LA-9 vs FW-190A8/9

[Bug_racer]

Looking at these two aircraft you can see the similarities between the silhouete of the planes . How much of the LA-9 design was copied from the fw-190 and how would they compare in flight with each other had the war lasted a little longer ?

[gumbyk]

Sorry, I can't see any more similarity beyween these two aircraft, and any other two radial engined, low-winged fighters of the time:



but, from the website of the company that performed the restoration:

Since then Ray has made his first ( and successive ) flights and has stated that he thinks it out performs a Bearcat or a Sea Fury.

August 2003

Not sure how htis would compare with the FW-190 though, but it would give some indication of the climb performance from a real-world experience.

[davebender]

Lavochkin La-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Introduced August 1946

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assuming Germany still exists during 1946 the Fw-190A9 should be powered by the 2,367 hp BMW 801F engine.

Personally I consider it doubtful the Fw-190A series would remain in production once the Ta-152 enters mass production. The Fw-190F and Fw-190G ground attack variants would be the only radial engine Focke-Wulfs during 1946.

[timshatz]

Sorry, I can't see any more similarity beyween these two aircraft, and any other two radial engined, low-winged fighters of the time:
.

Agreed. The late war radial engined aircraft all tended towards the same design, dictated by experience of designing and engine power increases. Probably had similar dimensions.

[tomo pauk]

Looking at these two aircraft you can see the similarities between the silhouete of the planes . How much of the LA-9 design was copied from the fw-190 and how would they compare in flight with each other had the war lasted a little longer ?

La-9 was mere development of La-7, the main difference being it was full metal plane (wings and armament got changed, obviously).
The comparison of planes divided by 2 years (in WW2 era) is pretty vague anyway.

[vanir]

Agree with general consensus. I think to get at the roots of La-9 design you head to the original La-5 which did coincidentally just begin to enter service when the first Fw-190A were being service evaluated on the Eastern Front in small numbers, the introduction of either is the same timeframe and yet development of the Fw-190A goes back a little further.

I think however it is most likely the fact they were both 14-cyl radial fighters intended for the front line role is just coincidental, the same way the Germany and Britain both decided on developing high horsepower inline engines during the mid-thirties. Just a period thing, and recognition aero technologies are generally on a world scale rather than by individual nation (except for specific innovations usually in equipment or modification).

Also while there are cases of a specific fighter model being purposely designed around a specific engine type, what generally happens is airframe design and aero engine fitment are two completely independent projects. The La-5/7/9 series airframe began life as the LaGG-1/3 inline engine fighter roughly similar to a British Hurricane performance wise.

Two high performance radial engines were under codevelopment in Russia in 1941 (the other one was a 2000hp engine to the M-82's 1500hp, the M-84 iirc but I think it had reliability problems), these had an entirely new prototype the I-185 built around them which had spectacular performance but it never entered production. I assume to speed things up the succeeding engine type was fitted to the LaGG-3 to produce the La-5. Then aircraft in continuing production became increasingly modified/refined as necessary, following typical WW2 Russian aero manufacturing procedure.

So I don't think there's any way to compare the La-9 with the Fw-190A-9 except to compare two completely independent radial engine fighters.

[Bug_racer]

So you think the la-9 had no influence at all from the fw-190 ? Ok fair enough . But how would they perform against each other ? Probably be more of a factor of pilots than planes ?

[Knegel]

Hi,

the La9 is more a La7 with square wingtips and the La7 base on the La5 and this on the La3.

I doubt there is a real influence of the FW190A appart from the idea to use a radial engine for the La5, maybe.

The La9 would outperform the 190A as dofighter, same like the La7 did, due to the much smaler weight with similar power.

I have no idea where the weight of the FW190 came from, but i guess it was more tough regarding damages, so it would probably be the better attacker.

Though, the 4 x 20mm in the nose of the La9 is a real step forward to the 2x20mm of the typical La7, so regarding the guns the La9 proabably wins.

The FW190A is imho the most overvalued fighter in WWII, only cause it had so much success within a rather unimportant year, vs SpitV´s, it get praised like mad.

The airframe was for sure very good, but what is a fighter worth, without a fitting and good working engine??

