Author Topic: RAF development V LW development  (Read 1913 times)

Offline Shifty

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9377
      • 307th FS
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2006, 06:45:05 PM »
The purpose for Luftwaffe and RAF fighter development was the same as Bruno and Angus thread development.







;)

JG-11"Black Hearts"...nur die Stolzen, nur die Starken

"Haji may have blown my legs off but I'm still a stud"~ SPC Thomas Vandeventer Delta1/5 1st CAV

Offline Hawco

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2006, 10:41:22 AM »
Thanks for all the contributions guys, I do enjoy finding things like this out.
Thanks a lot :aok

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2006, 12:18:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shifty
The purpose for Luftwaffe and RAF fighter development was the same as Bruno and Angus thread development.




;)


:aok

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2006, 01:14:54 PM »
Buhh, please scroll up and read :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2006, 01:48:39 PM »
Just search for past threads by Angus. There's a reason he is on so many ignore lists.

There will be a straight line of discussion then he shows and make a post completely about nothing. Some how D-day, N. Afika, Norway and Merlin engines mean that the Spitfire XIV, Tempests and the Dora were 'counterparts'. Or that the Dora was developed to intercept Mosquitos...

That his major source on all things WW2 air combat related is 'some one told me...'

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2006, 02:53:34 AM »
Many?
I remember HoHun's, but it turned out that It was about a debate where I turned out to be right. After he put me there though.
(look for the slats thread)

But  are there more? Sure would like to know ;)

Oh, someone at least, but he got banned.....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline uvwpvW

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2006, 02:23:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
And yet, after D-Day...those Spitties were all over the Axis held territory.

And of course before...N-Africa, Malta, N-Fronts...


The thread turned bad with that post. No valuable information, just emotional impact.

Angus is a troll.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2006, 02:39:23 PM »
Call it what you like.
Point is, that the 190A series had plenty of combat with aircraft that had better altitude performance, beginning with the Spit IX.
What was going through the heads of the German high command?
There were multiple Allied aircraft with better high alt performance then the 190A series around when the Dora was introduced, and that was known since 1942. From that point in time (Spit IX & PR units then perhaps P38, Spit VIII then P51 - 1943 now) So, when the main fight was taken high again (with the daylight bombing campaign) the 190A needed more performance up high. That is the deal.
BTW I've got one acount of the leader of a 190 unit flying a long-noser while the others flew conventional 190's.
If that is a troll, well, so be it.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2006, 07:06:38 PM »
Quote
Point is, that the 190A series had plenty of combat with aircraft that had better altitude performance, beginning with the Spit IX.


That's not the point and never was. I have quoted you the line of discussion.

Even what you typed out above is nonsense. The 190A altitude performance was perfect for the altitude that combat was taking place at at the time it was introduced. In fact with the LF.MK IXs the Spits FTH was brought down  to better compete with the 190A.

The search for better altitude performance with the 190A was being looked at since '42 but with little urgency. This had little to do with Spitfires and wasn't a major issue until the bomber campaign and high flying long range escorts were regularly flying over the Reich (read as P-51).

With the 190 they were looking at 3 different engines configurations to improve altitude performance:

B - BMW-801 w./ GM-1
C - DB-603A
D - Jumo 213A

GM1 was problematic and it was only really used around 2k meters above FTH.

The DB603 was preferred by KT but there were problems with the engine (the weight with SC was less then ideal for a fighter). Also, there were aircraft were slated to use Db603s and production of this engine was far behind meeting demand.  

What was left was the Jumo. Ultimately, it was an improvement over the BMW but it didn't a deliver a much better FTH.

The Dora was a stop gap solution. It had the best engine at the time coupled to a 190 airframe to get something better to the front line. It had little to do with Spit XIVs or Tempests.

LW bomber killers were at the mercy of high flying, free ranging allied escorts (read as P-51). As pointed out above this is what ultimately lead to the Ta-152Hs.

But the above has F'all to do with my original post.

Dan wrote:

Quote
On the flip side the Spit XIV and Tempest got into the game before the 190 D9 which was in essence the counterpart to those fighters along with the P51.


and my reply was:

Quote
The 190D-9 development had little to do with the Spit XIV or Tempest. It was developed in an attempt give the FW series better performance at altitude. D-9s were most often used to escort the bomber killers. They were to deal with the P-51s. As it turned out the D-9s FTH wasn't much better then the A series. Ultimately, the need for a high alt fighter lead to the Ta-152H series. Like the 109s and the D-9s, the Ta-152 was meant to combat escort fighters giving the bomber killers space to attack bombers.


I don't think you are a troll but if you can't follow the logical line of discussion and stick to it then you are far worse off then I already think. Which is most likely the case seeing how you have done this type of thing in many other threads.

Stick to the topic at hand, don't build strawmen and make stuff up if you can't come up with anything to say.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #39 on: May 07, 2006, 11:41:37 PM »
Any idea why it took them so long to realise they needed something to deal with the high alt ally escorts?

After all it wasn't as though they suddenly appeared the last few months of the war.

I know little about the Ta-152 apart from around 67 of ALL versions (H and C produced).
No idea how many may have made to front line units.
By close to the end of the war only 2 'C' models remained and they had been grounded.

Anyone fill in from there?

Just seems like another too little too late, they were really needed about a year earlier. Or at least something with some high alt performance.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2006, 02:54:23 AM »
The LW focus in the west was the bombers and as such there wasn't an overwhelming need for a high altitude fighter until such time that the Ami long range escorts showed up en mass, late '43 or so. Up to this time development on improving the FTH of the 190A series wasn't much of a priority.

As an example that the development of the DB603 was plagued with problems see Manfred Griehl's Dornier Do 217-317-417: An Operational History. Griehl repeats many times the problems with the DB603.

Coupling the 190 with a DB603 was even more problematic. The DB603 was slated for the Me 309, Me 410, Do-335 and He 219 as well. It was an engine in demand and but it had a long development time. In fact the DB 603 was developed by Daimler-Benz without the go ahead from RLM. It had low priority until sometime in '44

For the 109 the solution was to couple the DB603 SC to the DB605. For the 190 it wasn't as simple. As I pointed out above the 190D was an interim solution, coupling the 190 airframe with the best pwoer plant available, the Jumo  213. The D-9 didn't get to the front until Sept-Oct '44. While the D-9 was brought on line the Ta was under development. As for how many Ta's saw combat I have typed it many times. Just get Reschke's book Jagdgeschwader 301/302 'Wilde Sau'.

So yes, like with many other things, it was too little, too late but it wasn't the lack of a high altitude fighter that cost the LW the war.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2006, 03:01:50 AM »
Sigh.
Bruno:
"The 190A altitude performance was perfect for the altitude that combat was taking place at at the time it was introduced"

Yes it was. And their alt performance was as good as needed too, until 1942. I said it, now you said it:

"The search for better altitude performance with the 190A was being looked at since '42 but with little urgency"

And logically, for the fights were taking place lower.
In the med they started getting higher again (Torch) where the Allies start going very high, and as you point out when the daylight bombing campaign starts as well. But the P51 is not the first escort with good performance up high. So, do I understand it right that it really took the LW so long to grasp the reality, or was it just technical delays?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2006, 03:28:55 AM »
Quote
Yes it was. And their alt performance was as good as needed too, until 1942. I said it, now you said it:


No you didn't. You claimed among other things:

Quote
the 190A series had plenty of combat with aircraft that had better altitude performance, beginning with the Spit IX.


The implication here is that the Spit IX outclassed the 190A at altitude as if it mattered. The F.IX was followed up by the LF.IX which brought the LF.IXs FTH down so it could better compete with the FW.

The LW basically nly kept 2 units in France to deal with the RAF:

JG 2 and JG 26.

Quote
In the med they started getting higher again (Torch) where the Allies start going very high


That has nothing to do with the LWs attempt at improving the FTH of the 190A.

See Focke-Wulf 190 In North Africa by Andrew Arthy, Morten Jessen

Here's some information from one of the author's (Andrew Arthy) website:

Focke-Wulf 190 in North Africa

II./JG 2 was the only 'fighter gruppe' flying the 190 in NA.

III./ZG. 2, III./SKG 10, Stab and II./Sch.G. 2 were flying Jabo.

Quote
P51 is not the first escort with good performance up high.


No shyte but it was this aircraft which was of concern to the LW late in the war. While Spitfires did escort bombers the LW was far less likely to encounter Spits deep in German territory. They were much likely to engage 2TAF Spitfires, Typhoon sand Tempests low as these aircraft were flying fighter-bomber missions.

Quote
So, do I understand it right that it really took the LW so long to grasp the reality, or was it just technical delays?


You are free to make any assumption you want. Development takes time. Aircraft maneufacturers were competing for resources. The German war economy was late to fully moblize and re-organize for total war. Not to mention politics. There was no one reason but like I said the lack of a high altitude fighter didn't cost the LW the war.

Again none of this has anything to do with my original post in this thread.

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2006, 04:58:34 AM »
"Any idea why it took them so long to realise they needed something to deal with the high alt ally escorts?"

They where either morons, or there wasn't really a need for one until later on? Or maybe there wasn't even need to "deal" with the escorts? They needed to deal with the bombers. Eg. the TA152 carries a bigger punch than a destrucion of a fighter escort would require...

"Anyone fill in from there?"

They had 190A8, 109 G(late) and K? They all catch a B17 handily and can dive away from any allied fighter if need be (especially over their own turf).

Critical alt for G14 seems to be 23k, 26k for K4, 20k for A8 and 23k for D9. TA152 wasn't really an impovement at those altitudes over K4 and D9. Even the ME262 peaks at 20k, not higher. Is that because of early jet engine capabilities or a conscious design choise?

BTW, you can find typical B17 bombing altitudes eg. from here:
http://www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/guntalk/config.pl?noframes;read=28774

The engine power may peak at some altitude but that doesn't tell the truth about the usefulness of certain a/c at those altitudes because it is affected by the airframe, too. A greater speed is generally the biggest asset and the maneuverability comes second,  but the speed advantage can be equalized by diving when the airframe integrity and aerodynamic capabilites become the deciding factor.

I don't think you can find a major deciding überness factor in speed/ altitude charts. Looking those charts the 262 is obviously a king, but how "effective" is it after all?

But I understand why you are tempted to focus only on "how high and how fast"...  ;)

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
RAF development V LW development
« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2006, 05:40:10 AM »
Quote
the TA152 carries a bigger punch than a destrucion of a fighter escort would require...


Have you read Reschke's book? He describes the Ta-152 as a 'high altitude and escort fighter'. By escort he means escorting bomber killers.

He goes on the state:

Quote
..but now the small force of Ta-152s would have to form part of the fighter escort. The pilots were looking forward to their first encounters with the Mustang.


On this occassion the Ta-152s were attacked by 109s at 8000m and never made contact with the enemy. No Ta-152s were damaged but they were forced to scatter.

This was when Reschke was in III./JG 301 originally a 'heavy gruppe' (bomber killers) but when they recieved their first Ta-152s they switched to escort. III./JG 301 flew a mixed bag of 12 ta-152s and the rest in A-8s and A-9s.

Later the Ta-152s and Reschke were transferred to the Geschwaderstab. No high cambat was ever fought in the Ta-152s. However, Reschke (still with III./JG 301) on another occasion intercepted a Mosquito but his SC failed (third stage failed) and the Mosquito got away.

After that the only other combat was with Tempests and Yaks at low level.

They didn't need a high altitude bomber interceptor. Bombers flew in stacked formations. There were high groups, middle groups and low groups. Over the Ruhr some bomb groups were as low as 9000ft. The A-8s and A-9s could handle that. What the LW needed was a fighter that could better tangle with the high altitude escort while the bomber killers did their thing. With the big wing and better performance overall the Ta-152H was more maneuverable then the A series 190s and much better suited for fighter vs. fighter combat at altitude.

Quote
Critical alt for G14 seems to be 23k


The FTH of a standard non-AS G-14 is 164000 (as modeled in AH). For the G-14/AS FTH would be the similiar to the G-10 and K-4. While the G-10 and K-4s having the DB605D, the G-14/AS having the DB605AM. All three having the DB603A supercharger.