Author Topic: 190A8 vs SpitV (Read 4080 times)

Wotan · « **Reply #45 on:** June 11, 2004, 10:17:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
Yea, i know. That is why I tossed in that 5% margin. It wasn't much heavier than the A4 IIRC. Dunno what the difference in weight was between the A4 and A3.

IIRC the a3 is about 400lbs lighter. You could have a 5% variance in testing the same planes a few diffferent times. 5 % most likely wouldnt be enough.

HoHun I believe has given the 190A5 (the actual rl AC and not the AH version) a "good looking at" so he may beable to clarify the issue some.

Misfit · « **Reply #46 on:** June 12, 2004, 04:13:40 PM »

We fly Luft, we are screwed:rolleyes:

Urchin · « **Reply #47 on:** June 13, 2004, 08:25:56 AM »

I did have the same kind of experience as Godo the other day in the AH2 arena.. I was in a 190A8 at about 8-9k with 6-7 Spits and a Niki at their base at various alts.. I BnZ'ed 3 of them to death and was trying to climb back up to my perch when a Spit decided to follow me. He got to about "400" on the icon (not really sure how far that is) as I levelled out, and held down the trigger. Fortunately for me, he missed, but I figured I'd be better off going a little faster, so I rolled over into a dive. I made it a fairly steep dive, but all the way from wherever we started till when I levelled out on the deck running, the Spit was "400" yards back. He actually didn't start dropping back until he started climbing a little bit, probably wasted all of his ammo spraying at me.

I won't be trying to out-dive any more spits in a 190A8, thats for damn sure. Good way to get killed.

Wilbus · « **Reply #48 on:** June 13, 2004, 08:42:23 AM »

Yup Urchin.

Btw, 400 on the icon is 400 YARDS, not feet that some people think.

Urchin · « **Reply #49 on:** June 13, 2004, 08:46:21 AM »

Yea, but I'm not sure if the range counter shows 599-400 yards as "400", or 400-201 yards as "400". In the former case I could have been opening the distance very very slowly and I wouldn't have known.

Wilbus · « **Reply #50 on:** June 13, 2004, 09:20:50 AM »

AHA! So that was what you ment

Rgr, I don't know either.

Crumpp · « **Reply #51 on:** June 13, 2004, 12:32:35 PM »

There is almost no difference in speed between the 190A5 in "Normaljager" configuration and the 190A3 in "Normaljager". I will post the RLM test graphs for the FW-190A3 on Mandoble's website this week.

The FW-190A in any series for a figher varient is a good match up for the Spit 9. Any FW-190 is vastly superior to the Spit V series, so much so that the RAF actually concieved and endorsed "Operation Airthief", an SOE raid to capture a FW-190 and fly it to England. Faber's landing occurred just before "Airthief" was to commence. The few pounds of boost did not make such a big difference and the Spit V series was scrubbed in favour of the Spit 9. At least the performance of the Spit 9 was competative with the FW-190A series.

Here is the FW-190A3 vs Spit IX:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm

Crumpp

GODO · « **Reply #52 on:** June 13, 2004, 04:00:25 PM »

Today I (190A5) was diving over a P47D40 after a zoom and stall of both planes, the P47 was being also pursued in the zoom by a much lower spitIX and after the hammer, the P47 tried to HO the still climbing spit without scoring a hit, the spit reversed and dived at my six, to my surprise and mostly the P47 pilot surprise, the SpitIX overpassed my 190, and killed the P47 in the dive.

Karnak · « **Reply #53 on:** June 13, 2004, 04:36:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GODO
Today I (190A5) was diving over a P47D40 after a zoom and stall of both planes, the P47 was being also pursued in the zoom by a much lower spitIX and after the hammer, the P47 tried to HO the still climbing spit without scoring a hit, the spit reversed and dived at my six, to my surprise and mostly the P47 pilot surprise, the SpitIX overpassed my 190, and killed the P47 in the dive.

How much energy did the Spit carry through his reversal? I gather that your 190 and the P-47 had zoomed until you had no choice but to reverse. Correct? If the Spit reversed while still having two or three hundred MPH he might have been in a good position to overtake.

That said, I still think that either the Spit's are accelerating too well in dives, or other aircraft are accelerating too slowly in dives. Most likely the Spit is accelerating too fast.

GODO · « **Reply #54 on:** June 13, 2004, 05:44:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Correct?

Incorrect, the spit was stalling when the P47 tried to fry it in the dive. P47 and 190 were diving from no less than 500 yards above the spit reverse point. Along the dive I got a maximum separation of 600 yards behind the P47, at the end of the dive it was reduced to 500 yards with a bit of spray&pray, near sea level. The spit kill it firing at 400 yards. Add or substract 100 yards to these numbers due new icon range system.

Karnak · « **Reply #55 on:** June 13, 2004, 09:21:36 PM »

How do you know the Spit's energy state? Did it flop over before the P-47 arrived? I am very rarely that certain of another aircraft's energy state.

My "Correct?" was intended about your, and the P-47's, zoom termination.

It would be interesting to see a film of it.

Crumpp · « **Reply #56 on:** June 13, 2004, 09:52:59 PM »

This thread is going off track.

What matters is that a SPITFIRE should NEVER be able to catch a 190 in a dive provided both A/C start at a similar Energy state. The Spitfire in AH2 can OUTDIVE the 190A. This is wrong and should be fixed. Now I don't know if the 190 dives too slow or the Spit too fast.

If the level speed is wrong then it should be fixed and if factory data is used to determine the flight parameters for any A/C in AH2 then it should be used for all of them if available.
To use allied data when RLM data exist's is like having a Chevy mechanic trying to get maximum performance from a Toyota engine. Then claiming the Chevy mechanic knows more than the Toyota factory about a Toyota engine. It just does not pass the common sense test.

A 190A8 and a Spit IX should be almost equal in all flight parameters. Altitude determines which is the faster plane/better accellerating. The 190 should always hold the cards in rollrate/manuverability except for sustained turn radius. Climb rate is extremely close and the 190 wins diving hands down. Spits in AH2 roll too fast or the 190 doesn't roll fast enough. The same with diving.

Bottom line - Only in Diving and roll rate should the 190A have a commanding lead over the Spit 9. Only in Sustained Turn Radius does the Spit IX hold a commanding lead over the 190.

Crumpp

Karnak · « **Reply #57 on:** June 13, 2004, 10:20:38 PM »

Only because it is a Merlin 61 F.Mk IX, otherwise the Spitfire would also have a commanding sustained climb advantage too. Probably zoom climb as well.

And if it we a clipped wing Spit LF.Mk IX (ugly though it be) it would roll nearly as well as the Fw190.

That said, only the Spit XIV should be able to catch a Fw190 in a dive, and then it should be an effort.

Crumpp · « **Reply #58 on:** June 13, 2004, 11:18:27 PM »

I don't think the clipped wing spits rolled as well as the 190 otherwise the RAF certainly would have used more of them. They didn't have the alerion surface area or pushrod controls that made the 190 roll so well. Clipping the wing also reduced other handling characteristics I believe making the tradeoff not worthwhile.

I think sustained climb would not be commanding but the spit would have the advantage. Zoom climb is another story. I think the 190 would retain the advantage on that one.

Remember the test flight comparision is a 190A3 captured by the RAF without boost and being flown at a reduced Manifold pressure. It not being flown to "edge" of the 190's envelope, either. It is however one of the best comparison flights of the 190 vs other A/C we have available.

The 190A3 being flow in the test was limited to 1.42 ata (boost pressure of the time on C3 injection) and the RAF would use it for only 2 minutes at a time. The 190A5 we have in AH2 should use 1.58 ata boost. The 190A8 had both a 1.58 ata boost and a 1.65 ata boost (GM 1?). I will post the RLM documents on Mandobles website this week.

Both Eric Brown and Alfred Price comment that an experienced German 190 pilot could have gotten more out of the A/C especially in turning ability. The RAF pilots simply were afraid to push the 190 for fear of crashing it. Not only was it the only available example at the time but it's stall was both nasty and without warning. Faber's 190 was just too valuable to risk pushing the machine and losing it.

The 190A8 vs Spit 9 should be one of the most challenging fights in AH for either pilot with raw skill being the deciding factor.

Your right, I'm not even including the Spit 14. It totally outclasses the 190A and until the Dora with MW-50 (1945 version) comes about the Luftwaffe had no equal for it.

Crumpp

Karnak · « **Reply #59 on:** June 14, 2004, 12:24:32 AM »

Crump,

I'm not talking about conjecture here. I'm talking about test data.

The Spitfire LF.Mk IX climbed at 4,500fpm.

If you can find the NACA roll chart you'll notice that the clipped wing Spitfire is only a little behind the Fw190.

Of course clipping the wings does reduce the Spit's turn performance, but it will still handily out turn the Fw190.

As to the rods vs. wires, what I understand is that on a new aircraft it makes no difference. As the aircraft becomes war weary the rods keep the tight control response whereas the wires stretch and the controls become sloppy.

BTW, they aren't "push rods", all controls work by pulling.