Author Topic: Was the RLM working for the allies? (Read 2139 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **on:** August 18, 2004, 05:17:45 PM »

The reason I ask is because of what I can only call the Fw190C debacle.

This was an early 1941/42 Focke-Wulf project which mated FW190 with the DB603. The project went quite far, there were minimal problems as it was very similar to 190A, and by late 1942 FW was ready to enter production with the following machine.

When you read this remember that this thing was to enter service in very early 1943.

Armament:

2 X MG131 over engine
2X MG151/20 in wing roots
1X MG151 or MK108 or MK103 in engine

Speed on C3 fuel - start und notleistung.

Deck: 373mph
10K: 423mph
22K: 453mph
30K: 435mph

NO MW50 use mentioned in speed tests!!!

Climb:

3,300 on climb/military power

No indication what emergency climb was but later test versions got 4,300 fpm with MW50

Weight was 9500lbs...

The RLM decided this was less useful than the Me410 destroyer so FW got no more DB603 and they project was ended in late 1942..

What other explaination is there except that the RLM was working for the allies?

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2004, 05:40:00 PM »

Must have been recruited to work for the Allies by that other Luftwaffe Allied mole, Goering.

Pongo · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2004, 05:53:23 PM »

And the db603 was prod ready at that time?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2004, 05:59:07 PM »

Yes I think so, the DB603 project started in 1936 so by late 42 early 43 it was available for production.

For example the Me410 started production in January 43 using the DB603.. So no DB603 for FW..

I've always wondered why the Luftwaffe fell behind the allies 1 full year in fighter performance by early 44, only to catch up by late 44 early 45. Now I think I see why, they passed up on a tremendous opportunity with this FW190C...

ra · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2004, 06:18:56 PM »

Another big screwup was requiring all new bomber designs to be capable of dive-bombing.

Angus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2004, 06:34:44 PM »

I would be very nice to know more about the db603 design and production.
Was there a problem producing them? why?

Crumpp has been doing a lot of study on the 190. Maybe he will have something for us.
Anyway, nice stuff!

HoHun · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2004, 07:00:58 PM »

Hi Ra,

>Another big screwup was requiring all new bomber designs to be capable of dive-bombing.

That's just what the RAF required from the Avro Manchester, too :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Angus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2004, 07:29:20 PM »

And the Germans from the HE 177.
Bottom line though, the ideas were not that bad, but the reality was a bit far from theory.

Crumpp · « **Reply #8 on:** August 18, 2004, 07:42:42 PM »

Hey guys!

I have wondered the same thing myself. The DB603 was the original engine for the FW-190D series. It was 300 pounds lighter than the BMW 801 series and developed as much Horsepower as the Jumo. When engine feasibility study was completed on the Dora the DB603 equipped Dora was 200 lbs lighter than the Jumo 213 Dora. I have to look up exactly why but it was lighter. I think the DB 603 equipped Dora did not have to have such a radical extension. The RLM simply told Tank, "NO", he couldn't have DB603 engines for the type.

It was used in the Do 335, Ta152C, Ta154H, and He 219. From what I know there was simply a shortage of these engines and they were allocated to other projects.

The FW-190C's High Altitude performance was not up to expectations. The Ta-152 was in the works and expected to be a leap in performance at the target altitudes over the FW-190C. Additionally the exhaust extensions on the FW-190C caused problems. In the end, with better stuff in the works, it was deemed a waste of time and effort to perfect.

DB 603
Technical Data:

Type:      12 cylinder inverted-vee
Bore:      162 mm (6.38 in)
Stroke:      180 mm (7.09 in)
Volume:      44.5 l (2715 cu in)
Weight:      920 kg (2030 lb)
Power (A):   1290 kW (1750 HP) at 2700 rpm
(G):   1395 kW (1900 HP) at 2700 rpm
(N):   2060 kW (2800 HP) at 3000 rpm
Continuous (A):   1190 kw (1620 HP) at 2700 rpm
(G): 1145 kW (1560 HP) at 2700 rpm
(N): 1420 kW (1930 HP) at 3000 rpm

Jumo 213A
Technical Data:

Type:      12 cylinder inverted-vee
Bore:      150 mm (5.90 in)
Stroke:      165 mm (6.50 in)
Volume:      34.97 l (2135 cu in)
Weight:      920 kg (2030 lb)
Power:      1280 kW (1740 HP) at 3000 rpm
Continuous:    880 kW (1200 HP)

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #9 on:** August 18, 2004, 08:05:27 PM »

Crumpp I think you have the later weird Fw190s with the big pipes outside in mind. The FW190C of 1942 had normal exhausts.

Glasses · « **Reply #10 on:** August 18, 2004, 09:42:43 PM »

Wouldn't it be if they mated the Db engine with the Fw airframe MR tank and Fw would've gotten priority over Willi's machine and thus would cut his revenue in turn,since If I recall the GHC had a much better relationship with Messerchmitt than it had with Fw,thus even though the plane would have performed much much better than it's Me cousin priority was given to the 109s to continue using the engine instead.

Crumpp · « **Reply #11 on:** August 18, 2004, 10:04:18 PM »

http://www.asd05.com/default_zone/fr/html/page-1285.html

Great Picture of it down the page.

http://www.frenkenstein.com/ww2/germany/Germany.htm

Nope it's the one. Although there are conflicting stories out there as to why it was dropped. You can see the exhaust extentions.

Deitmarr Hermann says they were having trouble with the exhaust system melting the side of the turbocharger. Some sights just say they were having problems with the turbocharger. Other info says the pressure cabin.

Crumpp

Mitsu · « **Reply #12 on:** August 18, 2004, 10:07:05 PM »

Didn't it cancel because it had much troubles?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #13 on:** August 18, 2004, 10:30:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
http://www.asd05.com/default_zone/fr/html/page-1285.html

Great Picture of it down the page.

http://www.frenkenstein.com/ww2/germany/Germany.htm

Nope it's the one. Although there are conflicting stories out there as to why it was dropped. You can see the exhaust extentions.

Deitmarr Hermann says they were having trouble with the exhaust system melting the side of the turbocharger. Some sights just say they were having problems with the turbocharger. Other info says the pressure cabin.

Crumpp

That's a later version Crumpp.

The 190C I mentoned above was the initial version from 1942. Just a straight DB603A with standard exhausts and standard airscoop supercharger intake on the left fuselage side.

Sable · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2004, 10:33:19 PM »

Keep in mind too that in late '42, early '43 the Germans weren't too worried about their single-engined day fighters. The 109G and 190A were some of the best fighters in the world at the time. The big concerns of the future were the huge numbers of the Russians, and the growing bomber strength of the Americans and British. Twin engined bomber destroyers were showing a lot of promise (which really played out over Schweinfurt) and the need for improved nightfighters was there as well. Plus it would be easier to ramp up production on the existing fighters then to go through development of a new type and then try to bring production to the same level. Also remember that the idea of a fighter with enough range to escort bombers from Britain to Germany seemed fantastic to most - the Luftwaffe's own attempts at long range escorts during the Battle of Britain was less the successful. And the Jets were in the pipeline at this point.

I'd imagine it was a case where some planner said "Why work so hard for a 450mph fighter we don't need too much at the moment, and that is going to compromise the production of bomber destroyers and night fighters that we need. And look, this 560mph fighter is just around the corner.

Meanwhile the US, Britain, and Russia all face one big hurdle in attaining airpower - overcoming Luftwaffe fighter strength. So not suprisingly their efforts went more towards making the most, best performing aircraft they could.