more radial fans like fw190?

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...
The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...
The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder
injection
of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost.
The
pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the
190
was
excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to
provide
cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an
ejector
effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet
fighter
is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl
was a
circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder
heads.
It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided
the
pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
american bombers 50s.

The trouble is the initial trials were very bad thanks to engine
over heating, at one point this threatened to have the entire
program cancelled. It also seems the engineers in JG26
did most of the work in coming up with a good fix.

The problem of this ambitious and effective installation were solved
somehow
then. The original had the cooling intake through a hollow of an
enlarged
propeller boss while the pilot suffered hot foot. The solution was to
lenghten the nose and compromise by using a gear driven fan to reduce
cowling inlet area to a minimum.

You really are lacking in knowledge of the Fw190 development,
the original prototype pilot landed complaining he felt he had
his feet in the fire. Then came the cancellation of the preferred
engine, the resultant redesign moved the cockpit further away from
the engine. The extra weight caused a deterioration of handling
characteristics, solved by increasing the wing area, the V5k and
V5g prototypes. The larger wings were standardised in the
tenth Fw190A-0 pre production model. Things like ducted
spinners were tried early as well, the first prototype and then
discarded.

It sounds like you are not aware of the development cycle or you are not
being clear. The FW190 had a number of heating problems with both its BMW
139 and 801 engines because of the aerodynamically ambitious installation.
How am I to know which ones you are refering to becuase the ones associated
with the BMW139 are the best known.

The FW190 was originaly specified with a DB601 V12 or what was essentialy an
enlarged version of a Pratt and Whitney designe known as the BMW 139. The
DB601 option was cancelled due to anticipated shortages and the 139 was so
troublesome it was decided to start all over again: the result was the
BMW801 which was reliable. When the 801 was to be substituted the aircraft
was redesigned to overcome C of G issues with the new engine while the
cockpit was also moved to overcome the cabin heating issues.

http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html

This sounds like the typical development cycle: note the exceptional
problems the typhoon tempest series had, and I am and was quite aware of
it. The cockpit was moved rewards to reduce the cabin heat problem.


By the time JG26 had received Fw190s the "lengthening" of
the nose had been done (which was actually moving the cockpit
further aft) and the increase in wing size was being done.

The cooling problems were overcome through the improvement of the cooling
fan itself and the addition of removable cooling vents.


Note the oil tank in radials was often armoured, since the oil
also acted as a coolant, and a bullet through the oil tank was
almost as bad as a bullet through the radiator of an inline engine.

The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47
was
built specifically to deal with the 190.

The design brief for the Bearcat was heavily into fast climb, to
intercept the incoming strikes, using the advances in ship's radar
to quickly intercept hostiles. It was the response of the USN to
carrier warfare in the Pacific not the FW190.

The designers certainly inspected and flew a captured FW190 and were
inspired to improve upon it. Yes there may have been a tactical reason
for
developing a high power to weight ratio aircraft but the FW190
demonstrated
the concept of having excess power.

I know this is really silly but the designers, if they did make a
trip to Europe, saw more than the Fw190, they would have
been exposed to other captured aircraft and the latest in
British designs. North American was interested for example
to design a lighter weight P-51, which emerged as the H model.
But somehow it all comes back to the Fw190 alone.

Irrelevant. I didn't bring up the P51 or its lightening program you just
did then for whatever rhetorical reason.

I heard the designer talking on one of those discovery channel things and he
refered to the FW190.

I merely stated that the P47 was designed to specifically deal with the
FW190. I have read this reference made more than once and it must clarly
refer to the P47C/D/D-25 version. I am looking for the reference again.




I like the "excess power" claim, the Fw190A had 1,600 HP
pulling around 7,500 pounds empty weight, the Spitfire V
had around 1,500 HP pulling around 5,100 pounds of empty
weight. The Fw190 was faster thanks to better aerodynamics,
the sort of thing that made the Spitfire 30 to 40 mph faster than
the Hurricane with the same engine and the P-51B around the
same speed faster than the Spitfire with effectively the same
engine. On the other hand the Spitfire could beat the Fw190
to 20,000 feet. Like all aircraft you had your trade offs.

There is no such thing as a FW 190A. There is a FW 190A-1, FW190A-2 all
the way through to A-14 I believe.

Much of your data seems wrong or chronologically irrelevent.

You fail to take into account differences in equiped weight as opposed to
empty weight, the differences in what consitutes empty, loaded and equiped
between aircaft of different nationalities and manufacture. Spitfire VB
with Merlin 45 is given as producing 1440 hp and its empty weight as 5100
but its loaded weight 6650 so your figures for both spitfire and Fw190 are
dubious.

