G-14 bigger tailplane

[agent 009]

Port & starboard eh. Um is that left & right? on tailplane?

Krusty. I have only one non book report from a Dora pilot. He said it was much quieter than radial. Hit 370 mph on deck,( no boost I would guess as these were 1st ones to arrive). New canopy gave much better rear view. Better in turns cause had more shaft horsepower. Forget rest. He mentioned dive & turn compared to other fighters, but without the text in front of me, I'd rather not go there.

[gripen]

All serial produced Fw 190Ds had wider tail vertical surface than Fw 190A. The widening can be seen easily from the profiles as an extension at front of the rudder. Ta 152s had even wider tail as well as some Fw 190Ds. And both had lenghtened fuselage, again the extension can be seen in the front of the horizontal tail.

gripen




 

[Naudet]

Tail on the Dora was the same as the FW-190A series.

Actually not, the Dora had an extra section inserted in the tail to enlarge vertical stab area, compared to the A-Series.

And also some D9s were delivered with the TA152 tailplane, which was all done to ease serial production of the entire FW190-TA152 by using standarized parts.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Krusty
Actually, the PORT stabilizer/elevator (I believe it was port) is thicker than the STARBOARD one. Why? Increase lift (in which direction I can't remember) to help counter torque. There were lots of little things like that. I think the spitfire's off-sides radiator may have been for a similar reason (wild guess)

You mean the port elevator was also thicker on the 109? I know the vertical fin had an assymetric profile, much like normal wings, to counter torque.

Another nice solution to counter torque (in this case, effectively neutralize) was found on the Yakovlev fighters, which had assymeteric wing area.

AFAIK the assymetric, single wing radiator on early Spits caused some yawing in dives due to it`s air resistance - that ceased when they started to use two radiators with the MkIX.


RE : on the the reduced roll rate of the 190D, the only reason I can think of is the replacement of the engine with the Jumo 213. Perhaps the symmetric shape of the radial engines come with less initial inertia, and rolls can be started quicker, altough maximal rate of roll may be similiar. I have seen some German source though that the Dora`s roll rate was much lower - about half of the Antons, ie. 360 degree roll in ca 4 seconds.

[Crumpp]

And also some D9s were delivered with the TA152 tailplane, which was all done to ease serial production of the entire FW190-TA152 by using standarized parts.

Hi Naudet!

Glad to see you. We were not talking about the .5M extension in the fuselage but rather the 1.77M tail.

On the production orders you are correct but it is not serial production of the FW-190D9 with the new tail. The Focke Wulf factory intention was never to produce large numbers one after the other of the Dora 9 with a Ta-152 tail.  The Dora 9 simply does not meet the aerodynamic properties requiring the 1.77M tail. It was not necessary.

The final few months of the war are a tangled mess from the factory point of view.  

There is correspondence indicating the FW-190D11, D12, and D13 were on the verge of production.  In fact it is likely that some quantities were produced before the  end of hostilities.

As I understand FW's production orders for the Dora series it was to receive the Ta-152 series tail when the current contracted factories began producing
FW-190D11 (+) series.  

The factories and subcontractors producing the Dora 9 are also the ones contracted for D11 (+) production.  I have original documentation listing those subcontractors from Focke Wulf along with production instructions and major design changes.  

During the changeover they would simply produce hybrids that month until the Jumo 213A's ran out.

This was production expediency for the late marques D11, D12, D13 and not design change to the Dora 9.  In other words it was done to get the last 213A's out the door of the factory without having to retool the factory.  

Now if JG26's Kommanduer was flying a an FW-190D13 and much of JV 44's protection staffle was flying late marque Dora's it is likely that a tiny number of Dora 9's made it out the door with a Ta-152 series tail.

This is not the same thing as serial production.  No order is given to retool the factories to implement a design change in the Dora 9.  The Dora 9 can simply use available parts on it's way to end of it's production lifecycle to expedite production of the next series.

Here is a FW factory drawing of the D13:



As per FW factory instructions any Dora  marques with hub firing weapons required the modified tail of 1.77m.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

All serial produced Fw 190Ds had wider tail vertical surface than Fw 190A.

Wrong Gripen.  

The tail shown on your JG6 Dora 9 was implemented in the FW-190A/F series.

It was a serial production part of that series.

Your middle plate is the 1.77M tail on a Ta 152H.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Wrong Gripen.  

The tail shown on your JG6 Dora 9 was implemented in the FW-190A/F series.

Dear Crumpp,
Why don't you read what Naudet wrote:

"Actually not, the Dora had an extra section inserted in the tail to enlarge vertical stab area, compared to the A-Series. "

And that is exactly same I'm saying above, a good picture of the tail extension can be seen below (from Flugwerke site). The vertical tail extension (extra section) can be seen in the right and the fuselage extension in the left.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Gripen,

What part of that extentsion was part of the FW-190A/F series production is confusing to you?

It first appears on FW-190A5 and is used throughout FW-190A/F/G production on different varients.

It is not specific for the Dora 9 and as the Focke Wulf factory directs:

"Existing tail surfaces from FW-190A8 series will be used."

The fuselage extentsion of .5 meters is mandatory in the Dora 9 and was serially produced.




All the best,

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

Crummp,

The standard Fw190D9 v-stab was wider than the standard Fw190A series v-stab. A short extension, maybe 10-15cm was added just ahead of the rudder control surface. This was in addition to the longer plug in front of the tail assembly.

Your drawing of the A5/U14 prototype does not show the D9 type tail which was imply an extended A series tail with a plug before the moving rudder surface. The A5-U14 tails fins are extended at the front by cahning the size and shape of the laediong edge of the v-stab - hence the odd panel on th le and the standard position of the triangle access hatch.  The D9 tail was extended at the rear, so the ledaing edge shape is teh same but the access hatch appears to be farther forward.

[MiloMorai]

Crumpp,

standard A/F/G 190s did not have the rear extention peice added to the fin.

Notice the piece  in front of the rudder of the D-9.



Now compare to the A/F/G (A-5 shown)



To back up Grunherz, notice that there is a larger distance between the fin access hatch on the D-9 compared to the  A/F/G a/c.

Bentley drawings

[Crumpp]

You are correct Grunhertz.  You posted before I could delete the post.

Looking in Rodieke's "Jagdflugzeug FW-190" the extentsion is listed for the Dora.

I found the Focke Wulf documentation specifying a tail extentsion will be implaced "when available" in the minutes of another factory meeting.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp

What part of that extentsion was part of the FW-190A/F series production is confusing to you?

Well, I'm not confused here but someone else is. Generally I wonder why it is so hard for you to accept what I say? This is not the first time and probably not the last.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Why am I not surprised you would take the opportunity to get in a personal dig after your last fiasco?

Those in glass houses should not throw rocks.  Wonder why you are not any serious research forums?

Not my fault you made yourself look stupid last thread we were in together.  Awfully big of you to grab the chance to gouge.

Generally I wonder why it is so hard for you to accept what I say?

Several reasons starting with your crediability maybe? Remember the math we did together?  I find it hard to believe you are this dense as to wonder why.  Others in this thread may not know you but I do.

Not the subject of this thread.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Why am I not surprised you would take the opportunity to get in a personal dig after your last fiasco.

Please don't take things too personally, if you don't like my postings just ignore them. I did not reply to your post above but just pointed out that agent 009 is correct regarding the tail widening. After that Naudet replied to you post with same content and  after that you replied to my post above and announced that I'm wrong and so on.

Basicly same thing happened when I posted the evidence that the German measurements in the Chalais-Meudon contain systematical error; when I posted the stuff you started the flame war, when Butch2k posted the same stuff you thanked him. And there is several other examples...

I wonder what "fiasco" you are talking about?

gripen

[Crumpp]

Nothing personal
Gripen.  Don't ask if you do not want a reply.

You took the opportunity to dig not me.

Basicly same thing happened when I posted the evidence that the German measurements in the Chalais-Meudon contain systematical error; when I posted the stuff you started the flame war, when Butch2k posted the same stuff you thanked him. And there is several other examples...

Your version of events.  What Butch posted was far from what you claimed.  You posted partial information in an attempt to decieve others into thinking you are correct.  Nothing more, Gripen.  I pointed it out and others pointed out that it is scientifically impossible to draw the conclusion's you do even based on your partial information.  That's when I left the thread.  

And I will not draw this one off topic anymore.  

All the best,

Crumpp