PDA

View Full Version : Did the FW190-dora make a difference?



frag_bravo
01-26-2004, 10:37 AM
Did this *****er bird make contact with the 8th airforce.Did it pounce on the little friends such as the p-51? did it leave reckage and carnage in its wake?..or was it a day late and a dallor short?

frag_bravo
01-26-2004, 10:37 AM
Did this *****er bird make contact with the 8th airforce.Did it pounce on the little friends such as the p-51? did it leave reckage and carnage in its wake?..or was it a day late and a dallor short?

JG26Red
01-26-2004, 10:45 AM
YES it was effective

DangerForward
01-26-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
Did this *****er bird make contact with the 8th airforce.Did it pounce on the little friends such as the p-51? did it leave reckage and carnage in its wake?..or was it a day late and a dallor short?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I've read the advantages of the D9 versus bombers was that it didn't need escort to attack bombers(as the Antons did), and was very good for pilot survival. The fact that it didn't need escort was a force multiplier since it freed up 109s for attacking bombers also.

DangerForward

horseback
01-26-2004, 11:23 AM
The Dora was an excellant fighter, providing individual parity for its pilots, but it WAS "a day late and a dollar short" due to its late war debut and the way it was forced to be used.

It rarely got up to high altitudes in large numbers to oppose the "heavies" in the way its designers hoped. Had it arrived in February instead of September of 1944, it might well have delayed D-Day for a year or more (bearing in mind that the tide/moon phase requirements limited acceptable landing dates).

It could have nullified the 'Mustang advantage' of that spring's offensive, which is what pretty much ended the LW's standing as a credible force in the West.

But it didn't, and how well it MIGHT have performed had it been available when it could have made a difference is fodder for endless and fruitless debate. Most of the pilots capable of making effective use of it were dead or hospitalized before it was available, and control of Europe's sky had already been violently and permanently taken by the Allied Air Forces.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

michapma
01-26-2004, 12:41 PM
The Dora-9 (could have) won the war! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)

faustnik
01-26-2004, 01:42 PM
The Dora might have given the LW parity with the best Allied fighters, but, could not solve the LW's pilot shortage. Some German rookie Dora pilot with 20hrs of flight training would stand little chance against a bunch of Mustang cowboys with 200 combat hours under their belts.

The Dora was way too little, way too late.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Bremspropeller
01-26-2004, 01:52 PM
Amen Reverend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

carguy_
01-26-2004, 01:59 PM
WAit till LW gets Ta152Hhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

resev
01-26-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
WAit till LW gets Ta152Hhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It will make no diference whatsoever.
You still won't be able to effectivly fight on low level, where the vast majority of online war is taken.

Go way up there, and you are king, come down below and you are owned, and unless you want to go bird watching, you'l have to come down below sometime.

All you'l have is more speed and stability, not much more.

I do however, expect it to perform better in low alt than the A, alltough i still favor the A4 for this task.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

kyrule2
01-26-2004, 02:26 PM
The Antons only needed an escort when they were the "Sturm" variant, loaded with heavier armament and increased armor. Both 109's and 190A's escorted the Sturm variants. The Dora did not change this as it was designed as an higher altitude interceptor, but still had insufficient armament to combat bombers. The Dora was a good replacement for the 190A escorts, but as a bomber interceptor the A-8 Sturm variants were very effective and there are many accounts of the effectiveness of the increased armor (which made the plane ineffective as a fighter). The added armor of the 190 "F" variants was also very effective at combating small/light AA fire from the ground though anything heavier usually meant you were going down.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Thrawn888
01-26-2004, 05:49 PM
resev said:

"It will make no diference whatsoever.
You still won't be able to effectivly fight on low level, where the vast majority of online war is taken.

Go way up there, and you are king, come down below and you are owned, and unless you want to go bird watching, you'l have to come down below sometime.

All you'l have is more speed and stability, not much more.

I do however, expect it to perform better in low alt than the A, alltough i still favor the A4 for this task."


well i thought id inform you the ta152C is being modelled while it likely wont make it for the add-on it is a low-mid alt performer and has superior firepower to the H variant and will likely own the low alt region when it comes out. armament ( 4x 20mm 1X 30mm (103)in nose )

Copperhead310th
01-26-2004, 07:04 PM
lol that's why we have the P-39/63 & P-38's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

faustnik
01-26-2004, 07:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
lol that's why we have the P-39/63 & P-38's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

QUOTE]

You're comparing a P-38 and P-39 to a Ta152C? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

The P-63, well at low altitudes, I'll give you that one. The KingCobra will rule.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

FW190fan
01-26-2004, 07:42 PM
Is there any official conformation for the Ta-152C?

In the past it was reserved for Oleg and he said they would add it if they had the time. Then nothing else was said about it. Has someone else taken this project over and if so, is it official?

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Bearcat99
01-26-2004, 08:00 PM
It didnt make a difference in the outcome of the war but it did give Allied pilots fits. It is or was a superb piece of machinery.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

p1ngu666
01-26-2004, 08:13 PM
yeah someone did
152 is a 190 with bigger wings and engine and guns?
someone, somewhere in germany finaly decide that being able to turn was handy?

MiloMorai
01-26-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yeah someone did
152 is a 190 with bigger wings and engine and guns?
someone, somewhere in germany finaly decide that being able to turn was handy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The BMW801(41.8L) was bigger and the Ta152H used the same engine as the Dora 9 &gt; Jumo213(35L). The DB603 of the Ta152C was bigger(44.5L).



Long live the Horse Clans.

VW-IceFire
01-26-2004, 08:55 PM
One on one it was a good bird. In the grand scheme of things...not a huge impact.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

robban75
01-26-2004, 11:29 PM
frag_bravo,

I suggest you buy the book, "Green hearts, first in combat with the Dora-9". It will tell you why the entrance of this exeptional bird really didn't matter much. It's an amazing book. When I started reading it, I couldn't put it away for a second! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif It's expensive, but well worth it IMHO.

Anyways, horseback pretty much hits the nail on the head with his reply.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

fiesetrix
01-27-2004, 02:59 AM
The FW190 D-9 was a comptitive late war fighter, however, the majority of German late war pilots were too inexperienced to use it properly. In addition, the shortage of high-octane aviation gasoline also had a negative effect on combat readiness of those "too little, too late" Luftwaffe fighters. Another point was the lousy manufacturing quality of those planes, due to a shortage of qualified workers. Thus, especially the engines had a very short live-span.

Fehler
01-27-2004, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fiesetrix:
The FW190 D-9 was a comptitive late war fighter, however, the majority of German late war pilots were too inexperienced to use it properly. In addition, the shortage of high-octane aviation gasoline also had a negative effect on combat readiness of those "too little, too late" Luftwaffe fighters. Another point was the lousy manufacturing quality of those planes, due to a shortage of qualified workers. Thus, especially the engines had a very short live-span.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your statements except for the last one:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another point was the lousy manufacturing quality of those planes, due to a shortage of qualified workers. Thus, especially the engines had a very short live-span<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact is one of the reasons for the Dora was an abundance of powerplants for the aircraft. The BMW engines were in steep demand, but there were many Jumo's to be used. Secondly, the manufacturing process of the 190 was unique in Germany. Many parts were crafted in different factories, wooden parts in family owned (Contracted) furniture shops. The plane was assembled and shipped in sections to be completed elsewhere. The overall quality of the aircraft was superb, even at the end of the war. Unlike the Messerschmit process, there was no centralized factory to bomb.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

DangerForward
01-27-2004, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by resev:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
WAit till LW gets Ta152Hhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It will make no diference whatsoever.
You still won't be able to effectivly fight on low level, where the vast majority of online war is taken.

Go way up there, and you are king, come down below and you are owned, and unless you want to go bird watching, you'l have to come down below sometime.

All you'l have is more speed and stability, not much more.

I do however, expect it to perform better in low alt than the A, alltough i still favor the A4 for this task.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it will be effective at all altitudes. Even though it was designed for high altitudes I think it was mainly used at lower levels due to circumstances in the war.

