FW190 v others

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:17 pm

yellowtail,

I do not understand this last post of yours, it is completely unnecesary and disputes nothing. You make an assertion without any support nor can refute anything I post: typical argumentative in nature breaking down some other guy's post and dissect it out of context. I do believe you need to upgrade your cultural level.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: FW190 v others

Postby yellowtail3 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:34 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:yellowtail,

I do not understand this last post of yours, it is completely unnecesary and disputes nothing. You make an assertion without any support nor can refute anything I post: typical argumentative in nature breaking down some other guy's post and dissect it out of context. I do believe you need to upgrade your cultural level.

Gee, Karl, if you do not want me to ref your posts, just say so. But re-read mine: I wrote that the 190 was a very good a/c. Since the thread is about COMPARISON, I note it was deficient in high altitude performance relative to competition. Perhaps you disagree? If so, make yer case and quit with the complaints & whining about my 'culture'.... Talking about a/c should be fun!

To thread subj... In your view, in what areas was the 190D superior to, say, a P-51D? How did they compare in cruise speed, top speed, dive speed, controlability at high speed, armament and persistence/range?
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:37 pm

I read your post which is more than you can say from mine, because you have not referred or have any ability to dispute what I stated there:

The 190D was better, but very few and still somewhat inferior to the -47 and -51 at altitude... Rough parity, maybe, using a generous perspective.



Then you come with your falacy and argumentative tendency such as:

Gee, Karl, if you do not want me to ref your posts, just say so. But re-read mine: I wrote that the 190 was a very good a/c. Since the thread is about COMPARISON, I note it was deficient in high altitude performance relative to competition. Perhaps you disagree? If so, make yer case and quit with the complaints & whining about my 'culture'.... Talking about a/c should be fun!

To thread subj... In your view, in what areas was the 190D superior to, say, a P-51D? How did they compare in cruise speed, top speed, dive speed, controlability at high speed, armament and persistence/range?


I made my case pretty clear yesterday demostrating that FW 190 had a much better operational record than the US fighters. In order to do it I came forth with evidence on that regard. It is YOU who have to demostrate that I am mistaken, not me becuase I already made my case. That is why I complain on your cultural background. You have to prove me that the FW 190 performed worse in COMPARISON with the P 51 or P 47 when I already prove you that german pilots in FW 190 had much better kill ratios than any US european theatre pilot.

I don't mind you answering any post. I am not a forum bully. But at least if I take my time to make research and come forward with some supported argument at least you can do the same instead of just saying what do you believe, which is something that I think no one cares in this forum, at least me.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: FW190 v others

Postby yellowtail3 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:20 pm

I made my case pretty clear yesterday demostrating that FW 190 had a much better operational record than the US fighters. In order to do it I came forth with evidence on that regard.
oh... I was talking about aircraft, not 'operational records' - if i was doing that, I'd say the that 190s had a poor record, as they were unable to stop the bomber offensive.
You have to prove me that the FW 190 performed worse in COMPARISON with the P 51 or P 47 when I already prove you that german pilots in FW 190 had much better kill ratios than any US european theatre pilot.
in that case, areas of superiority for -51 over 190 include higher cruise speed, vastly better fuel fraction, more efficient engine, better dive speed, better top speed (and sped was what mattered, those days). I think the 190 generally has better armament. And, I think it was probably a little cheaper to produce tha -51, definitely less expensive that the relatively complex P-47 (ESP if one were using slave labor... Not sure if FW did that or not)

Up at high altitude, the P-47 was Probably better. What mattered most at altitude was horsepower, and the turbo'd R2800 Made some like 2000hp all the way up to 30k feet, at which point an 801 powered 190 was wallowing, unable to accelerate or maneuver very aggressively. At sea level the p-47 would be clumsy against the 190; at 30K it would absolutely dominate it. Against a190D it would be a close run thing.

....or so I've thought. Dissenters?
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:13 pm

I think our good friend yellowtail do not understand or, more likely, do not want to understand. I do not think it's healthy for anyone to get in an argument with a troll so this is the last thing that I will post on this regard.

If we study (and to do that it is necesary to read and UNDERSTAND) the links I presented on kill ratios with my case (that the FW 190 pilots got higher scores than any USAF ace in WWII) there are three options:

1. The FW 190 was an outstanding fighter with the same or even better perfomance than it's adversaries or...

2. The German pilots were even better than their adversaries, or....

3. Both.

Because if the P 51 or P 47 were better then they would have achieved higher scores than the FW on them.

Cogito ergo sum
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: FW190 v others

Postby yellowtail3 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:47 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Cogito ergo sum
well... If you postin Latin and call someone a troll... That must be some kind of trump?

