FW190 D9 difference between early and late model

[adler_1]

Hi,

Whats the difference between the early 1944 and the 1945 models ? physics , performance , appearance , armament ?

[Legioneod]

16 minutes ago, dog1 said:

Hi,

Whats the difference between the early 1944 and the 1945 models ? physics , performance , appearance , armament ?

There was only ever one version of the D-9, it remained the same throughout it's lifetime as far as I'm aware and didn't come into real use until late 44. I'm not really versed in German aircraft but from what I've read the D series were much more powerful than the Antons and performed much better at altitude than the earlier Fw-190s, they also used an inline engine instead of a radial like the Fw-190A.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

15 minutes ago, dog1 said:

Hi,

Whats the difference between the early 1944 and the 1945 models ? physics , performance , appearance , armament ?

Some late D-9s had the larger tails from Ta-152.

 

 

Initially Jumo 213A had a WEP setting of  1,750 PS (1.5ata) and a combat of 1,620 PS (1.4 ata) . In September 1944, 1,900 (1.7 ata) PS was cleared for WEP and 1.5 ata became the 30 minute combat setting with 1.4 ata become maximum continuous. In Nov/Dec, MW50 kits were produced and fitted to increase power to 2,100 (1.8 ata) PS. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

36 minutes ago, dog1 said:

Hi,

Whats the difference between the early 1944 and the 1945 models ? physics , performance , appearance , armament ?

 

14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

There was only ever one version of the D-9, it remained the same throughout it's lifetime as far as I'm aware and didn't come into real use until late 44. I'm not really versed in German aircraft but from what I've read the D series were much more powerful than the Antons and performed much better at altitude than the earlier Fw-190s, they also used an inline engine instead of a radial like the Fw-190A.

 

There were multiple versions of the D series just as there were multiple versions of the A series. Most were experiemental and saw little or no service. Though the airframes were essentially the same, there were multiple modifications to the engines and armament. It is essentially true there was only one D-9 (other than the aforementioned tail) but there were lots of D series.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

 

There were multiple versions of the D series just as there were multiple versions of the A series. Most were experiemental and saw little or no service. Though the airframes were essentially the same, there were multiple modifications to the engines and armament. It is essentially true there was only one D-9 (other than the aforementioned tail) but there were lots of D series.

I knew there was D-13 and stuff but I was just speaking of the D-9. I never knew anything about the tail or MW50 being added, I just figured they were always equipped with it.

[sevenless]

11 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Some late D-9s had the larger tails from Ta-152.

 

 

Initially Jumo 213A had a WEP setting of  1,750 PS (1.5ata) and a combat of 1,620 PS (1.4 ata) . In September 1944, 1,900 (1.7 ata) PS was cleared for WEP and 1.5 ata became the 30 minute combat setting with 1.4 ata become maximum continuous. In Nov/Dec, MW50 kits were produced and fitted to increase power to 2,100 (1.8 ata) PS. 

 

This chart is from Monogram Close Up 10. Only D9 and D13 (two!) were used operationally. One D13 is now in the USA (https://flyingheritage.org/Explore/The-Collection/Germany/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190-D-13-(Dora).aspx)

 

First D9s were delivered to III./JG 54 early October 1944 and one of the latest units to receive them was IV.(Sturm)/JG3 in February 1945.

[Legioneod]

I wonder what we will be getting, the 213A-1 or 213A-2 and what fuel we will be using with it? I'm assuming the fuel will depend on the engine we get with the D-9?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

There is serious doubt that a D-9 ever flew in combat with 2.02 ata (2,240 PS). Most D-9s flew either at 1.7 ata with B4 fuel or 1.8ata with B4+MW50

Edited August 13, 2018 by RoflSeal

[sevenless]

28 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

There is serious doubt that a D-9 ever flew in combat with 2.02 ata (2,240 PS). Most D-9s flew either at 1.7 ata with B4 fuel or 1.8ata with B4+MW50

 

Maybe someone deeper in the know and a larger library can answer that. Meanwhile I found some technical stuff here:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

 

and for performance with C3 fuel here:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf

 

Interesting bit from above report:

 

Hermann noted the following points regarding the Fw 190D-9's operational history:

The first thirty production aircraft were delivered to the unit (III./JG 54) at the beginning of October 1944.