AFAIKS loaded weight has nothing to do with opperational weight! Was the
FW 190 equiped with its home defense electronics for instance?

The comparisons involving weight just can not be made without more time and
caution.

The FW190A-3 had an empty weight of 6400 and a maximum of 8300 with a power
of either 1600 or 1700 depending on whether the BMW801 C or D was fitted.

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-3.htm

You've given data for a FW190A-8 equiped with an FW190A-2 engine from a
dodgy web page.
http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html



The Bearcat, as it appeared, was very much in the Spitfire
sort of arrangement, with a very high climb rate. It was
designed to fight the war in the Pacific, largely below 20,000
feet, with characteristics optimised to defend its base willing
to sacrifice range for example.

The FW190 outclimbed the Spitfire V by 450 feet per minute.




The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
program would be continued.

Also note the P-47B was optimised to fight above 20,000 feet,
the FW190A below 20,000 feet.

Water injection was needed to cope with the FW at low altitude and
perhaps
this is what I am thinking of.

As far as I can tell what is being thought of is an idealised view
of the Fw190 which then becomes a benchmark with everyone
else altering to fight it, but the Fw190 continually leading the way,
despite being out performed.

It was hardly outperformed for quite some time. It was never outperformed
in roll rate though the P47C onwards and FW190A series were probably matched
in this area.

The P47B (of which only 170 were built an which never seemed to have seen
service at all ) was a dramatically weaker aricraft in terms of roll rate
and manouverability to the P47C/P47D which first flew an inconclusive combat
in March 43 and entered service with Zemke in Jan 43.

Thus there was ample time for RAF combate expereience to have been fed into
the P47C program.

It would be odd if there was not such a system in place at all.



Presumably the introduction of paddle bladed propellers to the
P-47 was a reaction to the outstanding rate of climb of the Fw190,
particularly above 20,000 feet, correct?

Both water injection and paddle bladed propellors with cooling cuffs were
needed to improve low altitude perfomance where the P47 was initialy at a
speed disadvantage.

P-47B. This was the first production model, and 171 were built. Deliveries
started late in 1942, and some went into action in Europe on April 8, 1943.
In combat, the P-47B-RE had inadequate climbing and maneuverability, but it
had plenty of speed and firepower. It also had excellent diving capability,
and its heavy structure could absorb terrific punishment. Its wingspan was
40 feet, 9 inches; area, 300 square feet; gross weight, 13,360 pounds; top
speed, 429mph at 27,800 feet.


The P47C and P47D made dramatic improvements over the B model that relate to
an 13 inch extension to the engine position. I have seen references more
than once that some P47 development preceded on the basis of besting the FW
190A (roll rate I believe). The 13 inch extension was credited with a
major improvement in manouverabillity and entered production for the P47C
although some P47B airframes were modiefied with an 8 inch extension for
maintenance reasons.


SNIP
The Ju388L was in production for around 6 months in 1944, with
around 10 converted from Ju188 and 60 built new. Those 600
engines must have had a very short lifetime if all they did was power
the Ju388L. The night fighter version appears to be more prototypes
than production.

Not all aircraft entered service. All the sources i have seen credit it
with a production run of 300.

I note none of the "sources" are provided, only the claim of
multiple sources, the Ju388L was not a high priority item in
1944, the need was for fighters, the jets could take over
reconnaissance, production numbers were of the order of
60 to 70.

Where are your sources?

According to this source we are both wrong.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...unkers_388.htm
Under the "Hubertus" program of 1944, plans called for production of 300-400
Ju-388s a month at seven different manufacturers. But only 176 were
completed by the war's end, mostly at Allgemeine Transportanlagen
Gesellschaft in the Leipzig suburb of Mockau



The night fighter did not enter service as the BMW801T version was no
faster
than a standard Ju 88G7 with BMW801D at the altitudes British bombers
could
fly at. It was an iron in the fire should the B29 appear.

The US could have deployed hundreds of B-29s in Europe
in 1944, given what appeared in the Pacific. The JU388J
prototype did not fly until early 1944 and needed a new type
of pressure cabin given the radar being fitted. The Germans
had considerable problems designing good pressure cabins,
and work was slow. The J version was not an iron in the fire,
more like the metal to make the axe to chop down the tree to
build the fire to put the iron in.

There were plenty of pressure cabine aircraft produced. They were simply
reduced in number for economcy reasons.

The Me109G-5 was produced in large numbers but not as large numbers as its
unpressurised version the Me 109G6. The TA 152 was ofcourse pressurised as
was the Me 262.

Presumably any problems ecountered during development of German aircraft is
proof to you of the failure of the type. Thus if a prototype leaked air
due to faulty sealing foam then that is all the proof you need?

