Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H? (2 Viewers)

[spicmart]

Why was there a Ta 152H but the Fw 190H cancelled?

All I've read the Ta 152 was only better in armament (engine cannon (MK 103) plus cowl cannons possible), some greater fuel capacity,
intercooler installation (though later possible with Jumo 213EB in Fw 190D).
Sufficient firepower was never an issue with the Wulfs.

The Ta 152s in their fully-equipped state would be a whopping 900 - 1000 kg heavier while boasting abour the same engine power.
Thus power-to-weight ratio was worse which meant the Fw 190D variants were better performing on-on-one fighters.

Also change of rigs for parts and equipment for production meant a delay for the heavier machine although that change demanded only 20 % more effort all-around.
Germany could not afford even a slight delay in its war production at this point.

An Fw 190H would have been more feasible imho. Albeit not quite as good-looking.

 

[tomo pauk]

Why was there a Ta 152H but the Fw 190H cancelled?

What engine was supposed to be powering the 190H?

 

[spicmart]

What engine was supposed to be powering the 190H?

The later Jumo 213s could be installed into the Dora-airframe eventually. Not sure about the DB 603.

 

[tomo pauk]

In may of 1944, Fw listed a few reasons as to why the Ta 152C is a better choice than the Fw 190D:
- easier installation of intercooled 2-stage engines (213E, 603L (or LA?)) due to place constrains wrt. the undercarriage space 'collision' vs. the engine bay
- no possibility for MK 103 installation of the 190Ds as the motor cannon, plus the possibility to install the MG 151/20s in the cowl position on the 152 airframe
- that also leaves free the best part of wing to have greater fuel tankage installed without the guns there
- that means a much greater range/radius
- possibility for bigger tires for greater take-off loads
- greater nominal G limit (6.5 vs. 5.8)

Some of these things didn't transpired to the 152H, like the MK 103 installation, while the Jumo 213F (= basically, the 213E minus the intercooler) was still a go-to engine for the 1945 'definitive' Doras. These fighters would've still be the very high performers, with both engine and wing representing the lower drag items than what the 152H had there, as well as via the lower weight of the Doras. The 152H being some 15% draggier than the D-12, and almost 25% heavier (a good deal of that being the increase in fuel tankage, though).
Also there were the plans to increase the fuel tankage on the Doras, even if not in the same size as on the 152s.

At the end, it seems like the increased fuselage volume for both high-end engines and the ability to carry greater firepower tipped the scales towards the 152 line instead of towards the big-wing 190?

 

[spicmart]

In may of 1944, Fw listed a few reasons as to why the Ta 152C is a better choice than the Fw 190D:
- easier installation of intercooled 2-stage engines (213E, 603L (or LA?)) due to place constrains wrt. the undercarriage space 'collision' vs. the engine bay
- no possibility for MK 103 installation of the 190Ds as the motor cannon, plus the possibility to install the MG 151/20s in the cowl position on the 152 airframe
- that also leaves free the best part of wing to have greater fuel tankage installed without the guns there
- that means a much greater range/radius
- possibility for bigger tires for greater take-off loads
- greater nominal G limit (6.5 vs. 5.8)

Some of these things didn't transpired to the 152H, like the MK 103 installation, while the Jumo 213F (= basically, the 213E minus the intercooler) was still a go-to engine for the 1945 'definitive' Doras. These fighters would've still be the very high performers, with both engine and wing representing the lower drag items than what the 152H had there, as well as via the lower weight of the Doras. The 152H being some 15% draggier than the D-12, and almost 25% heavier (a good deal of that being the increase in fuel tankage, though).
Also there were the plans to increase the fuel tankage on the Doras, even if not in the same size as on the 152s.

At the end, it seems like the increased fuselage volume for both high-end engines and the ability to carry greater firepower tipped the scales towards the 152 line instead of towards the big-wing 190?

Thanks for the summary.

So the installation of the MK 103 combined with the cowl-mounted MG 151 or MG 151/20 gave the Ta 152 a better ability to snipe at heavy bombers from a distance I assume.
There was a Dora airframe tested with one MK 108 as centerline cannon and two MK 103 in the wing roots as a testbed for the Ta 152B-5.
So the Fw 190 should pack enough punch, but obviously not for the Luftwaffe.
The insistence of the Luftwaffe on a engine armament leaves the question open if there was some benefit from it in the light that other air forces went without it.
Are there any accounts of why there was this preference other than some spectacular advantage in accuracy? Maybe the tech was too complicated for other nations.

The wing tanks envisioned for the Fw 190D were the same as on the Ta 152 wing leaving so the former had a bit less fuel in the fuselage tanks.
This should be compensated to a degree by the lesser drag of the Dora.

I see the chart but would lie when I said I understand it all. Which figure represents the overall drag of the variants?
It's interesting that the "Ansaughutzen" (supercharger air inlet) on the Ta 152C (DB 603LA) seems less draggy than that on the Jumo 213E/F.

I always thought that the difference in G-limit was in favor of the Dora as its dimensions were more compact and lesser weight penalties.
The larger tires were according to the higher weight as well, don't know if more loads were possible compared to the Dora.

 

[tomo pauk]

The insistence of the Luftwaffe on a engine armament leaves the question open if there was some benefit from it in the light that other air forces went without it.
Are there any accounts of why there was this preference other than some spectacular advantage in accuracy? Maybe the tech was too complicated for other nations.

Nothing complicated about the engine cannon, just the engine needs to be set that way. Eg. French have had engine cannon installations on their fighters already in ww1.

The wing tanks envisioned for the Fw 190D were the same as on the Ta 152 wing leaving so the former had a bit less fuel in the fuselage tanks.

Wing tanks on the Dora were probably mooted a few months past the May 1944 memo.

Which figure represents the overall drag of the variants?

Zero lift drag - ie. drag at high speed - 'Schnellflug Cw0', expressed as equivalent flat plane 'F' in m^2; 'w' = widerstand = drag. Cd0 is the expression in English language.
Drag that includes the induced drag - 'Steigflug Cw0', also in m^2. We'd call that value 'Cd'; Cd0 + Cdi = Cd.

EDIT: Some mismatch in nomenclature - 'F' should be the "drag", not the "drag coefficient".

FWIW, Lednicer notes the 'F' of the P-51D = 4.65 sq ft = 0.432 m^2, and that of the Spitfire IX = 5.40 sq ft = ~0.502 m^2; I assume the best case, ie. zero lift drag.

I always thought that the difference in G-limit was in favor of the Dora as its dimensions were more compact and lesser weight penalties.

Yes, at the end of the day, 152s were the ones with the lower G limit.

 

[GregP]

After the Fw 190D-12, they switched to the Ta 152 design, which was a modified Fw 190D, for all the inline, liquid-cooled engines. It has a fuselage plug and modified wings.

I don't find much, or almost anything on the Fw190H. The Ta 152C and H were good airplanes with not enough time to be developed into reliable warplanes before they were thrown into the fray out of sheer necessity just as the Luftwaffe collapsed as a fighting force, which was April 1945.

 

[tomo pauk]

After the Fw 190D-12, they switched to the Ta 152 design, which was a modified Fw 190D, for all the inline, liquid-cooled engines. It has a fuselage plug and modified wings.

Ta 152 predates the D-12.
There was no switch, either.

 

[GregP]

Doubt there was no switch.

A total of 3 D-12 and 17 D-13s were built. The Ta 152, even with 11 variants, had at least 44 delivered and perhaps as many as 150 airframes started production.

It's pretty clear evidence of a switch to the Ta 152 when the standard Fw 190 stops being built and the Ta 152 starts production.

 

[tomo pauk]

A total of 3 D-12 and 17 D-13s were built. The Ta 152, even with 11 variants, had at least 44 delivered and perhaps as many as 150 airframes started production.

It's pretty clear evidence of a switch to the Ta 152 when the standard Fw 190 stops being built and the Ta 152 starts production.

Stating that something is 'pretty clear evidence of a switch' without providing the dates and factory outputs will not going to cut it.

 

[GregP]

In this case your thinking is likely correct.

There are rumors and speculation that as many as 150 Ta 152s were built or at least started their way down the production line. The summary of all the references I have examined tells me there were about 69 delivered in total and about 44 that actually saw combat, never more than about 20 at any one time in total, scattered to the units that flew them. The remainder of the 69 delivered were used as spare parts since there was no logistics chains for the Ta 152. Any airplane that went inoperative was used for spares. At the end of the war, I see at least one reference that claims only two Ta 152Cs were left in operational status. I have not wasted any time trying to verify that claim. I'm not even sure how to confirm or refute the claim.

They continued to deliver Fw 190s in 1945 (1,630 in fact) and only made 9 Ta 152s in 1945. But the Fw 190s they delivered were not improvements over the Ta 152; they were almost entirely Fw 190D-9s for the liquid-cooled units, which were about as good as the short-wing Ta 152Cs. Not much difference between them.

So, I suppose you are right and they DID continue building Fw 190s; just not D-11s, 12s, or 13s after just a handful were built, 37 in total. Performance-wise, the Ta 152Hs were better ... IF they got to higher altitudes. Due to the war situation, they never got to be used in that capacity. Instead, the Ta 152Hs got assigned to defending Me 262 airfields against Allied fighters when the jets were landing and taking off and other-than-high-altitude tasks. Since that was the case, the Fw 190Ds that were built were just about as useful as the Ta 152Hs down low. So, maybe the D-9s were the correct thing to be making at the time.

