed loss when carrying bombs.
Overboosting means a denser air/fuel mass is burning in the engine so more heat needs to be handled by the cooling systems and there may have been issues with lubrication, oil coolers even spark plugs but generally minor and generally solvable with time restrictions. If they had of increased compression ratio instead they would have gotten more power without the heat and without tapping out the supercharger.
Hence introduction of increased boost is dependant on the German Petrochemical Industries ability to produce large volumes of high grade fuel. In general the Germans synthesised iso-octane to boost their hydrogenation based fuels but they laid down alkylation plants in 1940 to produce alkylate to make this more economical, I think only 1 maybe two got operational.
These changes were standardised on the BMW801TS from mid 1944, this engine replaced the 801D2. The "E" and its fighter engine the "S" had improvements, I think the heads were precision vacuum caste for greater strength. (The T prefix indicates a modular power package with oil cooler, gearbox, propeller)
The TS engine Fw 190A9 from mid 1944 onwards had a supplementary tank that could carry either fuel or theoretically MW50. There had been some problems with MW50 but these seem to have been from direct cylinder injection and I believe the main reason it was avoided was its inconvenience. Towards the end of the war the engine seems to have been released for B4+MW50 lieu of C3 shortages. I'm guessing the improved heads may have made this more acceptable.
Last edited:
The "C3 einspritzung" was used already in Summer of 1943 by the bomb-lugging Fw-190s.
FWIW, the power chart for the DB 603A, with added lines for the BMW 801D (red, Notleistung; pink is overboost roughly) and Jumo 213A (blue, Notleistung). The DB 603A really trumps the BMW, not only power-wise, but it cuts drag, allows for a big gun to be carried centrally, the intake will use the ram air in a convenient fashion so the aircraft's rated height will be at circa 7 km. Can use MW 50 for even more power, especially under 6 km (no ram), Notleistung can be used for 5 minutes instead of 3 min for the 801.
Problem with DB 603A is that it is not that reliable and available in 1943.
(open the pic separately for hi-res)
FWIW, the power chart for the DB 603A, with added lines for the BMW 801D (red, Notleistung; pink is overboost roughly) and Jumo 213A (blue, Notleistung). The DB 603A really trumps the BMW, not only power-wise, but it cuts drag, allows for a big gun to be carried centrally, the intake will use the ram air in a convenient fashion so the aircraft's rated height will be at circa 7 km. Can use MW 50 for even more power, especially under 6 km (no ram), Notleistung can be used for 5 minutes instead of 3 min for the 801.
Problem with DB 603A is that it is not that reliable and available in 1943.
(open the pic separately for hi-res)
Last edited:
And let s forget that the 801D was using C3 fuel while db603 B4. And still the 801 was inferior!
I believe that after 1942 the 801 was a really BAD engine as fighter engine. It crippled the Fw190 during the most important war years. In my opinion the Fw190/Bmw801 combination enjoys today much more fame than historicaly deserves.
- Thread starter
- #27
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Yeah, but the DB603 never managed to reach the 100 hours between overhauls by the end of the war like the BMW did.
Don't think the 801 was a bad fighter engine in 1943. It was just fully rated in October 1942, and it's power was sufficient before late 1943. Where it came short was the air intake layout, it needed an external intake that is both not that draggy and not 'squashed', so the aircraft rated height is at about 7 km, instead at 6.3 km. Let's not forget that both RAF and USAF specified the Fw-190 as a target to equal or better (though the Bf-109F-4/G-2 were also tough things to beat). From Autumn of 1941 until 1943, the Fw 190 was very much an useful fighter, and in many of it's properties the best in the world.
Now for winter of 1943/44 and on, the Fw-190 certainly needed a better engine. Whether the DB 603, Jumo 213, or even the 2-stage BMW 801 if it can be pulled out.
- Thread starter
- #29
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
The BMW 801S was better than the DB603.
Before late 1944, it is not any better - there is no any of those around to power aircraft. The DB 603A is old news by then.
From late 1944 on, the DB 603E can give comparable power, it is more streamlined, the air intake is better, MW 50 can be used, big gun can be installed between the banks, it will work well on B4 fuel. The two stage 603L and 603LA are in the pipeline, the BMW was unable to offer a workable producible 2-stage engine at all.
From late 1944 on, the DB 603E can give comparable power, it is more streamlined, the air intake is better, MW 50 can be used, big gun can be installed between the banks, it will work well on B4 fuel. The two stage 603L and 603LA are in the pipeline, the BMW was unable to offer a workable producible 2-stage engine at all.
Totalize
Tech Sergeant
Agreed, but if I recall the 190 while having a very nice roll rate capability was subject to high speed stalls, so if you have an LA-5 on your tail and you rolled away too sharply she flipped over on you in a stall. This is very dangerous in an East Front dog fight because many of them took place at very low levels. Stalling it in a sharp roll often meant she went into the ground along with the pilot as there was not enough altitude to recover. The Luftwaffe lost droves of young inexperienced 190 pilots in this manner in the latter part of the war.