Finally the Ju 388 was not needed. There were no B29s in Europe. The Me
262B with radar would have dealt with it in anycase. The Jumo 004D with
duplex injectors (overcoming high altitude thin air flameouts) were also
entering production and this would have pushed the aircrafts opperational
altitude well above the B29s service ceiling. Even without this it was
capable of reaching the B29.




(The Ju 388 seems to have had the same type of periscopic sighting
system
as
used on the A26 invader only it had twin 13.1mm MG in a remote tail
turret)

However Fock-Wulf decided to install water cooled V12s into the Fw 190
to
get high altitude performance. The 432 mph Fw 190D9 had a jumo 213A
enigine but the Fw190D11 and Fw190D12 (only 70 entered service) had a
Jumo
213E engine with the same two stage intercooler arrangement as the
Merlin
in
the Mustang and could manage 460mph.

Be careful here, the later versions of the D series are mainly paper
projects or prototypes. And the WWII engines used a water glycol
cooling mixture, rather like many modern motor vehicles, hence
liquid cooled, not water cooled.

A few dozen of the FW190D-12 entered service. Deliveries started in Feb
1945 so there is little record of them. Even less entered service than
the
Ta 152H

It would be good to actually back this up, the information I
have is they were first made in March 1945 which means
they missed service.

The D-10 replaced the fuselage machine guns with a 30mm cannon
firing through the propeller spinner. Couple of prototypes

The D-11 was a D-9 with the Jumo213F with MW-50, several prototypes
built.

It apparently had 2 20mm and 2 30 mm cannon.

The D-12 was the ground attack version, the D-10 armament, with
an armoured installation of the Jumo 213F, production began in
March 1945. It is doubtful any actually entered service. Fw190A/D
production in March 1945 is said to be 204, and zero in April.

The D-13 with the Jumo213EB and 2 20 mm cannon, 2 prototypes
built.

3 x 20mm canon. Models after the D9 series dropped the cowling guns but
added a propellor hub guns either 20mm, 30mm.

Sorry, typo the 2 should have been a 3 20 mm cannon.

The D-14 with the DB603A engine, 2 built.

Jumo 213 and DB603 engines had interchangeable mounts and were available
as
'power eggs' complete with integrated anular radiators.


The D-15 with the DB603EB engine, paper project.

Oddly for such an engine seems to have
been heavily armoured for ground attack and torpedo bombing (they were
used
by the Soviets after the war for this) Apparently the annular
radiators
of
the German V12s were quite battle damage tollerant as well as
aerodynanic.

It seems unlikely the designers would put lots of high altitude
features into a ground attack version.

It seems to have been intended to be a multirole combat aircraft.

Alternatively the information being presented is faulty.

The same type of engine jumo 213E with more performance ended up in
the
475mph TA 152 H0 and TA 152H1 (H-1 had wet fuel tanks in its wooden
wings
for greater range) as this had very large wings it could not only fly
extremely high it could out turn any Allied fighter.

The Ta152H-1 had an empty weight of around 8,900 pounds supported
by a wing area of 251 square feet, The Spitfire XIV had an empty weight
of around 6,600 pounds and wing area of 242 square feet. I doubt the
TA152H with its long wings would win a turning contest with a Spitfire
XIV except at very high altitudes.

When comparing "empty weights", you have to be careful about what is
included in the figures. Depending on the definition, weapons, radio gear
and other operational equipment might be included or not. I'd only
seriously
compare empty weights if I have a complete weight break-down where every
item is listed seperately. Unfortunately, for some types such data is
hard
to find.

In other words rather than note it the Ta152H-1 had an empty
weight around a ton lower than the Spitfire and indeed around
the loaded weight of the Spitfire XIV you will announce that shock
horror, the Spitfire could have weighed a little more empty. Anything
but actually confront the problems with the "best turning" claim.

What does empty mean? Does it include all radios, guns, dingies etc that
can add up to hundreds of pounds?




The long wings of the Ta 152H reduced the fantastic roll rate compared to
the Fw 190A and Fw 190D.

To put it mildly, given the inevitable effects of long wings and the
need to watch wing loadings.

Assuming that the wing loading of the TA 152H was higher than the Spit
XIV
(assuming Griffon 65 variant to allow the spit half a chance to match
speed)
then the higher aspect ratio wings of the TA152 might still be more
efficient. Because of the higher aspect ratio they would be more
efficient
and probably have less induced drag so the aircraft would wash of less
airspeed.

Ah I see, the claim of always is now "might" no real information
just a whole lot of I hopes.

Find a test that proves that the Spit could out turn the Ta 152H.


By the way just how much faster was the Ta152 after it had used
it MW-50 and GM-1, say compared to the Spitfire HF IX? Or for
that matter the Spitfire VII?

