Focke Wulf Fw 190/Ta 152 Projects & Variants
- Thread starter Justo Miranda
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,842
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Is something known about this aircraft and its properties, flight characteristics et al?
Why wouldn't they have gone with this configuration? It looks like a Hayate from above.
Hi Spicmart,
The article in Flugzeug Classic 06/2007 explains that the wing was redesigned based on the A-2 to allow the installation of different engines. The wing was moved forward by 120 mm, with the landing gear geometry being changed so that the wheels are 220 mm forward of the original position.
As the caption in the above scan is not entirely legible: It's "Focke-Wulf FW 190 V19, FW 190WD1". No explanation what "WD1" might mean is provided.
(The armament captions are hard to decipher even in the original, but it looks like MG 151 in the wing root, MG 131 in the cowl, and an MK 108 as engine cannon to me.)
Basically, Focke-Wulf compared the Fw 190's performance as a defense fighter with the following engines:
- BMW 801C, BMW 801D, BMW 801J (turbo-supercharged 801), BMW P. 8028 (two-stage supercharged 801 with intercooler)
- DB 603, DB 614 (improved, high-altitude DB 603), DB 623 (turbo-charged DB 603)
- Jumo 213 A2, Jumo 213 "mit Vorstufe", Jumo 213 with intercooler
(It's not entirely clear to me what "mit Vorstufe" means ... as it's also called "axiale Vorstufe" in the text, maybe it's the swirl throttle?)
The DB 623 wouldn't have fit into the new airframe, but was included in the comparison anyway. The DB 609 and DB 624 (extreme high-altitude DB 603 with 15 km full throttle height) wouldn't have fit and were disregarded for the comparison.
The criterion for the performance was the maximum distance from the take-off point that the defense fighter could reach in 20 minutes, given a defined combat altitude. The combat altitudes considered were 6 km, 10 km and 11 km.
The DB 603-engined variant ranked first for 6 km and 10 km. If armament was reduced, it also ranked first for 11 km.
The DB 614-engined variant ranked fourth for 6 km, but second for 10 km and 11 km.
The Jumo 213 with pre-stage and the Jumo 213 A2 (with also had a pre-stage) ranked second and third for 6 km, and third and fourth for 10 km, but didn't make it to 11 km within 20 minutes. These engines apparently ran on C3 fuel, as the Jumo 213 A2 has an additional entry marked with "87 octane".
The DB 623 as extreme high-altitude engine was poor for 6 km and nothing special for 10 km, but ranked third for 11 km.
The BMW 801J was ranked fourth and last of the engines that reached 11 km, and took last place for 6 km and for 10 km as well. (Disregarding the poor old BMW 801C, which didn't make it to 10 km in 20 min).
All other engines did not make it to 11 km in 20 min either.
I would argue that the strong emphasis on climb performance probably was not really reflecting the performance requirements a fighter for the defense of the airspace over Germany would require, but as this comparison was done in April 1942, Focke-Wulf (and the RLM) probably didn't really have a realistic idea yet of what would be required in 1943 and 1944.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The article in Flugzeug Classic 06/2007 explains that the wing was redesigned based on the A-2 to allow the installation of different engines. The wing was moved forward by 120 mm, with the landing gear geometry being changed so that the wheels are 220 mm forward of the original position.
As the caption in the above scan is not entirely legible: It's "Focke-Wulf FW 190 V19, FW 190WD1". No explanation what "WD1" might mean is provided.
(The armament captions are hard to decipher even in the original, but it looks like MG 151 in the wing root, MG 131 in the cowl, and an MK 108 as engine cannon to me.)
