FW 190 D-9 be careful what you wish for.

[ygsmilo]

More interesting information from "JG 26 Top Guns of the LW" by Donald Caldwell.

"The men landed their FW 190D-9s at Nordhorn on 18 December 1944, just before the weather closed in.  They were unable to fly their first combat mission the their new mounts for several days.  The pilots opinions of the "long-nosed Dora," or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed.  The new model was intended to correct the FW 190s' most glaring weakness, its poor high-altitude performance.  What come out of Kurt Tank's shop was a compromise.  Tank did not like the liquid-cooled Jumo 213A engine, but it was the best choice available.  The long in-line engine had to be balanced by a lengthened rear fuselage to maintain the proper center of gravity, making the FW 190D four feet longer than the FW 190A.  The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor.  It was a bit faster, however, with a  maximum speed of 426 mph at 21,650 feet.  Its 1750 hp, which methanol/water injection boosted to 2240 hp, gave it excellent acceleration in combat situations.  It also climbed and dove more rapidly than the FW 190A, so proved well suited to the dive-and-zoom ambush tactics favored by the Schlageter pilots."

By reading this portion of the book and its subsequent chapters IMHO the D-9 is not the "uber ride" that some have made it out to be.  It is fast but not a good turner. Like in the game it would be a formible fighter in the right hands, but a Spit V in the right hands can be just as deadly.  So whether the current argument is about the Dora or the Spit 14 or the Me 262 it still comes down to one factor, the quality of the virtual pilot.  There are some great sticks is this game but I would venture to say that the great sticks fly a certain plane because it fits their personality, not because it is the fastest or most manuverable.  Bah, I am rambeling, to much wine.  



------------------
JG 2's current cannon magnet

Milo

[Hristo]

One thing puzzles me here. How would rate of roll suffer only be lengthening the fuselage ?!

Roll inertia and ailerons are still the same.


Dora enojoys improvements over A series which happen to be most important for survival in air combat. Dive speed and deck speed (380 mph, with MW 50 on the deck).

Acceleration, climb and zoom are just added bonuses.

Alse, one of the biggest bonuses is that this plane will win every beauty contest in AH  

[funked]

Not bad for wine-induced posting Milo.  

Hristo I don't know why it would roll significantly worse than an Fw 190A.

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Hristo:
One thing puzzles me here. How would rate of roll suffer only be lengthening the fuselage ?!

Roll inertia and ailerons are still the same.


Dora enojoys improvements over A series which happen to be most important for survival in air combat. Dive speed and deck speed (380 mph, with MW 50 on the deck).

Acceleration, climb and zoom are just added bonuses.

Alse, one of the biggest bonuses is that this plane will win every beauty contest in AH  

Shouldnt Dora have bit larger wings than Wuergers?
(to produce bit more lift in high altitudes)
Of course its not like Ta152 with its glider wings  

Of course 4 feet is fairly much, so it can adjust balance a bit that might worse roll rate slightly.
Most of that lenght goes to nose, which might well change aerodynamic lift bit different on the wings.
and that 4ft is not just wood & paper..

Oh well.. thats my guess    (hmm, I think dora has bit taller wings..)

[Nath-BDP]

A8;
Span; 34 ft 5.5 in; aspect ratio 6.03; area 196.98 sq ft

Length; 29 ft 4.25 in; height 12 ft 11.5 in; wheel track 11 ft 6 in

D9;
Span/aspect ratio/area; same as A8

Length; 33 ft 5.25 in; height 11 ft 0.25 in; wheel track 11 ft 6 in

------------------
Geschwaderkommodore JG 54
'Grünherz'

 

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 07-19-2000).]

[funked]

D-9 uses A series wings.  Fuselage is the same as A series aft of the firewall, except for a "plug" which was added between the fuselage and the empennage.

[Toad]

Well, we really need a slide-rule jockey for this one right funked?  

You've got the same wing on a longer and probably a bit heavier airframe, right?

I'd look for changes in weight, center of gravity or center of lift first. These might affect it.

[Pongo]

The US pilots that assessed it said the Roll was worse then the A model as well.

[Swager]

It figures you mellonheads would miss the entire point of the post.

Right away ya start calculating numbers in a feeble attempt to determine wing loading and performance poo-poo.  

Oh! Will it ever end???    

[Sorrow[S=A]]

A quicky theory here:

The 190 had a great roll rate because it was slighlty unstable along it's rolling axis. This meant it could reverse direction quickly and spin along it's axis quickly.

Maybe the Dora made the rolling axis less unstable meaning the plane now had a rolling inertia greater than the "A" series? This would mean there would be more of a pause between direction changes and the plane would take longer to spin- though once started would quickly achieve it's previous rate.

  This would explain why the pilots percieved it as worse than an A model. Much as they viewed the P-38 as a poor rolling plane for the same reasons.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:


Maybe the Dora made the rolling axis less unstable meaning the plane now had a rolling inertia greater than the "A" series? This would mean there would be more of a pause between direction changes and the plane would take longer to spin- though once started would quickly achieve it's previous rate.

Uh yes, of course ,can be...

but can you tell me why a plane with the SAME wing as A8 and with the only modification of an inline engine and 4 feet more of fuselage lenght has more rolling inertia?

Because i see NO reason for it...

 

Originally posted by Toad:
You've got the same wing on a longer and probably a bit heavier airframe, right?

Half right only. D9 is 4 feet longer than A8 and I dont see how can this affect rollrate or roll inertia. But D9 was 300lbs LIGHTER than A8, not heavier.
Anyway I dont see how can that affect to rollrate or inertia, too.

Avout CoG, if I dont remember bad ,it was EXACTLY in the same spot in D9 as in A8...that was the reason for the "plug" in the aft fuselage, to keep the CoG in the same spot.
But again, if CoG was a bit forward in D9 than in A8...why should it affect rollrate?? it should affect pitch and yaw, but not roll, isnt it?...

If I dont remember bad, 190 series rollrate was not induced by "roll unstability", but because its little wing and short span, mixed with electrically controled ailerons that made roll an easy thing. THat was also the reason for the good hispeed handling in 190. From what I can see it has nothing to do with weights, CoG, fuselage lenght or engine torque, but for the reasons stated avobe.

So, again, can someone tell me why should D9 have less rollrate than A8?. Because until now I see no reason for it...

Pyro? maybe you knoe something about this?. I'm really curious about this matter (as you all can suppose   )



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-23-2000).]

[wells]

It may roll faster to the left with more torque.  Adverse yaw in the A series might be more pronounced with less keel surface area and that could slow the roll a tad.

[Jekyll]

Funny, but I've read where the D9 actually turned better than the A8, mainly because it did not bleed off speed so rapidly in a turn (higher powerloading).

OK.. so it will turn a little worse than an A5 but with much better zoom, dive, acceleration and high altitude performance?

Hmmm  sounds delicious  

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps

[Hristo]

And they think A-5 is nasty ?

Wait till they meet the red-white belly Dora  

------------------
Stoickov
JG54 "Grünherz"