Any good explanation about "new" spit diving ability

[Crumpp]

When they started the dive at the same speed. Yes the Fw was more manueverable in the dive. Tactical trials and combat are 2 different 'kettles of fish'.

The FW was also faster in the dive.  Tactical trials are were the tactics for combat are developed.  Notice the RAF advises its pilots not to "mix it up" but rather fly at high speed in areas the 190 operates.  If you read the trial of a 190A8 vs Spit Mk IVX it reads "pilots can afford to mix it up".  This is an Air Force at war trying to find the best way to defeat an enemy.  

"Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190." Are you only reading what you want to see?

If you think I am arguing that a Spitfire with an altitude advantage shouldn't have a good chance of shooting a FW down you are totally mistaken.  Don't try and turn this into a fan rant for the 190.  The Spitfire Mk IX (+25lbs) and the FW 190A8 should be extremely well matched.  So much so that pilot skill NOT A/C performance determines the outcome.  In AH they are not well matched.  Pyro says he is going to make some changes to the FM to better align with LW data and fix the best climb speed of the 190's.

[Charge]

"In fact the elevator was so touchy..."

As was the case with Spitfire if I may add, and that does not seem to make it a bad dogfighter at all.

Of course it would be a waste of time to model the overly sensitive elevators as people would modify the stick input profiles to counter this etc. etc.

Ooops...

(Runs away in terror)

-C+

[MiloMorai]

A fully loaded 190A3 is weighed in at 3850Kg. A fully loaded fighter version of the 190A8 is 4100kg.

from Sta/Bo 8.9.44 (accent missing on 'a')

A-8
empty weight - 3489.7 ~ 3490kg

flying weight - 4391.0 ~ 4400kg

A-8/R2
flying weight - 4454 ~ 4450kg

A-8/R3
flying weight - 4674.5 ~ 4675kg

fighter-bomber
flying weight - 4674.5 ~ 4675kg


This is from 'Technical Description No. 284', a Fw document.

There is a weight increase of 600kg(1323lb) over the A-3 and you are saying a boost increase of 0.23ata (an ~3-4lb boost increase) will overcome this substantial weight increase?

[Crumpp]

Milo,

I've got the pilot's handbook for the FW-190A7 bis A9 and the Technical manual for the A-1 thru A9.  In it lists the weight for all the various versions right down to the exact kilo.  The weight break down is actually several pages in the book with about two variants per page.  

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 variant and each piece of optional equipment. The Jaeger was the lightest version followed by the Jaegerfuehrer according to pilot's handbook.

So if you want to check out the weight confusion, just look over these docs from the RLM.

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

Notice how the weight on the FW-190A8/R2 does not change even though the Mk108's are heavier than the Mg151's?  Notice the Weight on the FW-190A8 without the outboard cannons but having the 115-liter tank and ETC 501 rack?

There is a weight increase of 600kg(1323lb) over the A-3 and you are saying a boost increase of 0.23ata (an ~3-4lb boost increase) will overcome this substantial weight increase?

I thought you knew this already?     The Germans used a different design philosophy from the Allies regarding power increased.  The Allies used lower cylinder pressure but high boost pressure increase's to gain extra power.  The Axis developed high compression engines with small boost pressure increases.  Either way horsepower is increased. Check the BMW 801 chart and see for yourself.  Remember the 190A5 was not cleared for 1.62ata at 2700U/min.  It was only cleared for 1.42ata.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

I've got the pilot's handbook for the FW-190A7 bis A9 and the Technical manual for the A-1 thru A9. In it lists the weight for all the various versions right down to the exact kilo. The weight break down is actually several pages in the book with about two variants per page.


Whoopy do.


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

weight difference of MG FF and MG151/20 > +5kg/gun

ammo, 100rnd belt, difference > -1.1kg

Do your own calcs for the correct ammo load.

115l tank > +90kg

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.

So now you bring in modifiers to the standard 'kit'. See your next statement on 'standard 'kit''.

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 doors would not operate with the ETC501 attached. Fw doc #284 is comprehensive on weights.

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.

Lets see these times, not generalizations. OM(Il-2) will dispute your 501 removal times.

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 variant and each piece of optional equipment. The Jaeger was the lightest version followed by the Jaegerfuehrer according to pilot's handbook.

Dispite your pathetic attempts, the basic  A-8 was still 600kg heavier than the A-3.

So if you want to check out the weight confusion, just look over these docs from the RLM.

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


I don't need to as I have the Fw A-8 doc with the weight breakdown.


Notice how the weight on the FW-190A8/R2 does not change even though the Mk108's are heavier than the Mg151's? Notice the Weight on the FW-190A8 without the outboard cannons but having the 115-liter tank and ETC 501 rack?