Basically, Focke-Wulf compared the Fw 190's performance as a defense fighter with the following engines:
- BMW 801C, BMW 801D, BMW 801J (turbo-supercharged 801), BMW P. 8028 (two-stage supercharged 801 with intercooler)
- DB 603, DB 614 (improved, high-altitude DB 603), DB 623 (turbo-charged DB 603)
- Jumo 213 A2, Jumo 213 "mit Vorstufe", Jumo 213 with intercooler
(It's not entirely clear to me what "mit Vorstufe" means ... as it's also called "axiale Vorstufe" in the text, maybe it's the swirl throttle?)
The DB 623 wouldn't have fit into the new airframe, but was included in the comparison anyway. The DB 609 and DB 624 (extreme high-altitude DB 603 with 15 km full throttle height) wouldn't have fit and were disregarded for the comparison.
The criterion for the performance was the maximum distance from the take-off point that the defense fighter could reach in 20 minutes, given a defined combat altitude. The combat altitudes considered were 6 km, 10 km and 11 km.
The DB 603-engined variant ranked first for 6 km and 10 km. If armament was reduced, it also ranked first for 11 km.
The DB 614-engined variant ranked fourth for 6 km, but second for 10 km and 11 km.
The Jumo 213 with pre-stage and the Jumo 213 A2 (with also had a pre-stage) ranked second and third for 6 km, and third and fourth for 10 km, but didn't make it to 11 km within 20 minutes. These engines apparently ran on C3 fuel, as the Jumo 213 A2 has an additional entry marked with "87 octane".
The DB 623 as extreme high-altitude engine was poor for 6 km and nothing special for 10 km, but ranked third for 11 km.
The BMW 801J was ranked fourth and last of the engines that reached 11 km, and took last place for 6 km and for 10 km as well. (Disregarding the poor old BMW 801C, which didn't make it to 10 km in 20 min).
All other engines did not make it to 11 km in 20 min either.
I would argue that the strong emphasis on climb performance probably was not really reflecting the performance requirements a fighter for the defense of the airspace over Germany would require, but as this comparison was done in April 1942, Focke-Wulf (and the RLM) probably didn't really have a realistic idea yet of what would be required in 1943 and 1944.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Airborne2001
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 19 June 2020
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 126
The wing layout is giving me Japan vibes.
Dagger
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 24 December 2019
- Messages
- 297
- Reaction score
- 491
I am not German but nevertheless I would expect that in Germany a swirl throttle would probably be called "verstellbare Leitschaufeln".
"axiale Vorstufe" would in my mind refer to an "axial stage before" the supercharger impeller eye, maybe similar to a small diameter inducer upstream the impeller eye like some centrifugal pumps and centrifugal compressors nowadays have.
Maybe it is just another name for what is called "Vorsatzläufer" in this image:
I'd say that strictly speaking the "verstellbare Leitschaufeln" = 'adjustable guide vanes' are only components of the swirl throttle, which is called "Dralldrossel" ('spin throttle', as it imparts a spin on the throttled air mass), but basically, everything else than the vanes is of secondary importance for the swirl throttle's function
That would seem like a possible explanation. Slightly odd that this would be considered an additional stage as I believe it's firmly bolted to the supercharger wheel, being a separate piece only for manufacturing reasons, but on the other hand, the Jumo engineers knew that their older supercharger wheels didn't have these vanes, so they might have had a different perspective.
If there was a point in the life of the Jumo 213A where it didn't have this Vorsatzläufer I'd say that would confirm your suggestion.
The Flugzeug Classic 06/2007 article mentions the following Jumo 213 variants:
"Jumo 213":
- single stage, without axial pre-stage, without intercooler, base engine for the Fw 190 V19 airframe
"Jumo 213 A-2":
- single stage, with axial pre-stage, without intercooler, base engine for the Fw 190 V19 airframe
"Jumo 213":
- two-stage with intercooler, base engine for the Fw 190 V19 airframe
The table with the comparison results then confuses matter a bit by listing the following engines:
1) "Jumo 213 with pre-stage" (which according to the list above would have to be the Jumo 213 A-2)
2) "Jumo 213 A 2" (which nominally actually *is* the Jumo 213 A-2, but gets different results from engine #1)
3) "Jumo 213 with intercooler" (which would be the two-stage engine)
4) "Jumo 213 A 2 (87 octane)", which probably is the same as engine #2 running on different fuel
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 5,988
- Reaction score
- 4,833
I must be misunderstanding something, because I didn't think 400m was particularly bad for a fighter's guns. Besides, they're getting set to converge at some distance, usually 100-200m in front of the plane.
