Spitfire Mk. LF. IX vs Spitfire Mk IX

[Crumpp]

Kweassa,

I am interested in hearing your explaination why all the reports classify 190 as "more manuverable" than the spit.  The Luftwaffe report classified it as more manuverable than the 109F4 and "able to reverse much quicker".  Both the Spit and the 109 could outturn the 190 in level sustained turns.

In AH I wouldn't classify the 190 as manuverable.  It's only mediocre in that department.  That's why Energy fights are Bore N Snore with it.


Due to it's roll rate the real 190 could change direction extremely fast.

We do not get this advantage in AH.  It seems to me the 190 rolls fast but once the roll is completed the AH 190 sort of "mushes" through the directional change.  It is sluggish instead of nimble for a second after the roll.

The 190 could use it's inititial dive accelleration and zoom climb to gain an E advantage over other fighters.

It's initial dive accelleration is not fast enough.  According to RAF and the USAAF test the 190A could leave a P47 in the first 3000 feet of a dive.  There were not many planes that could match a 190's dive speed and none that could match it's intitial accelleration.  In AH Spit IX's match the 190's dive speed and even catch it once on the deck.  The Spit IX shouldn't catch a 190 in a dive.  This was confirmed by diving a spit IX side by side with a 190A5.

In AH the 190 bleeds energy in the zoom climb very quickly in AH.   I imagine this will be reduced some when the climb speed is adjusted and that will fix it.  

The 190's climb speed is too slow in AH.  This one is a no brainer and is clearly marked on the charts.  

Crumpp

[GODO]

Our old" spitV outaccelerates by far any 190A at level at 10k, and will outclimb any 190A from sea level to 30k.

Urchin, all your scenaries put 190As with alt advantage, now try the opposite. For a coalt engangement, 190As can flee only diving and with a very very long dive, on the other hand, spits can "flee" easily just climbing and always keeping the advantage.

As an example of substained climb on WEP, 190D9 vs SpitV from 0 to 10k, one after the other and D9 got only a marginal separation of 500 yards at 10k while being the first to take off.

Now go and try 190A vs spitV dives from 2k, 5k, 7k and 10k starting just above stall 150 or 175 mph.

[Nashwan]

It's initial dive accelleration is not fast enough. According to RAF and the USAAF test the 190A could leave a P47 in the first 3000 feet of a dive.

I've always wondered about just how big a seperation you could get in a dive.  If the dive is sustained for 3,000ft, how mcu seperation would you get? Obviously, less than 3000 ft if the other plane was diving as well.

Will one accelerate at twice the speed of the other? 20% faster?

Someone on the IL2 boards posted the following from 'Mustang, a documentary history' By Jeff Ethell:

Dive acceleration:

10,000ft. The run was begun from a line abreast formation at 200 IAS, with full power applied as the dive was entered. The P-51 began to pull ahead immediately. The selected red line airspeed (325IAS) of the Zeke was reached after 27 seconds. At this time the P-51 had a lead of approximately 200yds.

25,000ft.
Result were much the same as at 10,000ft. The Zeke reached 325IAS after 20 seconds, and the P-51 was rapidly widening a lead begun shortly after the dive was entered.

Obviously not that steep a dive, but after 27 seconds the P-51 had a 200 yard lead over the Zeke, and those are two aircraft that are at the opposite ends of the dive acceleration range.

[Nashwan]

Our old" spitV outaccelerates by far any 190A at level at 10k, and will outclimb any 190A from sea level to 30k.

The AH Spit V certainly should outclimb the 190A. The real life Spit V, running at the boost pressure used in AH, had a climb rate of around 4,000 ft/min (20.3 m/s) up to 9,000ft.

[Crumpp]

No it should not outclimb a 190.  According to the RAF test's a 190A3 maintained an average of 450ft/min climb advantage over the Spit Vb.  In a zoom climb from cruise speed the Spit Vb had "no hope" of catching the 190A3.

We have the performance graphs of the 190A3 to compare with both the 190A8 and the 190A5 inlcuding best climb speed.  You can look at the graphs and just like the Spit series the 190's continuously improved in performance.

The 190/Spit "Food chain" should go like this:

190A dominated the Spit Vb.

190A and Spit IX are equal with each having different advantages but niether dominates the other.

190A is dominated by Gryphon powered Spits.

The 190D-9 is able to compete with the Spit IVX but does have a larger performance gap to deal with than the 190A vs Spit IX fight.

This is all based on flight test data and performance graphs.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Crumpp, it is Rolls-Royce G R I F F O N, not Gryphon.

What is a Spit IVX? A typo?

[Nashwan]

No it should not outclimb a 190. According to the RAF test's a 190A3 maintained an average of 450ft/min climb advantage over the Spit Vb.

That's when the Spit V was running at 9 lbs boost, the 190 at 1.35ata. The Spit went up to 16 lbs boost, which is what AHII models.

The climb tests for the Spit V are available. They show 4000ft/min up to 9000 ft for a Spit V with the same configuration as the AH Spit V.

I don't have the docs to show the 190A climb rate, but are you suggesting it was more than 4000 ft/min (20.3 m/s)? IF it was, I withdraw the claim, but I always thought the 190 A had a lower climb rate than that.

[VO101_Isegrim]

I have never seen 4000 fpm climbrates for any Mk Vs in any tests. The best they reached was about 3600 fpm, unless we are talking about the LF versions with the low-alt supercharger and much reduced altitude performance.

As for the FW 190A`s climbrate, US trials just show about 4000 fpm at 1.42ata. I assume the FW 190A-5 would do the same, w/o the Erhohte Notleistung. I believe this BMW boost and the often removed outer guns would make a (positive) difference to that. The later A-8 was much heavier, hence the lower climb rate and ceiling.

[Flyboy]

this sounds redicilous a spitV with a 4000FPM?

this will screw all the future scenarios in AH2 in which the spit5 will take part.

i do not see the reason behind giving the spit5 such a boost in the performence. it could certeinly hold its own in the MA on AHI

this is the cause for the current "imbalance" between the 109a5 and the spit5 imho

[Nashwan]

I have never seen 4000 fpm climbrates for any Mk Vs in any tests.

this sounds redicilous a spitV with a 4000FPM?

See http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

The chart shows 3700 - 3710 ft/min up to 8,800 ft. However, the notes on the condition of the aircraft say:

The tests were made at a take-off weight of 6,965 lb. with the centre of gravity 7.3 inches aft of the datum. This is the loading of the aeroplane when fitted with 4 x 20 mm. guns and full service equipment. Although at the time of test 2 x 20 mm. and 4 x .303" guns were fitted, the aeroplane had been ballasted internally the give this weight in connection with the other tests being made to obtain comparitive performance figures with the two types of armament.

Off hand I can't remember the extra weight involved of the 4 20mm armament, but it was somewhere around 400 lbs + iirc. There is a bit in Spitfire the History that gives the performance differences between the 2 20mm and 4 20mm aramament, which were in the order of 300 ft/min to the climb rate iirc.

Of course, you could always complain and demand the Spit V in AH should have the 4 20mm aramament, which will restrict the climb rate a bit

Note that the report says the gain in climb rate is just over 1000 ft/min. A previous test of the Spit Vb gave a climb rate of over 3200 ft/min+, so a gain of 1000ft/min to this particular aircraft would put it at 4300 ft/min.

A previous test of a Vc with 4 20mm gave 2900 ft/min, so the gain here would put it at nearly 4000 ft/min with 4 20mm.

[Crumpp]

Read the Report Nashwan.

The Spit V with +16 lbs of boost could maintain that excellent rate of climb for 3 minutes or less and then it overheated.  In fact that website has data for different tempatures and how they effected the overheating.

    It's normal rate of climb was CONSIDERABLY lower and was well under the 190's climb rate of 3248.03 Feet per minute at 1.32 ata at 2400U/min.  When the 190 used 1.42 ata at 2700U/min it's climb rate will increase too.

Crumpp

[Nashwan]

The Spit V with +16 lbs of boost could maintain that excellent rate of climb for 3 minutes or less and then it overheated.

It's actualy listed as 5 mins in the pilot's manual, and of course it takes less than 3 mins to climb above FTH, which means boost is dropping anyway.

In fact, the 5 mins listed in the manual will take you up to almost 18,000ft, and by then the boost pressure has almost dropped to 9 lbs, the level that's permitted for 1 hour. RPM won't drop of course, but at high alt the Spit is allowed to use 3000 rpm on the climb as a normal rating, ie for 30 mins or 1 hour.

It's normal rate of climb was CONSIDERABLY lower and was well under the 190's climb rate of 3248.03 Feet per minute at 1.32 ata at 2400U/min.

No, see the test of W3134 for example. Climb rate at normal rating was 3240 ft/min at low level, rising to 3250 ft/min at 15,000ft. And that's a 1 hour rating.

When the 190 used 1.42 ata at 2700U/min it's climb rate will increase too.

It certainly will, but afaik not to anywhere near 4000 ft/min. That's just AFAIK of course, if you have any data on the 190 climb rate at  1.42 ata 2700 rpm I'd be interested in seeing it, and will gladly accept I'm wrong if indeed it could outclimb the Spit V on WEP.

The RAF report on Fabers A3 ran the Fw190 A3 at 1.35 ata for climb speed, which was in fact WEP for the A3, and compared it to the Spit V at 9 lbs, which was it's 30 min or 1 hour rating.

Certainly later 190s used 1.35 (or 1.32, I'm not sure which) as a climb and combat setting, but they also gained some weight over the A3.

[GODO]

BTW, that was a SpitVc, is ours a SpitVc? And take a look at the "Condition of aeroplane relevant to tests made", that doesn't seem a normal SpitV in military service, but a test-bed plane to try new improvements into the in-production SpitV.

[Nashwan]

BTW, that was a SpitVc, is ours a SpitVc?

Ours is a Vc with 2 20mm cannons, not the 4 20mm cannons fitted to some of these test aircraft.

And take a look at the "Condition of aeroplane relevant to tests made", that doesn't seem a normal SpitV in military service, but a test-bed plane to try new improvements into the in-production SpitV.

The condition is as it would be in military service, apart from the ballast weight added to simulate the weight of the extra cannons. What makes you think otherwise?

[GODO]

Nashwan, your are refering to 190A1 and A2. 190A3 were using the BMW 801D2 instead of BMW 801C.