All in all, I'd say you are right in that they did continue to make Fw 190D-9s. I'd suppose it was due to the fact that the Fw 190D-9 was a good, solid airplane that was already in production, but the real reasons are not something to chase after.

 

[bf109xxl]

…Es wurden insgesamt 674 Fw 190D-9, wie das Serienmuster genannt wurde, beginnend mit der W.Nr. 210001, gebaut. Die W.Nr. 210001, TR+SA, wurde ab 7.9.1944, die W.Nr. 210002 ab 18.9.1944 von Chefpilot Sander eingeflogen.
…
Die beiden ersten Serienmaschinen, W.Nr. 210001 und 210002, sollten als Musterflugzeuge der neuen Version Fw 190D-10 dienen, die an sich der D-9 entsprach, in den Flügelwurzeln aber zwei MK 108 statt der MG 151/20 tragen sollte. Zum Serienbau kam es nicht mehr.
Am 29.9.1944 traf in Langenhagen eine weitere umgebaute A-8 ein, die als V-56, W.Nr. 170924, GV+CW, Musterflugzeug für die D-11-Serie werden sollte. Ihr folgte am 29.10. die Fw 190 V55, W.Nr. 170923, GV+CV, als zweites Musterflugzeug für die D-11 -Serie. Die Fw 190D- 11 sollte dieselbe Bewaffnung wie die D-10, aber den Jumo 213F erhalten. Tatsächlich sind nur fünf D-11, alles umgebaute A-8, als V-Musterbezeichnet. Davon trafen bis 21.12.1944 in Langenhagen ein: 5.9. die V57, W.Nr. 170926, GH+CV; 9.11. die V61, W.Nr. 350158, VI+QM; 16.12.1944 die V59, W.Nr. 170933, GV+DF. Ob die V58, W.Nr. 350156, und die V60, W.Nr. 350157, noch eingeflogen wurden, war nicht festzustellen. Bei allen fünf Maschinen war die MW 50-Einspritzanlage eingebaut. Die Bewaffnung bestand entgegen der ursprünglichen Planung aus zwei MG 151/20 in den Flügelwurzeln und zwei MK108 im Außenflügel. Die geplanten Schlechtwetterjäger Fw 190D-11/R20 und R 21 blieben Projekt.
Eine weitere Fw 190A-8, W.Nr. 350165, sollte als V63-Musterflugzeug für die Fw 190D-12-Serie dienen. Eine zweite A-8, W.Nr. 350166 CS+IB, V64, diente als Musterflugzeug für den Schlechtwetterjäger Fw 190D-12/R11. Diese Serie sollte im Februar 1945 bei Arado und im Januar 1945 bei Fieseier in Serie gehen. Ob der Umbau der beiden Versuchsmuster noch vollendet worden und der Serienanlauf erfolgt ist, ist unwahrscheinlich. Auch dieses Muster sollte den Jumo 213F-1 erhalten, dazu die MW 50-Ein- spritz-Anlage, eine Bewaffnung von einer Motorkanone MK 108 und zwei MG 151/20 in den Flügelwurzeln, sowie das FuG 125 und die PKS 12. Die geplanten Serien D-12/R5 mit vergrößerter Reichweite und D-12/R25 mit geänderter Funkausrüstung blieben Projekt. Eine weitere Fw 190A-8, W.Nr. 350167, sollte zuerst als Musterflugzeug für die Fw 190D-12/R5 dienen, dann aber für die nächste Ausführung D-13/R5. Ein Serienauftrag für diese Ausführung erfolgte nicht, sondern für eine Schlechtwetterausführung D-13/R11, deren Serienbau dezentralisiert bei der Arbeitsgemeinschaft »Roland« ab Januar 1945 erfolgen sollte. Sie unterschied sich von der D-12 durch geänderte Bewaffnung: eine Motorkanone MG 151/20 und zwei MG 151/20 in den Flügelwurzeln. Diese Ausführung und die außerdem geplanten Versionen D-13/R5 und R21 blieben im Zeichenbrettstadium stecken. Die Fw 190D-9, W.Nr. 210040, sollte als Musterflugzeug V76 für die D-14-Serie dienen, die W.Nr. 210043 als V77 für die D-15-Serie. Ob der Umbau der beiden Maschinen noch durchgeführt wurde, war nicht festzustellen. Ein Serienbau fand jedenfalls nicht statt. Nachfolger der »langnasigen« Fw 190D wurde schließlich die Ta 152.

From "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 - Ta 182. Entwicklung. Technik. Einsatz" by Heinz Nowarra, Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart, 1988 (2.Auflage)

 

[z42]

The insistence of the Luftwaffe on a engine armament leaves the question open if there was some benefit from it in the light that other air forces went without it.
Are there any accounts of why there was this preference other than some spectacular advantage in accuracy? Maybe the tech was too complicated for other nations.

Nothing per se complicated, but a different set of tradeoffs. The big advantage of course being the lack of any convergence issues. Disadvantages are that:

• One gun is not enough, and if you want the other guns on the centerline as well you need synchronizer gear which adds weight and reduces rate of fire, as well as adding yet another gizmo that can fail.
• The motor cannon is in the way of the supercharger, so you need to mount the supercharger on the side with a 90 degree joint for the shaft, and an in-aerodynamic entry tube sticking out of the side of the fuselage.
• Directly behind the engine is prime real estate on the aircraft. Either you want to move the cockpit as much forward as possible to improve visibility, and/or you want to put a fuel tank there as that tends to be close to the center of gravity of the aircraft.

In the end I don't think there's really any huge advantage or disadvantage of either choice; good fighters were made with both centerline (incl. motor cannon) and wing mounted guns.

 

[bf109xxl]

There are rumors and speculation that as many as 150 Ta 152s were built

Rodeike found 69, Nowarra even less.

and only made 9 Ta 152s in 1945

23 - according to reliable sources.

 

[SaparotRob]

3784 according to unreliable sources.

 

[GregP]

Hi SparotRob!

I show 1,850 Fw 190Ds of all dash numbers delivered, with 1,630 delivered in calendar year 1945. That's a mess of Focke-Wulfs, for sure.

I'm wondering if the Ta 152s were made on the same assembly line, but answering random questions about Focke-Wulf late-war deliveries is not exactly a simple task. I know some Ta 152s had an intercooler that the Fw 190Ds were missing, but am not too sure if that's just the Jumo 213-equipped Ta 152H or if the DB 603-equipped Ta 152C ALSO had an intercooler. I'm curious. but not THAT curious.

Sort of have enough to do without spending time on that question, but I am always curious about the details, especially when the data can be had reasonably easily. When we restore airplanes, the details matter. If you're NOT restoring one, they sort of don't amount to something justifying a lot of effort.

As we're working on a service bulletin for a C-47 to return it to airworthy status (wing attach modifications), those details are what we're chasing now. It's going well at this point and we're working on the outer wing attach angle for the upper wing surface.

I know, too much information you didn't ask about.

Cheers.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Rodeike found 69, Nowarra even less.
View attachment 775104

23 - according to reliable sources.

Talk about stretching an airframe...

 

[spicmart]

Zero lift drag - ie. drag at high speed - 'Schnellflug Cw0', expressed as equivalent flat plane 'F' in m^2; 'w' = widerstand = drag. Cd0 is the expression in English language.
Drag that includes the induced drag - 'Steigflug Cw0', also in m^2. We'd call that value 'Cd'; Cd0 + Cdi = Cd.

FWIW, Lednicer notes the 'F' of the P-51D = 4.65 sq ft = 0.432 m^2, and that of the Spitfire IX = 5.40 sq ft = ~0.502 m^2; I assume the best case, ie. zero lift drag.

Using this I get for the D-12 = 0.475 sq ft = 0.441 m^2.

Interestingly they call the Dora radiator an axial (annular) type and the Ta 152 a radial type (drum).
The frontal area is 49;135 to 76;85. Does this mean the latter has 50% more frontal area than the former?

Could you elaborate what does Cd swet mean exactly? Lednicer gave a Cd swet = .0065 for the Spitfire and .0063 for the D-9.
The difference is not as marked as between the respective flat plates of 5.40 sq ft and 4.77 sq ft.

And do you know what everything in detail in this chart means and how these things add up?

I hope you don't mind the many questions.

 

[z42]

Interestingly they call the Dora radiator an axial (annular) type and the Ta 152 a radial type (drum).
The frontal area is 49;135 to 76;85. Does this mean the latter has 50% more frontal area than the former?

Ta 152 had the radiator matrix mounted differently, with airflow through the matrix mostly radially rather than axially as in the 190D.

 

[spicmart]

Ta 152 had the radiator matrix mounted differently, with airflow through the matrix mostly radially rather than axially as in the 190D.

View attachment 775285

I wonder by how much was the radial configuration more draggy than the axial one. Advantage was that, because the former had better heat dissipation, its gills did not have to open as much when the engine runs hot, thus producing less drag.