Last edited:
The Fw 190 had nice stalling characteristics when not under high G. Under extremely high G, in say a tight turn, the Fw 190 could snap into a spin. Recovery was however very easy and quick. Fw 190 pilots used it as a standard tactical combat manoeuvre simply flipping into a spin and dropping a few hundred feet. One gets the impression spin recovery was much better than a P-51 which could take thousands of feet.
The reason is that under extreme load the wing tips of the twin spar wing would twist thereby reducing the 2 degree geometric twist over the aileron area and lead to a premature stall. once the load was off the good characteristics would return. Focke-Wulf was aware of the source of this characteristic, we have their report, and must have looked at revising the wing. Certainly the Ta 152B/C and Ta 152H had completely revised wings structurally. I personally suspect the Fw 190A9/D9 onward might have had some improvements since US Navy pilots who evaluated the Fw 190D said the power on stall characteristics was good. Fw 109's were seldom flown in tight sustained turning fights.
Last edited:
koolkitty said:
The max continuous power of the engine will not be affected by MW 50. The fully rated DB-605A/AM was making 1080 PS at 5.5 km, vs. 1180 PS of the BMW 801D, however the BMW is more draggy, it is heavier, and it consumes more (both total and specific consumption). Installing a 20mm or even 30 mm to fire through the prop means less drag than having 2xMG 131s under cowling of the Fw 190.
The DB 605AM was making about as much power at 4-5 km as the the overboosted BMW 801D. The DB 605AS/ASM really trump the BMW 801D at altitude: more power, less weight, less drag.
As above - especially the 605ASM would be a very useful engine for hi-alt work - at 6.4 km (21000 ft) it makes 1500 PS, or same as the DB 603A, with less weight bulk. Problem with 605ASM is a crucial one for a tool of warfare - it is available too late to matter, and any engine produced is needed for the Bf-109 to keep them competitive at ETO/MTO. The 605 AS was good for 1200 PS at 8 km (~26250 ft).
With full commitment to the Fw-190 plus DB 603, LW can have several hundreds of such 190s before Big Week ( the 605AS/ASM is too late for that). Even if they cannot match the Merlin Mustang, the performance disadvantage would be far smaller than what the Fw-190As were against - the Fw 190 with 603A of 1944 should be at least as good as a working Fw-190D-9.
The max continuous power of the engine will not be affected by MW 50. The fully rated DB-605A/AM was making 1080 PS at 5.5 km, vs. 1180 PS of the BMW 801D, however the BMW is more draggy, it is heavier, and it consumes more (both total and specific consumption). Installing a 20mm or even 30 mm to fire through the prop means less drag than having 2xMG 131s under cowling of the Fw 190.
The DB 605AM was making about as much power at 4-5 km as the the overboosted BMW 801D. The DB 605AS/ASM really trump the BMW 801D at altitude: more power, less weight, less drag.
And there you go into the topic of diverting engines to the 190 as well, granted with the more universally advantageous 603. (that airframe seemed to be one of the most sensible places to be puting 603s as well as 213s, and the 603 allowed for a centerline cannone mounting as well)
The DB-605 AS(M) still seems like a useful candidate too, though, especially in as far as matching/beating the Mustang above 20,000 ft. (compared to using the 801, not the 603 or 213)
As above - especially the 605ASM would be a very useful engine for hi-alt work - at 6.4 km (21000 ft) it makes 1500 PS, or same as the DB 603A, with less weight bulk. Problem with 605ASM is a crucial one for a tool of warfare - it is available too late to matter, and any engine produced is needed for the Bf-109 to keep them competitive at ETO/MTO. The 605 AS was good for 1200 PS at 8 km (~26250 ft).
With full commitment to the Fw-190 plus DB 603, LW can have several hundreds of such 190s before Big Week ( the 605AS/ASM is too late for that). Even if they cannot match the Merlin Mustang, the performance disadvantage would be far smaller than what the Fw-190As were against - the Fw 190 with 603A of 1944 should be at least as good as a working Fw-190D-9.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
So a universally good fit for the 190, except perhaps for fighter-bomber specific variants.
You've got those DB-605's slated for Bf-109s and 110s, so politics aside, plans would have had to be in motion to shift production earlier. Expand Fw-190 production or risk having fewer engines avilable to 109s. (110s might be a significant loss too and retooling them to BMW-801s might or might not have worked -pushing those engines onto Ju-88s might have made more sense though ... and if the 110s were /actually/ needed, Jumo 211s might have been adequate and much easier to displace the 601s/605s with than 801s, including the issue of limited range/fuel capacity of the 110)
It's somewhat like the situation with the Hurricane vs Spitfire in terms of keeping the older type in production and even sacrificing better engines to the weaker type to allow useful performance when insufficient numbers of either airframe are available. (ie no Spitfire III) Granted, less extreme there since the spitfire was closer to Bf-109 in performance, and it ended up getting the slightly smaller/lighter Merlin 45 at the expense of low altitude power. But there, the British wanted to replace the Hurricane outright and push more Spitfires as much as possible, whereas the 190 wasn't pushed as a total replacement outright and emphasis on expanding it to maximum priority production didn't have quite the same situation evolving. Plus that was for the Merlin XX series ... more akin to the late model DB-601s which had less clear advantages on the Fw-190 (might have been good for longer range/endurance tasks) but the DB-605 was more akin to allocation of the Merlin 60/70 series. (cramming merlin 61/66s on Hurricanes would have been a waste ... though this overall comparison is probably closer to comparing spitfire to mustang production, just less comparable due to the separate countries -and the P-40 and P-39 hardly compare to the specific trade-offs of the 109 vs 190)
Relegating some 109s to be Jumo 211 powered might have been a reasonable trade-off (for sheer volume production if 190s couldn't totally supplant 109 volumes), but performance would be limited and no motor cannon support was provided. (go back to using wing cannons as standard?) The 801 would seem a bad fit for the 109. Heavy, draggy, and fuel hungry. Maybe use Jumo powered 109s on the Eastern front where altitude performance wasn't as critical? (maybe have more precedent for MW/50 systems being developed for the 211?) Somewhat like the Avia S-199 but less of a hack job with properly mated prop and reduction gearing, and preferably J/N/P models rather than F.
Plus, relegating more of those 'lesser' 109s to the Eastern front and diverting even more 190s to the ETO might have been a worthwhile trade-off. (especially with the potential potency of DB powered 190 variants)
Bombers/heavy/night fighters with more 801s, 190s with more 605s (and 603s), and supplemental 109s with 211s might have made some sense. (again, if 109s couldn't be phased out entirely)
There's also the He-100 to consider, which might have made an even better fit for the DB-605 (or 601) but was also a tighter/limited design. The 190 is bigger and heavier, but remarkably flexible in overall design, more space for expansion and weight gain, fuel, armament, and a variety of engines. (plus it was in development at the same time as the He-100, so unless the He-100 was actually easier to manufacture, ramping up/second sourcing 190 production would seem most useful)
That's aside from other 'might have been' aircraft that would mate well with the 605 ... or any of the engines really. (but the Fw-187 is on my mind, and the Jumo 211, DB-601, and DB-605 would be the best fits for that)
Again, this seems a bit like the Hurricane production situation and only relevant if it was impossible to replace 109 volume production with other types. (albeit a much more limited argument due to the scarcity of ASM engines)
Keeping 109s competitive in the ETO/MTO is only a problem if there's no alternative to displace them entirely ... at least outside of the Eastern front.
Not that a good fit before late 1943, until the DB 605A was allowed for 2800 rpm and 1.42 ata. The 605AM is also not available before 1944. I'd still prefer the DB 603 and Jumo 213 for West-bound Fw-190s, indeed the BMW 801 seem like the best bet for fighter-bomber versions of the Fw-190. Also for fighters for Eastern front, with it's good/excellent power under 5-6 km alt.
Methinks it is a question of timing. The BMW 801D is IMO the best engine for the Fw-190 until the DB 603A is available reliable (late 1943?). The Jumo 213A is there also by late 1943/early 1944 - that means the Jumo 211 is slowly phased out from production/use, and the promising 'fighter version', the 211R will not be produced. The 211J/N/P in the Bf 109 will cut it's performance. I'd push 213s in the Fw-190 (along with DB 603s), so the Bf-109 can keep the Db 605s.
The Avia S-199 have had plenty of aerodynamic issues to be any better than, say, Spitfire V. Under wing cannons, fixed tailwheel, bulges of the MG 131s, bulges at the wing to accommodate bigger tyres of the main U/C. Unlike the late 109 from where it emerged, it did not have the DB 605 to cover for those aerodynamic problems. I'm not sure that Germans themselves would make it perform any better than the Czechs.
The Luftwaffe is outnumbered by 1943 (even earlier). So the aircraft that get to the frontline need to perform better than opposition. I'm afraid the Bf 109 with Jumo 211 will not cut it even on the Eastern front.
The Fw 190 was already produced in several factories. Indeed it is flexible, has other strong points, just need a good piece of engine from late 1943 on to remain competitive against Western opposition.
I'd displace the Bf 109 with a jet. Simple 1-engined job, with 2 cannons.
Shortround6
Major General
Trouble with that is you don't have enough power with only one engine. Speed will be in the 450-500mph range (but not likely to be over) but armament will be light. 2 cannon is doable but ammo capacity? Fuel and endurance will be pretty poor.
HE 162 may be as good as it got. The single engine Yak and LA fighters/prototypes using Jumo or Jumo derived engines certainly had problems with endurance.
Granted, an early single jet engine can't buy you everything. What it might buy in second half of 1944/early 1945 is the performance parity (or a bit over parity) vs. Western top performers, and considerable performance advantage vs. Soviet stuff. 450-500 mph is a better offer than 420-450 mph that can be expected by late Bf 109s (DB-605AS up until 605L) .
Shortround6
Major General
450-500mph potential for 30 minutes or 420-440mph potential for 60 minutes?
Not that either plane could really keep up those speeds for anywhere near the full time/s.
The Jet sorties have to be very carefully timed. And like the 262s, getting caught at low altitude/low speed is not good.
Not that either plane could really keep up those speeds for anywhere near the full time/s.
The Jet sorties have to be very carefully timed. And like the 262s, getting caught at low altitude/low speed is not good.
