Fw 190 D-14/D-15 & Jumo 213EB to counter Allied superprops

There were topics about these aircraft on the old forums but with that being lost I’m making this one. The planes I’m talking about are the prototype Fw 190 D-14/15 which used the DB603 engine, and the Fw 190 D-13 and Ta 152 H-1 equipped with Jumo 213EB. I think these aircraft offer the greatest potential for closing the performance gap between the top German props and the Allied superprops they have to face. It has been very difficult to find information about them so I’m hoping through discussion more can be discovered and it can be determined if there is enough to get them in the game, or if their performance would actually be good enough to be useful.

The Fw 190 D-14 seems to have by far the most potential to me. Two prototypes were made, Fw 190 V76 (Werknummer 210040) and Fw 190 V77 (Werknummer 210043). These were originally Fw 190 D-9s.They used the DB 603E at first, but were at some point later re-engined to the DB 603LA. I haven’t been able to find out consistently what engine each plane used at a given time, let alone what settings. The first test flight was in November 1944. Planned armament would have been 2x MG151/20 in the wing root positions and 1x MK 108 motorkanone, like the Fw 190 D-12 or Ta 152 H. I don’t know if either of the prototypes were ever armed.

Finding information about the DB 603LA has been very hard as well, which makes me wonder where Gaijin got the information for that engine in the Ta 152C. Ingame it appears to be running a very high power setting that I can’t back up from anywhere else. Dietmar Hermann’s book on the 152 says the DB 603LA lacked an intercooler, and the planned DB603L which did have an intercooler made 1870 hp at takeoff which “could be increased to 2250 hp”, I presume with MW 50.

If the D-14 did use the DB 603LA running anywhere near the same power settings as the Ta 152C-3 ingame, or a DB 603EB/EC with C3 fuel and/or MW50, it would have greatly superior flight performance to any 190D or 152 currently ingame, especially in climb and speed. The horsepower of the 152C-3’s engine with the much lower weight of a 190D-9 airframe.

Here is the only picture I know of for one of the D-14 prototypes.

Spoiler

Fw_190_D-14

The Fw 190 D-15 is closely related to the D-14, but there is even less information on this one. It is possible that at least one prototype was completed before the end of the war, which may be Werknummer 601286. It would use the DB 603E engine, and the armament layout of the 190 D-11, that being 2x MG 151/20 in the wing roots and 2x MK 108 in the outboard wing positions. It was planned to use the Ta 152 style higher chord vertical stabilizer, but a prototype built from an earlier 190 variant might have lacked this feature.

It appears the D-14 project was cancelled in early 1945, and the D-15 is a sucessor to it.

As for The Jumo 213EB, this engine would have had 200 more horsepower than the 213E, achieved by means that are not known to me. I have heard that it used C3 fuel instead of B4, or that it had enlarged intake valves. This was the planned production engine for the Fw 190 D-13 but was not available so the Jumo 213E was used instead for early(and as it turned out, only) production aircraft. There is a chart from March 1945 made with calculated data that shows some extremely impressive but probably optimistic performance numbers for an Fw 190 D-12 and Ta 152H equipped with the Jumo 213EB. I have no idea if this engine was ever actually put into a plane, but a D-12 or D-13 with 200 more horsepower would also offer substantially greater performance than any existing 190 or the Ta 152 C.

Here is the (calculated data) chart showing incredible performance with the Jumo 213EB.

Spoiler

13 Likes

Here it is, V77 flew with 2400 horsepower at 1.95 ata with C3 fuel and MW50.

Spoiler






This document from Focke-Wulf dated March 1945 compares calculated top speeds for an Fw 190 D-9 with the Jumo 213A or DB 603EB/EC running with various power levels and configurations. It also includes the speeds achieved by Fw 190 V77 in real test flights from the previous month. There is a wealth of fascinating information here that I can’t fully describe, and I don’t fully understand everything here.