Aaagh??? Notice that in Fw doc #284 it says the 108 increased the flying weight by 50kg. Do you dispute this Fw doc?

from another source

MK108 > 58kg/gun
MG151/20 > 42kg/gun

diff. > +16kg/gun

MK108(100rnd ammo belt) > 59.5kg
MH151/20(100rnd ammo belt) > 19.9kg

diff. > +39.6kg

You can do the calcs yourself for what size ammo belts were fitted.


 
I thought you knew this already? The Germans used a different design philosophy from the Allies regarding power increased. The Allies used lower cylinder pressure but high boost pressure increase's to gain extra power. The Axis developed high compression engines with small boost pressure increases. Either way horsepower is increased. Check the BMW 801 chart and see for yourself. Remember the 190A5 was not cleared for 1.62ata at 2700U/min. It was only cleared for 1.42ata.

MP is MP. If you want the specific increase in lb, go find the thread that explained what it is. Now what was the CR increases in the BMW801 engine. What is this A-5? You were saying A-3 before. When was the A-3 cleared for 1.42ata since it was restricted to 1.32ata at one time?

[Crumpp]

Buy yourself a handbook since you want to ignore that facts.  They are not very expensive.

http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/

All the docs on the page ARE FW docs.

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

Except for better armament, their is NO difference between the FW-190A8 and the FW-190A5.  They even use the exact same fuselage, armour, and a whole slew of other major components.  The only major modification to the A/C was the wing in the A6 model.  It was redesigned to be stronger and lighter to accomodate the outboard MG151's.  

Now lets talk about that boost.  The Luftwaffe adopted the philosophy of "on demand power".  Meaning a useful increase in horsepower for the duration of combat.  This meant higher cylinder pressure engines with tiny manifold pressure increases to gain power.  This induced less stress on the motor while providing needed power.  Hence the BMW 801D was cleared for 1.65ata Boost for up to 40 minutes according to the pilot manual.

The Spitfire MkIX was cleared for:

"The engine was cleared for combat operation at +25 lb/sq.in. boost pressure for periods not exceeding 5 minutes."

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html

And therein lies the rub.  With huge increases in manifold pressure brings spectacular performance, for a few minutes.  However your lower cyclinder pressure brings increased engine life in the long haul.

Now they did run the test merlin engine for an Hour and 10 minutes.  So what...the RLM ran the test BMW801 for a lot longer than 40 minutes too.

[Mugzeee]

Just last night i had a Spit9 i think it was....Out dive me while i was in a 109g-10. I was surprised. But i didnt know if this should be. This happened twice over the same base on 2 different flights. Once it was wd39 that shot me down..the other i cant remember.
I started a dive from 18K towards the target base (Barracks) and a spit was following. I kept bringing the throttle back just enough inlevel flight that we were matched speed.. + then - then + then- ans so forth. I slowly dove to 12K..Then i went into a full out dive staying just in the edge of compression using the Elv. trim for a little help keeping the nose in a safe attitude.
From 12 K all the way to the deck the spit slowly closed to within d400....I had already made my pass on the barracks and was thinking He just kept cranking me in. the ROC was about 2.5 to 3k if i remember right.
Anyhoo...lesson learned.
And ppl wonder why sooo many players choose the Spitfire.

[Crumpp]

When was the A-3 cleared for 1.42ata since it was restricted to 1.32ata at one time?

From the time the BMW 801D2 was put in it?

Least that is the info I have.  If you have something restricting it to 1.32 ata operation then by all means post it.  

That would mean an even bigger PW ratio increase.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Well now we all know that you are full off hot air, Crumpp. The A-3 was restricted to 1.32ata for awhile. When the Brits tested the Faber's Fw using 1.42, the Germans had the engine restricted to 1.32.

All that data in the link for the A-8, I have and more, since it comes from the A-8 handbook. I have had the book since 1974!!!

Preaching again Crumpp? Do you have your Divinity doctorate?    

Now what is this A-5 you keep yapping about? Taking lessons from Barbi, are you? You were originally yapping about the A-3.

The wing of the A-6 was 'improved' also because of the escalating weight of the A model and to accomadate the growing number of Rustsatzen kits.

Now stop with the BS and produce some numbers. No more general statements. Lets have some PW numbers. What was the CR increases?

That would mean an even bigger PW ratio increase.

Sure, a 600kg weight increase with a 200hp (your number) increase gives an even bigger PW ratio(standard A-3 / standard A-8). OK

Only problem was at 1.65, MW was needed and could only be used for 10 minutes.  So, unlike the Merlin, which could exceed its 5 minute limit, the 801 was finished if the 10 minutes was exceeded. Also remember that the Spit was over enemy territory and the 5 minute limit was meant as a safety measure so the Spit could return to base.