Look to the Wirlwind, the He177, the P40´s, all good airframes with problematic or bad engines.
And look to the different between SpitVc and SpitIXc or P51A and P51B only due to the engine.

The heavy FW190 would have needed a 2000HP engine in early 1943 or a much more streamlined and light airframe + DB605A and that with C3 fuel and later with MW50 + C3 fuel.

Like it was it was outclassed as fighter latest late in 1943, when the Merlin66, the La5, the P47C and Yak9´s was available in bigger numbers. From that moment onward the FW190A was more or less derated to an Attacker, while the 109F and G still could go into a dogfight.

The FW190A initially was like the P40E in the pacific, but then all, not just a few, enemy planes turned to be Ki61´s and Ki44´s, which was able to do almost all as good.

Greetings,

Knegel

[bada]

The La9 would outperform the 190A as dofighter, same like the La7 did, due to the much smaler weight with similar power.

the LA7 didn't outperformed the A8 , at low altitude (under3000m)yes, not at up high.But the La7 still couldn't catch the old A5/6 Jabo with C3 injection under 1000m

The FW190A is imho the most overvalued fighter in WWII, only cause it had so much success within a rather unimportant year, vs SpitV´s, it get praised like mad.

Not only against the spit5, also against the spit9 m61.From 6500up, the spit whas superior but under this altitude, the planes clearly equivalent to eachother, just like the english test shown. Not bad for a plane that was in service more than a year against a whole new model built expressly to beat it,no?
Also, not forgetting the A4 send from dec42 on the eastern front, find me one bad comment from a pilot of the JG54 about the fw190

The airframe was for sure very good, but what is a fighter worth, without a fitting and good working engine??

And what was the pb with the 801D2? highr power controled by an mechanical computer, leaving the pilot do his job instead of constantly moving throttles and pushing buttons.Easy to access, well armored.

The heavy FW190 would have needed a 2000HP engine in early 1943 or a much more streamlined and light airframe + DB605A and that with C3 fuel and later with MW50 + C3 fuel.

And why?1820ps is enough for a plane of 4000kg weight fully loaded. As about it's streamline, the 190 was more clean than spits, even with a bigger front area (a radial, it's big), it's total cx was still lower than the spits.

Like it was it was outclassed as fighter latest late in 1943, when the Merlin66, the La5, the P47C and Yak9´s was available in bigger numbers. From that moment onward the FW190A was more or less derated to an Attacker, while the 109F and G still could go into a dogfight..

aah? and in what could the M66 be better than an A5 with new modified engine? (first half 43, 801D2 received several parts of the 801F allowing higher pressure thus output.for all further production)
What tells you it was outclassed?

The FW190A initially was like the P40E in the pacific, but then all, not just a few, enemy planes turned to be Ki61´s and Ki44´s, which was able to do almost all as good.

In difference to the P40, the 190A was always modified and upgraded through the years, engine included.
If you compare an A2 from41 to an A8 from45, you'll see the same power/weight ratio. the plane keeping it's easy flying caracteristics.

[Knegel]

the LA7 didn't outperformed the A8 , at low altitude (under3000m)yes, not at up high.But the La7 still couldn't catch the old A5/6 Jabo with C3 injection under 1000m

I wrote "as a fighter", not as a Jabo. The C3 injection got intoduced for the Figher only in mid 1944!!
Until then the 190´s was clearly outperformed for a year. Only below 1000m they was at best even.
In late 1943 the A5 and A6 wasnt old, they was the standard FW190A at this time. And the La7 with 1850PS was as fast as the FW190F or G with 2050 to 2100 PS. So the Jabos also couldnt get away. If they made one slight turn, they was lost, cause the extreme higher weight(almost 1000kg) was a real handycap.