This shows that the Fw 190 V77 was indeed running in test flights with the DB 603EC engine with C3 fuel and MW50, where it produced 2400hp at sea level and 2450hp at ~500m! Notes on the graph showing speeds at Start-und Notleistung(takeoff and emergency power without MW50) with B4 fuel say that the DB 603EB engine was failing to make the power advertised by Daimler-Benz, at least in that test/condition, and the DB 603EB and Jumo 213A offered almost the same performance at low altitude. The document also claims that the Fw 190 was equipped with 2x MG131 + 2x MG151, as well as an ETC 504 bomb rack under the fuselage, and that the fuselage was polished and gaps were filled to decrease drag, which is said to have increased speed by 20 km/h. The armament information is puzzling to me because I don’t see how the re-designed cowling would have allowed for the MG131s to remain in place. For it’s part, the bomb rack would have reduced the speed a bit, but obviously it could be removed. I’m not sure if the info about the armament and bomb rack are referring to what was used for the calculated data, or in the real test flights, or both.

For the speeds achieved in test flights with the DB 603EC engine, at sea level it is making 2400hp @ 1.95 ata and 2700 rpm, using C3 fuel and MW50. There are only 4 data points for test flight speeds in this configuration, but they show ~646kmh at 950m, ~681kmh at 2.4km, ~700km/h at 4km, and ~719km/h at 6km, by my reading of the chart. Due to having only a single-stage supercharger, the DB 603E lags behind significantly in high-altitude performance compared to two-stage supercharged engines like the Jumo 213E and DB 603LA. The performance offered here is remarkable but seems underwhelming for a 190 D with 2400-2450 horsepower, especially considering the surface finishing. It makes me wonder about issues with propeller efficiency or something, I know a lot of planes that saw a big increase in power ended up requiring larger propellers to harness it, maybe that is happening here? Either way the performance is still very good. The chart also shows calculated data for (hypothetical?) Jumo 213A with C3 fuel and MW50, and a Jumo 213A running at 2.34 ata on the ground, with the latter offering 20km/h superior speed to the calculated DB 603EC despite making the same power. What I really want to see now is info about climb performance, surely all that power at low alt must do something.

Here is a great February 1945 DB document showing the details of the DB 603E/EB/EC, same as the V77 is using in those tests.

Spoiler





e4

I have even more info than this, including some crazy stuff on the DB 603L and LA, and what the lack of an intercooler meant for it, but I think this is already a huge amount of stuff to dump for now.

I hope that there will be more interest and active discussion in this thread. Things look more promising than ever to me. The D-14 was already cancelled in January 1945, so these continuing flight tests must be for the benefit of the D-15. I’m not sure if it’s accurate or not to call V76 and V77 “prototypes” of the D-14 and D-15. I also heard that Fw 190 V16, one of the Fw 190 C prototypes that didn’t have a turbocharger, was equipped with a DB 603E with MW50 at some point in 1944, I know nothing concrete about that, but it’s also promising.

4 Likes

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of these so this information is really cool, thank you for compiling it!
Id love to see more German props in game, they could even add both with the d15 foldered under the d14.

1 Like

The main issue of German props is lack of mobility, Ta152h might be good but too slow, a powerful engine can’t save FW190 unless back to 1.59 before, when FW190D13 can get over 12g overload at high speed, the best way is drop ME262 to 6.7( in fact we do have one but Gaijin forget lmao)

No, it is not written there. All the values ​​in the graphs are calculated. And the points on the graph are given from real flights with engines 213A and 603EB. All these charts have been discussed many times on the old forum.

This is very interesting. If you can post these documents, many aviation enthusiasts will be grateful to you.

I know the graph with all calculated data in my first post is old news, but I had never seen the graph with points from real test flight before, I didn’t think it was already well-known. Could you send me a link to discussions of these graphs from the old forums? It would be interesting to hear what was said and catch up on what I didn’t know, since I have many questions.

I made a thread on this same topic on the old forums in 2021 and nobody was able to provide these documents or any other useful info to me at the time even though discussion remained active in that thread until 2023. I am surprised considering my proximity to the topic that I never came across this info back then if it was known.

On the chart for “Start-und Notleistung B4 Kraftstoff”, it looks like the real test flight has the circle datapoints for the Jumo 213A, and triangular datapoints for DB 603EB. But on the graph for “Sondernotleistung mit MW 50, C3 Kraftstoff”, it has some datapoints for a real test flight with DB engine which are far ahead of the speeds achieved at Start-und Notleistung with B4 fuel, which I assumed was with MW 50 and C3 fuel which would only be possible in the DB 603 EC.

If im reading it right this note from the bottom of the first page says that the speeds achieved by the DB with C3 fuel and MW 50 are 10-20kmh better than calculated data.(due to surface finishing). Flights with C3 fuel and MW50 at the same time would only be possible in the EC, not the EB.

If the DB 603EB is anything like the DB 605DB/DC or DB 605ASB/ASC, converting from one configuration for different combinations of B4 or C3 fuel and MW 50 or no MW 50 would be an intended design feature, not requiring a whole different engine, so the DB 603EC engine in this plane doesn’t seem so far fetched.

Your saying that the info I found before was already discussed many times on the old forums puts a damper on my opinion of the significance of what I found. Maybe everyone has already seen this as well, but I will post it anyway :P.

Here is the first one. Extremely unfortunately I don’t have the rest of this DB document or the cover page, just this part, but I heard it is from March 1945. It says of the DB 603 LA(by my interpretations), that the lack of an intercooler on the DB 603LA compared to DB 603L meant that continual spraying of MW 50 was required for cooling purposes alone (not knock prevention) already at 1.5 ata or higher, so even at steig und kampfleistung, which is highly abnormal. And they solved that by having to lower steig und kampfleistung to 1.45 ata, and MW 50 was then only required for start und notleistung.

Spoiler


Another DB document with info on DB 603L from August 1944.

Spoiler

This meeting document between Fw and DB contains info relevant to the discussion including about Fw 190 V76’s conversion from Jumo 213A to DB 603E, and other Fw 190/Ta 152 protoypes being equipped with DB 603 L.

Spoiler







I still don’t have a nice DB document for the DB 603L or LA like I do for the DB 603E/EB/EC.

1 Like

I assume by lack of mobility you mean lack of turn performance. The 152H works as long as US superprop pilots keep trying to turnfight it, but I agree it is too slow.

The Fw 190 D-9 is noticeably more agile than the D-12 and D-13 while also being a bit faster and climbing better, thanks to having more power at low altitude and less weight. A 190 D with a significant boost in power but only a marginal gain in weight should gain not only speed, but also maneuverability and climb. It doesn’t need to be more maneuverable in a turnfight to beat Allied superprops if it’s fast enough and climbs well enough to be competitive as an energy fighter. I think there is potential for that in the 190s I have suggested here.

I do agree that the 262 A-1a should drop to 6.7, but I’m not convinced about 262s being a suitable counter for superprops. These early jets accelerate slowly and take a long time to gain altitude. The superprops have excellent climb and acceleration, along with high rip speeds and don’t have bad control compression. Whatever the 262s do(stay low to build up speed, or try to climb), the superprops will effortlessly outclimb them, and then dive upon the jets who will not be fast enough to escape, even at top speed.

I can’t, maybe it was a russian-language forum. In any case, the report and graphs in the second post that you provided are dated 2018 on my disk.

Maybe I got something mixed up and am wrong.

No, I mean suddenly aim, or you can understand how fast you can aim the target, not only the mobility, another example is like P47 VS P51 when they are in high speed, over 600km/h P51 is pretty hard to aim target, but P47 doesn’t have this issue.

Same example with P47 and P51, all they need climb for a long time and wait the chance to get speed and attack, same for the jets, but I’m afraid that most of pilots don’t have the patient on climb when they see the first target, and that’s why P47/P51 suffering this issue as well, it’s not plane’s issue, it’s only for pilots.