P47 vs 190

[STEELE]

The internal wing structure is what was changed, made lighter, stronger, and with provisions to mount various cannon configs. They flexed less during high-G maneuvers. IDK how the new wings were made, but A1-A5 wing spars were made in a special rolling process (spars got thinner with increasing wingspan)
One main reason that the redesign was pushed through (besides the need for different cannon mounts) was that the factory that made 190 wings-Junkers in Schonebeck- was hit very hard by buffs, causing a major backup in wing production.  -info from Focke Wulf  FW190-Ta152 Entwicklung/Tecknik/Einsatz by Heinz Nowarro, Motorbuch Verlag                                                            

The weight had started to creep up in the 190 series, and the lighter wing brought wingloading down 1kg/m^2 from the A6 as compared to the A5   -(from Robert Grisnell's book)    If anyone has the metric wingloading of the A8, please post it (standard combat config.)                                                                                                    ^( 226kg/m^2 , down from 227kg/m^2)                                                                                

[Krusty]

No, there was no weight savings. The exact same wing was on the A5 and A6, except the only changes they made were to the way you could carry guns in the outboard position. They made it accept MG151/20s and Mk108s.

It was not lighter, nor stronger (funny how they could make it lighter AND stonger when almost no other plane in WW2 could?). Plus wing flexing was never a major problem with the 190 series, unlike the spitfires. Given the single long span and the second forward half span, it was really one of the strongest wings on any plane of the war IMO. Maybe not the best design, but definitely strong.

The A-6 wing redesign is an urban myth (and later Internet myth) that's been propogated for a long long time. It stems from one of the early prototypes having a slight wing redesign, and has been misinterpreted based on that. It is quite possible some part of the production process changed (no doubt many things did on many planes) but the end result was the same wing with the same capabilities.

[STEELE]

The prototype 190V5 or V6 is when the wingspan was increased about a foot, that was before the 190A even went into service. The changes my sources (both German and American authors) are speaking of are internal changes, using lighter but stronger alloys. They realized the need to cut weight to keep the 190's excellent survivability record, Fockewulf engineers weren't like Klink and Schultz, "Hey let's just make the wurger heavy as hell and who gives a dam if all the pilots get shot to hades". Yes they added the proper sockets to house the better cannons, but at the same time figured out a way to build the wings lighter and stronger, after all the type had been in service for a few years by then and was improved like all the other warbirds of the era.
I see where some people may get 190A5 and 190V5 (prototype) confused though

[Urchin]

Lighter vs. stronger is usually not possible I would think. 

Kind of a trade-off, like armor vs weight.

[drgondog]

The prototype 190V5 or V6 is when the wingspan was increased about a foot, that was before the 190A even went into service. The changes my sources (both German and American authors) are speaking of are internal changes, using lighter but stronger alloys. They realized the need to cut weight to keep the 190's excellent survivability record,  Yes they added the proper sockets to house the better cannons, but at the same time figured out a way to build the wings lighter and stronger, after all the type had been in service for a few years by then and was improved like all the other warbirds of the era.

Curious about two things. 1.) what 'lighter but stronger" alloys were used? The airframe industry was pretty well settled into using aluminum and steel - both of which remained same weights respectively although the strengths (and brittleness) increased as 20224-T4 improved over Alclad 17ST but AFAIK there were no material/alloy changes made to the Fw 190 wing thoughout the war.
2.) what 'redesign' of either main spar or torque box was made to increase stiffness of the Fw 190 wing.

Essentially you have to either increase the depth of a spar, increase the beam cap area of the beam or increase the surface skin thickness on top and bottom side of the wing in the spar area to increase bending stiffness. 

[Ardy123]

Curious about two things. 1.) what 'lighter but stronger" alloys were used? The airframe industry was pretty well settled into using aluminum and steel - both of which remained same weights respectively although the strengths (and brittleness) increased as 20224-T4 improved over Alclad 17ST but AFAIK there were no material/alloy changes made to the Fw 190 wing thoughout the war.
2.) what 'redesign' of either main spar or torque box was made to increase stiffness of the Fw 190 wing.

Essentially you have to either increase the depth of a spar, increase the beam cap area of the beam or increase the surface skin thickness on top and bottom side of the wing in the spar area to increase bending stiffness.  

Thats not true, you don't have to add metal to increase the stiffness... The simplest example....

Take a metal rod that is solid, try and bend it, then take a metal rod that is hollow on the inside (a tube), try and bend it, you will find that the tube/hollow one is harder to bend, so in that regard, it is 'stiffer'. Now what changes they might have made to the 190, I have no idea, but the idea that more metal is required to increase stiffness/strength in regards to a particular force is bogus.


Keep in mind it was not just the wing that was redesigned in the A6, they also streamlined the bomb/external fuel tank fitting to be stronger and more streamlined. Also, they changed the shape of the storage port and improved the radio system too. The A6 was not an A5 with more guns, it had substantial changes.

A general list of changes..

Fw 190 V1  Prototype Model; fitted with BMW 139 engine of 1,550 horsepower.
Fw 190 A – Base production model
Fw 190 A-0  Preproduction Model Designation; 28 examples produced.
Fw 190 A-1 – Role specific optimized variant; appeared in June 1941; fitted with BMW 801C-1 engines of 1,560 horsepower; longer propeller; 4 x 7.92mm machine guns (2 in fuselage and 2 in wing roots) and 2 x 20mm cannons in outboard wings; bulged engine cowlings.
Fw 190 A-2 – Role specific optimized variant; appeared in October 1941; fitted with BMW 801 C-2 engine of 1,600 horsepower; redesigned exhaust system; upgraded gun sight; 2 x 7.92mm machine guns in fuselage and 4 x 20mm cannons (2 replaced original 7.92mm machine guns) in wings.
Fw 190 A-3 – Role specific optimized variant; appearing in spring of 1942; fitted with BMW 801 D-2 engines of 1,754 horsepower; centerline bomb rack.
Fw 190 A-3a  First appearing in fall of 1942; Turkish export versions; fitted with 4 x 7.92mm machine guns and 2 x 20mm cannons (same as A-1 model).
Fw 190 A-4 – Role specific optimized variant; appeared in July 1942; improved radio equipment; similar to A-3 in most respects (armament/engine).
Fw 190 A-4/U1  Centerline bomb rack fitted; MG 151 cannons retained but all other machine gun armament removed.
Fw 190 A-4/U3  Similar to U1 model; some converted to nightfighter duty; served as basis for Fw 190 F-1 ?assault? fighter version.
Fw 190 A-4/U4  Dedicated Reconnaissance Platform; fitted with photographic cameras; armament of machine gun and cannons fuselage mounted.
Fw 190 A-4/U7 High-Altitude Variant; compressor intakes implemented on side cowlings.
Fw 190 A-4/U8  Would later serve as basis for Fw 190 G-1 model.
Fw 190 A-4/R6  Fitted with underwing rocket mortar weaponry
Fw 190 A-5 – Role specific optimized variant; revised engine placement; fitted with BMW 801 D-2 engine of 1,700 horsepower; MW 50 power boost capable.
Fw 190 A-5/U2  Dedicated Nightfighter; 2 x 20mm MG151 cannons.
Fw 190 A-5/U3  Nightfighter with provision for fuel tanks and bombs; 2 x 20mm MG151 cannons.
Fw 190 A-5/U4  Dedicated Reconnaissance Fighter; fitted with cameras.
Fw 190 A-5/U8  Nightfighter fitted with underwing racks for centerline bombs and underwing fuel drop tanks; 2 x 20mm MG151 cannons; later to become the Fw 190 G-2 model series.
Fw 190 A-5/U12  Bomber Interceptor Variant; fitted with two underwing gun pods for array of 2 x 7.92mm machine guns and 6 x 20mm MG151 cannons.
Fw 190 A-5/U12  Prototype Model
Fw 190 A-5R11  Nightfighter Conversion Model; fitted with radar.
Fw 190 A-6 – Role specific optimized variant; new wing design; extra ammunition for 2 x 7.92mm fuselage machine guns and 4 x 20mm wing-mounted cannons; improved radio navigation system; streamlined centerline bomb/fuel rack fitting.
Fw 190 A-7 – Role specific optimized variant; based on the Fw 190 A-5/U9 prototype; fitted with BMW 801 D-2 engine of 1,700 horsepower; 2 x 20mm MG 131 cannons replacing standard MG17 7.92mm fuselage machine guns; upgraded gun sight.
Fw 190 A-8 – Role specific optimized variant; improved bubble canopy.
Fw 190 A-9  Final A-Series Production Models; fitted with BMW 801S engines of 1,973 horsepower; improved engine armor protection; improved radiator system.
Fw 190 A-10  High-Altitude Prototype Development
Fw 190 B – Wider wing span; higher altitude capability; pressurized cockpit; turbocharged BMW 801 engine.
Fw 190 C – High altitude capability; turbocharged Daimler-Benz DB 603 powerplant.
Fw 190 D Dora – Main service model by 1944; fitted with Junkers Jumo 213 supercharged engine.
Fw 190 D-0  Developmental Prototype; fitted with Jumo 213a engine.
Fw 190 D-1  Developmental Prototype
Fw 190 D-2  Developmental Prototype
Fw 190 D-9 – Role specific optimized variant
Fw 190 D-10 – Role specific optimized variant
Fw 190 D-11 – Role specific optimized variant; fitted with uprated Jumo 213E engines; 17 examples produced.
Fw 190 D-12 – Role specific optimized variant; based on D-11 model; Mk 108 30mm cannon in propeller hub.
Fw 190 D-13 – Role specific optimized variant; based on D-11 model; Mk 151/20 20mm cannon in propeller hub.
Fw 190 D-13/R11  All-Weather Development
Fw 190 E - Proposed reconnaissance fighter
Fw 190 F – Ground attack model based on Fw 190 A-4 powerplant.
Fw 190 F-1  Improved under-fuselage armor; centerline and wing bomb racks.
Fw 190 F-2  Based on Fw 190 A-5/U3; replaced F-1 series on production lines.
Fw 190 F-3 Based on Fw 190 A-5/U17; 432 examples produced.
Fw 190 F-4  Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-5  Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-6  Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-7  Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-8  Improved radio equipment; redesigned compressor for low-altitude boost in performance; 2 x 20mm MG151/20 cannons in wing roots and 2 x 7.92mm MG131 machine guns above engine housing; 3,400 examples produced.
Fw 190 F-8/U1  Long-Range Nightfighter; underwing and centerline provision for fuel tanks and/or bombs.
Fw 190 F-8/U2  Torpedo Bomber
Fw 190 F-8/U3  Heavy Torpedo Bomber
Fw 190 F-8/U4  Nightfighter
Fw 190 F-9  Based on the Fw 190 A-9; redesigned empennage as found on the Ta 152 development; 147 examples produced.
Fw 190 G  Long-Range Attack Model; based on the Fw 190 A-5 powerplant.
Fw 190 G-1  Based on the Fw 190 A-4/U8
Fw 190 G-2  Based on the Fw 190 A-5/U8
Fw 190 G-3  Based on the Fw 190 A-6
Fw 190 G-8  Based on the Fw 190 A-8
Fw 190 A8-U1  Original Designation for Trainer Fw 190?s.
Fw 190 S-5  Trainer Variant
Fw 190 S-8  Trainer Variant
Ra-2  High Altitude Development
Ra-3  High Altitude Development
Ta 152 – Ultra-high altitude fighter; Wider wing span; Jumo 213E powerplant; based on the Ra-3 development model.
Ta 152C  Low-Altitude Developmental Ta 152 Model; fitted with DB 603 engine; only two examples produced.
Ta 152H – Improved Ta 152; Only operational variant of the Ta 152.

[Debrody]

Dragondog,
there were plenty of wing variants of the 190 series during the war, Kurt Tank was always trying to improve his machines. BUT...  only a few were in mass-production. Just the ta-152, for example, that plane existed with 3 wing variants, the firts model was simmilar to the dora (but with the lenghtened fuselage tho), the ta 152 C had a lil bit longer and robust wing to hold the heavy arnament, and the H had the high altitude wing with he huge wingspan. There were simmilar attempts to modify the 190A too. They built several types of 'hφhenjagern" from it.

[drgondog]

Thats not true, you don't have to add metal to increase the stiffness... The simplest example....

Take a metal rod that is solid, try and bend it, then take a metal rod that is hollow on the inside (a tube), try and bend it, you will find that the tube/hollow one is harder to bend, so in that regard, it is 'stiffer'. Now what changes they might have made to the 190, I have no idea, but the idea that more metal is required to increase stiffness/strength in regards to a particular force is bogus.

Steele - as a former airframes structures engineer I agree what you say - but that isn't what happened in the Fw 190A series to my knowledge and I was reacting to the comment made with a question? Further I offered the simpler path to alter wing stiffness without stepping up the materials to a much higher yield while maintaining same or better strength to weight ratio?

Having said that, you now have the floor.  Fw had a manufacturing process, tools and materials brought to fabrication centers for the A- series.  I have seen examples of the wing and the upper skin of the wing of both prototypes and production A4s and A6's.  I detected no difference (not that my discernment would extract a difference between an .032 or .040 skin - ditto beams and stringers... so the question of 'lighter and stronger alloys' was intriguing


Keep in mind it was not just the wing that was redesigned in the A6, they also streamlined the bomb/external fuel tank fitting to be stronger

So, given your exhaustive knowledge of the variants, tell me what Tank did to alter the wing, the tooling and the materials to make the 'wing stonger'?

[Widewing]

Take a metal rod that is solid, try and bend it, then take a metal rod that is hollow on the inside (a tube), try and bend it, you will find that the tube/hollow one is harder to bend, so in that regard, it is 'stiffer'.

Solid bar vs tubing with the same diameter and same material.... Solid bar will be the stronger of the two, as it has a lower overall shear stress. Strength is also a function of the wall thickness to tube diameter ratio. In short, you will have to increase the diameter of the tube, and pay close attention to the wall thickness. Another issue is the need to bend the tubing over a mandrel, or it will buckle and collapse. Solid bar will not do this. Tubing provides a greater strength to weight ratio, but is not stronger for an equal outside diameter.

A good example is anti-sway bars. Some years ago, I replaced a solid bar with a hollow bar. To maintain the same strength, the bar was about 50% larger in diameter, but still provided a weight savings and adequate strength.

[Ardy123]

Solid bar vs tubing with the same diameter and same material.... Solid bar will be the stronger of the two, as it has a lower overall shear stress. Strength is also a function of the wall thickness to tube diameter ratio. In short, you will have to increase the diameter of the tube, and pay close attention to the wall thickness. Another issue is the need to bend the tubing over a mandrel, or it will buckle and collapse. Solid bar will not do this. Tubing provides a greater strength to weight ratio, but is not stronger for an equal outside diameter.

A good example is anti-sway bars. Some years ago, I replaced a solid bar with a hollow bar. To maintain the same strength, the bar was about 50% larger in diameter, but still provided a weight savings and adequate strength.

Thank you for the clarification, and your example of the anti-sway bars is a better example than mine as it still proves the same point, more metal isn't needed to keep adequate strength, ie the end result was still lighter, thus it is possible to 'redesign' a wing to be lighter.

