Most overrated Flight charicteristics

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus

The Spit VIII/IXLF with up to 25 boost introduced....in 42/43 would frequently outperform the 190 A series at the time in almost anything apart from firepower and roll rate. I'd say those were pretty good terms for the Spitty. And how common were the 109D's??

Uhm, +25 lbs wasn`t introduced until mid-1944 for the Spitties, and even then it was used on a rather limited scale.

In 1942, there was the Spit IXF, with limited boost to +15 lbs, and was very rare amongst Mk Vs. There were the 190A`s with boost reduced to 1.35ata, and were fairly common. The two were fairly closely matched in most aspects, with advantages over the other - firepower, roll rate, diving, control harmony and vision for the 190A, altitude performance, and turning and handling for Spits.

In 1943, the VIII/IXLFs appeared, at +18lbs increased boost, but again they were not that common - half the force was still MkVs (would you be a Mark V pilot in 1943..?).

Then there was the late A-4s and the new A-5s that appeared the same time, and again become rather common in the Jagdwaffe`s ranks in a short time. With their 1.42ata increased boost, they were faster at most common combat heights, save the high alts, than any Spit then in service.

Then came 1944, and some Spits started using +25lbs. Most did not, however. 190As become heavier, better armored, more heavily armed, and a tad less manouverable and slower. On the other hand, they uniformly had power boost that raised their output to 1.65ata and 2100PS, with the results speaking for themselves.

From the second half of 1944, appeared the 190Ds, and were again numerous, several hundred being in service at the same time (may look it up perhaps if u r interested). So did appear the Mk XIV on the continent doing battles regularly, in very small numbers though.

So, and that`s my general sense of the events, the RAF could always kept up with the 109s/190s technically... but it was always a step or two behind bringing this new technology in numbers to the battlefield, so that would make their presence felt.

[Crumpp]

190As become heavier, better armored, more heavily armed, and a tad less maneuverable and slower.

190A Normaljager's did not become any better armored.  The fighter version armour upgrades appeared in the 190A4/190A3 transition period.  The headrest armour was thickened and widened.  The exact weight is listed in the handbook as well as the Luftwaffe part number which remained the same throughout the war.

The next major armour upgrade for the 190A series fighter version occurred in the FW-190A9 were the armored cowl ring and armored oil cooler were thickened.  

The weight increase the A8 came mainly from the outboard MG151's, ammo, and the 115-liter tank.  

The 115-liter tank was an optional accessory and commonly removed. Additionally some pilots to improve high altitude performance removed the outboard MG 151's.  In the parts manual there is even a kit to replace the outboard ejection chutes and top fairing with smooth plates.  Same kit is used on the G/F versions.

Many of the errors occurring in the FW-190 result from confusion of the different models.  An FW-190A8 was delivered with clamshell doors (not mounted), ETC 501 rack, 115-liter fuel tank, and FuG16 series radio.  Many of the weights listed in publications include ordinance weights on the ETC 501 rack or the Armour of the R7/R8 kits.

The clamshell doors and ETC 501 rack both mounted and dismounted in a few minutes.  The 115 liter tank took a few minutes longer but was designed to be removed and reinstalled without an inordinate amount of trouble.  

So in fact the weight gained by FW-190A8 was not that substantial.  In fact removing the outboard MG151's left the A8 lighter than the MGFF equipped 190A5 and substantially faster.  The Luftwaffe had good reasons for making the 190A8 the most numerically produced version of the 190A.  I will post the weight charts listed in the Pilot handbook for the A-7 bis A9.  It is broken down by varient and each piece of optional equipment.  The Jager was the lightest version followed by the Jagerfuehrer according to pilots handbook.


Crumpp

[Angus]

25 boost in 1944? Are you sure? In January then?
Anyway, after it enered it was quite common.

BTW, I remember from somewhere that "cleaned up" 190 A8's did operate. What squadrons I do not know. But a Lighter and cleaner 190 would be pretty nasty to deal with

[Angus]

Oh, just looked. The 25 boost was cleared in feb '44.
None the less, more available than the C3 for instance.
Anyway, a Spit IX or VIII would be nicely on the market in 1943, as noted outperforming the 190A series in many categories.....and in some NOT.

[Crumpp]

None the less, more available than the C3 for instance.

C3 boost was widely available.  It was simply a few additional valves and fuel lines.  It was very simple and easy to install.

Crumpp

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, just looked. The 25 boost was cleared in feb '44.
None the less, more available than the C3 for instance.

Angus, 96 octane 'C-3' fuel was the only fuel the FW 190A`s BMW 801 accepted.

Now, since we all know that 190As flew quite many sorties, which could be only done while using C-3 fuel, we can conclude it was something EXTREMELY common with FW 190 units.

As for 25lbs/150 grade fuel, it was used by about 20-30 Squadrons of RAF fighters until 1945. That`s roughly 500 planes. I don`t think 500 fighters is a lot. Especially if we consider who many fighters in all the RAF had at that time - 1500,2000, 2500, more ?


Crummp,

So in fact the weight gained by FW-190A8 was not that substantial. In fact removing the outboard MG151's left the A8 lighter than the MGFF equipped 190A5 and substantially faster. The Luftwaffe had good reasons for making the 190A8 the most numerically produced version of the 190A. I will post the weight charts listed in the Pilot handbook for the A-7 bis A9. It is broken down by varient and each piece of optional equipment. The Jager was the lightest version followed by the Jagerfuehrer according to pilots handbook.

Hmm, that would be most interesting. My sources show 4300-4370 kg for a fully equipped A-8 (with all standard equipment mounted) vs. 4000kg for the A-5. It would be appreciated if you would shed more light on this!

