AAF test of FW190D9

[F4UDOA]

This is one of the least informative evaluations I have. That is why I did not post it earlier. But since there is so much conversation about it recently. In fact the only thing I find interesting is the conclusion.

BTW there are no charts with the doc.

Here it is.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/190D9eval.zip

Of course this is really just annecdotal propagnda done to change the performance of a video game 60 years later.

[Hooligan]

Thanks for posting this.

Hooligan

[F4UDOA]

No prob Hooligan.

I dont think the AAF was very interested in the D9 by the time they got there hands on it. Im sure they were much more interested in the 262 and P-80.

It must have been old news by then.

BTW,I'm surprised at the total lack of interest in this thread.

[eddiek]

Like you, I think the AAF tested the D9 just for something to do.  

I've been waiting on the LW fans to converge and talk about how inaccurate the tests and findings were..........

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
No prob Hooligan.

I dont think the AAF was very interested in the D9 by the time they got there hands on it. Im sure they were much more interested in the 262 and P-80.
 

BTW, do you have the P-80 vs. 262 test, too? I would be very much interested in that.  IIRC the great Chuck Yeager participated in it as well.

PS: It` seems to be some prototype dora with Jumo213E from ta-152 (but then why they say it`s 2-stage 2-speed? It was 2-stage, 3-speed engine..), not with the standard Jumo213A.

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>BTW,I'm surprised at the total lack of interest in this thread.

Probably advertising a 2.5 MB file as "the least informative evaluation" didn't help ;-)

But thanks for the report, I found it quite interesting nevertheless!

Some thoughts:

- Only one 13 mm cowl MG is listed. I guess this is a typo.

- The engine is a 1750 HP Jumo 213E, so the test aircraft was not a D-9 after all.

- I think recently a D-13 has undergone restoration in the USA, which might be our test aircraft. If I remember correctly, it was found to have one D-13 wing and one D-9 wing. If the mix-up had happened before the test flights, this might be the "apparent defect in rigging in this particular airplane" mentioned in the report.

- The single-lever control didn't work properly, which had happened with an A model tested before, too. (NACA later found the reason for the A model - polluted hydraulic oil foaming at high altitude). In the Dora, this might have been a maintenance problem, too.

- The US report agrees with Eric Brown's generally poor opinion of German brakes.  Nevertheless, "landing roll is particularly short and directional control is easy to maintain even with poor brakes".

- It's suprising to see that the US report describes a "gentle stall" with "adequate warning" and a "some difficulty in applying enough elevator to obtain abrupt stalls". Combined with the "higher approach speed than normal", this makes me speculate that there was something wrong with pitch control. (A Fw 190 should snap-roll easily, abruptly and without warning :-)

My conclusion: If you take into account that the test aircraft seems to have been in less than optimum condition, the test appears fair enough. I believe some of the conclusions, especially that the D-9 handled worse than the A models, wouldn't necessarily apply to Luftwaffe-maintained Doras.

I agree with you that in 1946, the interest in propeller fighters had faded anyway. The US Technical Intelligence probably would have tried to fix the known issues with their test aircraft otherwise.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[MiloMorai]

It says a Jumo 213E engine was installed. There were in the D-12, but did D-9s also get this engine?

[GScholz]

No the D9 had the Jumo 213A-1 engine (rated at 1776 hp for takeoff and 1600 at 18,000 feet. With MW 50, 2240 hp at sea level and 2000 hp at 11,150 feet). There was no mention of what kind of WEP system the engine in the test had.

The test aircraft also has an auxiliary fuel tank, which the D9 didn't have (at least ours don't :).

Seems like the test aircraft was a "mix and match" of various Fw model parts. A lot of that going on late in the war.

[Batz]

its totally unclear thta what was tested was in fact a d9. Its obviously some mix and match hybrid.

I dont know what you want folks to comment on. Do you believe that those results or that that aircraft tested is typical of a 1944 190d9?

If so I think you maybe oughta check on that

[MANDOBLE]

Originally posted by GScholz
The test aircraft also has an auxiliary fuel tank, which the D9 didn't have (at least ours don't .

That aux tank may be our MW50 tank, not listed as a fuel one, but present in our Dora.

Two radiators are listed, with two separate coolant tanks. Our D9 seems to have only one radiator with a single coolant tank. They listed also two oil tanks (interconected).

[Karnak]

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Our D9 seems to have only one radiator with a single coolant tank.

What do you mean by this?

So far as I can tell AH generically models one radiator and one oil supply per engine.

Should the Fw190D-9 have two radiators that can isolate from eachother like the Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV?

[MANDOBLE]

BTW, common Doras were equipped with Jumo 213A, some of them with DB 603A or DB 603E. Jumo 213E equipped Ta152 H-0.

[Montezuma]

Nice find F4U.

According to the Smithsonian's site, their FW-190D was tested as FE-112, and this test plane's number FE-120.  Perhaps the earlier test was more compreshensive?

Also, can anyone match the markings on the FE-120 plane with any existing FW-190D, or perhaps it was scrapped?

[MANDOBLE]

The evaluation also describes the 190 visibility as averagely poor, with comments about the lack of space for head and shoulders due the canopy. This description match with a 190A style canopy, not the D9 bubble one.

I've seen several pictures of long noosed 190s with 190A style canopy and Ta152 style tail.

[niklas]

There are really some "interesting" comments in this report.

"The seat ... tilts backward too much, causing the pilot some discomfort"

Sorry that they did not install for the convinience of american pilots a garden chair like in the P-51 or P-47. But german fighter pilots were out to fight and not for sight seeing. This is why they mounted the seat with an angle of +15°, and together with the +15° of the back to the bottom part it made +30° total, allowing higher G-forces (and better protection again shots from the 6-pos)

Itīs also an interesting comment that P-51 and P-47 did not match the rollrate of a P38-J (indirectly meaning). Besides the fact that a comment about rollrate without mentioning speed is always useless: Wasnīt Lockhead the manufactor of both P80 and P38? Did they had influence at Wright airfield?

The slight trim change when lowering gear and flaps goes along with german experiences.

Interesting report after all. Convinience is imo a little bit too much the main topic (if they made a short calculation how much this aircraft CAN fly on max. fuel they wouldnīt have needed the comment about pilot fatigue after 2 hours....) but still interesting comments. Thx F4UDOA

Gruss
niklas