Imperialist said:
Hi all I was wondering in regards to the attached image, what variant(s) form the basis of these turbocharged Fw-190? I'm assuming modified A and/or C variants? Also any data in the form of dimensions (such as if it used the 0.5m tail plug as well) would be greatly appreciated
Attached as well is my attempt to somewhat reconstruct what it would approximately look like (example aircraft variant is Fw-190 C-0 (V13)
The images you show come from a report dated July 28, 1944, entitled Vergleich Zwischen Getriebelader und Abgasturbine fuer Einen Hoehenjaeger or Comparison Between the Gear-Driven Supercharger and the Exhaust-Driven Turbine in a High-Altitude Fighter.
This was a theoretical study to determine, as the title suggests, which sort of supercharger would be best suited to a high altitude fighter. The study was begun using an earlier project design as a basis - the design which featured in Kurzbaubeschreibung Nr. 10 Hoehenjaeger mit DB 605 U und TKL 15, dated August 7, 1943.
The upper side-view shows the version with the exhaust-driven supercharger (TKL 15, Geraet 9-2279), the lower side-view shows the version with the mechanically-driven supercharger.
The aircraft outlined in the 1943 report appears to show very few components in common with any existing Focke-Wulf model at that point in time. The cockpit is a pressure cabin with a canopy which, while it looks the same side-on, was actually quite a bit broader than that of the Fw 190 series. The dimensions of the Kurzbaubeschreibung Nr. 10 aircraft are - wing area 30m2, wingspan 14.4m, length 11.44m and height 4.8m. The length and span are actually very close to the dimensions of the Ta 152 H.
Incidentally, the July 28, 1944, report states: "Further consideration (Kurzbaubeschreibung Nr. 10) yielded, for optimum frame work layout in relation to rate of climb and horizontal speed: Wing area = 34m2, Span = 18m." This would have taken the design further towards the wingspan of the BV 155 - but there's no drawing of this 'reconsidered' version with the report. The drawings it does include (the ones you want to know about) show slight modifications of the Kurzbaubeschreibung Nr. 10 design only.
NB.
Which was actually best then, exhaust-driven or mechanically-driven? Well, the report concludes:
"A performance comparison for a high-altitude fighter design between a turbine engine (engine with exhaust-driven turbosupercharger) and thrust nozzle engine (engine with thrust nozzles and mechanically-driven supercharger) of equal critical altitude, has shown the superiority of the thrust nozzle engine from ground level to ceiling (H = about 17km) in rate of climb and maximum speed.
A difference calculation has shown the chief reasons for this superiority to lie in the different efficiencies of the propellers and in the weight difference of the aircraft compared. The weight difference is due to the turbine engine and its structural conditions."
So there you have it.