I think its strengths will be speed, firepower and turning radius(compared to other FWs).

DangerFoward

Huckebein_FW
01-27-2004, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The Dora was an excellant fighter, providing individual parity for its pilots, but it WAS "a day late and a dollar short" due to its late war debut and the way it was forced to be used.

It rarely got up to high altitudes in large numbers to oppose the "heavies" in the way its designers hoped. Had it arrived in February instead of September of 1944, it might well have delayed D-Day for a year or more (bearing in mind that the tide/moon phase requirements limited acceptable landing dates).

It could have nullified the 'Mustang advantage' of that spring's offensive, which is what pretty much ended the LW's standing as a credible force in the West.

But it didn't, and how well it MIGHT have performed had it been available when it could have made a difference is fodder for endless and fruitless debate. Most of the pilots capable of making effective use of it were dead or hospitalized before it was available, and control of Europe's sky had already been violently and permanently taken by the Allied Air Forces.

Cheers

horseback
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all Dora was not neither "a day late or a dollar short". It would have been if it represented an improvement over the FW-190 models already in production. But it wasn't. First deliveries for Fw-190A9 were made at the beginning of the autumn in '44. Just like the D9 with 1900 PS Jumo + MW50 kit (actually the MW50 kit was available for the 1770PS engine too in summer of '44). MW50 Dora performance was identical with that of A9. The reason why Dora was introduced alongside A9 was because RLM feared a shortage of engines and wanted that all the planes (except those using DB605) to be capable to use two different powerplants. Pure logistic reasons. The competition between the Antons and Doras continued until the end of war, Jumo reaching 2650PS (I don't know if a Dora so equipped saw combat). A9 had a 2300PS powerplant, without using MW50, which could be added if more HP were necessary.

Did you say Mustang had advantages over Fw-190 that had to be nullified?? What advantages? Pretty face?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

horseback
01-27-2004, 12:10 PM
Wow! Say the magic words "endless and fruitless debate" and look who shows up. Welcome back, Huck. Have a good holiday?

As the thread title says, did the Dora make a difference? I (and I believe everyone else responding to the question) took that to mean "Did it change the course of the air war in Europe?" --not "was it a big improvement over the latest version of the Anton?"

My answer was that it did not, because it arrived AFTER the Allied air forces had established overall air superiority, in the process making casualties of the majority of pilots skilled enough to make the fullest use of the Dora's virtues, which I agree are indisputable.

The Anton 9 didn't come up in my appraisal at all, because A) I don't profess to know a heck of a lot about it; B) It didn't get a lot of notice at the time of its introduction, because in flight, it was outwardly so similar in appearance to the A-7 and A-8; C) As with the Dora, the Air War was already lost when it arrived.

To reiterate: had the Dora, the subject of this thread, been available in sufficient numbers in the late winter/early spring of 1944, it would probably have had a major impact on the air offensive leading up to D-Day. I say this because I believe that the performance advantages of the Allied escorts at higher altitudes over the LW's primary bomber interceptor, the FW-190A-7/8, would have been nullified IF the FW-190As were replaced by FW-190Ds.

The Antons defending the Reich at that time (Jan-May 1944) had a noticeable performance dropoff above around 7000m, while the American escorts were optimized for the higher altitudes that our bomber flew at. While the relatively fewer 109s had similar performance to the escort when they were not burdened with gun tubs or rocket tubes, they lacked endurance and hitting power by comparison to the 190, and the bombers were, after all, their real targets. In addition, neither type could easily disengage, due to the superior dive charactoristics of the Jug and the Mustang (If I can catch you in two miles, running for a safe spot three miles away is not a good choice).

The Dora had comparable performance to the P-47D and P-51B at altitudes over 7000m, and retained the good endurance and terrific punch of the Anton, which would have made bombing German targets much more difficult. That it didn't arrive until after the critical period, and that it arrived in too few numbers to reverse the situation is what makes it "a day late and a dollar short."

That's an American colloquialism; it has a specific meaning, which I just defined for you. The key requirements are 1)Late, and 2) Insufficient quantity, in application to a specific problem.

Hope that clears it up for you. There was no slur upon the quality of the aircraft, simply a statement of opinion regarding what the timing of its arrival had upon its impact on the air war.

Cheers and I AM glad to see you back,

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

MiloMorai
01-27-2004, 12:46 PM
"A9 had a 2300PS powerplant, without using MW50, which could be added if more HP were necessary."

You sure about that Huck? It was an either - or because the fuel injection boost was used instead of the MW.



Long live the Horse Clans.

DONB3397
01-27-2004, 12:51 PM
Voila! A good E & F debate over known data points.

Short version, horseback has it right: Dora was a plane designed to intercept bombers at high altitudes, it was plenty effective, and there were too few...too late.

Huck has part of it right, too. The "D" series was a "jury-rig," a revamped A with a 10-inch extension in the fuselage and a Jumo 213-A engine because BMW's 801Dg were in short supply. The TA variant was Kurt Tank's final score, with longer wings and other refinements that made it perhaps the best high altitude interceptor of the war.

Huck, "jury-rig" is another colloquialism for something that works, but is assembled in haste from parts available (not specifically designed for the product).

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCtfrFABrTvGLZQo

FW190fan
01-27-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Huck has part of it right, too. The "D" series was a "jury-rig," a revamped A with a 10-inch extension in the fuselage and a Jumo 213-A engine because BMW's 801Dg were in short supply. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, the Jumo 213 was used because there was a shortage of Daimler-Benz 600 series powerplants. The DB was what Tank wanted for the Ta-152 series aircraft.

The Jumo 213 as it turned out was far from simply an engine for bombers alone however, and proved itself to be powerful and widely adaptable. It was also equipped with a more complex automatic control system than the BMW801 had.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

TexasGunslinger
01-27-2004, 01:33 PM
In my opinion, the Dora was a magnificent combat airplane, who's actual impact was nullified by pilot proficiency issues, tactical and operational employment and the condition of the air war that she flew in.


1) I agree with everyone who cited pilot issues. By 1944 western replacement (combat rookies) pilots entered the theater 600+ flying hours, prior to their 1st combat flight. Luftwaffe replacments (Flying Officers and Feldwebels) with 60. Most of the Experten were dead, particulary by D-Day.

2) Someone said in a prior post that the Allies had established Air Superiority at this point in the war. In actuality, Air Supremecy had been achieved prior to D-Day. Sounds like a play on words, but it's an important distinction I think. Air Supremecy represents a complete strategic dominance of the skies, across the entire stategic scope of the war area, 24 hours a day, versus the more local, tactical level, temporal/spatially changing Air Superiority condition.

3) The employment of the Jagdwaffe after the Battle of France was operationally unsound, this produced by the same general political situation which undermined the Wermacht. The Oberkommando der Luftwaffe's strategic outlook, operational and even tactical employment was almost completely controlled by political figures, who were still obsessed with 'offensive' bombing and the production of bombers until the end of 1944.

4) D9's were most often employed against bombers, with orders discourging or prohibiting pilots from engaging fighter cover. You can't beat an enemy who's established Air Supremecy over you, without throwing all your effort against his fighers, for they are the Air Supremecy tools.

5) My favorite D9 driver was Addi Glunz. If you haven't heard of him, he was in JG26 for the entire war, a Feldwebel for most of it. He had 71 kills, all in in the west. A great book if you have'nt already read it is "JG 26 - Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald L. Caldwell. I think this book more than any other gives you a day/week/month by month view of one of the central German squadrons thoughout the whole war. As far as the European theatre of operations for WWII, the last job you'd probably want from a survivablity issue was that of a German replacement pilot after the fall of 1943. Very low probability of survival.

Since I'm on the subject, and I know most of you have read this (but, maybe 1 or 2 have'nt), Adolph Galland's the "First and the Last" is, I believe a great testament into Goring and Hilter's follies with the Luftwaffe.

Anyway, I got kind of long winded here...just wanted to contribute......good question...

