Spitfire Mk.22 vs. Fw 190D-13

eagledad said:

Gentlemen,

I saved a bit more from Jagdhund's website. For your information and discussion;

Eagledad

Click to expand...

Koopernic said:

Jagdhund's website was a great source which is unfortunately only available on way back machine:

Dora (archive.org)

"An early Dora with a stock Jumo 213A, without any modifications was not much of an improvement over the the Fw190A-8 except for somewhat better high altitude performance. The first production Dora's soon received a field modification of a non-standard, low pressure, MW-50 installation "Oldenburg system" and a system referred to as "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Rüstatz" which increased power output of the Jumo 213A from 1750 to 1900PS without an additional boosting agent such as MW-50 or GM-1 up until the first of 1945 when production high pressure MW-50 kits, compressor modifications and C3 fuel were prevalent in D-9's. "

I have read no where else stating that any service model Fw 190D-9s had anything but the
TAM kit (1,900 ps Jumo 213A-1) or a low pressure MW 50 system (2,100 ps Jumo 213A-2) installed.
I know that the Fw 190D-9 & Jumo 213A were being tested at 2.02 ata with B4 fuel and MW 50, but I have not seen any evidence that states of its use in service. I have read that the Jumo 213A was being studied for the use of C3 fuel, but i have not seen any document that states its use in
service or combat.

Click to expand...

Koopernic said:

Why would you think that the Jumo 213A, Jumo 213E, Jumo 213E1, Jumo 213F and Jumo 213EB all had the same 2050hp performance? They all had different supercharger arrangements and emergency power systems, compression ratios and or fuel grades.

There are photographs of Fw 190D9 with Ta 152 tails (to handle the additional power) that the nice thing about basing the Ta 152 on the Fw 190 it could feed back improvements.

Most Fw 190D9 had one of the two types of MW50 system by December 1944.

The engine gap problem was caused by two things, 1 tolerances in construction and 2 lack of supply of rubber strips to seal the engine gaps (front and rear) in the absence of well good build tolerances. There were simply aircraft with good tolerances since the Luftwaffe had rejected the rubber engine seal gap solution and wanted proper build tolerances.

Its fairly clear that the Fw 190D9, which was based on the Fw 190A9 wing was being strengthened since wing fuel tanks were being fitted to the Fw 190D13 EB. There seems to have been a plan to increase Fa 190A10 wing area and its likely this wing might have found itself onto the Fw 190D if it persisted.

Jumo 213A (single stage 2 speed supercharger) was the basic bomber engine pressed into service as a fighter engine. It had single stage super charger. In order to increase the power as a fighter it had an increased boost setting installed.
It was a rich mixture setting that raised power from 1750hp->1900hp.
This was followed by a system that used supercharger pressure to pressurise the MW50 tank and blew in MW50 to increase power fruther.
This was followed by mechanical pump that provided the MW50 the power of this unit was usually regarded as 2100hp

The difference between a Me 109G6AM and Me 109G14 as well G6ASM and G14AS was that the G14 had mechanical pump driven MW50 injection.

Dieter Hermann and Anthony Kay both mention that early Jumo 213A had trouble reaching their full power due to supercharger impellor weakness and not achieving the required boost pressure. These versions were not used in combat but were used in evaluation squadrons.

Jumo 213AG (single stage 2 speed supercharger) this unit unit had the single stage two speed supercharger optimised as "boddenladder" ie supercharger to increase power not compensate for speed. This unit achieved 2250hp, nevertheless it had good performance at all altitudes. This unit is associated with the 2240hp often mentioned.

Jumo 213E (two stage intercooled 3 speed supercharger) never saw service as the engine was optimised for C3 fuel and the anticipated shortages of C3 fuel forced the development of the Jumo 213E1, however a version of the Jumo 213E known as the Jumo 213F without the sizeable intercooler (probably housing cooling only)

Jumo 213E1 (two stage intercooled 3 speed supercharger) which could use B4 fuel + MW50 + GM1. Used on Ta 152H and some Ju 88G7, Ju 88S3 and Ju 388 (test)

Jumo 213F (two stage non intercooled 3 speed supercharger) and interim version for the fw 190D13 Used on Fw 190D13. I believe had higher Compression Ratio but required C3 fuel to achieve same power as Jumo 213E1 due to minimal intercooling.

