Fw-190 question

[SunTracker]

The Fw-190 concept was a small lightweight airframe with a powerful engine.  So why did the 190 turn so poorly?

[VO101_Isegrim]

The FW 190 was designed for speed, with a highly aerodynamic, and rather small airframe. The wings were small sized, which meant less drag, but less lift as well. And less lift leads to poorer turning abilities... actually in the early design stage a small and a larger wing style were both considered, the latter being accepted for production because of its nicer handling qualities.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The FW 190 was designed for speed, with a highly aerodynamic, and rather small airframe. The wings were small sized, which meant less drag, but less lift as well. And less lift leads to poorer turning abilities... actually in the early design stage a small and a larger wing style were both considered, the latter being accepted for production because of its nicer handling qualities.

The La-5/7 had less wing area than the Fw190 and it would turn quite well.

[Furball]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The La-5/7 had less wing area than the Fw190 and it would turn quite well.

Thats because Soviet designers were quite clearly far superior to their german counterparts.  It is why the germans struggled with the under-par 109 for so many years without an adequate replacement.

[Crumpp]

lightweight airframe

It was not that lightweight.  The original engine, the BMW 139 was lighter than the engine that ended up in the design, the BMW 801 series.

The BMW 139 was dropped because of overheating issues that could not be solved, availability, and it's development potential was not as high as the 801 series, AFAIK.

Another issue that effects the FW-190 in flight sims only.  Turning ability is not the measure of a fighters manuverability.  It is only how tight a turn it can enter once the pilot gets the plane into a bank.  As one RAF pilot put it "Turning does not win air battles".  Even Galland became frustrated with the RLM's facsination with turning.  Turning is a part of the manuverability picture but not the entire picture.  Wingloading and power loading are the primary characteristics that determine turning ability.  

The other part of manuerability is agility.  Shaw defines that as "the ability to change the direction of your lift vector".  The primary characteristic for that is roll rate.

The third part of the picture is the "entangable" as Boyd put it.  I encourage you to read up on the USAAF lightweight fighter development program.  Some interesting things came out of the F18 and F16 trials.

The last thing is manuvering flaps.  The FW-190 had them and the pilots used them.  At 2 G's they lowered the stall to about 140mph and greatly improved the turn. They did not turn it into a Zeke by any means but allowed it to deal with USAAF Fighters with combat flaps.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The La-5/7 had less wing area than the Fw190 and it would turn quite well.

And the Lavochkin was also a ton ligther...

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp


The last thing is manuvering flaps.  The FW-190 had them and the pilots used them.  At 2 G's they lowered the stall to about 140mph and greatly improved the turn. They did not turn it into a Zeke by any means but allowed it to deal with USAAF Fighters with combat flaps.

Not again Crumpp.

The Fw 190, from the Handbook, had 3 positions: IN, OUT, and TAKEOFF. Now if you want to call the TO position 'manuvering' fine but then reword you statement to reflect their real use.

I can see this book starting untold new myths re. the Fw190.

[Angus]

From Furbie:
"Thats because Soviet designers were quite clearly far superior to their german counterparts. It is why the germans struggled with the under-par 109 for so many years without an adequate replacement."

Hehe, I smell a bait, good thing I'm not a fish.

On the eastern front the 109 and 190 were by no means under-par, the Russians didn't catch up with them untill late late in the war.
Look at the Armament and Speed, say 190A vs LaGG-3 in 1943

And 190's would actually turnfight with US fighters, but it could be a dicey deal......utterly depending on pilots and load.
I bet them P51's gave them a hard time sometimes.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
And the Lavochkin was also a ton ligther...

Those Russians sure knew how to make wooden a/c. Light, strong, nimble, robust.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Those Russians sure knew how to make wooden a/c. Light, strong, nimble, robust.

Russian airframe designers were second to none for sure... the Yak-3 is the best example, easily comparable, if not superior to the Spit IX, using a laughable engine with only half-2/3s the power output.. there`s price for it, though. Short range, short lifespan of airframe, practically no ordonance could be carried...

[Angus]

Seen a Yak-3 in the air.
Very nice one, very very.

[Crumpp]

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122132&highlight=FW190

The Fw 190, from the Handbook, had 3 positions: IN, OUT, and TAKEOFF. Now if you want to call the TO position 'maneuvering' fine but then reword you statement to reflect their real use.

Don't worry Milo.  It's the catch and release program!

It's funny though that the USAAF classified the "Take Off" flaps as maneuver flaps:



Kind of goes right along with what all the pilots that flew the FW-190 say about using flaps in the turn.

Crumpp

[Flyboy]

on what speeds did the flaps deploy? (the 10* part)

[MiloMorai]

Not a German report Crumpp but we all know the Allies did not fully understand the 190.

Notice that the 10* is within your spec for TAKE OFF position.

So what you should have said was:

The TAKE OFF postion, the primary function (as noted in the 190 handbook), could be used for maneuvering.

You got a professional writer lined up for your book?

[Crumpp]

Sorry Milo.  I just could not resist baiting you a little!

on what speeds did the flaps deploy? (the 10* part)

Anywhere below 500 kph.

Crumpp