[This message was edited by TexasGunslinger on Tue January 27 2004 at 12:45 PM.]

Thrawn888
01-27-2004, 01:36 PM
here is where i found reference to a ta152C being modelled or progress on it

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/659.html

i really hope it makes it as it is far better 1-1 than any 190 moreover it should dominate the low level area, i hope.

Blutarski2004
01-27-2004, 02:42 PM
There has been a lot of discussion about the D9 being committed against American four-engined bomber streams. According to Caldwell's book on JG26, this was not the case, at least for that unit. Almost all of their activity was against Allied tactical aviation at lower altitudes.

If the D9 was really intended to solve the high altitude problems of the A series, why did Mr Tank develop the TA-152?

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-27-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Actually, the Jumo 213 was used because there was a shortage of Daimler-Benz 600 series powerplants. The DB was what Tank wanted for the Ta-152 series aircraft.

The Jumo 213 as it turned out was far from simply an engine for bombers alone however, and proved itself to be powerful and widely adaptable. It was also equipped with a more complex automatic control system than the BMW801 had.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It makes theoretical sense that the Jumo engines were selected because they were simply available. After the LW had disbanded much of their bomber force, there must have been a large over-capacity of Jumo engine production looking for useful work.

BLUTARSKI

horseback
01-27-2004, 03:11 PM
Blutarski-

What the Dora was used for was dictated by the tactical situation at the time. Allied air units were dictating the terms of combat for the Germans. You can't climb to altitude to shoot down heavy bombers if there's a couple of Wings of Spitfires or Tempests in the way.

The 190D-9 was an evolutionary (albeit stopgap) step on the way to the Ta-152.

I think that the D-9's introduction had the same aim as that of the Spitfire MK IX; to immediately stop the bleeding until the ideal solution was available. In the Spit IX's case, it was sufficient to the need; the Dora-9, however, took too long in gestation, and didn't arrive until the situation was irretrievable.

When the Dora arrived, the unit commanders already knew that it was only a matter of time before the end, and it appears to me that many of them did no more than absolutely necessary in order to keep their people from being killed for a lost cause. Also, JG 26 at that time was essentially a forward unit; their primary task would be suppression of medium bomber and fighter bomber activity in their sector. JG 300 or 301 (for instance)might have been able to get up to the heavies once in a while.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

FW190fan
01-27-2004, 03:28 PM
The problem for the Dora was threefold:

1. Inexperienced pilots +

2. Grossly inadequate conversion training.

3. They were hideously outnumbered.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan
01-27-2004, 03:34 PM
I got the impression from Caldwell's excellent book that the Hawker Tempest was the Dora's greatest adversary, on any front.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Blutarski2004
01-27-2004, 03:37 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
Blutarski-

What the Dora was used for was dictated by the tactical situation at the time. Allied air units were dictating the terms of combat for the Germans. You can't climb to altitude to shoot down heavy bombers if there's a couple of Wings of Spitfires or Tempests in the way.


..... True for any German fighter pilot in those days.


The 190D-9 was an evolutionary (albeit stopgap) step on the way to the Ta-152.


..... I can absolutely accept this.


I think that the D-9's introduction had the same aim as that of the Spitfire MK IX; to immediately stop the bleeding until the ideal solution was available. In the Spit IX's case, it was sufficient to the need; the Dora-9, however, took too long in gestation, and didn't arrive until the situation was irretrievable.


..... True of more than one German aircraft development project.


When the Dora arrived, the unit commanders already knew that it was only a matter of time before the end, and it appears to me that many of them did no more than absolutely necessary in order to keep their people from being killed for a lost cause. Also, JG 26 at that time was essentially a forward unit; their primary task would be suppression of medium bomber and fighter bomber activity in their sector. JG 300 or 301 (for instance)might have been able to get up to the heavies once in a while.


..... At that time of the war, the ultimate mission and remaining rationals of the Jagdwaffe was to stop the heavy bombers. I would argue that the D9's were committed to low level interception work, not because their units happened to be located up front, but because they showed better relative performance at low altitudes and were therefore intelligently committed to a theater where they would be of best use. The D9 did not offer much better performance at high altitudes than existing German fighters. What was the ceiling of a D9? 35,000 feet?

BLUTARSKI

FW190fan
01-27-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The D9 did not offer much better performance at high altitudes than existing German fighters. What was the ceiling of a D9? 35,000 feet?

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jane's gives 37,000ft and 440mph with MW50 on the Dora with a Jumo 213A.

Alot of people think the Dora was a high altitude fighter - it wasn't.

The better high-altitude engines were the Jumo-213E and the DB603.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Zen--
01-27-2004, 04:21 PM
In FB the Dora's high altitude performance is anemic at best...it is very sluggish, hovers on the edge of a stall and can be outflown relatively easily by an La7 or a K4.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

TexasGunslinger
01-27-2004, 05:01 PM
Yes, the major encounter's with P47's, Tempests, Typhoons, Spits, some P51's, P-38's most often seemed to have occured because these airplanes were were part of the Tactical 9th which was hammering tactical targets all over France and into Germany by this time. It would have been normal for Dora's climbing from their airbases to the 20-30,000 foot altitude of the B-24's and B-17's of the Eigth Air Force, to have passed several flights of P-47's, Tempests and even P-38's on their way up, and maybe even B-26's and their escorts at 10,000 feet by the time the Dora saw service.

It was very crowded airspace over Europe in 1944, and the vast majority of aircraft were NOT German.

Air Supremecy is just that. The Allies dictated the conditions of attack at almost all points. With respect to anti-strategic-bomber missions, because JG-26 and JG-2 were deployed to the West, concentration of force could not be maximized against the bomber streams over Germany.


The Dora was also used in desparation as a ground attack aircraft.

The D9 had significantly better high altitude performance than any A series. That was the point of going with the Jumo, it was'nt radial. The BMW radials dropped in performance above 20,000 feet. This is one of the reasons that the ME-109 aircraft would be assigned as top cover for FW-190A equipped Staffels within a Geshwader (the other being armament).

[This message was edited by TexasGunslinger on Tue January 27 2004 at 04:13 PM.]

[This message was edited by TexasGunslinger on Tue January 27 2004 at 06:58 PM.]

SkyChimp
01-27-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
I got the impression from Caldwell's excellent book that the Hawker Tempest was the Dora's greatest adversary, on any front.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is correct. That's because the major operators of the Dora, JG26 and JG54, were mainly based in Oldenburg, Plantlunne, Greven ... in northwestern Germany, which was mainly British 2nd TAC territory.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

horseback
01-27-2004, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The D9 did not offer much better performance at high altitudes than existing German fighters. What was the ceiling of a D9? 35,000 feet?

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jane's gives 37,000ft and 440mph with MW50 on the Dora with a Jumo 213A.

Alot of people think the Dora was a high altitude fighter - it wasn't.

The better high-altitude engines were the Jumo-213E and the DB603.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>According to Monogram Close-Up 10, FW 190D, the whole 190D series was developed in response to an RLM request for a quick solution high altitude fighter, intended from the start to be based on the Jumo 213 engine.

The authors also mentioned that the pilots of III/JG 54 were not initially impressed with the Dora 9, but"...as they became accustomed to their new charges they began to revise their opinions. They discovered that the Dora 9 was faster, with better accelleration and maeuverability than the BMW-engined Focke-Wulf. Eventually they agreed that it could not only out-turn the Fw 190A-8 but the Bf 109G as well (blasphemers!-hb)."

As regards altitude performance, in the mid 1940s, anything over 20,000 ft was considered high altitude, and 35,000 ft was thought of the way we think of stratospheric flight today. The Dora 9's Jumo213A gave it 426 mph (686 kmh) at 21,654 ft (6,600m), compared to the 213E(D 12/13), which obtained 454 mph (730kmh) at 30,020 ft (9,150m), or the DB 603(D 14), which reached 441 mph (710 kmh) at 24,278 ft (7,400m).