...but a p51d is still faster and longer-Ranged than a 190, can still outlive it, can still cruise faster than it. And I will bet that if you were to count up how many 190s were shot down by Mustangs, compared to number of Mustangs shot down by FW190s... The numbers would not look good for the Nazi bird. But since I don't know those numbers I stick to the familiar, which are the relative merits of the two a/c

Cogito.... What?
Shift Colors... underway.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: FW190 v others

Postby paul.mercer » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:18 pm

Gentlemen,
PLEASE, I didn't intend my original thread to turn into a slanging match, particularly as I have the greatest respect for the fantastic knowledge that you all display whenever a technical question is asked.
Karl, from what I have read the FW190 was certainly a great aircraft and flown by some of the very best and perhaps more important, very experienced German pilots which would undoubtably give them a big edge over some of the less experienced US pilots who would have had little real combat experience compared with that of the Germans. Perhaps it might be fairer to say that it was the shear weight of numbers of P51's that eventually overcame the German fighter defence?

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:36 pm

paul.mercer

Perhaps it might be fairer to say that it was the shear weight of numbers of P51's that eventually overcame the German fighter defence?


Quite correct, historical fact. Thanks for your intervention. :ok:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: FW190 v others

Postby yellowtail3 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:12 pm

paul.mercer wrote: Perhaps it might be fairer to say that it was the shear weight of numbers of P51's that eventually overcame the German fighter defence?

quite true, though by sometime in 1944 the pilot experience was prob better in allied units... That they had numbers and superior aircraft and more flight time/better training all contributed to the Luftwaffe's inexorable downward spiral.

It would be nice to see/hear a BMW-powered FW190; I've seen LOTS of Mustangs. A few shots from Chino a year ago:

https://skydrive.live.com/#cid=E1FDF2B0 ... 0BA%211308
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:58 pm

Someones knows how Richard Bong got killed? On the same day the Hiroshima bomb was dropped he was testing the P 80 Shooting Star. He forgot to start a fuel pump and the plane crashed. He tried to bail out with no success.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Mostlyharmless » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:29 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:I think the 190 was a very, very good fighter, flexible and adaptable. It suffered at altitude, which is where it was needed when the bombing campaign got cranked up. The 190D was better, but very few and still somewhat inferior to the -47 and -51 at altitude... Rough parity, maybe, using a generous perspective. And by the time the 190D was I squadron service, rough parity wasn't near enough for the Nazis.

Last year at Chino I saw a new production 190 with an R2800... Very cool.

A few small quibbles but I generally agree with this and other postings.

The new build Fw 190s are powered by a derivative of the Shvetsov ASh-82 http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4. I very much doubt if a bigger engine such as a R-2800 would fit.

The Fw 190A design was examined by the British, Americans and Japanese and taught them or persuaded them to cowl radial engines more tightly. Thus the F8F was narrower than an F6F and the Hawker Fury was narrower than a Tornado. However, the Fury is not a copy of a Fw 190A. It is a Tempest that has been influenced by a Fw 190 to take a slimming course. The Mitsubishi A6M8, Kawasaki Ki-100 and Yokosuka D4Y3 similarly reflect the influence of the Fw 190A. I do not know if the La-5 also reflected the influence of the Fw 190 or arose independently.

On the issue of high altitude performance, the Fw 190A3 of 1942 was starting to become inferior in performance to the Spitfire IX above 20,000 ft. when tested by the RAF. None of the developments of the BMW 801 used in combat before 1944 increased its power at high altitude and most of the airframe's developments increased its weight. The addition of C3 or MW 50 injection allowed higher boost at low altitude but the power would still drop off above the critical altitude at the same rate. Nitrous oxide injection may have helped the A8 but involved extra weight and it was only from September 1944 that the A9 entered production and had the first improvement in the supercharger after the A3.

Naturally Kurt Tank had attempted to improve the high altitude performance but did not achieve rapid success. The turbosupercharger of the Fw 190B was unreliable. Production of the DB 603 was allocated to the Me 410, so the Fw 190C was abandoned. The Fw 190D was introduced in late 1944 because the Jumo 213 was not reliable before 1944 mostly due to vibrations which required the firing order to be changed in late 1943.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:13 am

I found this in the ww2Aircraft.net

It is clear that between a Fw 190 D has better statistics than the P 51: more powerfull engine, no great difference in speed and climbing


Fw-190 D-9 Statistics:

Engine: Junkers Jumo 213A1 with MW-50 boost.
Power: 2,240 HP.
Max. Speed: 704 km/h. (438 mph.)
Max. Climb: 1110 m/min (3,642 ft/min.)
Empty Weight: 3,490 kg. (7,694 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,293 kg. (9,464 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 4,839 kg. (10,670 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 10.50 m. (34.4 ft.)
Wing-Area: 18.3 sq.m. (197 sq.ft.)
Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) & 2x 20mm cannons (MG 151/20).

Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)

Fw-190 D-9 Additional features:

-Bubble-canopy & Flettner Tabs.
-Inclined seat position for better G-load resistance & "Kommandogerat".


P-51D Mustang Statistics:

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.
Power: 1,790 HP.
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Max. Climb: 1011 m/min. (3,320 ft/min)
Empty Weight: 3,466 kg. (7,641 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 5,034 kg. (11,100 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 5,489 kg. (12,100 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.)
Wing-Area: 21.64 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.)
Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2).

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max: 1.28 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

P-51D Mustang Additional features:

-Laminar wing & Tear-shaped canopy.
-Gyro-Gunsight.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic Facts:

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Airfoil CL-max - Higher is better.
Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.

Lift-loading - Lower is better.
Power-loading - Lower is better.

Wing Aspect ratio info:
High aspect ratio wings have long spans (like high performance gliders), while low aspect ratio wings have either short spans (like the F-16 fighter) or thick chords (like the Space Shuttle). There is a component of the drag of an aircraft called induced drag which depends inversely on the aspect ratio. A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing. All else being equal, the higher the wing aspect ratio, the higher the wing Cl-max is also going to be.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: FW190 v others

Postby yellowtail3 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:06 pm

Mostlyharmless wrote:The new build Fw 190s are powered by a derivative of the Shvetsov ASh-82 http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4. I very much doubt if a bigger engine such as a R-2800 would fit.

I don't see why it shouldn't fit; the R2800 is only an inch or two larger in diameter. It made more power per inch (specific power) and displaced a little more. But here is how I know that the 190 at Chino has a Pratt: I peeked into the cowling! (no cooling fan in there)

Here it that aircraft starting up - does that sound like a Pratt, or what? I saw it fly a couple weeks after this video was made:



It is clear that between a Fw 190 D has better statistics than the P 51: more powerfull engine, no great difference in speed and climbing

Beware that impressive HP number for the Jumo. The differences may not have been great, but... the 190D was slower than the -51 at both cruise and Military Power settings (let alone WEP). The P-51 benefited from a better airframe & wing, and from thrust produced by that genius radiator design. If memory serves... At 400 mph @ 25,000 feet the radiator of the -51 generated thrust equivalent to about 360 HP of engine thrust, and it got better as it went faster: at 25,000 feet at 445 mph TAS the radiator contributed something over 500 HP of engine quivalent thrust. This pretty much negated drag from the radiator... pretty much free cooling.

The FW-190D could not outrun a P-51 and was slower than both -51 and -47 at high altitudes (over 25K, esp over 30K). The P-51's relative weak points were climb & turn rate; the 190D prob accelerated better at low altitude (under 10K). The 190D was close enough to be competitive on an individual basis, but the number reaching service was low, and pilot quality was poor by the time those few rolled into squadron service. If you compare kill/loss ratio of 190D against the P-51 (and P-47) it will come out very poorly.

The TA-152H would have been better than the 190D, but if things lasted long enough for it to get into service, it would have run up against the the P-51H and the P-47N... and it that wasn't enough edge for the USAAF pilots, perhaps they could have borrowed a few Bearcats from the USN.

If I were to have to fight against an FW-190D late war - especially down low? - I wouldn't want to do it in a P-47 or a P-51 - I'd make the rational choice, and opt for an F4U-4!
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:46 pm

But the statistics do not show that, at least nominally:

FW 190
Max. Speed: 704 km/h. (438 mph.)
Max. Climb: 1110 m/min (3,642 ft/min.)

P51
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Max. Climb: 1011 m/min. (3,320 ft/min)

Of course you are correct, the Fw could not outrun the Mustang but the Mustang can't outrun the FW neither.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: FW190 v others

Postby Mostlyharmless » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:39 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:
Mostlyharmless wrote:The new build Fw 190s are powered by a derivative of the Shvetsov ASh-82 http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4. I very much doubt if a bigger engine such as a R-2800 would fit.

I don't see why it shouldn't fit; the R2800 is only an inch or two larger in diameter. It made more power per inch (specific power) and displaced a little more. But here is how I know that the 190 at Chino has a Pratt: I peeked into the cowling! (no cooling fan in there)

Here it that aircraft starting up - does that sound like a Pratt, or what? I saw it fly a couple weeks after this video was made
...

I am sorry to have doubted you :oops: . You are correct that Chino have a new build Fw 190 with a R2800 and as you mention the R2800 is only 2 inches wider. The cowling has been redesigned and may be very slightly bulged (I am not sure. Did you notice?). The oil cooler has been moved to the wing root which solved cooling problems and may have helped solve COG problems with the slightly heavier engine.


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest