Dora-9 MW 50

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by niklas:
ehh R4M i said the Dora turns better than a 190A8 - unfortunatly this doesn´t mean that the Dora is a good turnfighter now, because the A8 is indeed one of the worst turnfighter.

An ex-doro pilot told me that the dora turned better than a 109G - this was different for the 190A. On the other hand, he didn´t say whether he speaks about a sustained turn or a initial turn, starting from 350mph.
niklas

Well, if the Dora outturned me109G, then it should outturn the P51D, right?. That is what I meant, that is not completely hopeless when you need to turn it a bit, rather different than what the A8 is now  

Maybe I was too optimistic when I said that it outturned the tempest too , that is right  

MANDOBLE, the Fw190D9 will retain its performance in four 10minute boosts with 5 minute "relax" in the middle of each one. Tempest has a WEP that must be cut after a much shorter use.

The MW50 190D9, with its 395mph at SL, has performance of a perk plane, and it should be perk plane.

The non-Mw50 190D9, with its 380mph at SL, is perfectly matched with the P51d, and it should not be a perk plane.

IMHO  

Fscott, 109G10 is not the mark of the perk/non perk plane. P51D is, it is a way better arena plane than the 109g10 as it has been discussed ad nauseam in this forums.

And ,definitely the Tempest is a perk, whatever the standard is. I say it as loud as I say that the MW50-190D9 is a perk.

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Naudet:
1st i think the neither the D9 or the Tempest should be perked, they belong into the same power class like the P51, the G-10 or when they will give it to us sometime the Spit XIV.

Disagree. The Tempest is IMO a perk, as the Spit XIV should be (although the spit should be a relatively low cost perkie).


 

Now to the D9 vs. tempest. From the info i have yet (Book sources and data posted in the FA NG durin the hot discussion about the D9 modeling there).
The D9 will, Outclimb, outspeed, outturn and outroll the Tempest (it will even outroll the P51 at high speed, cause up to the aileron control off the FW was exellent up to 400mph IAS and only got a little harder beyond that speed, but still it had a wonderful roll), the Tempest may only outdive the D9, and even this isnt sure.

Naudet, be sure of one thing: we are getting the 1900hp Fw190D9. Not the 2100hp one. Seems that the 2250hp never were attained in an operational Ju213A1.

The Fw190D9 with the special WEP that allowed its engine to deliver 1900hp, has a marginal better powerloading than the Fw190A8, but not by far the one the tempest has. So the Tempest will easily outaccelerate and outclimb the dora.

As you read above, I was a bit too optimistic regarding the MW50 D9 turnrates compared with the Tempest, but the Non-MW50 D9 is in a worse situation. THe Tempest will easily outturn AH's dora.  ,

 

Now all Tempest fans will cry no, but the D9 has a normal loaded weight of 9500 lbs. while the Tempest has 11500lbs., the D9 is driven by an engine with a max hp of 2240HP, and the strongest engine used for the Tempest in WW2 (that i found in my books) was a 2240HP Sabre. So the Tempest actually weights 2000 lbs. more. This gives the D9 better climb, and speed and it can also hold the E better in a turn which compensates for the higher wing loading. The D9 will also outaccelerate the Tempest.

Again the D9 we are getting will prolly be the one with a 1900hp engine, not the 2100hp one, and not -by far- the 2240hp engine. So this assumptions are wrong, and all to the other side (to the tempests'  )

 

In the post "Dora charts" i refered to a comparison flight between a Tempest and an A3. R4M stated that the A3 was nearly 1100 lbs. lighter than A8, this may be right, but my i refer to the D9 here and my data show 8900 lbs. for A3 normally loaded, and 9500 lbs for D9 (normally loaded) which is only 600 lbs. difference. And the test between the A3 and tempest had to be aboarded cause the engine of the A3 wore out. So i would say it never delivered its 1700HP for the trials, also the GB FW190 pilot was not allowed to bring the A3 to its absolute limit, cause the plane was to valueable to be lost in a crash after a stall.

First, A3 should be roughtly 1100lbs lighter than an A8 wich is 300lbs heavier than a D9. The 190A3 should be roughly 800lbs lighter in same configuration, but remember that the A3 had four cannons and the D9 had only two, so the normal loadout for the A3 should make the difference a bit lower. 600lbs is about fine for me  .

Second: probably that A3 was tested without ammo, and even possibly without guns, making much lighter than what you assume it was.


Look, I posted in the other thread the comparative wingloadings betweeen the D9 and the Tempest. I could do the same with the A3, but believe me that the Tempest will get lower figures in all configurations.

 

And last but not least the D9 was able to deliver 2240HP which are 540HP more than the A3 and they for sure more than compensate for the 600 lbs. increase in weight.

No. MW50 D9 was able to deliver 2100hp, but we will getting the 1900hp one. Fw190D9 will turn better than the A8, but still wont be able to beat a P51 in a turning fight, go figure a tempest.

 

This also lead me to the idea that the D9 will totaly outclass the Tempest in climb, the tempest was also beaten by the A3 above 1500 feet, and the D9 climb far better than the A3, especially at higher alt.

You want me to post powerloadings too?   ok, I'll do when I have more time, Ill calculate both Tempest's and A3's  .

 

And Cpt. Brown of the RAF who flew all WW2 fighter planes, rated the D9 and Spit XIV as the 2 Top fighters in WW2. And he had to admit that the RAF had no MW-50 or GM-1 for the GE fighters, so all tests were flown with the normal 96 Octane fuel, while the Spits were tested with 150 Octane fuel. Now put MW-50 into the D9 and fly the XIC with lower rated fuel (what was usual at the frontline) and u can imagine what a good plane the D9 must have been. Actually the Spit XIV was a better fighter than the Tempest, cause of this i would like HTech to add the XIV as fast as possible.

Sure, agree 100%. the MW50 Dora-9 was a far better plane for historic use than the spitfire XIV. It will be better MA plane too...

but then again, the D9 we get IS NOT FITTED WITH MW50...(AFAIK)


 

One word to the TA152, this bird must be perked, cause like the P51H or the Spit MK 22, it was one of the fighters that showed the peak of the evolution of the piston engined planes. 472 mph Top Speed can only be toped by a jetfighter.[/B]

agreed.

[Buzzbait]

S!

Let's get this straight.  The RAF/USAAF tests of the D-9 without MW-50 showed a top speed of 357mph at S.L. and 426 at best alt.  And the weight of that configuration was 9480lbs.

The FockeWulf tests of the D-9 with MW-50 show a speed of 382 mph at S.L., and 440mph at best alt.  These tests were done with B4 fuel.  (87 octane)

There are also other FockeWulf documents dated April 15th 1945 (23 days before the war ended) which show other tests done with the "special" supercharger and C3 fuel (93 octane) which give a speed at S.L. of 400mph.  The equipment is labelled:  "Sonder Notleistung mit A lader als Bodenmoter", which I believe translates to something like 'special compressor'.  This equipment was not installed on production D9's and the B4 fuel was not generally available to the D9 Staffels.

[niklas]

 

 The equipment is labelled:  "Sonder Notleistung mit A lader als Bodenmoter", which I believe translates to something like 'special compressor'

it doesn´t mean "special compressor". it means "special emergency power", which usually indicates the usage of mw50.
The charger is the same standard charger like in every other jumo213A engine

niklas

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!


The FockeWulf tests of the D-9 with MW-50 show a speed of 382 mph at S.L., and 440mph at best alt.  These tests were done with B4 fuel.  (87 octane)

uhhmmm no, according to Naudet's charts this performance corrseponds to the "special WEP" Ju-213A delivering 1900hp, not to the Ju213A1 fitted with MW50 wich delivered 2100hp.



[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Buzzbait]

S!

Sorry Niklas, the test with the "Bodenmoter" did not use MW-50.

There were 5 methods to produce power tested in this April 15th 1945 examination:

(a)  Start-u-Notleistung

(b)  Sonder-Notleistung

(c)  Sonder-Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmoter

(d)  Sonder-Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhohung mit MW-50

(e)  Steig-u-Kampfleisung


Methods (a), (d) and (e) used B4 fuel.  (87 octane)  Methods (b) and (c) used C3 fuel (93 octane)  Since the Dora didn't carry two types of fuel simultaneously, it is obvious the two tests using C3 were experimental in nature.

The following are the results of the speed tests with methods (c) and (d).  Generally the tests with (c) yielded faster speeds at lower altitudes, but fell off as height was gained.  Tests using (d) showed lower speeds at Sea Level, but higher at altitude.

(c)  Sonder-Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmoter:

Altitude               Speed
in Kilometres

0.0                    640kph (400mph)

3.5                    698kph (436mph)

5.0                    688kph (430mph)

7.0                    642kph (401mph)


(d)  Sonder-Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhohung mit MW-50

Altitude                Speed

0.0                     606kph (379mph)

2.2                     648kph (405mph)

2.6                     646kph (404mph)

5.4                     692kph (433mph)

6.0                     684kph (428mph)

8.0                     662kph (414mph)

10.0                    629kph (393mph)


All tests were done with a D-9 equipped with an ETC 504 bombrack.  This was standard on frontline Doras in '45.  Speed without the bombrack would be greater, depending on altitude would likely yield 3-5 mph more.  That would give maximum speeds with MW-50 as 382mph at S.L. and 440mph at 5.4 kilometres.

[Buzzbait]

S!

I refer to the figures of 382mph and 440mph because that is what is indicated by the charts posted in the earlier threads.  My information confirms that.

[juzz]

AH will very likely get the (d)379mph/438mph Fw 190D-9, ala WarBirds' Fw 190D-9 performance. What remains to be seen is how manoueverable it will be in AH.

[Buzzbait]

S!

I did some more research into what "Sonder-Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmoter" means.  My best translation is:  "Special emergency power from the 'A' model Supercharger".

Seems they may have been using a supercharger unit from the 190A in this test.

[juzz]

I highly doubt that it means A model re: Fw 190. Putting a BMW radial engine part onto a Jumo inline V-12? I don't think so.

[Buzzbait]

S!

We're talking about the supercharger.  The design of a supercharger does not differ in particular whether the engine it is boosting is a radial or inline.

[niklas]

Buzzbait, it says that the second speed of the supercharger is already used near sealvel- that´s all. Just look again at the chart from Naudet. The speed increases with a straight line from sealevel to the critical altitude (~4km). You don´t see this typcial "break" in a speed curve when the supercharger changes the speed or gear.
It basically means something like "second speed of the supercharger used for flight near sealvel" (Boden=ground), A can refer to this second Speed.

And yes, in this performance chart, they don´t mention MW50 for this special case (curve 3). With C3-fuel MW50 was obiously not necessary. If you look again at my engine performance chart, you´ll see that it mentions instead C3 fuel B4+MW50.
Compare in the D9-chart curve 2 and 4 - they´re almost identical, one curve is for C3-fuel the other one for B4-fuel and MW50. So Germans had obviously two options: using high octane fuel without MW50, or low octane fuel with MW50. I don´t want to know what C3+Mw50 would have allowed.... . Well Junkers Motoren planned to get ~2600hp out of the 213 in ´46  

And 2100hp with the combination B4+MW50 was used during the war, i´m pretty sure myself here.

niklas

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by niklas:
I don´t want to know what C3+Mw50 would have allowed.... . Well Junkers Motoren planned to get ~2600hp out of the 213 in ´46  

<GLUPS> Oh dear  

I have no clue on fuels, so I wont say a thing on this one. But is true that I had noticed the C3 and B4  in the chart, and that I had no idea on what was it about  

Guess I still have LOTS to learn about the latewar German planes and stuff  

[juzz]

Buzzbait: If you examine the Jumo 213A engine chart, you will see that on the Sonder-Notleistung curve it says - "1.Ladergang" - pointing to the extension to 2240ps, and on the main 2100ps curve - "2.Ladergang". Ladergang = "loader course" according to crappy web translation, I take it to mean supercharger gear.

Niklas: I can't make it out clearly, but I think it says something like "600l/h(B4)+ 150l/h MW 50" for the Sonder-Notleistung curve? Is that fuel consumption figures or something?

Another question: Any theory on why the critical altitude of ~5.2km for the Steig-u Kampfleistung(1700ps) curve in the engine chart doesn't correspond to the speed charts figure of 678km/h at 6.6km?

RAM: B4 is 87 octane fuel. C3 is 96 octane. Higher octane fuel allows an engine to run higher compression ratio and manifold pressures. Since the Germans only had access to large supplies of a maximum of 96 octane fuel(The US/UK had up to 150 octane fuels), they used MW 50 injection to allow increased manifold pressure.

I have no idea why the Americans used water injection on the R-2800 in the P-47/Corsair/Hellcat etc though, possibly it was cheaper/easier than using higher octane fuels instead.

[C_R_Caldwell]

First off, B4 fuel is a *lower* octane avgas than C3 fuel.Secondly, as I mentioned when I started this thread, I have photos & colour views of a D-9 in JV 44's 'Wurgerstaffel' that does not use MW 50 like the other D-9s (& the unit's single D-11).

This Dora-9 has a small yellow circle on the port upper cowl in front & below the windscreen.According to Jerry Crandall this indicated that this Dora-9 was using a motor-rustsatz, or engine field-modification.To be precise, it was a 'Laderdrucksteigerungs-Rüstsatz' which he translated as a "(Supercharger pressure) boosted engine for increased horsepower".

How common were these blower field-mods? I don't know, though I suspect not very. However, they *did* exist operationally, even if only in small numbers.Is the abovementioned mod similar to the SL 2nd-stage mod that have been referred to in the chart?I don't know, but maybe others here do.

Thirdly, the A-8 was slightly *heavier* than the D-9.That accounts for the small difference in wing loading (A-8 roughly 49lb per sq. ft., the D-9 approx 48lb).Although they are in many ways different physically , the A-8 & D-9 would both weigh about the same were it not for the fact that the D-9 does not posess outboard wing MG 151/20s.

Remove those guns & their respective ammo loads & u have an A-8 with roughly the same wing loading as a D-9.In reality, small numbers of A-8's flew with wing-root MG 151s only, so that point is a little moot. As far as AH is concerned, why would you want to fly an A-8 without its outboard MG 151s? You are left with a machine with the same armament as a D-9, without any of the Dora's performance advantages.If one was going to fly an Anton so armed in AH, they'd fly an A-5.At least then you would get the A-5's superior handling (& better performance, though not in the league of the D-9).

The Dora should have a roll-rate similar to the A-8's (slightly lower).That worries me a little because I get the feeling that the A-8 rolls much too poorly in AH.Even with my ammo load gone & fuel levels low, the A-8 still rolls relatively poorly compared to AH's A-5.Now there is no doubt that the A-8 *did* have a lower roll-rate than the A-5, but the question is how much? I was under the impression that the decrease in roll between the A-4/-5 & the A-8 was small, likewise the difference between the A-8 & D-9.

There should be a noticeable drop in roll between the A-5 & D-9 to those who fly the 190 regularly, but the difference between the A-5 & A-8 and the A-8 & D-9 *should* IMHO be relatively small.Of course, as per usual, I'm probably wrong!!!



[This message has been edited by C_R_Caldwell (edited 03-07-2001).]