American test pilots, on the basis of a whole six hours of testing, were less complimentary, but did say that "The functioning of the Jumo 213 engine was found to be excellent, and seemed to provide ample power to make the Fw 190D a high performance airplane comparable with contemporary Allied fighters."

It would appear that the Dora series was one that you couldn't jump into and get it to 'sing.' It had to be explored and mastered. Only after a familiarization period would a pilot be able to get the most out of it. That might explain why the JGs trying it at high altitudes had less success than the groups that had it longer did operating on the front.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Huckebein_FW
01-27-2004, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As the thread title says, did the Dora make a difference? I (and I believe everyone else responding to the question) took that to mean "Did it change the course of the air war in Europe?" --not "was it a big improvement over the latest version of the Anton?"

My answer was that it did not, because it arrived AFTER the Allied air forces had established overall air superiority, in the process making casualties of the majority of pilots skilled enough to make the fullest use of the Dora's virtues, which I agree are indisputable.

The Anton 9 didn't come up in my appraisal at all, because A) I don't profess to know a heck of a lot about it; B) It didn't get a lot of notice at the time of its introduction, because in flight, it was outwardly so similar in appearance to the A-7 and A-8; C) As with the Dora, the Air War was already lost when it arrived.

To reiterate: had the Dora, the subject of this thread, been available in sufficient numbers in the late winter/early spring of 1944, it would probably have had a major impact on the air offensive leading up to D-Day. I say this because I believe that the performance advantages of the Allied escorts at higher altitudes over the LW's primary bomber interceptor, the FW-190A-7/8, would have been nullified IF the FW-190As were replaced by FW-190Ds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since from the spring of '44 USAAF flew 10-20 times more sorties in ETO than LW flew overall in ETO, it simply did not matter whether Dora would have appeared in numbers in spring or in autumn. In fact the Allies flew the same aircraft in spring and in autumn (of '44). If Dora could not do anything in September it wouldn't have done anything in March. Moreover Dora had less powerful armament than Antons, so it would have been less effective against bombers, almost the exclusive mission of LW fighters in ETO.

The shortage of fuel and the shortage of pilots was the main causes for the LW failure in ETO. Please note that I do not say "experienced pilots", LW had until the end of war plenty of aces. They had in a single JG more aces than in entire allied air fleets. What they did need were more fully operational JGs, not aces.

I really dislike this idea, spread into almost every book dealing with ww2, that Germany had some high tech weaponery, but fortunately did not make it to front use. Dora fits here very well. Such idea sell books very well, but is far from truth. Dora did not replace anything. A8 had the same performance with D9 without MW-50 (only slightly better over 7000m). D9 without Sonder - Notleistung (first variant in summer of '44) was actually worse than A8. Once again the reason for Jumo adoption were purely logistical, RLM feared a shortage of engines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Antons defending the Reich at that time (Jan-May 1944) had a noticeable performance dropoff above around 7000m, while the American escorts were optimized for the higher altitudes that our bomber flew at. While the relatively fewer 109s had similar performance to the escort when they were not burdened with gun tubs or rocket tubes, they lacked endurance and hitting power by comparison to the 190, and the bombers were, after all, their real targets. In addition, neither type could easily disengage, due to the superior dive charactoristics of the Jug and the Mustang (If I can catch you in two miles, running for a safe spot three miles away is not a good choice).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the Antons had a performance drop-off above 7000m, but so did Dora. This is because their engine were conceived as bomber engines and superchargers dimensioned accordingly. Both could be fitted with GM1, but we know that at least Antons, (up to A8 inclusive), were not. The reason for this is because there was no fighting above 6000m. High altitude bombing looked good on paper, before the war, but was never done. The reason is very simple, the dangers of high altitude flying rised the bombing mission risks to unnacceptable, mildly wounded crew would not make it back if the bomber was to remain in formation at high altitude (and increase it's chances to get home), freezing and hypoxia in damaged B-17 diminish the chances of survival of wounded crew to zero.

Another factor was that high altitude bombing was completely inaccurate. In fact at 6000m (medium not high altitude) it was so inaccurate that USAAF was forced to scrap the Nordens on most of its bombers, bring back old Sperry bombsights (Sperry bombsight was already out of production, they used units on stock), and train its bombardiers to release the bombs together with the head of the bomber box (which had an experienced bombardier using a Norden) - this gives you an ideea about bombing accuracy. When they really wanted to hit something, they did it whether from a level bombing from 3000m (if flak cover allowed it), or a low level pass.

Sure, sometimes fighters flew at 30000ft, but they meet only Bf109 there.
About the diving characteristics we discussed it already. Mustang and Jug outdive Fw-190 only at high altitude, Fw-190 outdive both at low altitude. Bf-109 dives slightly better than both at high altitude up to compressibility speeds, from which it recovers more easily. Also it dives better to much better at medium and low altitudes than Mustang and Jug. Make sure to compare variants from the same period of time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Dora had comparable performance to the P-47D and P-51B at altitudes over 7000m, and retained the good endurance and terrific punch of the Anton, which would have made bombing German targets much more difficult. That it didn't arrive until after the critical period, and that it arrived in too few numbers to reverse the situation is what makes it "a day late and a dollar short."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regular Dora suffered from the same problems at high altitude as Antons. There were solutions to this, but since they were not used it means that the interest for high altitude fighters was low. BMW had an operational turbosupercharged 801 from 1943 (used on high alt intruders). Jumo also offered GM1 boost for Jumo213, which transformed Ju-88!! in a 700km/h@high alt aircraft, they also worked on a higher power Jumo213 (2650PS) and three stage supercharger for Jumo213E (compared to single stage supercharger found on Jumo213A).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Cheers and I AM glad to see you back,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never left, I just don't have the time to reply anymore. I read the forum though.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Tue January 27 2004 at 07:54 PM.]

Huckebein_FW
01-27-2004, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Voila! A good E & F debate over known data points.

Short version, horseback has it right: Dora was a plane designed to intercept bombers at high altitudes, it was plenty effective, and there were too few...too late.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check again the altitude of the bomber stream in known operations. It's most of the time medium altitude (6000-7000m). This was very abordable for Antons. 30000ft would have been difficult.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Huck has part of it right, too. The "D" series was a "jury-rig," a revamped A with a 10-inch extension in the fuselage and a Jumo 213-A engine because BMW's 801Dg were in short supply. The TA variant was Kurt Tank's final score, with longer wings and other refinements that made it perhaps the best high altitude interceptor of the war.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with this statement. Dora was not an aircraft done in haste. Fw-190 was an exceptional airframe, in which a different engine was mounted. Dora was ready in spring of '43, a year before entering in production, there was no haste.

Dora in '43 did not offered any improvement over A5, so RLM did not awarded a contract. Dora was still not superior over current version of Anton (A8) in summer of '44 when it entered in production. Interchangeability between bomber engines was requested in '41 IIRC. In '44 RLM requested it for all engines that might have delivery problems (this means all but DB605). This is the reason for Dora.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-27-2004, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Huck has part of it right, too. The "D" series was a "jury-rig," a revamped A with a 10-inch extension in the fuselage and a Jumo 213-A engine because BMW's 801Dg were in short supply. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, the Jumo 213 was used because there was a shortage of Daimler-Benz 600 series powerplants. The DB was what Tank wanted for the Ta-152 series aircraft.

The Jumo 213 as it turned out was far from simply an engine for bombers alone however, and proved itself to be powerful and widely adaptable. It was also equipped with a more complex automatic control system than the BMW801 had.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's true that Tank wanted initial a DB603 for it's aircraft, because they had the best liquid cooled engines and best superchargers. He hoped for a modification of DB603 with a supercharger designed for a fighter. The regular DB603 was a bomber engine, and although it offered better high altitude performance than BMW801(non turbo) and Jumo213A, Jumo213E had a more powerful supercharger, variants of Fw-190D and Ta-152 perfomed better with Jumo213E than with DB603 . Also DB had a very bad relationship with RLM, RLM killed production of all planes fitted with DB603 in early autumn '44, and DB did not get any contract for jet engines though they had very good experience from their excellent superchargers. In fact the replacement for the first generation of jet engines was given to an outsider Hirth-Heinkel (truth led by von Ohain).

