PDA

View Full Version : Improving the FW airframe



Wannabe-Pilot
06-18-2005, 01:12 PM
I was always wondering why didn't Kurt Tank extended the wings of the 190A to balance out the weight creep of the later versions and perhaps improve turning and stall of the plane. Not by much, perhaps one foot filler to each wing. Many planes went through such treatment, for example the P-47 had it's wingspan extended by 1 meter in the N version, and it actually improved, among other things, it's roll rate from 85 to 100 degrees per second at medium speeds, and even better at high speeds (and that's the only thing that I can think of that would worsen by extendeing the wingspan, all other parameters would improve).
Bf-109 also got a wing extension in the F model.
Often when flying in a 190, and then jumping into a Spit or a 109, I experience something of a shock. They so much easier to throw around the sky then the twitchy 190. Of course, flight sim is nowhere near the real thing, but if relative performance of different aircraft is reasonably correct, I wonder how did the 190 get such reputation with such crappy turn ability. I know it's not a TnB plane, but still, even trying to pull a lead on an aircraft for a short burst is impossible since 95% of the fighters are better turners.

What would be the pros and cons of such a modification?

Wannabe-Pilot
06-18-2005, 01:12 PM
I was always wondering why didn't Kurt Tank extended the wings of the 190A to balance out the weight creep of the later versions and perhaps improve turning and stall of the plane. Not by much, perhaps one foot filler to each wing. Many planes went through such treatment, for example the P-47 had it's wingspan extended by 1 meter in the N version, and it actually improved, among other things, it's roll rate from 85 to 100 degrees per second at medium speeds, and even better at high speeds (and that's the only thing that I can think of that would worsen by extendeing the wingspan, all other parameters would improve).
Bf-109 also got a wing extension in the F model.
Often when flying in a 190, and then jumping into a Spit or a 109, I experience something of a shock. They so much easier to throw around the sky then the twitchy 190. Of course, flight sim is nowhere near the real thing, but if relative performance of different aircraft is reasonably correct, I wonder how did the 190 get such reputation with such crappy turn ability. I know it's not a TnB plane, but still, even trying to pull a lead on an aircraft for a short burst is impossible since 95% of the fighters are better turners.

What would be the pros and cons of such a modification?

Jaws2002
06-18-2005, 01:37 PM
He actually did, but too late.
The TA-152C had 0.5m increase in wingspan over D-9 (from 10.5m to 11m).


Ta 152 (http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/ta-152.htm)

Wannabe-Pilot
06-18-2005, 01:49 PM
I know but that was to improve high altitude handling not general turning and stall behaviour. Besides, it was a huge increase, from 10.5 meters to over 14 meters. I was thinking no more than 1 meter increase in wingspan.

VW-IceFire
06-18-2005, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
I know but that was to improve high altitude handling not general turning and stall behaviour. Besides, it was a huge increase, from 10.5 meters to over 14 meters. I was thinking no more than 1 meter increase in wingspan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually no...the Ta-152C was the low altitude version of the Ta-152 design. The H model was for high altitude.

As Jaws points out, even the 152C had an extension to the wing length.

diomedes33
06-18-2005, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
I know but that was to improve high altitude handling not general turning and stall behaviour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are confusing the Ta-152C with the Ta-152H. The H was the high-alt fighter. The C was built to fullfill the medium altitude mission requirements similiar to the Fw-190A.

this link (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ta152h.html) has a 3-view drawing of a Ta-152C at the bottom of the page.

Wannabe-Pilot
06-18-2005, 02:13 PM
Really? I didn't know that thanks for pointing it out. But the question remains, albeit rephrased a little bit:

A) What was the effect of such an extension on the performance of the Ta-152C?

B) Why wasn't it done sooner, for example in 1943 with the A versions which were by then quite heavy (everything from A5 onwards is problematic, also the allies caught up with the 190 in terms of speed so one of its main advantages was lost)

Grisha7
06-18-2005, 02:49 PM
Very interesting thread. I didn't know about the Ta-152c either. I have often wondered myself why the Fw190A wasn't given an increased wing area.

I suppose towards the latter stages of the war there was less emphasis on on turning ability as opposed to climb/altitude ability. I would really like to know how the Ta-152c performed with it's new wing and if it was considered a success.

Huckebein_UK
06-18-2005, 03:38 PM
The '152C prototype never flew iirc.
As for why it didn't happen earlier, engineers suggested fitting a JUMO 213 to the front of a '190 airframe as early as 1942. Can you imagine the problems the Allies would have had to deal with facing Doras in 1943? I should imagine that the wing extension was a similar case of 'we can always do it later' followed by 'can we afford to disrupt normal '190 production?'.

Jaws2002
06-18-2005, 03:45 PM
From http://www.penio.narod.ru/

Difference in wingspan between the two:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/TA.jpg

p1ngu666
06-18-2005, 06:50 PM
think the orginal 190 had to have its wings extended.

its small wing gives it great highspeed ability, making it bigger u could end up with a sack of mediocre

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2005, 09:47 PM
Didn't the A6 get a new wing design to cope with the weight creep. I'm sure that I read that on Joe Baugher's web site.

CUJO_1970
06-18-2005, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Didn't the A6 get a new wing design to cope with the weight creep. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The FW190A-6 wing was redesigned to carry bigger guns(30mm cannons etc.) and to increase the number of armament packages it could carry.

CUJO_1970
06-18-2005, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
B) Why wasn't it done sooner, for example in 1943 with the A versions which were by then quite heavy (everything from A5 onwards is problematic, also the allies caught up with the 190 in terms of speed so one of its main advantages was lost) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Quite heavy? Sorry but that's incorrect.

The FW190 A-5 depending on the configuration it was flown in weighed as little as 3800-3870 kg. and that is only a few kg heavier than the A-2 thru A-4, A-4 could usually weigh 3900 kg.

At it's weight of 4100kg(w/full outer cannons) from the FW190 manual the FW190A-5 was lighter than a contemporary P-40, lighter than a P-51, and much lighter than any P-47 or P-38.

Top speed was between 406 and 422mph depending on which configuration it was tested with, it was ****ed fast for a 1943 bird.

Hristo_
06-19-2005, 01:19 AM
Probably because it wasn't needed.

Fw 190 concept was based on advanced type of aerial combat, which in most part didn't rely on aerobatics.