[...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction.

The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.

[...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers.

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. ^*

*  Dietmar Hermann, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose", (Schiffer, Atglen, PA, 2003)

Edited August 13, 2018 by sevenless

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, sevenless said:

First D9s were delivered to III./JG 54 early October 1944

 

September 1944. Hermann's dates are incorrect. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by LukeFF

[Talon_]

4 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

There is serious doubt that a D-9 ever flew in combat with 2.02 ata (2,240 PS). Most D-9s flew either at 1.7 ata with B4 fuel or 1.8ata with B4+MW50

 

Considering the lack of +25lbs boost Spitfire (of which there were 25 squadrons by the end of 1944) I shouldn't think we'll be seeing the MW50 D-9 (of which only 60 were built by the end of 1944).

[JonRedcorn]

Absolutely cannot wait to fly this damn thing. Was flying it around in Il2 1946 with the VP modpack, games pretty decent for being so old, but it's going to be absolutely no comparison to flying it in BOS, the flight models in this game are light years ahead of anything in the old game.

 

I just really cannot wait for the whole package, it's going to be absolutely epic. ( hate using that word but it definitely applies here)

Edited August 13, 2018 by 15th_JonRedcorn

[sevenless]

nvm

 

Meanwhile, III. Gruppe’s conversion onto D-9s at Oldenburg had been progressing relatively smoothly, if slowly, and without undue incident. Once again it was Hauptmann Robert Weiss who led the way by claiming the first kill to be achieved on the new type when he intercepted and brought down an RAF reconnaissance Spitfire south of Bremen on 28 September.

 

Weal, John. Jagdgeschwader 54 'Grünherz' (Osprey Aviation Elite) (Kindle-Positionen1999-2001). Osprey Publishing. Kindle-Version. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by sevenless

[Bremspropeller]

18 hours ago, sevenless said:

Only D9 and D13 (two!) were used operationally

 

Some D-11s also flew operationally.

Most notably JV44, Verbandsführerschule Bad Wörishofen and possibly some JG 300.

 

The total number was low, though. Probably single digit.

 

===

 

On Doras, there's still nothing better out there than Axel Urbanke's book. Available both in German and English.

 

Edit: As a unit history - there are other very good books about the Dora. The "to read" list would be:

- Dietmar Herrmann's book on the Dora

- Eagle Publishing's two books (might get pricey)

- JaPo's two books (kind of congruent with Eagle publishing - if you're on a budget, get one of the two, if not, they're both great!)

Edited August 14, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Some D-11s also flew operationally.

Most notably JV44, Verbandsführerschule Bad Wörishofen and possibly some JG 300.

 

The total number was low, though. Probably single digit.

 

===

 

On Doras, there's still nothing better out there than Axel Urbanke's book. Available both in German and English.

 

Edit: As a unit history - there are other very good books about the Dora. The "to read" list would be:

- Dietmar Herrmann's book on the Dora

- Eagle Publishing's two books (might get pricey)

- JaPo's two books (kind of congruent with Eagle publishing - if you're on a budget, get one of the two, if not, they're both great!)

 

Yes single digit and most likely all prototypes. As for the JV44 D11...per Peter Rodeike it was the prototype V58. 

 

 

[novicebutdeadly]

16 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Considering the lack of +25lbs boost Spitfire (of which there were 25 squadrons by the end of 1944) I shouldn't think we'll be seeing the MW50 D-9 (of which only 60 were built by the end of 1944).

Has there been any talk from the dev's about this??

I haven't been keeping up with the forums, but I logically thought that you guys might get the 25lb Spitfire (which was available in Jan 1945) when we get the 109K4 (C3 option??)

The 18lb Spitfire made sense with the BF 109 that was released.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

Absolutely cannot wait to fly this damn thing. Was flying it around in Il2 1946 with the VP modpack, games pretty decent for being so old, but it's going to be absolutely no comparison to flying it in BOS, the flight models in this game are light years ahead of anything in the old game.

 

I just really cannot wait for the whole package, it's going to be absolutely epic. ( hate using that word but it definitely applies here)

I can't wait to try out the Dora!!