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Fehler
01-27-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
In FB the Dora's high altitude performance is anemic at best...it is very sluggish, hovers on the edge of a stall and can be outflown relatively easily by an La7 or a K4.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Formerly? WTF is that all about???

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

robban75
01-27-2004, 11:58 PM
I would think it's fair to say that the D was a better performer than any A version, incuding the A-9. Pilot reports indicate this.
With the similar power output to the A-8(1750hp), the D-9's more aerodynamically slender airframe made it to be 28km/faster than the A-8 at low level and 41km/h faster at maximum boost altitude of 6600m. The A-9 was competetive, but the MW50 boosted D-9 was still better in climb, dive and topspeed.
And with a skilled pilot, it was at least the equal to any other competitor it was likely to meet in the last 6 months of the war. But then again so was the A-9.
AFAIK, the Ta 152 production was halted just before the wars end, and the D-12 was given a go ahead to take its place. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

horseback
01-27-2004, 11:59 PM
I am shocked-shocked, that after all these years of propagandizing about USAAF high altitude bombing throughout WWII over Europe, that only now has Huckebein revealed the truth -

"because there was no fighting above 6000m. High altitude bombing looked good on paper, before the war, but was never done. The reason is very simple, the dangers of high altitude flying rised the bombing mission risks to unnacceptable, mildly wounded crew would not make it back if the bomber was to remain in formation at high altitude (and increase it's chances to get home), freezing and hypoxia in damaged B-17 diminish the chances of survival of wounded crew to zero.

Another factor was that high altitude bombing was completely inaccurate. In fact at 6000m (medium not high altitude) it was so inaccurate that USAAF was forced to scrap the Nordens on most of its bombers, bring back old Sperry bombsights (Sperry bombsight was already out of production, they used units on stock), and train its bombardiers to release the bombs together with the head of the bomber box (which had an experienced bombardier using a Norden) - this gives you an ideea about bombing accuracy. When they really wanted to hit something, they did it whether from a level bombing from 3000m (if flak cover allowed it), or a low level pass."

There it is, fresh from the Department of Made Up Facts.

Well, I checked my various resources, from Freeman's Mighty Eighth to the Osprey B-17 & B-24 Units of the Eighth AF books, with a number of other sources. This was done at great personal sacrifice - I missed the first half of "24". While not EVERY mission included the bombing altitude, the numbers that were listed averaged from 20,500 to 26,000 feet over the target, often with a gentle descent to get to that altitude over the target, particularly from early 1944 on, as long range escorts became available over the target area.

This was because it was easier to suppress fighter opposition than it was to suppress the flak, which was heavy and accurate right up to the end. The flight into the target was made as high as practical in order to limit the effect of the flak batteries, as well as to make it harder on the fighters, which often could only make one pass each before having to return to base and refuel. The exit and return often did drop down in altitude, to take advantage of bombers' greater speed at 17-18,000ft, and, as noted, wounded crew and damaged oxygen systems would force individual aircraft to even lower altitudes. But stragglers became the responsibility of the escorts, and formation discipline was generally kept as well as the numbers available allowed.

As far as accuracy, the best measurement of the daylight bomber's accuracy could only come after the war, when postwar studies shook the bombing community in the Air Forces pretty badly. They realized that accuracy was less than predicted before the war, and further complicated by people shooting at you, clouds or smoke over the target, crosswinds between the drop altitude and the target, and that was why they reverted to area bombing on the cue from the lead bombardier.

At the time, the biggest problem was not accuracy, but picking targets that actually had a strategic effect. Ball-bearings, submarine pens, aircraft factories, railroad yards, airfields were all attacked with varied results. Once the Bomber commands started concentrating on transport centers and oil production, then the strategic component of the bombing campaign was validated.

The ultimate positive effect of the daylight bombing campaign was the elimination of the LW as an effective force. They had to come up to stop the bombers, and when they did, the escorts would come and get them.

I don't buy the comments about the 109 or 190s' diving abilities being superior to the Mustang or the P-47; if they were close enough to be in trouble or threatened, the German fighters rarely had hope of escaping in the absence of nearby thick clouds. All contemporary reports were absolute on this point; you could not dive away from an American single engined fighter.

Theory and performance charts don't paper over facts. Tests usually are done in ideal conditions, not in a hail of .50 caliber bullets, which are believed by nine out of ten doctors to be bad for you. That tenth doctor, by the way, got his degree in revising history.

Every US ace stated unequivacably that "if he tries to dive away, you've got him." You find that phrase, or variations of it in every American ETO ace's memoirs. I'd refer you to Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces # 31, Long Reach. It is composed of reports and recommendations of senior fighter officers and notable aces, emphasising successful tactics. Impact, a wartime intelligence report magazine distributed to officers and flight crew in combat air units, has much the same to say.

I'll take those reports over sixty year old performance reports any day.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Huckebein_FW
01-28-2004, 12:49 AM
horseback,

I see that despite your ironic intro we agree on the bomber issue.
On the fighter issue, combat stories are not a proof for anything, they are always circumstantial. Aces are always in better position in respect with the plane they attack, if you read such stories from both sides you'll see that any plane outperformed any other plane, just because most of such stories are the successes aces have obtained. When it comes to the times they were downed details are sketchy at best. On the other hand it is true that diving was a good tactic because the differences between fighters (same year of production) are usually small, and even smaller if the steepness of dive increases. This was most of the time the best chance for USAAF fighter to get close to a LW fighter. A rule of thumb is that LW fighters were faster accelerating up to max speed in level flight (for the current altitude), then USAAF fighters accelerate faster (though only Jug was clearly better here, Mustang was identical with Fw-190, but better than Bf-109 in this speed range), but they have to regain the distance lost in the first part. Diving time on both parts was nearly identical (if dive starts at cruise), shorter on the second part if dive starts at high altitude (compressibility). That means that diving at speeds above 750km/h TAS was inutile for LW fighters unless compressibility was near, from which Jug recovery was characterized as "chancy at best". Mustang did not suffer that badly from compressibility, nevertheless LW fighters recovered much easily, in proper trim actually no stick input was needed, the aircraft simply pitches up. No special force was needed to move the trim wheel (on Fw-190 trim was electric) to put the fighter in proper trim.
In actual dive test made by the Germans D model Jug was found "somewhat better" than a '42 G6, which was inferior in dive to '44 models 109s anyway.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-28-2004, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I would think it's fair to say that the D was a better performer than any A version, incuding the A-9. Pilot reports indicate this.
With the similar power output to the A-8(1750hp), the D-9's more aerodynamically slender airframe made it to be 28km/faster than the A-8 at low level and 41km/h faster at maximum boost altitude of 6600m. The A-9 was competetive, but the MW50 boosted D-9 was still better in climb, dive and topspeed.
And with a skilled pilot, it was at least the equal to any other competitor it was likely to meet in the last 6 months of the war. But then again so was the A-9.
AFAIK, the Ta 152 production was halted just before the wars end, and the D-12 was given a go ahead to take its place. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robban, standard A8 had 2050PS not 1800PS. Cd0 for D9 was 0.0235 and for A8 was 0.026, Cd0 measured while both planes were fitted with ETC501 bombrack. It's important to mention that 0.0015 difference on A8 was comming from the outerwing cannons. Yes D9 was faster that A8, but without MW-50 it climbed and turned exactly the same as A8, and without Sonder - Notleistung was actually worse than A8 (at production launch).

Also the whole Ta experiment (Ta152,153,154) proved to be more of a distraction for Tank. He should have concentrate on jets, he won the contract for the first generation of single engine jet fighters, but it seems that he progressed less than Messerschmitt who continued the development on its own expense.