GM-1 in particular was an excellent compensation for the lower octane fuels
available to the Luftwaffe and MW-50 to an lessor extent. GM1 added a lot
of weight but it was the only way to get around the octan lag the Germans
suffered. Allies simply loaded up with 150 octane and found that the
slight improvement that GM-1 would have offered with fuel this good was not
worth the weightmof adding things such as GM1. There was some 10 minutes
of GM-1 available as I recall.



Turning circle is usually measured at sustained speed without loosing
altitude. For instance a Spit might turn inside a Me 109F but the 109
pilot could pull G, use his automatic slats to warn him of incipient
stall
and bleed of speed faster to turn inside the spit anyway. Of course you
don't get to play this trick indefinetly.

I like this, please show all those Bf109 pilots that survived turning
contests with a Spitfire. How many did so regularly. The Bf109
was easily out turned by the Spitfire, unless the Bf109 was moving
much slower, end of story. The Spitfire had the further advantage
of a much better signalled stall than either the Fw190 of Bf109.
The Bf109 wing slats had a habit of deploying asymmetrically,
which caused aiming problems and was a fun effect near the stall.

I think that might be incorrect. A 109 might turn inside a Spitfire using
this techniqe but he presumably had only 1 turn or less to do it since he
would loose energy and speed and thus allow the spitfire to regain the upper
hand.

The Me 109 might have had a shakey stall due to its slats but this also
warning of incipient stall. Furthermore the spitfire had a nasty stall and
could spin away. The spits advantage was its big wing, made possible by
high octane fuel restoring the power to weight ratio it would otherwise have
losts with its small discplacement light weight merlin engine. The wing
had a habbit of twisting and increasing the washout angle thus warning the
pilot.


****************
PS most links work.

http://www.jg53.com/html/history/air...axis-bf109.htm

I dispute your claim that the Spit could outturn a 109. The reason being,
any test that showed the Spit could outturn a 109 was done at a constant
speed (Minimum radius of turn without loss of height) . This is a flawed
test because in combat the 109 pilot used the tactic of dumping speed
rapidly and making a slower and sharper turn than the Spit was capable of.
Remember the 109 had those leading edge slats? That's what they were for!

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Spitfire had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and this would
normally give the better turning circle. However the 109 had help with it's
leading edge slats which gave a lower stalling speed, and thus was able to
turn tighter than a simple comparison of wing areas might suggest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Two very different appraisals of the turning circles of the Spitfire and
Bf109 can be found in the books "Fighter" by Len Deighton and "The Most
Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. The former has a diagram showing the
Bf109s turning circle to be inside that of the Spitfire (750 feet and 880
feet respectively) while the latter has a diagram showing the opposite (850
feet and 700 feet respectively). Crucially all the tests of mock combats
between captured Bf109s and Spitfires always give the Spitfire the edge.


http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Though the Spitfire had a tighter turn radius, the advantage was more
theoretical than real since the Messerschmitt's automatic wing slats warned
the pilot of impending stalls, enabling average pilots to get the most out
of the machine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


http://people.history.ohio-state.edu...b/6252ls13.htm

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning
circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats
gave a lower stalling speed.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jazzitoria/aspit-2.htm

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.
A Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. A
Messerschmitt pilot will tell you the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire!
The truth is that both designs were capable of turning circles that would
cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot
who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would
emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme
faith in their machine. The British aeronautical press told them that the
wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some
early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.

However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning
circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats
gave a lower stalling speed. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with no
tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that
the Spitfire was prone to. Thus a Messerschmitt pilot was more at home at
low speeds than his British counterpart.


5. As for the 109G-2 vs the Mk IX just look at the performance graphs, the
109G-2 is faster than the MK IX right up to 23000 ft. The 109 also outclimbs
the Spit below 10000 ft and they are roughly equal between 10000 ft and
18000 ft. Once again the Spit doesn't dominate until the higher altitudes.


By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?

1 probably can't wash of speed as fast
2 It isn't as manouverable at low speed.

Note this would refer to the Me 109F series.



Most sources rate the Ta152H series top speed in the 460 to 470mph
range, the using MW-50 and GM-1. What is the source that claims the
wings were wooden as opposed to metal?

You can tell a Fw 190D9 from a Fw 190D11/D12/D13 by the latter lacking
cowl
guns and having an oval air intage instead of round and using a cannon
firing through the propeller boss. One of these (The Fw 190 D13 I
think)
was to end up with a long barreled Mk 103 30mm cannon as a tank
buster.
It
was this aircraft that I guess would have finaly replaced the Stuka.


The D-12 would be the replacement for the G model.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.