[Crumpp]

Only problem was at 1.65, MW was needed and could only be used for 10 minutes.

MW was not used on any production 190.  190's used C3 boost and 1.65ata could be used for 40 minutes at a wack.

Obviously you did not look at any of the links and just countinue to rant.  It's ok because Pyro has already said his peace.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Ummm...from Charge:
"In fact the elevator was so touchy..."

As was the case with Spitfire if I may add, and that does not seem to make it a bad dogfighter at all. "

The Spitfires elevator was touchy, however the Spitty would not so easily snap into a vicious spin ...rather the elevator would put you where you would not want to go, like very much upwards.
The 190 when overtouched and without much warning would go into very nasty, evil and vicious out-of-control whatever....

[MiloMorai]

Let me get my shovel Crumpp. Nothing but manure coming from you, there is.  Better be quiet now unless you can give  specifics before you dig that hole even deeper.

 

Not 'C3 boost' but 'C3 injection'. LOL, and you were preaching to me.

C3 fuel injection acted the same as MW injection.

Have you read Tech description #284? Read what it says for Increased emergency power. (their underline) It ends with, " Due to the danger of engine overheating, this system must not be used for more than 10 minutes."

JHC, definately taking lessons from Barbi, you are.

[Crumpp]

The Spitfires elevator was touchy, however the Spitty would not so easily snap into a vicious spin ...rather the elevator would put you where you would not want to go, like very much upwards.

Angus,

Absolutely right.  The FW could be stalled at ANY speed.  It was so violent the plane would almost invert and then enter a spin.   It was nasty and could very well be fatal without sufficient altitude.

What's more the FW stall had no warning due to the heavy vibrations of the BMW 801.  I am sure pilots were reluctant to push it to the edge when low to the ground.
It will be interesting to see how HTC redoes the FM.

Have you read Tech description #284? Read what it says for Increased emergency power. (their underline) It ends with, " Due to the danger of engine overheating, this system must not be used for more than 10 minutes."

Milo, take your anger someplace else.  In the Luftwaffe manual it talks about not climbing for more than 10 minutes on 1.65ata boost?  Is that what you are refering too?

Crumpp

[Wotan]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Let me get my shovel Crumpp. Nothing but manure coming from you, there is.  Better be quiet now unless you can give  specifics before you dig that hole even deeper.

 

Not 'C3 boost' but 'C3 injection'. LOL, and you were preaching to me.

C3 fuel injection acted the same as MW injection.

Have you read Tech description #284? Read what it says for Increased emergency power. (their underline) It ends with, " Due to the danger of engine overheating, this system must not be used for more than 10 minutes."

JHC, definately taking lessons from Barbi, you are.

The 10 min limit wasnt a hard limit where by if you hit 12 min the eng overheated. Engine heating leads to more eng wear not necessarily an eng malfunction once the limit has been exceded.

Most limits are set with eng life and maintaining servicable aircraft in mind.

MW50 and C3 injection are similiar but not the same. MW50 was a BMW "invention" but was problematic.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by MiloMorai

Only problem was at 1.65, MW was needed and could only be used for 10 minutes.  So, unlike the Merlin, which could exceed its 5 minute limit, the 801 was finished if the 10 minutes was exceeded. Also remember that the Spit was over enemy territory and the 5 minute limit was meant as a safety measure so the Spit could return to base.

What`s that bullocks again?

Factually wrong in that

a, MW50 was not required to reach 1.65ata manifold pressure on the FW 190A series. In fact, MW50 was never used on the A-8 itself, though possibly it appeared on earlier Jabo versions.

b, 'Could be only used for 10 mins, while the Spit could use it for 5 mins' <-- So the Merlin`s lacking in it`s ability to absorb WEP for more than 5ms whereas the FW 190A could sustain it`s own boosted WEP for 10-15mins (as per my docs) is actually in some odd way, a disadvantage of the BMW 801? What cretinic logic is that ?

Spitfire`s WEP time was restricted to one-half or one-third that of the WEP time of the 1944 German figters, try to live with that. There was no 'running of out special fluid', the BMW 801 used petrol injection, resulting Erhoehte Ladedruck, it`s effect being similiar to MW50.

As long as the petrol tanks were full, and the cylinder temperetures were within limits, 1.65ata could be used - that means 10-15mins in practice without too much strain to the engine.

Similiarly, Spit could use their maximum boosts as long as the petrol tanks were not empty, and the engine temperatures permitted, advisably no longer than 5 mins otherwise drastically shortened engine lifespan and possibility of inflight engine failure may occured. In view of the Spit`s limited internal tankage and range, and the high consumption of the Merlins, I guess that mean rather limited time in their mission profile - every minute the Spit`s pilot spent on high boost took some 20 miles away from it`s (econical!) range on which it had to return to base.