Was the RLM working for the allies?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Angus
Boils down to politics then?

Why were there no Griffon engined Mosquitos????

No need as the Merlins were good enough.

[Charge]

OR the Griffon production was already stretched so tight that there was barely enough of them for newer Spitfires and, of course, the Mossies were thought to do just fine with Merlins as they did.

-C+

[VO101_Isegrim]

Considering how few Griffons were built... they couldn`t even produce enough for the Griffon Spits, see how few of those were built during the war (2stage ones, I mean, the single stage Griffon would have been no better at low altitudes than the Merlins). Besides Griffons were a lot heavier and thirstier - > less useful load possible.

[MiloMorai]

Since there was no real pressing need for the Griffons as the Merlin/Packard powered a/c were dealing with the LW quite successfully, why interupt production?

Development of the Griffon began in 1939 and progressed much better than did the Merlin development.

[Charge]

Why produce Griffon engined a/c if the Merlin engined a/c were already doing the job well enough?

-C+

[Pongo]

So squadron trials of the 190C would have begun when?
And full squadron service when?
So it would have beat the 190A8 into service then?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Pongo
So squadron trials of the 190C would have begun when?
And full squadron service when?
So it would have beat the 190A8 into service then?

FW was ready to produce in late 1942, would have started building the machines in first months of 43.

So I think its safe to say service would be sometime in early 43... It would be a year ealier than A8.

But the 190C production was canceled because the DB603's were to be used for Me410 which went into production in January 43..

[Crumpp]

@ Cumpp
  The Fw190V15 (W.Nr 0037), V16 (W.Nr 0037) and V18 (W.Nr 0040) were the prototypes for the Fw190C. The V18 became the V18/U1 Kanguruh when the Hirth tc was added. It was later modified, /U2, to become the prototype for the Ta152H-1.

The whole story is laid out including all the performance graphs in here:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764318764

Basically all the prototypes started out as the V series.  At a later point they were are redesignated FW-190B, C, and D.  There is a complete list of what was designated what included along with the fate of the prototype.  Interesting read.  My copy is loaned out at the moment to a friend at work.

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

Crumpp I have that book. The 190C I'm talking about is the one FW was ready to produce by late 1942.

[Crumpp]

It's a good book.

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

Excellent one, I got his 152 study too. I also just ordered the 190A series book from the same author.  So I should have all the bases covered, 190A, 190D and Ta152H.

[Crumpp]

The 190A is a good book too.  I was rather disappointed in his coverage of the later A series.  His info dies out after the FW-190A3.  It is a great book though on the development of the 190A up until that point.  

For the 109 series, this book just recently made it here to the USA.  It is one of the best books I have found for technical data on the 109.

It's the first WWII book I have seen that uses archealogical evidence to back up it's conclusions.  

http://www.ipmsusa.org/Reviews/Books/Aircraft/Specialty_Bf-109_Recognition_Manual/Specialty_bf-109_Recognition_Manual.htm

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

Just what I wanted Crumpp, I know next to nothing about the intial 190A development.  How much coverage is there about the BMW139 and the early small wing 190s?

The 109 book looks fascinating, I will keep it in mind for later.  Thanks.

[Crumpp]

Most of the book is on the early development.  1/3 of it is on the V1 itself.  It goes into great detail about the BMW139 and the small wings.  

It is worth the money especially if you are interested in the early development and testing.

Crumpp

[HoHun]

Hi Grünherz,

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

Well, that means the RLM had to decide the issue Fw 190C vs. Me 410 in 1942.

What was the situation in 1942? The Fw 190A was vastly superior to the Spitfire V  (as, in the contemporary race for altitude, was the Me 109G). The Spitfire IX with Merlin 61 had excellent high-altitude capabilities, but was deployed in penny packet numbers only, and it's low and medium altitude performance was nothing to worry he Luftwaffe anyway.

On the other hand, two other important Luftwaffe types, the Ju 87 and Me 110, were completely obsolete, and air-to-ground was a great concern for the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front.

The DB603A was a low-to-medium altitude engine anyway, so it didn't really help in the 1942 race for altitude, but on the other hand, it was great for a fast dive bomber and Zerstörer like the Me 410.

(With regard to the speed numbers, are they from actual test documents? Note that prototype speeds often are considerably higher than speeds achievable by aircraft with complete operational equipment.)

With regard to the DB603 vs. Jumo 213 comparison: The engines were very close to each other in performance. In all Focke-Wulf performance comparisons for Fw 190D and Ta 152 aircraft, similarly equipped DB603 and Jumo 213 versions gave very similar performance. I'd expect that the DB603-engined Fw 190C would have had virtually the same performance as the Fw 190D.

Of course it's impressive to think about the availability of Fw 190D-style performance in early 1943, but I'd say the RLM decision not to build the Fw 190C was perfectly logical at that time, and I'm not even convinced that it was a bad decision after all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)