Not only against the spit5, also against the spit9 m61.From 6500up, the spit whas superior but under this altitude, the planes clearly equivalent to eachother, just like the english test shown. Not bad for a plane that was in service more than a year against a whole new model built expressly to beat it,no?
Also, not forgetting the A4 send from dec42 on the eastern front, find me one bad comment from a pilot of the JG54 about the fw190

The SpitIXc wasnt a whole new model, it was a SpitVc with Merlin61, while the Merlin61 dont got used that often as i wrote above. It got replaced rather fast with the Merlin66.
There was just around 900 Merlin61 powered Spitfires, then the Merlin66 got introduced.
I actually doubt that the Spitfire had a higher drag than the FW190A. Spitfires with 1800 HP at sea level was as fast as the 190´s. As higher we get as more the extreme wingload of the FW turned to be a handycap. The Merlin66 produced 1710HP, the BMW801D-2 1750PS , what is very similar, while the Spitfire with Merlin 66 had clear advantages from 1000m upward and 1000m is nothing and its not the hight where the combat took place in general.
A fighter should someohow be able to fight with enemy fighters, the 190A at best could run from late 1943 onward.

At the eastern fron the 109G was at least as good, without the need of super fuel. The 109 was the ace maker in the east. Many, not only germans, got clos to or more than 100 kills in 109´s, only a few got that many in 190´s.

And what was the pb with the 801D2? highr power controled by an mechanical computer, leaving the pilot do his job instead of constantly moving throttles and pushing buttons.Easy to access, well armored.

The problem was that its performence was poor with combat climb(1750/1800PS was WEP) specialy above 1000m and then again above 5000m, while the combat in the west tool place mainly above 5000m and in the east there was the La5 and La7 with a better performence in low alt.

And why?1820ps is enough for a plane of 4000kg weight fully loaded. As about it's streamline, the 190 was more clean than spits, even with a bigger front area (a radial, it's big), it's total cx was still lower than the spits.

1750/1800PS(depending to when) would have been nice in 3000-5000m, but just 1820PS peak in 800m and then fast decreasing to less than 1500PS in 2500m is poor in late 1943. And at that time the plane (190A5/6) already had a weight of 4100-4200kg.
Ops and that was WEP, just 1600PS comabt/climb iin 800m and then below 1350PS above 2500m is extreme poor.

If you compare that to the DB605A combat climb + 109G6 airframe(3150kg clean, 3250kg with gunpods), which had around 1420PS in 2000m and only sllowly decreasing to rated alt(5800m) + a not to smal exhaust thrust, what was badly missing for the BMW801 due to bad exhausts(later that got corrected for the FW190A9, but to late.

The FW190A was a real low level fighter, goos in altitudes below 1500m, above that the climb turned to be horrible and the speed was just ok, but not anymore outstanding like vs the SpitV and the performence(speed/climb) of the FW190A mainly decreased till mid 1944, when the extra boost due to C3 injection got introduced, but at that time it was to late again, cause the enemy by then already had 150 octan fuel.

So as Jabo it was good, as fighter rather poor(late 1943 oward), specialy in the west.

aah? and in what could the M66 be better than an A5 with new modified engine? (first half 43, 801D2 received several parts of the 801F allowing higher pressure thus output.for all further production)
What tells you it was outclassed?the spits.

The datasheets, the (german)pilot comments.
The Spitfire with merlin66 only was less good below 1000m alt, above that it did outclimb the 190A5 by 200-400m per in, it could turn circles around the 190, it was as fast as the 190.

In difference to the P40, the 190A was always modified and upgraded through the years, engine included.
If you compare an A2 from41 to an A8 from45, you'll see the same power/weight ratio. the plane keeping it's easy flying caracteristics.

The P40 got way more modification than the FW190A. They started with just 1000HP and ended with 1550. The A8 for sure dont had the same flight characteristics like the A2. Even the clean A8 had 400kg more weight and the power above rated alt still was the same. A such the service ceilling of the A8 was good below that of the A2.
Btw, initially the BMW801D-2 was derated to 1750PS, later it could use the full 1800PS(sea level), the different was marginal.
The problem was, that the engine was poor in the altitudes where combat took place in the west and that the Russians had equal engines for low alt with a more light airframe.

The 190 airframe, slimmed down to use the DB605A would have had a weight of maybe 3300kg and would have been nice streamlined. Then the DB605A would have had the C3 fuel to produce 1475PS sea level as combat/climb. That plane would have been fast, manouverable, good climbing and good at high alt. With the BMW801 the 109´s lost the needed high octan fuel, so the DB605A lost in comparison to the merlins and so germany in late 1943/ early 44 only had a down rated DB605 and a still to bad uprated BMW801 vs Merlin powered planes that could use higher and higher presures due to better fuel.