I felt with the patches from the original Series, that the Dora amongst a few others went from awesome to nerfed, to ok, to nerfed... (I stopped playing it when il2 bos came out, the feel I got from the new game made it near impossible to go back, that and finding it hard to find servers with a decent ping... oh wait I still have that problem ☹️ )

So it will be interesting to see how the aircraft is modeled in this latest iteration of il2.

Edited August 14, 2018 by novicebutdeadly

[Voidhunger]

How much good/bad turning radius dora had. In comparison to A8?

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Yes single digit and most likely all prototypes. As for the JV44 D11...per Peter Rodeike it was the prototype V58. 

 

 

 

Yeah, I just re-checked it myself.

Looks like the D-11 was basicly just a stop-gap for the D-12 (see next page in the book), as there was no timely way of preparing production at Focke-Wulf.

Fieseler and "Arbeitsgemeinschaft" were earmarked for D-12 and D-13 production.

 

Just re-checked Jean-Yves Lorant and it appears the "JG 300 D-11s" are exactly the airframes from VFS.

He mentions that Fähnrich Otto Leisner did 4 flights on "<<" on 14/15 March 1945, when preparing for duty in I./JG 7.

 

Ernst Schröder mentioned that Stab II./JG 300 not only had a hand ful of D-9s, but also one or two D-12s (p. 412).

 

18 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

How much good/bad turning radius dora had. In comparison to A8? 

 

Pretty hard to say. Most pilot-reports are in-conclusive as they are contradictive.

 

Here is what we know: The Jumo isn't much different in weight. The D-9 is about 120kg heavier (empty) than an A-8 and roughly the same weight as the A-9.

The engine is about as powerful, but produces more torque and has a much more efficient prop.

It is supposed to climb markedly better and as such (larger excess thrust) would have to have a better sustained turn capability.

The instantaneous turn is probably very similar.

Roll rate should be very similar (despite some authors stating the opposite), as the only change is a slightly enlarged vertical tail and an engine with more torque. It should roll worse aginst the torque (to the right) and better with torque (left).

 

All in all, the Dora wasn't a super upgrade on paper (bare numbers), but it was very much better than the A-8 where it mattered:

Better climb/ acceleration. Higher cruise-speed. Less drag/ better dive. More range (lower fuel-consumption). Lower grade fuel (!!!).

And mostly: A big confidence-boost to the pilots.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[PainGod85]

16 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Considering the lack of +25lbs boost Spitfire (of which there were 25 squadrons by the end of 1944) I shouldn't think we'll be seeing the MW50 D-9 (of which only 60 were built by the end of 1944).

 

Try 183 planes refitted at the airfields, with 60 more delivered with the MW-50 system as factory standard.

 

So 243 planes in all.

[EAF19_Marsh]

14 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

So 243 planes in all.

 

It is still a far smaller number than the Spits if one were going by either outright force size or proportion of fleet operational (counting all D-9s as operational, available and with similar sortie generation which is a little unlikely given the Luftwaffe's wider woes).

 

But there always seems the temptation towards offering the small number of higher-powered German types at the expense of very common, concurrent Allied variants..

[Talon_]

28 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Try 183 planes refitted at the airfields, with 60 more delivered with the MW-50 system as factory standard.

 

So 243 planes in all.

 

They were not refitted with MW50, just for higher ata with the field kit,1900hp. Reread the quotes.

 

Only 60 with MW50 ready for deployment at the end of December.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Talon_

[Voidhunger]

27 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Yeah, I just re-checked it myself.

Looks like the D-11 was basicly just a stop-gap for the D-12 (see next page in the book), as there was no timely way of preparing production at Focke-Wulf.

Fieseler and "Arbeitsgemeinschaft" were earmarked for D-12 and D-13 production.

 

Just re-checked Jean-Yves Lorant and it appears the "JG 300 D-11s" are exactly the airframes from VFS.

He mentions that Fähnrich Otto Leisner did 4 flights on "<<" on 14/15 March 1945, when preparing for duty in I./JG 7.

 

Ernst Schröder mentioned that Stab II./JG 300 not only had a hand ful of D-9s, but also one or two D-12s (p. 412).

 

 

Pretty hard to say. Most pilot-reports are in-conclusive as they are contradictive.

 

Here is what we know: The Jumo isn't much different in weight. The D-9 is about 120kg heavier (empty) than an A-8 and roughly the same weight as the A-9.

The engine is about as powerful, but produces more torque and has a much more efficient prop.

It is supposed to climb markedly better and as such (larger excess thrust) would have to have a better sustained turn capability.

The instantaneous turn is probably very similar.

Roll rate should be very similar (despite some authors stating the opposite), as the only change is a slightly enlarged vertical tail and an engine with more torque. It should roll worse aginst the torque (to the right) and better with torque (left).

 

All in all, the Dora wasn't a super upgrade on paper (bare numbers), but it was very much better than the A-8 where it mattered:

Better climb/ acceleration. Higher cruise-speed. Less drag/ better dive. More range (lower fuel-consumption). Lower grade fuel (!!!).

And mostly: A big confidence-boost to the pilots.

Thanks. Im curious how she will perform in Bobp.

[Bremspropeller]

It would be sensible to offer the MW-50 system as a modification dependant on the mission-date.

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

It would be sensible to offer the MW-50 system as a modification dependant on the mission-date.

 

Agreed, likewise the Spitfire LF IX should be able to do the same - however don't get your hopes up, as the Spitfire does not have this option. We will likely be restricted to the low power settings for both aircraft for the entire campaign.

[Asgar]

14 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Agreed, likewise the Spitfire LF IX should be able to do the same - however don't get your hopes up, as the Spitfire does not have this option. We will likely be restricted to the low power settings for both aircraft for the entire campaign.

no, because we're playing september to february/early march and there were multple sources posted on this forum reporting supply issues with the British to actually get 150octane fuel to the lowlands. no 150 octance fuel no +25lbs

[Talon_]

7 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

no, because we're playing september to february/early march and there were multple sources posted on this forum reporting supply issues with the British to actually get 150octane fuel to the lowlands. no 150 octance fuel no +25lbs

 

British Spitfires were flying at +25lbs in 2TAF from mid-February until the end of the campaign. Thousands of tons of 150 grade fuel was used in North West Europe. Pilot accounts from one third of all Spitfire Wings on the continent exist explicitly mentioning +25lbs of boost and the new fuel.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Talon_

[Asgar]

mid february... so out of the entire campaign in BoBP they were flying for half a mounth or a bit more.... sounds pretty irrelevant to me considering the MK IX in game is alredy one of, if not THE fighter with the most modifications. clip wings, engine, gyro sight, rockets, bombs. I really don't know why you people can't ever be pleased

Edited August 14, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Talon_]

Just now, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

mid february... so out of the entire campaign in BoBP they were flying for half a mounth or a bit more.... sounds pretty irrelevant to me considering the MK IX in game is alredy one of, if not THE fighter with the most modifications. clip wings, engine, gyro sight, rockets, bombs. I really don't know why you people can't ever be pleased

 

I would like to fly the plane as it flew in reality. This is a simulator after all.

 

There are accounts of the 150 grade fuel in Spitfires by mid January - it was just a transition period and by mid February everyone had it.

 

Spitfires were flying on +25lbs of boost for between 6-10 weeks of our 26 week campaign, depending on location - so between 45-25% of the campaign. Not just a few days.

 

It's also an easy modification to code as it only involves modifying the boost mapping and full throttle height of an existing engine. Easier than adding the very different Merlin 70.

[Asgar]

i'm so glad you know how easy it is to code, considering the devs are working on a propriotary engine with pretty much only a single FM engineer on the planet capable of working with it. Thanks for your input.

[Talon_]

Just now, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

i'm so glad you know how easy it is to code, considering the devs are working on a propriotary engine with pretty much only a single FM engineer on the planet capable of working with it. Thanks for your input.

 

It's the same process used on the different DB605s we have between the G-series 109s and the BMWs in the Fw190s - simply raising the boost of an existing engine as has been done with their ata levels five times now in this series.

[sevenless]

22 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

There is serious doubt that a D-9 ever flew in combat with 2.02 ata (2,240 PS). Most D-9s flew either at 1.7 ata with B4 fuel or 1.8ata with B4+MW50

 

Dietmar Hermann summarized FW 190 D-9 performance as follows:

In my book I have published one chart from 3.1.45 (page 154) showing FW 190 D-9 performance with B4 fuel with MW 50 injection operating at 2,02 ata (Sondernotleistung ). However, I have no evidence showing that 2,02 ata was enabled by the end of the war. I think that the D-9 was flown either with the 1900 PS update or with MW50 injection (2100 PS).

[MrNoice]

28 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I would like to fly the plane as it flew in reality. This is a simulator after all.

 

There are accounts of the 150 grade fuel in Spitfires by mid January - it was just a transition period and by mid February everyone had it.

 

Spitfires were flying on +25lbs of boost for between 6-10 weeks of our 26 week campaign, depending on location - so between 45-25% of the campaign. Not just a few days.

 

It's also an easy modification to code as it only involves modifying the boost mapping and full throttle height of an existing engine. Easier than adding the very different Merlin 70.

then give the germans their C3 Fuel

[Talon_]

5 minutes ago, KG_S_MrFies said:

then give the germans their C3 Fuel

 

I'm not here to argue for balance, only reality. If certain types had access to certain fuels operationally and in large enough numbers with documentation during the BoBp campaign I support it. For reference, 25 squadrons of Spitfires on 150 grade accounts for around 4-500 operational aircraft in-theatre. In fact, it's basically all 2TAF Spits (the two fighter-containing Groups of 2TAF varied from 24-26 squadrons of Spitfires in total throughout the campaign period).

 

Numbers wise, we are getting the EZ-42 gunsight on D-9s that equipped 27 Doras, and rockets on the Spitfire that equipped only a single squadron. Those are pretty rare so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extend the same to fuel types.

 

EDIT: I also believe these fuels should have "availability dates" so they unlock during the campaign from their times of introduction - 2nd-4th weeks of January for most Spits.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Talon_

[[I./JG62]steppa]

23 hours ago, dog1 said:

Hi,

Whats the difference between the early 1944 and the 1945 models ? physics , performance , appearance , armament ?

No spitfire fuel mentioned here.

I would love to learn about the d9 without people (kids) crying about who stole thier favorite juice. Cross, circle or star. please

 

[Bremspropeller]

One could also argue that a difference was the different canopy. But that just comes down to parts availability, as it's just a different canopy-assembly.

 

The earlier one is just the standard post A-4 canopy/ body-armor.

The later one has improved head-protection in case of a turnover and is slightly bulged outwards (I have in the meanwhile been able to see a picture that shows the slight outward bulge of the "blown" caopy - it's minimal, not more than 1-2cm at most).

Edited August 14, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[Asgar]

i've never heard of a D-9 without blown canopy, it has been the new standard ever since the F-8 and A-9 production runs. Would be interesting to see a source on D-9 with the old canopy.

[sevenless]

31 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

i've never heard of a D-9 without blown canopy, it has been the new standard ever since the F-8 and A-9 production runs. Would be interesting to see a source on D-9 with the old canopy.

 

They used whatever was available to the production sites. Here three examples:

 

1. III./JG54 received D9s in late September/October 1944

 

 

2. IV.(Sturm)/JG3 received D9s in February 1945

 

3. And a very prominent one of JV44 "Galland Circus" which was established April 1945

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by sevenless

[-TBC-AeroAce]

It is going to feel odd having a motorcannon on a 190.

[Major_Issue]

I know its a bit OT, but I'd really like to see the blown canopy for the A-8 and especially since we have the F-8 which I've never seen without.
Wondering how complex it would be to put that as an option since its already modelled for the Dora.

[PainGod85]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

i'm so glad you know how easy it is to code, considering the devs are working on a propriotary engine with pretty much only a single FM engineer on the planet capable of working with it. Thanks for your input.

 

Oh please, if the FM devs know their stuff, the code is already in place. Prop efficiency is a mathematical function; drag is a mathematical function. Performance at a higher power setting is largely a derivative mathematical function of the two. Hence there shouldn't be any issues implementing higher boost.

 

1 hour ago, KG_S_MrFies said:

then give the germans their C3 Fuel

 

The Fw 190 A-8 is already running on C3.

 

I've argued for +25 lb / 150 octane fuel in other threads, and I believe C3 could be added if there is proof it was used operationally in the timeframe given.

I've heard Platzschutzstaffel 190 D-9s were using 2.02 ATA, but I don't have any solid proof of that.

 

I strongly believe 1.98 ATA on the 109 K-4 is a pipedream, given the lack of reliable sources.