It'd be considered a separate stage in a jet engine, too. If designed correctly, you should get at least a 1.2x increase in pressure per axial stage and up to a 7x increase per centrifugal stage.
Hi Scott,
Good point.
The USAAF officially considered 1200 ft (slightly less than 400m) the limit of effective range:
The manual also states:
Note that from the context provided elsewhere in the manual, this statement applies to the centreline mounted guns in the P-38, and the less rigid gun installations in fighters' wings combined with the convergence/divergence geometry reduces the bullet density even further.
USAAF pilots were aware of this effect - quoting Major Riemensnider (from "Combat Profile: Mustang" by Roger Freeman:
"Boots" Blesse wrote in his "No Guts, No Glory" ( http://www.simhq.com/_air/PDF/NGNG.pdf ) ...
The US report No. 727 of Ballistic Reserach Laboratory (part of the Aberdeen Proving Ground organization, I believe) provides details on a dataset for P-47 fighters engaging the Luftwaffe in 229 separate encounters during which 1053 bursts were fired, and the data shows that about 85% of the bursts were fired at less than 600 yards (550). That's probably an indication of how far optimistic fighter pilots were willing to stretch it ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Good point.
The USAAF officially considered 1200 ft (slightly less than 400m) the limit of effective range:
Air Forces Manual No. 64 Fighter Gunnery Firing Rockets Dive Bombing 1 May 1945 : US Army Air Force : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
World War 2 Air Force Manual for employment of guns, rockets and bombs. Includes Harmonization patterns.
archive.org
The manual also states:
Note that from the context provided elsewhere in the manual, this statement applies to the centreline mounted guns in the P-38, and the less rigid gun installations in fighters' wings combined with the convergence/divergence geometry reduces the bullet density even further.
USAAF pilots were aware of this effect - quoting Major Riemensnider (from "Combat Profile: Mustang" by Roger Freeman:
"Boots" Blesse wrote in his "No Guts, No Glory" ( http://www.simhq.com/_air/PDF/NGNG.pdf ) ...
The US report No. 727 of Ballistic Reserach Laboratory (part of the Aberdeen Proving Ground organization, I believe) provides details on a dataset for P-47 fighters engaging the Luftwaffe in 229 separate encounters during which 1053 bursts were fired, and the data shows that about 85% of the bursts were fired at less than 600 yards (550). That's probably an indication of how far optimistic fighter pilots were willing to stretch it ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Airborne2001
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 19 June 2020
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 126
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cr_Ar_jubgw/?igsh=MWxwdnZydnA2eTZ6OQ==
Can anyone please confirm the existence of a Jumo 213I that could produce 2,700HP, and that it was intended for the Ta-152H by November? I am aware of the Jumo 213EB and its planned installation by July 1945, but this other development is new to me.
Can anyone please confirm the existence of a Jumo 213I that could produce 2,700HP, and that it was intended for the Ta-152H by November? I am aware of the Jumo 213EB and its planned installation by July 1945, but this other development is new to me.
That should probably be Jumo 213J, not 213I - a typo, IMO.
Airborne2001
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 19 June 2020
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 126
Was the 213J only 2,400HP though? This higher figure is new to me. (Unless I have not read the best sources as of yet.)
Dagger
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 24 December 2019
- Messages
- 297
- Reaction score
- 491
Dietmar Hermann mentions a Jumo 213 I that was supposed to be introduced in service in November 1945 with 2700 hp take-off power (Startleistung) and 1900 hp at 10,000 meters. Not clear where he got that info.
