Spitfire Mk.22 vs. Fw 190D-13

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

spicmart said:
What ere the performance statistics of the Jumo 213EB?
Click to expand...

Table from AEHS: link ; CR was increased from 6.5:1 to 8.5:1 in order to extrat as much power as possible at any altitude; shortcoming of increased CR was that engine can use only C3 fuel.
Chart from Kurfurst: link; note that dashed line is for the 'Jumo 213E C3' that shows the greatest power at any altitude, the other 213E in the graph is noted as 'Jumo 213E B4'.
I've reversed the colors of that chart and traced the power graphs so it can be more readable:
 

Attachments

  • DB605ASM_DM_L_Jumo213A-E color.JPG
    122.1 KB · Views: 133
Gents,

Does anyone have the a comparison of roll rates for the leading fighters, including the boosted P38, broke out in the first 90 and 180 degrees?

Cheers,
Biff
 
BiffF15 said:
Does anyone have the a comparison of roll rates for the leading fighters, including the boosted P38, broke out in the first 90 and 180 degrees?
Click to expand...
Good question, I don't have an answer, but I'd hope others would have something.
 
 
 


Mike,

Excellent!

I'm looking at the P51 roll.jpg and want to make sure I'm reading it correctly. The header says .1 seconds, and the scale at the bottom goes in .02 increments. Does that mean (at the bottom) that .10 equals 1 second, or 1/10th of a second?

Cheers,
Biff
 

Hi Biff, please find the cover sheet for the roll chart below. I'll need to go through some RAE and NACA reports for further clarification.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D_roll-16dec44.jpg
 

Dear Corsing,

The Fw 190D9 had two different MW50 systems. The first one used supercharger pressure to blow in MW50 and that was referred to as the Oldenburg system it was retrofitted by Luftwaffe personnel. This is the system that achieved 427mph. In December a new system came into use that used a mechanical pump for much greater flow and vaporisation. This one achieved 434-437 mph. It has to be installed in the factory or in the field by Junkers personnel. This is very good performance at low altitude for an aircraft with only a single stage supercharger that essentially was a left over engine from Ju 188 production. Versions which used pure C3 fuel were am little faster than B4+MW50 and a version with the first stage supercharger optimised purely for low level flight was very fast at sea level.

In due course the Jumo 213A probably would have been released for 2.0 ATA boost on C3+MW50 which correspond to about the same power as the Jumo 213EB. This aircraft would have had very good speed and climb at low alttude.
 
Last edited:

The Fw 190D13 came in two variants. There was the intermim unit which has the Jumo 213F engine capable of 455mph and the Fw 190D13EB which has the Jumo 213EB engine and was expected to achieve 488mph (edit 478mph) according to Smith and Creek. The Jumo 213EB could be dropped into both the Ta 152H and the Fw 190D13EB and with it the Ta 152H had the same performance but without GM-1.

The Jumo 213F had the same two stage 3 speed supercharger as the Jumo 213E1 of the Ta 152H0 but it had a much smaller intercooler (probably super Charger housing only) and tried to compensate by being optimised for C3 fuel. The first 200 superchargers produced effected both aircraft as they had a weak shaft which locked out 3rd gear hence willi reschke letting a mosquito get away.

The Jumo 213EB was a relatively minor modification that had slightly larger valves (3 valves per cylinder) but incorporated a vastly improved cooling circuit with a new radiator in which heat exchangers cooled the oil, engine and intercooler separately. Its very efficient cooling is what was key. I believe its power output was (from other posts) 2350hp with significant jet thrust.

The Fw 190D13 with the Jumo 213F had to make do with the same radiator as the Fw 190D9. This was undersized for the new engine and meant that after a minute the cooling gills had to be opened which slowed the aircraft down to only slightly faster than the Fw 190D9, though obviously other factors were still better such as acceleration, climb, turning circle, altitude.

Since the Fw 190D13 with the Jumo 213F the Luftwaffe was prepared to put up with the too small a radiator to get the Fw 190D13EB and Ta 152H EB developed faster.

Due to the Jumo 213F engine and propeller the Fw 190D13 had a motor gun and dispensed with the cowling guns. Fw 190D13 had been assigned to test the MG213 revolver canon, the guns in the wing roots could be electrically synchronised to fire through the propeller despite the revolving breeches.

The Fw 190D13 without outer wing gun stations would have received wing fuel tanks in these positions to extend range. (a few Fw 190D13 did See service)

It has the be remembered that the Fw 190D was an interim aircraft that was to take up the slack while the Ta 152B, C, H entered production.

The Fw 190D series would thus become ground attack aircraft while the Ta 152 specialised in fighter to fighter combat. There were plans to equip the Fw 190D with the TSA 2D toss bombing sight. Their small wings giving the Fw 190D great speed but not so much manoeuvrability and climb. The Fw 190D13 EB was clearly faster than a Spitfire F.22 by 20mph. The real competitor for the Spitfire F.22 is the Ta 152 B and H series with its larger wings.

Note also that the Jumo 213EB was interim for the 4 valve head Jumo 213J which took power from 2350 to 2650. I would expect a speed of over 500mph.

I suspect the Jumo 213A of the Fw 190D9 would have been released for 2.0 ATA boost which would have made the Fw 190D9 very fast at ground level.

Germans seem to have figured out catalysts and processes to make high octane fuel on a small scale towards the end of the war that used uranium catalysts (nothing to do with nuclear reaearch). They tried to give some to the Japanese by U-boat since the Japanese catalysts were only good for diesel.

There was also the DB603L/LA (2400/2250)hp and the DB603N (2800) hp.
 
Last edited:
Koopernic said:
There was also the DB603L/LA (2400/2250)hp and the DB603N (2800) hp.
Click to expand...

How many of these engines were actually installed in production a/c?

Griffon engines got 25lb boost, an increase from the standard 21lb boost,.
 
Milosh said:
How many of these engines were actually installed in production a/c?

Griffon engines got 25lb boost, an increase from the standard 21lb boost,.
Click to expand...

DB603LA entered service on the Ta 152C, only 4 aircraft though. It would also have equipped the Fw 190D15.
Jumo 213F entered service on the Fw 190D13, about 9 aircraft.
Both engines above 2250hp and had two stage supercharger. Likely to have increased in power by 10%.
Jumo 213E1 entered service on the Ta 152H at 2050hp. It would have been earlier as the Jumo 213E had to be revamped into the Jumo 213E1 to work of lower grade B4 instead of C3 fuel.
The first Ta 152C should have been the Ta 152C EM but also held up by C3 fuel supply issues.
Jumo 213EB Seems to have flown on test with Ta 152H1 because speed charts abound.
jumo 213J and DB603N were benching at high power.

German engines had no impediment frim matching or exceeding Grifon and promised so without 110/150 fuel.
 
Apropos of nothing but after watching the video:

Looks --> Spitfire
Sound --> Spitfire
Speed --> Spitfire
Sounding like a truck --> Fw190
Diving to keep up --> Fw190
Definition of the word "Sleek" --> Spitfire

I actually like the Fw190 quite a bit, but to see it right next to the Spit I've (sadly) noticed that while it may be a great plane my feelings for it are approaching "Meh" levels, at least as far as looks and sound. I guess I've never really looked at it when directly comparing it to another aircraft, it's somewhat disappointing.

This is all in the eye of the beholder of course, YMMV.

Now if you were comparing the Bf109 that was in the background to the Spit, THAT would be much closer aesthetically etc. for me to call.
 
Last edited:

i don't think this is a genuine Fw 190A8 but one of the Flug Werk kit plane reproductions with a Soviet ASH-62 engine. An Fw 190A9 would have had the fully blown bubble canopy. Radials sound different to inlines obviously and the direct In cylinder fuel injection of the 801 allowed a large valve overlap which was optimised for high rpm but lead to a bit of rough idling at low RPM. Not so sure about the soviet era engine.

This is an Mk XVIII Spitfire which missed the war by a few months whereas the Fw 190A8 was a late 43 design.
 

That should be the ASh-82, not ASh-62.
Soviet ASh-82s were also fuel injected from mid/late 1943 on, named 'ASh-82FN'.
 
It s the 1st time that i read the jumo 213 f at 2250 ps. I know 2050 ps, the same as jumo 213e.
We should remember that jumo 213 s frequently failed to deliver their promised performance.
Also , most if not all operational d aircrafts ,were built lacking several futures of their design. E.g tje rubber sealing for the engine gap, and decent surface quality. Personally, i doubt that any operational d9 could achieve 700km/h. Although we have reports that individual aircraft were very fast.
Additional the d series was a flawed design. The requirement for the "power egg" , meant extra weight ,not only in the engine installation, but also in the extensions that were required to keep cog. Also the connection between the power egg and the fuselage was terrible resulting in massive speed loss. The 13mm nose guns caused a lot of drag for little hitting power. The take off weight in the later d series was approaching 4500kgr, but still used the same small wing of the Fw190A6, with its elastic deformation at high speed turns. The original tail surfaces were inadequate to handle the more powerful engines. More and more armor and equipment lead to poor power and wing loadings. The annular radiator was a good idea, but poorly executed at least on the d9 model. And of course the ta 152h had the disastrous shortcoming of the low g limit of its wings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
7K
drgondog
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register