[Crumpp]

Isegrim,

Early this next week I should be getting my manuals back from a friend who is checking my translations.

But it is easy to see the weight variations amoung the different versions by checking out the flight test's data on the 190A8.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html

Notice one is for 4300 kg's and the other for 4150 kg.  Check out the FW-190A8 performance charts.  On three of them it is listed as 4300 kg with NO variation in weight for the Mk108's which are heavier than the Mg151's or the ETC 501 rack which the aircraft is tested with and without.

Then Check out the 190A8, 190D9, and TA-154 comparision.  Notice the weight.

It will be even clearer when I get my manuals back.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Actually,

That is kind of bad example.  The armament set up for the 190A8 in that chart is without the outboard wing cannons but includes the ETC 501 rack and 115 liter aux tank.  Removing those drops the weight some more and adding the clamshell doors improves the aerodynamics over an A8 with the ETC 501 rack.

I wonder too what the deal is with the Mg131 hoppers for our AH varient and the one in this test.  The pilot manuals and the tech manuals only list a hopper with the capacity for 450 rds of Mg 131 ammo.  I can't find the 475 magazine in the parts list.

Crumpp

[GODO]

Originally posted by Crumpp
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html

Now it is:http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm

The one ending in .html is obsolete.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by GODO
GScholz, the test description is clear enough and easy to read:

"Zeke 52 vs P51D-5
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. Dives were begun from level flight line abreast formation at 200 IAS, with full power applied as the dive was entered. The P51D began to pull ahead immediately. The selected redline airspeed (325 IAS) of the zeke was reached after 27 seconds. At this time the P51D had a lead of aproximately 200 yards.

Zeke 52 vs P38J-25
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. Dives were begun from leve flight at 200 IAS. The P38J began to accelerate away shortly after the dive was entered. At the end of 30 seconds (when the zeke had reached maximum allowable IAS), the P38J was aproximately 200 yards ahead.

Zeke 52 vs P47D30
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. The P47D was aproximately 100 yards ahead 30 seconds after the beginning of the dive."

The test against navy planes also indicates excesive vibrations in the zeke diving at speeds above 250 knots.

My mistake.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Crumpp
190A Normaljager's did not become any better armored.  The fighter version armour upgrades appeared in the 190A4/190A3 transition period.  The headrest armour was thickened and widened.  The exact weight is listed in the handbook as well as the Luftwaffe part number which remained the same throughout the war.

The next major armour upgrade for the 190A series fighter version occurred in the FW-190A9 were the armored cowl ring and armored oil cooler were thickened.  

The weight increase the A8 came mainly from the outboard MG151's, ammo, and the 115-liter tank.  

The 115-liter tank was an optional accessory and commonly removed. Additionally some pilots to improve high altitude performance removed the outboard MG 151's.  In the parts manual there is even a kit to replace the outboard ejection chutes and top fairing with smooth plates.  Same kit is used on the G/F versions.

Many of the errors occurring in the FW-190 result from confusion of the different models.  An FW-190A8 was delivered with clamshell doors (not mounted), ETC 501 rack, 115-liter fuel tank, and FuG16 series radio.  Many of the weights listed in publications include ordinance weights on the ETC 501 rack or the Armour of the R7/R8 kits.

The clamshell doors and ETC 501 rack both mounted and dismounted in a few minutes.  The 115 liter tank took a few minutes longer but was designed to be removed and reinstalled without an inordinate amount of trouble.  

So in fact the weight gained by FW-190A8 was not that substantial.  In fact removing the outboard MG151's left the A8 lighter than the MGFF equipped 190A5 and substantially faster.  The Luftwaffe had good reasons for making the 190A8 the most numerically produced version of the 190A.  I will post the weight charts listed in the Pilot handbook for the A-7 bis A9.  It is broken down by varient and each piece of optional equipment.  The Jager was the lightest version followed by the Jagerfuehrer according to pilots handbook.


Crumpp

So what you're saying is that a two gun A8 should be almost as nimble as a two gun A5, only faster and with more power? Hurry and get those docs translated and scanned for Pyro!

[F4UDOA]

Nice hijack.


Crumpp,

I think you misunderstood my two comments.

1. Turning is only important as long as it is not at the expense of speed. For instance the Spit XIV was deadly because running would be very difficult. In the case of the Zero it was outclassed by 1943.

2. The accelleration test that the P-38 finished third behind the P-51D and P-47D30 was level accleration not dive acceleration. Started at 200MPH IAS it is not the best power curve for the P-38 but it does contradict the dragster myth of the P38.

[Crumpp]

1. Turning is only important as long as it is not at the expense of speed. For instance the Spit XIV was deadly because running would be very difficult. In the case of the Zero it was outclassed by 1943.

Yes I misunderstood you.  I agree with your conclusions.

2. The accelleration test that the P-38 finished third behind the P-51D and P-47D30 was level accleration not dive acceleration. Started at 200MPH IAS it is not the best power curve for the P-38 but it does contradict the dragster myth of the P38.

I did not know the P38 was even considered a great accellerating plane.  It level speed was good but everything I've read on it the P38 did not do so well against the faster LW plans compared to it's performance in the Pacific.

F4UDOA, And thanks for posting the test! Sorry about the Hijack.

Crumpp

[GODO]

P38L has very poor weight/power ratio from lo to med alts compared to 109s, 190s or Spits, but has the better ratio along all US planes. P38J was massively overpowered in the European scenario, but was still adecuate against zekes in the Pacific.