Jumo 213F1 (two stage non intercooled 3 speed supercharger) used a pump to inject MW50 instead of the less reliable supercharger pressurisation test flown on Fw 190D11 and intended for Fw 190D13.

Jumo 213EB (two stage intercooled 3 speed supercharger with a new radiator and intercooler system) intended for both the Fw 190D13 EB and the Ta 152H EB with about 2350hp and very high full throttle altitude.

Ju 213J about 2650hp at 3700 rpm, used 4 valve head, on test bench.

Ju 213S armoured variant for ground attack aircraft.

Click to expand...

CORSNING said:

Differences of the Fw 190 D-12 and D-13.

Fw 190D-12 armament:
1 x MK 108 30 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.
2 x MG 151 20 mm cannon in the wing roots.

Fw 190D-13 armament:
1 x MK 151 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.
2 x MG 151 20 mm cannon in the wing roots.

Fw 190D-12 (10,0.32 lb.) climb:
2,870fpm./S.L. (No MW 50?)

Fw 190D-13 (9,790 lb.) climb:
4,330 fpm./SL (with MW 50)
3,000 m./3.6 min.
6,000 m./7.6 min.
8,000 m./10.7 min.
10,000 m./14.7 min.

Spitfire F Mk.21 LA.187 (the first production Mk.21):
4440 fpm./S.L.
3,000 m./2.34 min.
6,000 m./5.05 min.
8,000 m./7.24 min.
10,000 m./10.4 min.


All above information comes from published material of Dietmar Hermann
and posted material of Mike Williams and Neil Stirling. Without their dedicated
research mine would mean very little.

Click to expand...

CORSNING said:

To the best of my knowledge high pressure MW 50 systems were only used in the Jumo 213 EB,
Jumo 213F-1, DB 603 EB and DB 603 LA in the Fw 190D series.

Click to expand...

spicmart said:

Fw 190D-13 (9,790 lb.) climb:
4,330 fpm./SL (with MW 50)
3,000 m./3.6 min.
6,000 m./7.6 min.
8,000 m./10.7 min.
10,000 m./14.7 min.

Spitfire F Mk.21 LA.187 (the first production Mk.21):
4440 fpm./S.L.
3,000 m./2.34 min.
6,000 m./5.05 min.
8,000 m./7.24 min.
10,000 m./10.4 min

Initial climb time at sea level was similar. But why did the Spitfire pull so much away in climb time then?
IIRC the climb rates were not that far away as the fighters were ascending.

Click to expand...

Koopernic said:

Dietmar Hermann in "Fw 190D long nose" puts the Spitfire's superior climb rate down to its big wing which was very good at generating lift efficiently.
I suspect there may be 3 causes:
1 The Fw 190D12/D13 was likely much faster at sea level due to its small wing and this allowed it to have a higher climb rate at that level. As the air thinned the Sptfire gains advantage.
2 There may be differences in the engine drop of in power. The Fw 190D-13 is the version with the Jumo 213F engine which had MW-50 but no intercooler. The planed Fw 190D-13 R25 had the Jumo 213EB engine which did have an intercooler.
3 There may be differences in how climb at sea level was measured.

The limits of the Fw 190D13 were understood, hence the Ta 152C and Ta 152H which both featured new and bigger wings.
The Fw 190D12/13 would have been good both for ground attack and good for operation at low altitude but would still be able to intercept a B-29A/B at 25,000-30,000ft.

Click to expand...

spicmart said:

The Ta 152C had a 19.5 sqm wing compared to the 190's 18.3 sqm while being a whopping ton heavier (5.3 tons vs. 4.3 tons). It was not a dogfighter rather than a destroyer.

Click to expand...