Out of this the myth of a obsolete 109G got born, but a plane is only as good as its engine.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Vincenzo]

La 7 it's not of mid '44 like C-3 on 190 fighter? or yes so it's right compare it, la 7 was not a late '43 fighter.
Spitfire IX was a uncommon RAF fighter until spring '44.
it's true that 190 A5 & A6 was the common 190 in late '43 but Spitfire V was the common spitfire in late '43

[davebender]

Dr. Tank wanted the DB603 engine for the Fw-190. In my opinion that's what should have happened.

Why did RLM cut funding for DB603 engine development during 1937? One of their worst decisions. The DB603 engine could have powered the Fw-190 fighter and Do-217 bomber from 1941 onward.

[Knegel]

Hi,

the 1st SpitIXc´s arrived in mid 1942(Merlin61), 1943 was the year of the Merlin61 and Merlin63 SpitIXc, with the ongoing year they used the SpitVc mainly with a upgraded low level engine with an outstanding climb performence and often with clipped wings. Already in mid 1943 even the SpitVIII arrived.

The fall of 1943 the Merlin66 powered Spits arrived and by the end of the year they was alredy wide spreaded.

In early 1943 the Luftwaffe also mainly had 190A3´s and A4´s(build till march 1943). Sure there was still some Merlin45 powered SpitVB´s and SpitVc´s around, but the SpitIXc + VIII (Merlin61/63/66/70) and also the was very common late in 1943 and appart from very low level and the Merlin61 powered planes, they all outclassed the FW190A5/6 as fighter(not as attacker or jabo, just as fighter).

Greetings,

Knegel

[Knegel]

Ops, i forgot:
Yes, the La7 was came in spring 1944, but the late 1943 La5FN´s wasnt much different anyway. The La7 mainly had a better cooling system, allowing the pilot to climb with WEP and to use it for 10 minutes in level flight, while the La5FN was of same nature like the 190A5/6, only short endurance WEP(1850PS).

Hi davebender,

regarding the DB603 i agree, this engine with C3 fuel and later even MW50 and 3 stage supercharger would have been a solution. That engine in 1942 in the FW190 and the 109 would have been fully replaced.

[Shortround6]

Also while there are cases of a specific fighter model being purposely designed around a specific engine type, what generally happens is airframe design and aero engine fitment are two completely independent projects. The La-5/7/9 series airframe began life as the LaGG-1/3 inline engine fighter roughly similar to a British Hurricane performance wise.

While a number of fighters were designed to take different engines from the start it was more common to design fighters to take one type (air cooled radial vrs liquid cooled engine) of engine. While some designs were able to switch at a later date other designs were not. Some attempted conversions had trouble with airflow break down in the transition from the fat radial to the skinny fuselage of the V-12 fighter and higher than expected drag and some even had problems with turbulent air flow over the tail surfaces.

Two high performance radial engines were under codevelopment in Russia in 1941 (the other one was a 2000hp engine to the M-82's 1500hp, the M-84 iirc but I think it had reliability problems), these had an entirely new prototype the I-185 built around them which had spectacular performance but it never entered production. I assume to speed things up the succeeding engine type was fitted to the LaGG-3 to produce the La-5. Then aircraft in continuing production became increasingly modified/refined as necessary, following typical WW2 Russian aero manufacturing procedure.

Both the M-80 and the higher powered M-70 started development in 1937-38. The M-80 eventually became the M-82/ASh-82 while the M-70 finally turned into the ASh-73that powered the TU-4 bomber. The M-71 that powered the I-185 was a beast of an engine, an 18 cylinder 3,643cu in (59.7 litres) device. Basically two wright 1820s ( or Russian equivalents )on a common crank. This can explain the high performance but using an under developed Russian version of a Wright R-3360 can also explain the lack of production, along with factory evacuations. Given the 3-6 year development times of engines and the 2-4 year development tomes of airframes I think it is much more parallel development than anybody coping anybody else.

So I don't think there's any way to compare the La-9 with the Fw-190A-9 except to compare two completely independent radial engine fighters.

I agree.