If there is something that was really late and had the potential to have an important effect on war this were the jets. If they could have been put in service 6 month earlier to have them available, together with trained crew, at D-Day then D-Day might have prove insuccessful. What that would have meant for the whole course of war it's difficult to say.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-28-2004, 08:17 AM
Huck, neither 1800 nor 2050 HP are correct http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The unboosted BMW801D-2 had 1700 HP.

The Dora actually never got the ETC501, it got the ETC504 which is much lighter and has much improved aerodynamics.

The D-9 had 1750 HPs availiable (unboosted) which is 50HP more than the A-8; having better aerodynamics, it flies faster than the A-8. It wasn't WORSE at all.

Tank indeed worked on some jets, but his team had priorities, such as the Ta152 family.

Huck, as for doubting robban's statements, I think that there's nobody on those boards with a greater knowledge about the 190 than robban, so don't try to argue with him when speaking about the Focke-Wulf 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Zen--
01-28-2004, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:

Formerly? WTF is that all about???

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yessir, formerly it is indeed.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=306106171

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Seedking1
01-28-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fiesetrix:
The FW190 D-9 was a comptitive late war fighter, however, the majority of German late war pilots were too inexperienced to use it properly. In addition, the shortage of high-octane aviation gasoline also had a negative effect on combat readiness of those "too little, too late" Luftwaffe fighters. Another point was the lousy manufacturing quality of those planes, due to a shortage of qualified workers. Thus, especially the engines had a very short live-span.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your statements except for the last one:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another point was the lousy manufacturing quality of those planes, due to a shortage of qualified workers. Thus, especially the engines had a very short live-span<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact is one of the reasons for the Dora was an abundance of powerplants for the aircraft. The BMW engines were in steep demand, but there were many Jumo's to be used. Secondly, the manufacturing process of the 190 was unique in Germany. Many parts were crafted in different factories, wooden parts in family owned (Contracted) furniture shops. The plane was assembled and shipped in sections to be completed elsewhere. The overall quality of the aircraft was superb, even at the end of the war. Unlike the Messerschmit process, there was no centralized factory to bomb.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seedking1
01-28-2004, 09:36 AM
I believe the ME 262 was manufactured in the same way - that is to say, not in one centralised factory.

Huckebein_FW
01-28-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Huck, neither 1800 nor 2050 HP are correct http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The unboosted BMW801D-2 had 1700 HP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are both correct and they are comming from original BMW and FW documents, posted here many times. Please note that I gave the power rating in PS not in HP, they are not the same. Also there was a miryad of versions for each main type of BMW801, each with slighty different power ratings.

But taking as a refference 1700HP for A8 is definitely incorrect. Only the first variants running at 1.42ata were capable of only 1800PS, the 1.65ata variant produced 2050PS, this is the widespread variant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Dora actually never got the ETC501, it got the ETC504 which is much lighter and has much improved aerodynamics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Dora got will always be in dispute, since clear service stats for various equipments were lost. We cannot say for sure even the number of Dora produced, or entered in service. ETC504 mounted on Dora accounted for 5kmh increase compared to ETC501 at low levels. It was still a bomb rack. Also ETC501 was widely available on airfields compared to ETC504.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The D-9 had 1750 HPs availiable (unboosted) which is 50HP more than the A-8; having better aerodynamics, it flies faster than the A-8. It wasn't WORSE at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again 1800PS is correct value for 1.42ata BMW801; at 1.65ata it produced 2050PS. Indeed Dora without fuel boost had only 1770PS, and had basicaly the same max speed with A8 at 2050PS (better aerodinamics). But it had worse powerloading, therefore worse climb rate and turn rate (but still close to A8).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Tank indeed worked on some jets, but his team had priorities, such as the Ta152 family.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ta-152 was not a priority for anybody, priority to do what? Ta-152 was conceived as super high altitude interceptor and escort fighter, two inexisting roles when it roled out of factory. RLM made it clear in summer of '44 that all new military planes aquired will be jet powered. This is why planes like Ta-152 and Do-335 would have never reached mass production. RLM was never interested in them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Huck, as for doubting robban's statements, I think that there's nobody on those boards with a greater knowledge about the 190 than robban, so don't try to argue with him when speaking about the Focke-Wulf 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's so bad in arguing? We might learn something.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

roachclip
01-28-2004, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:

Jane's gives 37,000ft and 440mph with MW50 on the Dora with a Jumo 213A.

Alot of people think the Dora was a high altitude fighter - it wasn't.

The better high-altitude engines were the Jumo-213E and the DB603.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know where Janes got that number, but if any should know what the D-9 was capable would be Bryan Bury. His site has 371mph@37000' in Special Emergency.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

The performance of the A-8 dropped rapidly when over its rated altitude while the Dora 9 did not.

roachclip
01-28-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Tank indeed worked on some jets, but his team had priorities, such as the Ta152 family.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ta-152 was not a priority for anybody, priority to do what? Ta-152 was conceived as super high altitude interceptor and escort fighter, two inexisting roles when it roled out of factory. RLM made it clear in summer of '44 that all new military planes aquired will be jet powered. This is why planes like Ta-152 and Do-335 would have never reached mass production. RLM was never interested in them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, the summer of 1944 you say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Then why did the Ta152 and Do335 proceeded with development and have orders for production in 1945? There was to be in excess of 15,000 Ta152s produced by March 1946.

Besides the various A and B versions off the basic Do335, there was futuristic a/c using the Do335 as a basis. ie the Zwilling a/c by Do and Ju.

Why would the RLM assign production block numbers to a/c that were not to go into production.

Sorry Huckebein your "arguement" does not hold any water.

Bremspropeller
01-28-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But taking as a refference 1700HP for A8 is definitely incorrect. Only the first variants running at 1.42ata were capable of only 1800PS, the 1.65ata variant produced 2050PS, this is the widespread variant.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those "first versions" got built till summer '44. Those 2050PS you mention are for the TS/TU engine which got introduced in autumn '44 (A-9 as you said some replies above didn't enter service before december '44).
A/c wich the TS/TU engine could be regarded as A-9s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What Dora got will always be in dispute, since clear service stats for various equipments were lost. We cannot say for sure even the number of Dora produced, or entered in service. ETC504 mounted on Dora accounted for 5kmh increase compared to ETC501 at low levels. It was still a bomb rack. Also ETC501 was widely available on airfields compared to ETC504.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most, if not all Doras got the ETC504. The ones that didn't get the 504, gone no ETC. Doras with ETC501 didn't fly in front-line units. I doubt they even existed since there are no pictures of Doras with the ETC501.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Once again 1800PS is correct value for 1.42ata BMW801 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not for the C-2 engine (please be more specific) and not for the D-2 engine (which powered about 90% of all A-8s), since the D-2 delivered 1700PS when not being boosted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ta-152 was not a priority for anybody, priority to do what? Ta-152 was conceived as super high altitude interceptor and escort fighter, two inexisting roles when it roled out of factory. RLM made it clear in summer of '44 that all new military planes aquired will be jet powered <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't spread lies Huck. The decision of letting the 262 operate as fighter fell in autumn '44.

Nice attempt to troll, but it failed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This is why planes like Ta-152 and Do-335 would have never reached mass production. RLM was never interested in them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's not the reason - the reason are the problems which seemed to stop the programmes, but both designes got into serial production, though the "Ameisenb√¬§r" wasn't flown in front-line units.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What's so bad in arguing? We might learn something.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, YOU might learn something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

DONB3397
01-28-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
...Dora was ready in spring of '43, a year before entering in production, there was no haste.

Dora in '43 did not offer any improvement over A5, so RLM did not awarded a contract. Dora was still not superior over current version of Anton (A8) in summer of '44 when it entered in production. Interchangeability between bomber engines was requested in '41 IIRC. In '44 RLM requested it for all engines that might have delivery problems (this means all but DB605). This is the reason for Dora.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was aware of the '43 development, but the rationale for the delay seems logical enough. Thanks for the clarification.

What can anyone tell me about the D-12 which apparently had better performance than the D-9? My reference says it was a hi-altitude interceptor powered by the Jumo 213E with MW50 and 3-speed supercharger. Capable of 740 km/h at 11,600 m.

Were many of these produced? Is it the model for the Dora (late) in FB?

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCtfrFABrTvGLZQo

robban75
01-28-2004, 01:13 PM
The D-12 was the ultimate Fw 190D. It featured a Jumo 213F engine with much greater high altitude performance. 760km/h at 12500m.
At low altitudes there were little to choose between the D-12 and D-9, but at alt the D-12 could even compete with the Ta 152H in performance. With the Jumo 213EB engine topspeed was 770km/h at 9500m! The D-13 was probably just as fast, which differed mainly in the armament. I don't know how many D-12 that were produced but it saw combat. About 30 examples of the D-13 equipped some of the frontline units. After the war there was a staged dogfight between a D-13(yellow 10) and a Hawker Tempest, and even though the D-13 didn't have any MW50 the pilot succeded at gaining an alt advantage and engaged the Tempest in a turning fight from above.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Bremspropeller
01-28-2004, 01:18 PM
The Dora wasn't ready for serial production untill early autumn '44, so this is another lie spread by Huck.

And saying that the Dora was not improvement to the A-5 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Sorry...no comment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


@ Donb: your sources are right, but only 20-30 D-12s were built and the "late" Doras in game are MW-50 equipped Dora-9s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

lrrp22
01-28-2004, 01:58 PM
Robban,

Are you sure the D-12 saw combat? As far as I am aware only one was ever produced before the series was cancelled. Also the only D-13 known to have seen service is Franz Geotz's 'Yellow 10'.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
The D-12 was the ultimate Fw 190D. It featured a Jumo 213F engine with much greater high altitude performance. 760km/h at 12500m.
At low altitudes there were little to choose between the D-12 and D-9, but at alt the D-12 could even compete with the Ta 152H in performance. With the Jumo 213EB engine topspeed was 770km/h at 9500m! The D-13 was probably just as fast, which differed mainly in the armament. I don't know how many D-12 that were produced but it saw combat. About 30 examples of the D-13 equipped some of the frontline units. After the war there was a staged dogfight between a D-13(yellow 10) and a Hawker Tempest, and even though the D-13 didn't have any MW50 the pilot succeded at gaining an alt advantage and engaged the Tempest in a turning fight from above.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-28-2004, 02:08 PM
This painting portrays Walter Krupinski attacking B-17's in his D-12. The painting is even signed by the man himself! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/airace190.jpg

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

lrrp22
01-28-2004, 02:37 PM
You're going to have to do better than a signed painting Robban http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

edit: BTW, wasn't Krupinski flying the 262 with JV 44 at that point? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
This painting portrays Walter Krupinski attacking B-17's in his D-12. The painting is even signed by the man himself! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/airace190.jpg

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Wed January 28 2004 at 01:54 PM.]

Bremspropeller
01-28-2004, 02:50 PM
II./JG 300 and the Stabsstaffel/JG 300 had some Fw190D-12s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

lrrp22
01-28-2004, 02:57 PM
Really? What's your source? Seriously, I would love to know if that's true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
II./JG 300 and the Stabsstaffel/JG 300 had some Fw190D-12s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-28-2004, 03:12 PM
WW2 aviation art picture actuall events, and below is Krupinski's aircraft history. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

KRUPINSKI Generalleutnant Walter, Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords. Known by his friends as 'the Count', he was a swashbuckling fighter pilot who learned his trade as Steinhoff's wingman; in Russia, serving with JG 52, he had Hartmann as his wingman! He fought also with JG 26, flying ME109s and the long-nose FW190D-12 and finally with JV 44, flying ME262s. In total he flew over 1100 missions and achieved 197 victories.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

lrrp22
01-28-2004, 03:32 PM
So that painting is suppossed to portray Krupinski's aircraft when he commanded III/JG26? If that's the case I find it interesting that Urbanke failed to mention that detail in his definitive work on the use of the Dora in III Jg54 and JG26! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
WW2 aviation art picture actuall events, and below is Krupinski's aircraft history. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

KRUPINSKI Generalleutnant Walter, Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords. Known by his friends as 'the Count', he was a swashbuckling fighter pilot who learned his trade as Steinhoff's wingman; in Russia, serving with JG 52, he had Hartmann as his wingman! He fought also with JG 26, flying ME109s and the long-nose FW190D-12 and finally with JV 44, flying ME262s. In total he flew over 1100 missions and achieved 197 victories.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW190fan
01-28-2004, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roachclip:

I don't know where Janes got that number, but if any should know what the D-9 was capable would be Bryan Bury. His site has 371mph@37000' in _Special Emergency_.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

The performance of the A-8 dropped rapidly when over its rated altitude while the Dora 9 did not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well hello there Roachclip.

Jane's likely used numbers from the RAE itself or original Focke-Wulf GMBH test documents.


If you look closely at Bury's chart you will see that the 371 @37,000ft. is an interpolation based on "Sonder-notleistung", and in this case that is C3 injection.

Now, look at the charts that show the FW190D-9 _speeds with GM-1_, for use at high altitudes.

Column 9 gives the following values for GM-1:

437mph @32,808ft.

440mph @36,089ft.

400mph @39,370ft.

In either case GM-1_doesn't_seem to be in widespread use for the D-9, but evidently the Dora-9 in British possesion used it.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

roachclip
01-28-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:

Well hello there Roachclip.

Jane's likely used numbers from the RAE itself or original Focke-Wulf GMBH test documents.


If you look closely at Bury's chart you will see that the 371 @37,000ft. is an interpolation based on "Sonder-notleistung", and in this case that is C3 injection.

Now, look at the charts that show the FW190D-9 _speeds with GM-1_, for use at high altitudes.

Column 9 gives the following values for GM-1:

437mph @32,808ft.

440mph @36,089ft.

400mph @39,370ft.

In either case GM-1_doesn't_seem to be in widespread use for the D-9, but evidently the Dora-9 in British possesion used it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you said, Jane's said:

"Jane's gives 37,000ft and 440mph with MW50 on the Dora with a Jumo 213A."

What is wrong with this statement is that MW50 is used up to the rated altitude of the engine. 37,000ft is way above the rated altitude of the engine.(Maximum power with MW50 was 2,100 hp at 3,250 rpm and was not to be used above 16,500ft. (around 5000 meters).) That is why there is no speed given.

Strange that the British could test the D-9 that had GM1(maybe) but could not test the Ta152H that also had GM1 because they had no GM fluid.

Janes did not mention GM1 but MW50, so the only given speed at 37000ft is the one I posted and why I did.

SkyChimp
01-28-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Sure, sometimes fighters flew at 30000ft, but they meet only Bf109 there.
About the diving characteristics we discussed it already. Mustang and Jug outdive Fw-190 only at high altitude, Fw-190 outdive both at low altitude. Bf-109 dives slightly better than both at high altitude up to compressibility speeds, from which it recovers more easily. Also it dives better to much better at medium and low altitudes than Mustang and Jug. Make sure to compare variants from the same period of time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is rather misleading, since compressibility set in at a lower Mach number with the Bf-109 than it did with either the P-47 or P-51.

And your contention that the Bf-109 was easier to pull out is supported by, well, NOTHING.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

OneEyedMan
01-28-2004, 06:48 PM
I'm going to throw my hat in to http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifthe ring on this one. I agree the Dora-Nine was a interm type before the Ta-152 entered front line units in strenght, but I dont think it was anetirly a lash together. The idea for inline engines and the Fw-190 had been going around in Kurt Tank's head long before the Dora was finalized. The FW-190C was supposed to be designed with a DB 603. And if Professor Tank had his way the Dora would have had the same engine.

Two things stopped the progress of the Fw-190C and also slowed down the development of the D. First, ther German Air Ministry wrote off the idea of hvae the Fw-190 powered by an inline eengine, and second, all DB 603 engines were slated to other projects.

So yes the idea of having a inline powered Shrike did flounder for some time, but then Tank switched over to the Jumo 213A because, as stated before, they were plentiful and had the high altitude proformance he was looking for, even though he still liked the DB 603 more.

Now the Jumo 213A engine could give the pilot 1750 HP on take off, unboosted.And 2,240hp with emergancy boost. The pilot could run the engine at 3,250 rpm for only 30 minuets, but could run the engine at 3,000 rpm continuously. As for proformance improvments the Dora could carry a GM-1 boost which gave the pilot 17 minuets of fuel, or a MW50. Either or increased the Dora's altitude, speed, and climb proformance.

Now on a note that confuses me, in my book I have on the Dora, Focke Wulf FW-190 "Long Nose"- An illustrated History. It states in one part that the Dora carried the ETC 503, not 504, for drop tanks. What the difference between the 503 and 504 I don't know.

Now the following proformance figures belong to the FW-190 D-9 WNr. 210 006

Speed proformances with a weight of 4200 kg:

Engine @ 3000rpm
0-7000m 280 km/h
8000m 270 km/h
9000m 260 km/h
10000m 255 km/h

Max Speeds for WNr. 210 006
(Unboosted for all that I know)

Engine @ 3250rpm
537 km/h @ sea level
643 km/h @ 6600 m
600 km/h @ 9000 m

Engine @ 3000rpm (15 Nov. 1944)
(Please note, speeds were precorded with an untuned engine and D-12 propeller)
521 km/h @ sea level
623 km/h @ 6500m
580 km/h @ 9000m

Engine @ 2700rpm
489 km/h @ sea level
580 km/h @ 6300m
524 km/h @ 9000m

Climb rates
(Cooling gills fully open)

Engine @ 3250 rpm
16.6 m/sec @ sea level
15.2 m/sec @ 3250m
14.6 m/sec @ 3300m
12.2 m/sec @ 6300m
5.0 m/sec @ 9000m
2.0 m/sec @ 10200m
0 m/sec @ 11000m

to 1000m 1 min
to 3000m 3.2min
to 5000m 5.4min
to 6000m 6.8min
to 8000m 10.2min
to 10000m 17.8min

Engine @ 3000 rpm
14.8 m/sec @ sea level
13.2 m/sec @ 3250m
12.6 m/sec @ 3300m
10.4 m/sec @ 6100m
3.2 m/sec @ 9000m
2.0 m/sec @ 9450m
0 m/sec @ 10250m

to 1000m 1.2min
to 3000m 3.6min
to 5000m 6.4min
to 6000m 8.0min
to 8000m 12.4min
to 10000m 27.2min

Now Compared to the Antons, the Dora was in improvment. While teh Antons like the A-8 and A-9 were still very good low to medium altitude fighters whent the Dora was in production, their proformance droped off dramaticaly above 6000m.

Engine Specs for the A-8
BMW 801 D-2 14 cylinder two row
1,730hp on take off
2,100hp with MW50 for short periods.

Engine Specs for the A-9
BMW 801 TS/TH 14 cylinder two row
2,200hp (Not sure whether this is for take of or with boost)

In conclusion, did the Dora make a difference? In the war? No, but in the evulotion of an already powerful fighter, yes. Even though the Dora was supposed to be only a stop gap for the Ta-152, later models, such as the D-12 could still compete with the Ta-152 when it came to preformance. Not bad for a "Lashed together" fix.

FW190fan
01-28-2004, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roachclip:

But you said, Jane's said:

"Jane's gives 37,000ft and 440mph _with MW50_ on the Dora with a Jumo 213A."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


/me bangs head on desk\

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan
01-28-2004, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roachclip:
[Strange that the British could test the D-9 that had GM1(maybe) but could not test the Ta152H that also had GM1 because they had no GM fluid.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


They didn't have GM-1 at Farnborough, where Eric Brown picked up the TA-152. He didn't mean that there was no GM-1 anywhere in the United Kingdom.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

roachclip
01-28-2004, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
They didn't have GM-1 at Farnborough, where Eric Brown picked up the TA-152. He didn't mean that there was no GM-1 anywhere in the United Kingdom.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Am interested in this Dora tested by the Brits. I can find no AM number listed for a D-9.

AM 11 for Focke-Wulf Ta152H-1 - W.Nr.150168 - coded 9+ of Stab/JG301 is listed.

.........
FWfan, one would expect the major base for British testing of EA to have the necessary supplies to conduct proper testing would you not think. GM was not used in Allied a/c, so where else in the UK would it be found.

FW190fan
01-28-2004, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Am interested in this Dora tested by the Brits. I can find no AM number listed for a D-9.

_AM 11_ for Focke-Wulf Ta152H-1 - W.Nr.150168 - coded 9+ of Stab/JG301 is listed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

roachclip, I am interested in it as well but I personally don't have any of these documents at all.

Bury's site shows the British as testing with GM-1 and also that the US had a D-13 that was equipped with GM-1 system, and then obviously the Ta-152.

I have a German chart that shows a D-9 equipped with a DB603, but like GM-1 this was certainly not the norm for a D-9. Same with the later Jumo 213 engines, they could all use 3 different types of boost systems.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

RicknZ
01-28-2004, 10:57 PM
No the FW190D-9 was not effective.
The few that made the front lines suffered terrible casualties at the hands of the rampaging allied airforces.

Not a reflection however on the plane itself, just too little too late vs overwhelming opposition + poorly trained pilots etc.

RedDeth
01-29-2004, 03:29 AM
Fw 190



Focke-Wulf Fw190 D-13/R11 by Crandall


Artist Jerry Crandall has had a special interest in this D-13 since finding it in a vacant lot in Georgia in 1965. He was able to thoroughly measure and photograph this rare machine before the Champlin Fighter Museum acquired it. This is the only surviving D-13 known.
Similar to the D-9, the main physical differences include a paddle-bladed VS 10 propeller, no 13mm guns over the engine, the supercharger intake scoop is oval rather than round like the D-9; and the armament consists of 3 MG 151 20mm cannons, one firing through the prop hub and two in the wing roots.
This machine was the 17th D-13 manufactured and delivered to JG 26. The Canadians at Flensburg captured "Yellow 10" at wars end. Oberst Heinz Lange, the Kommodore of JG 51 who flew D-9's, was asked by the RCAF in June 1945 with G√ľnther Josten, also of JG 51, to fly this advanced fighter against the Hawker Tempest in mock combat. Feldwebel Gerhard Kroll flew D-9's with III./JG 54 as top cover for Kommandor Nowotny's Me 262's. After Nowotny's death, Kroll was assigned to home defense. III./JG 54 became IV./JG 26 on 25 February 1945, the unit flying D-9's and D-13's.

In addition to the artist's signature each print is co-autographed by Luftwaffe pilots Dr. Heinz Lange and Gerhard Kroll.

Print size: 31"w X 21 1/2"h
Limited edition of: 950 Signed and numbered by the artist

Price : US$145.00
Quantity:



Copyright 2004 Stenberg Fine Art. All Rights Reserved.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

nicolas10
01-29-2004, 05:08 AM
Ta 152 a waste of time? Huck you've got to be kidding. If someone killed the LW capabilities it's the RLM, which waited for so long to take a decision on the Ta 152 because they wanted to know how it's comptetiror, the Me 209 (or is it 309) would do. That crap plane was delayed for so long that the first versions of the Ta 152 never entered production, while the Ta 152, with performance more or less similar to the D-9 could have entered production as early as in late 1943. I'd say that dropping the Me prop designs and starting the Ta 152 series in late 43 would have been best.

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

Bremspropeller
01-29-2004, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
So that painting is suppossed to portray Krupinski's aircraft when he commanded III/JG26? If that's the case I find it interesting that Urbanke failed to mention that detail in his definitive work on the use of the Dora in III Jg54 and JG26! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can tell you, why Urbanke missed out the III./JG 26:

His work was about the III./JG 54 wjich was erased and split into I. and II. JG 26, so the 3rd group deserves no mention http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu