FW 190 D9 & BF 109 K4

[SCG_ErwinP]

Hi all!

I'm a bigger fan of the Focke Wulf 190 A series. I'm hypped with BoB, so what is the difference between Dora and Kurfürst in overall aspects (weight, armament, engine, climb rate, limit dive speed, operational altitude and better altitude performance)? What is the difference between Dora vs Anton series, will be the same flight/combat style?

 

Thank you all!

Edited November 20, 2018 by 3./JG15_HansPhilipp

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Dora-Anton: Dora has more top speed at medium and high altitude, better climb rate, similar armament, more weight, slightly higher dive speed limit, and higher operational altitude. Slightly worse in turning. 

 

Biggest difference is the high alt performance. Anton is faster down low with MW 50 and has a more durable engine.

 

Both will win a turnfight against P47 and P38 but lose against a Mustang. 

[Legioneod]

13 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Dora-Anton: Dora has more top speed at medium and high altitude, better climb rate, similar armament, more weight, slightly higher dive speed limit, and higher operational altitude. Slightly worse in turning. 

 

Biggest difference is the high alt performance. Anton is faster down low with MW 50 and has a more durable engine.

 

Both will win a turnfight against P47 and P38 but lose against a Mustang. 

P-38 has one of the fastest turn rates of any American fighter.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

P-38 has one of the fastest turn rates of any American fighter.

 At high speed and initial turn yes, but not in a sustained turn.

[SCG_ErwinP]

39 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Dora-Anton: Dora has more top speed at medium and high altitude, better climb rate, similar armament, more weight, slightly higher dive speed limit, and higher operational altitude. Slightly worse in turning. 

 

Biggest difference is the high alt performance. Anton is faster down low with MW 50 and has a more durable engine.

 

Both will win a turnfight against P47 and P38 but lose against a Mustang. 

Is the flight style the same?

[CUJO_1970]

109K reached the limit of the 109 design potential, while FW-190 airframe was just getting started.

 

The 190 airframe was growing into the Ta-152C airframe and Ta-152H series of extreme altitude fighters along with Dora 11-13 series fighters. Very fast and had absurd amounts of firepower. Basically the piston engine aircraft that were reaching their design potential at the dawn of the jet age, before all piston engine fighters became somewhat obsolete.

 

As for the 109K, it will outclimb easily any FW-190 and has a higher critical altitude. FW-190D will be faster on the deck, with much better roll rate and better high-speed maneuverability. 109K probably a better 1v1 dogfighter, while FW-190 is superb at team tactics. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but flying as a pair together will be a nightmare to deal with online.

7 minutes ago, 3./JG15_HansPhilipp said:

Is the flight style the same?

 

Yes - Dora and Anton use the same tactics: high-speed, vertical fighting and teamwork tactics. Hunt and kill.

 

With the Dora though - you don't have to fly quite as conservative as Anton - Eric Brown considered it one of the top dog fighters of WW2.

[SCG_ErwinP]

13 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

109K reached the limit of the 109 design potential, while FW-190 airframe was just getting started.

 

The 190 airframe was growing into the Ta-152C airframe and Ta-152H series of extreme altitude fighters along with Dora 11-13 series fighters. Very fast and had absurd amounts of firepower. Basically the piston engine aircraft that were reaching their design potential at the dawn of the jet age, before all piston engine fighters became somewhat obsolete.

 

As for the 109K, it will outclimb easily any FW-190 and has a higher critical altitude. FW-190D will be faster on the deck, with much better roll rate and better high-speed maneuverability. 109K probably a better 1v1 dogfighter, while FW-190 is superb at team tactics. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but flying as a pair together will be a nightmare to deal with online.

 

Yes - Dora and Anton use the same tactics: high-speed, vertical fighting and teamwork tactics. Hunt and kill.

 

With the Dora though - you don't have to fly quite as conservative as Anton - Eric Brown considered it one of the top dog fighters of WW2.

Very informative!

Thank you a lot!

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

34 minutes ago, 3./JG15_HansPhilipp said:

Is the flight style the same?

 

Yes but you have to remember that US aircraft are generally fast but not very good knife fighters themselves.

While it's a death sentence to enter a knife fight against a Yak in a 190, it might well be the right thing to do against US fighters and the Tempest when in a certain position. 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Dora-Anton: Dora has more top speed at medium and high altitude, better climb rate, similar armament, more weight, slightly higher dive speed limit, and higher operational altitude. Slightly worse in turning. 

 

Biggest difference is the high alt performance. Anton is faster down low with MW 50 and has a more durable engine.

 

OEWs of the A-8, A-9 and D-9:

A-8: 3050kg (excluding 115l aux tank)

A-9: 3170kg (note: the 120kg difference comes from the 115l aux tank, which was standard in the A-9)

D-9: 3180kg (a whopping 10kg difference!)

 

Source: "Jagdflugzeug Fw 190" - P. Rodeike

 

 

There is no Anton with MW 50.

The Dora (clean, MW-50) will be around 600kph on the deck.

 

The Dora will fly longer/ farther, have a better climb and acceleration (no matter which way the nose is pointed), will cruise faster and will generally be the better airplane.

As to which aircraft is the better turner (Anton vs. Dora) seems to be debateable. Pilots have given mixed answers and given the physics, there is no reason to assume the Dora would turn noticeably worse than the Anton. The same applies to roll.

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

6 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

OEWs of the A-8, A-9 and D-9:

A-8: 3050kg (excluding 115l aux tank)

A-9: 3170kg (note: the 120kg difference comes from the 115l aux tank, which was standard in the A-9)

D-9: 3180kg (a whopping 10kg difference!)

 

Source: "Jagdflugzeug Fw 190" - P. Rodeike

 

 

There is no Anton with MW 50.

The Dora (clean, MW-50) will be around 600kph on the deck.

 

The Dora will fly longer/ farther, have a better climb and acceleration (no matter which way the nose is pointed), will cruise faster and will generally be the better airplane.

As to which aircraft is the better turner (Anton vs. Dora) seems to be debateable. Pilots have given mixed answers and given the physics, there is no reason to assume the Dora would turn noticeably worse than the Anton. The same applies to roll.

 

I was comparing the A8 since it's in the game.

Of course the Anton had MW50 in some versions, C3 injection in others.

[Bremspropeller]

7 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Of course the Anton had MW50 in some versions

 

Nope.

It was never used operationally.

[IVJG4-Knight]

3 hours ago, 3./JG15_HansPhilipp said:

Hi all!

I'm a bigger fan of the Focke Wulf 190 A series. I'm hypped with BoB, so what is the difference between Dora and Kurfürst in overall aspects (weight, armament, engine, climb rate, limit dive speed, operational altitude and better altitude performance)? What is the difference between Dora vs Anton series, will be the same flight/combat style?

 

Thank you all!

 

What i noticed in DCS (109 k4 vs d9):

 

Dora :

-faster at low level and as high as 5500m

- better visibility 

 -dives faster and cleaner 

-better high speed maneuverability (this is hugely important for me)

-better roll rate

-more ammo

 

109:

-small fighter (hard to spot)

-faster at high altitude 

-in sustained turns it turns much tighter 

-climbs much better and can hang on the propeller better without overheating

-more torque (negative aspect)

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by IVJG4-Knight

[SCG_ErwinP]

1 minute ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

What i noticed in DCS (109 vs d9):

 

Dora :

-faster at low level and as high as 5500m

- better visibility 

 -dives faster and cleaner 

-better high speed maneuverability (this is hugely important for me)

-better roll rate

-more ammo

 

109:

-faster at high altitude 

-in sustained turns it turns much tighter 

-climbs much better and can hang on the propeller better without overheating

-more torque (negative aspect)

 

Thank you!

[EAF19_Marsh]

And the Proton Torpedoes:

 

[D3adCZE]

2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

-more torque (negative aspect)

It can be used to do sick moves. Just requires careful throttle manipulation.

[E69_geramos109]

8 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Dora-Anton: Dora has more top speed at medium and high altitude, better climb rate, similar armament, more weight, slightly higher dive speed limit, and higher operational altitude. Slightly worse in turning. 

 

Biggest difference is the high alt performance. Anton is faster down low with MW 50 and has a more durable engine.

 

Both will win a turnfight against P47 and P38 but lose against a Mustang. 

109 should turn inside a P51 very easy at medium low speeds. 

[Rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

109 should turn inside a P51 very easy at medium low speeds. 

According to the game documentation the K4 has a clean stall speed of 103. At normal combat weights the P-51 has a stall speed somewhere around 100 also. Therefore their instantaneous turn rates should be close to identical. Of course the K4 has a lot more power in relation to its size down low, so it will take the prize for sustained turns. In an equal merge dogfight to the finish  Id bet on the K4. In cases of bouncing each other however I’d say the P-51 has a better chance of both killing in one high speed pass and evading the Kurts dive because of the Mustang’s guns and handling.

Wanna hear something mind-boggling? The 109K weighs is much smaller, weighing some 2000 pounds less than the P-51D while having 100-200 more horsepower. Yet their top speeds are not wildly different.

[303_Bies]

18 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Both will win a turnfight against P47 and P38 but lose against a Mustang. 

P-38J could have better turn rate (and for sure smaller turn radius and climb/level acceleration) than Mustang.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Bies

[Legioneod]

51 minutes ago, Bies said:

P-38J could have better turn rate (and for sure smaller turn radius and climb/level acceleration) than Mustang.

This^ The P-38 has an excellent turn rate and with boosted ailerons it can outroll the P-51 and the P-47 at most speeds.

The P-38 is definitely an underestimated aircraft and will be a surprise to some players.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

This^ The P-38 has an excellent turn rate and with boosted ailerons it can outroll the P-51 and the P-47 at most speeds.

The P-38 is definitely an underestimated aircraft and will be a surprise to some players.

Tbh i hope so. The P38 is by far my favourite USAAF fighter. I know, at very high speeds it rolls faster then evrything else, even a 190. But you shouldn't lose the speed. At slow speeds it's sluggish, the roll rate is bad and the sustained turnrate can't keep up with the Mustang or German fighters.

At least the Tsagi Graphs shows those values, my experience with the plane in 1946 is pretty similar. Looking forward to see how it will behave in BoX. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by II./JG77_Manu*

[SCG_ErwinP]

The BoB will be completely different from the other BoX content (high altitude and speed,  combat mode, etc)... Interesting

I like it! =D

[E69_geramos109]

7 hours ago, CMBailey said:

According to the game documentation the K4 has a clean stall speed of 103. At normal combat weights the P-51 has a stall speed somewhere around 100 also. Therefore their instantaneous turn rates should be close to identical. Of course the K4 has a lot more power in relation to its size down low, so it will take the prize for sustained turns. In an equal merge dogfight to the finish  Id bet on the K4. In cases of bouncing each other however I’d say the P-51 has a better chance of both killing in one high speed pass and evading the Kurts dive because of the Mustang’s guns and handling.

Wanna hear something mind-boggling? The 109K weighs is much smaller, weighing some 2000 pounds less than the P-51D while having 100-200 more horsepower. Yet their top speeds are not wildly different.

Maybe the stall speed is similar but the P51 should bleed the energy on a combat much faster than the 109, because the power weight ratio and the laminar flow wing.

[GP*]

11 hours ago, CMBailey said:

According to the game documentation the K4 has a clean stall speed of 103. At normal combat weights the P-51 has a stall speed somewhere around 100 also. Therefore their instantaneous turn rates should be close to identical. Of course the K4 has a lot more power in relation to its size down low, so it will take the prize for sustained turns. In an equal merge dogfight to the finish  Id bet on the K4. In cases of bouncing each other however I’d say the P-51 has a better chance of both killing in one high speed pass and evading the Kurts dive because of the Mustang’s guns and handling.

Wanna hear something mind-boggling? The 109K weighs is much smaller, weighing some 2000 pounds less than the P-51D while having 100-200 more horsepower. Yet their top speeds are not wildly different.

 

Please elaborate on how stall speed correlates to instantaneous turn performance. 

[Rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, Go_Pre said:

 

Please elaborate on how stall speed correlates to instantaneous turn performance. 

They’re both limited by the total amount of lift you have available in relation to the weight of your aircraft.  As you know, accelerated stall speed for a given aircraft weight and configuration  is equal to the square root of the G load multiplied  by the 1 G stall speed (IAS) in that configuration. Thus if a plane stalls at about 100mph IAS at 1 G  the 4 G stall speed will be about 200mph, for example..  And as you doubtless already know, two planes pulling the same G load at the same speed are turning at the same rate. Thus the similar stall speeds of the 109K and P-51 indicate that they can at least momentarily  pull a similar amount of G at a given speed, and thus turn at a similar rate. (This is assuming  that both aircraft retain at that speed the control authority needed to pull to the limit imposed either by the stall or the need to avoid pulling too many Gs for the pilot and/or airframe.)

 

And as you certainly already know,   “corner speed” is the speed at which an aircraft (momentarily) has its best turn rate. This is nothing other than the lowest speed at which the aircraft can pull the maximum allowable G, which as illustrated can be figured out fairly well from the airplane’s 1G stall speed. A plane below corner speed can said to be lift-limited in its turning, a plane above it can said to be G-limited. 

 

Sustained turn is of course more complicated. Needless to say, no WWII fighter can maintain its maximum possible rate in a level turn very long, the speeds and G-load sustainable will be much lower. Easiest way to figure which configuration (flaps) and speed yields optimum sustained turn rate for a given plane in-game probably involves a timer and the patience to do lots and lots of test flying.

 

I applaud your use of the Socratic method here in illuminating these points for any newer guys who may be reading the forum. I would suggest that they also pick up “Fighter Combat” by Shaw, who goes much more in depth. It can also be found in PDF form on the internet I believe.

Edited November 21, 2018 by CMBailey

[SCG_ErwinP]

My first impression about BF109 K4:

 

MK 108 is difficult to hit the enemy;

The maneuverability is nice but i strongly believe that i will prefer Dora;

The engine is a monster;

The canopy is nice (like in G14)!

It climb faaaster!

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by 3./JG15_HansPhilipp

[GP*]

19 hours ago, CMBailey said:

(This is assuming  that both aircraft retain at that speed the control authority needed to pull to the limit imposed either by the stall or the need to avoid pulling too many Gs for the pilot and/or airframe.)

 

^ An important caveat to supplement what looking only at the math would lead one to believe. 

 

Otherwise...well done. 

[JonRedcorn]

What ATA does the dora were getting run at? I love flying the dora in il2 1946 even though its dated, (one of the nicer done craft in that game).

[sevenless]

56 minutes ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

What ATA does the dora were getting run at? I love flying the dora in il2 1946 even though its dated, (one of the nicer done craft in that game).

 

We have heard nothing official yet, but from what has been discussed in the past, it most likely are the following modes:

 

1750PS max (9/44-12/44), 1900PS max (since 12/44), 2100PS max with MW50 (since 12/44). Don´t know the corresponding ata values. There is one additional mode with C3 and MW 50 delivering 2240PS, but that is still open for debate.

 

 

[JonRedcorn]

Can't wait to fly the thing.

[Sunde]

Looking at the roles the 190 serves when deployed along the F4, the playstyle will be pretty similar when its a D9 and K4 tbh...
Also thank you to all for just ignoring the child in this thread, kudos. 

[SJ_Butcher]

On 11/21/2018 at 1:38 AM, CMBailey said:

According to the game documentation the K4 has a clean stall speed of 103. At normal combat weights the P-51 has a stall speed somewhere around 100 also. Therefore their instantaneous turn rates should be close to identical. Of course the K4 has a lot more power in relation to its size down low, so it will take the prize for sustained turns. In an equal merge dogfight to the finish  Id bet on the K4. In cases of bouncing each other however I’d say the P-51 has a better chance of both killing in one high speed pass and evading the Kurts dive because of the Mustang’s guns and handling.

Wanna hear something mind-boggling? The 109K weighs is much smaller, weighing some 2000 pounds less than the P-51D while having 100-200 more horsepower. Yet their top speeds are not wildly different.

 

The current k4 acceleration in game is insane. I doubt the Mustang will be a threat for that plane

Edited November 22, 2018 by GHA_Valfreyja

[Rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, Go_Pre said:

 

^ An important caveat to supplement what looking only at the math would lead one to believe. 

 

Otherwise...well done. 

Well the P-51 was known to sometimes have structural failures pulling out of dives so obviously it could indeed turn as hard as aerodynamically and structurally  possible, to say nothing of what a pilot could actually stand without a G suit. Corner velocity on the Mustang in terms of its rated 7g max is about 265-270 IAS. I would be highly surprised if the 109 in reality couldn’t match that. That would mean that a major air power used a fighter for the duration of the war that *couldn’t use its maximum aerodynamic turning capacity at speeds below that which it easily attains in level flight.* Not plausible at all. Full disclosure, I do think the current elevator modeling is a tad unfair to the 109. There is a difference between stick forces that are physically taxing for test pilots unused to the type  and actually being unable to pull to the lift-limit/G limit in your fighter at level flight speeds while trimmed for level flight. But since pilot strain would be a boondoggle to model I guess we get 109s that are a tad limited if you don’t play with the stab trim. That’s okay long as it’s not too overdone. 

28 minutes ago, GHA_Valfreyja said:

 

The current k4 acceleration in game is insane. I doubt the Mustang will be a threat for that plane

In an air war that consists of 1v1 co-alt duels I would agree. However in melee that consists of bouncing and being bounced there are other factors. If one starts flying the 109 after flying the 190 a lot it quickly becomes apparent how much worse the former is in ability to quickly and precisely adjust one’s aim on ducking, dipping, dodging and diving target. And the higher the dive speed the worse this problem becomes for the 109. The 30mm doesn’t help  matters.

Conversely, you can’t really accelerate your way out of a fighter with excellent high speed handling diving on you. Now true enough, you can do defensive maneuvers and regain the energy lost much more easily. However this also can be a problem for the 109. Throwing it around the sky to spoil someone’s aim is hard at high speeds because of sluggish control response and can also be hard at slower speeds because of squirrelly handling.

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by CMBailey

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, sevenless said:

1750PS max (9/44-12/44), 1900PS max (since 12/44), 2100PS max with MW50 (since 12/44). Don´t know the corresponding ata values. There is one additional mode with C3 and MW 50 delivering 2240PS, but that is still open for debate.

 

Sorry, but that's way off. 1900 HP was available from September 1944. The first plane with MW 50 was delivered in October, and full production of MW 50-equipped planes began in November 1944.

 

Quote

In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Oldenburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944.

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

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

Edited November 22, 2018 by LukeFF

[sevenless]

13 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Sorry, but that's way off. 1900 HP was available from September 1944. The first plane with MW 50 was delivered in October, and full production of MW 50-equipped planes began in November 1944.

 

Hey cool. Good to hear you found evidence for Erhöhte Notleistung and make it available right from the start of the timeline. Any evidence found as for how much of the delivered a/c were converted in sept in oct and in nov and in which units? I like playing with Erhöhte Notleistung right from the start. Looking forward to it.

[LukeFF]

48 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Hey cool. Good to hear you found evidence for Erhöhte Notleistung and make it available right from the start of the timeline. Any evidence found as for how much of the delivered a/c were converted in sept in oct and in nov and in which units? I like playing with Erhöhte Notleistung right from the start. Looking forward to it.

 

Aircraft would have been delivered only to III./JG 54 until December, who started D-9 operations with an anti-recon schwarm at the end of September. So, it's possible those first planes already had the 1900 HP upgrade. So, based on that, the 53 of 68 planes converted to 1900 HP in October means slightly over 75% of production D-9s had been converted - a very high number. The MW 50 numbers - about 1/3 of available planes by the end of December - is not insignificant either.

Edited November 22, 2018 by LukeFF

[MiloMorai]

Hermann got his months wrong as can be seen if one scrolls down further.

III./JG54

Oct - 56

Nov - 68

Dec - 40

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html

[sevenless]

18 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Hermann got his months wrong as can be seen if one scrolls down further.

III./JG54

Oct - 56

Nov - 68

Dec - 40

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html

 

Thanks for that. However Weiss shot down a Spitfire near Bremen on 28th September in his Dora-9, so they already had them in September. Who is right and who is wrong?

 

Quote:

 

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 November 22, 2018 by sevenless

[LukeFF]

19 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Hermann got his months wrong as can be seen if one scrolls down further.

III./JG54

Oct - 56

Nov - 68

Dec - 40

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html

 

It was the numbers, not the months that he mixed up. 

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68.

 

[LukeFF]

Yes, I know what he said. 56 is the number of planes they had at the end of October. 18 planes at the start of the month, plus 46 more planes delivered during the month, means the unit had 64 planes on hand, though obviously not all at the same time.

 

EDIT: this is all academic anyways, since the installation of the HP upgrade kit and MW 50 is what's important, and we know a large number of planes had been upgraded to 1900 HP by the end of October and an increasing number of planes had MW 50 from November.

Edited November 22, 2018 by LukeFF