If I read drgondog comment correctly that was embedded in his quote of my statement, are you claiming to have...

I have seen examples of the wing and the upper skin of the wing of both prototypes and production A4s and A6's.  I detected no difference (not that my discernment would extract a difference between an .032 or .040 skin - ditto beams and stringers... so the question of 'lighter and stronger alloys' was intriguing

As to my knowledge there almost no 190s in existence, maybe less than 25 total, what gave you the opportunity to inspect the wings of prototype & production 190 A5 and A6?

As for the 190 wing design, although I am still digging, what I have found so far was that by making the outer cannon housings in the wing part of the 'standard' wing instead of something that was done in the field, they were able to lessen the weight (compared to the field modified wings) and they were stronger than the (field modified wings). Still digging though... The best way would be if someone had a copy of the wing plans of both the A-5 and the A-6, maybe if someone knows someone over at Flugwerk? I know they built a FW 190 -A8\N from scratch.  http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4

[Stoney]

If the wing planform and thickness didn't change, then the spar was the same size, regardless of a change in material.

[Stoney]

So, futzing with the leading edge geometry of say a 23012 airfoil should result in two things. A dash number to explain the difference in the 'new 23012' airfoil geometry like a leading edge radius or sharpness distinction, and a new and different set of wind tunnel data to plot the differences in Cl, Cd and CMac as well as notes to alert the designer to nasty departure characteristics (hmm that would be three things?)

I dropped into another site on a discussion and noticed that the Do 335 had this airfoil with a three digit post series and I had not seen that before

For a two digit modification after the dash number - the first digit represents deviation from 'normal' leading edge radius (where 6=normal, 0=sharp) and the second indicates the position of the maximum thickness in percent chord. So the 23018-63 would be same as 23018 except the max t/c moved aft from 15 % to 30% of chord - more closely approaching 65 series laminar flow wings which were in the 40% range.

Having said this I have never seen any dash number after the Fw 190 airfoild series so I really don't know.
 

Well, the 23000 series has the mean line that creates that "flattened" bottom portion.  It wasn't a different airfoil that was modified--the finished product, complete with the flattened portion, was called the 23000.  So, there wouldn't be any modification numbers associated with an aircraft that used a stock NACA 23000 airfoil--it was designed that way from the get-go.  Now, if someone else modified it, then it would need the mod numbers, but all those fighters I listed use the stock 23000 mean line.  When I say NACA "modified" the airfoil, I meant the modifications they made in order to design the airfoil behavior they desired--not that they took another airfoil and modified it.  If you have a copy of Abbot and Doenhoff, or access to NACA Report 824, look at the stall characteristics of the 23000 airfoils.  The thinner sections have some very nasty stalls.

[Ardy123]

Stoney,
FYI, according to document from the university of Illinois UIUC applied aerodynamics group

to be exact...
root :NACA 23015.3                             
tip: NACA 23009

http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

[Cheese]

Did you guys see the segment following the Jug vs 190?  It's a 190 vs a Mustang....Looks like they pulled an HO on each other.

[Charge]

I don't know the origin of this text but it seems to be the source for many quotes:

Modifications of the type to date had caused the weight of the aircraft to creep up. To combat this and to allow better weapons to be installed in the wings, a structurally redesigned and lighter wing was introduced with the A-6. The normal armament was increased to two MG 17 fuselage machine guns and four 20 mm MG 151/20E wing-root and outer wing cannon with larger ammunition boxes. New electrical sockets and reinforced weapon-mounts were fitted internally in the wings to allow the installation of either 20 mm or 30 mm (1.18 in) ammunition boxes and for under-wing armament. Because the outer wing MG 151s were mounted lower than the MG/FFs new larger hatches, incorporating bulges and cartridge discharge chutes, were incorporated into the wing lower surfaces.

It does not say anything about strengthening of the structure.

http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A6W.jpg

http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A5W.jpg

No other changes but the weapon bay change is evident from these schematics.

-C+