The Jumo 213 J would have a lower power than that:
The Jumo 213 J would have a lower power than that:
Airborne2001
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 19 June 2020
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 126
So an unknown development for late 1945 perhaps? Interesting.
Hi,
It's an old German typographic convention that capital "I" letters are type-set as capital "J" letters. As far as I know, during WW2 there was never a distinction between I and J versions in terms of aviation equipment or aircraft, even if in different typographical contexts a capital "I" might have been used.
(Probably the best-known example from an aviation context is WW1's heavily armoured Junkers J.I, where the "J" designation stood for "Infanterieflieger" = 'Infantry Aircraft'.)
So, I would suspect that both the I and J designations refer to the same basic engine type, regardless of different reported performance and capabilities. Especially late in the war, there was a lot of hectic redefining of project goals going on.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
It's an old German typographic convention that capital "I" letters are type-set as capital "J" letters. As far as I know, during WW2 there was never a distinction between I and J versions in terms of aviation equipment or aircraft, even if in different typographical contexts a capital "I" might have been used.
(Probably the best-known example from an aviation context is WW1's heavily armoured Junkers J.I, where the "J" designation stood for "Infanterieflieger" = 'Infantry Aircraft'.)
So, I would suspect that both the I and J designations refer to the same basic engine type, regardless of different reported performance and capabilities. Especially late in the war, there was a lot of hectic redefining of project goals going on.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Dagger
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 24 December 2019
- Messages
- 297
- Reaction score
- 491
It seems you are right.
ln another Flugzeug Classic article from Sept 2006 about the Ta 152 Dietmar Hermann quotes the same data as above while referring to the Jumo 213 J
Especially interesting is the mentioned additioinal exhaust thrust of 300 kg (660 pounds) at 10.000 meters which would be the same as the Jumo 004 or BMW 003 at this height.
Calum Douglas once gave a figure as high as 2900 PS with MW50 and B4 for the Jumo 213J.
It could get comparably the most power out of mediocre-quality fuel.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 5,988
- Reaction score
- 4,833
Ah, that's cheating a bit. Water injection (to cool the intake charge via evaporative cooling) and Nitrous Oxide (to add more oxygen and cool the intake charge even more) let you run more boost than the fuel can support without detonation.
Airborne2001
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 19 June 2020
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 126
On the topic of the Jumo 213J, can anyone confirm the existence of a Ta-152B-7 that was intended to use this as its powerplant? I've only seen airwar.ru mention the existence of such a variant.
Calum should know when he says the Jumo 213J was the most advanced engine of the war.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 5,988
- Reaction score
- 4,833
Not arguing that they didn't make the power, just that they cheated to get there.
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,842
- Reaction score
- 2,544
Hi folks,
I highly recommend all German understanding members the newest issue, part eight and the final part of this German bookazine series.
It will be about the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 and its versions Ta 152 A/B, C, E and H.
For example, on page 31 are three new pictures of the prototype Ta 152 C V7 published.
The drawings are this time from the artists Asen Atanasow and Stefan Draminski.
Here the content:
Links:
Focke Wulf Ta 152
Mit diesem achten und letzten Teil unserer großen Reihe über die Fw 190 erzählt Dietmar Hermann die ganze Geschichte der Ta 152. Hierbei lassen wir vor allem die ehemaligen Ta-Piloten zu Wort kommen: Wie hat sich die Ta 152...
www.flugzeugclassic.de
Focke Wulf Ta 152
Mit diesem achten und letzten Teil unserer großen Reihe über die Fw 190 erzählt Dietmar Hermann die ganze Geschichte der Ta 152. Hierbei lassen wir vor allem die ehemaligen Ta-Piloten zu Wort kommen: Wie hat sich die Ta 152...
www.geramond.de
Last edited: