Any good explanation about "new" spit diving ability

[MiloMorai]

Back from a 1000mi mcycle ride.

Nice to see finally some real data (ie. details) instead of speculation you where posting.

Crumpp, how can you say the Spit was outdived by the Fw. You own data, and you, say this is not so, at all altitudes.

Injection only cooled the 'heads' indirectly, since the injection kept the f/a mixture temperature down.

I still disagree on the basic weight of the A-8. Fw in #284 gives 4400kg. Removing 'stuff' will naturally bring the weight down but this then is not the 'basic' a/c, but a 'modded' a/c. You also contradict yourself when you say there is a good reason for mounting the aux tank but then give a weight when it is not mounted.

[Crumpp]

Move out Milo,

I think Barbi is posting in another thread.


Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Crumpp take addog's advice.

Frankly I don't know about the aircraft in question but I can tell rank amatuers pissing into the wind when I read them. Beggaring thy neighbours arguments through belittlement and assinine, smart bellybutton comments essentially proves one thing - the inadequacy of your arguments.

I compliment you on supplying 'real' data and ask for some claification, and I get some smarty reply. We know who addog was refering to now.

[Crumpp]

I compliment you on supplying 'real' data and ask for some claification, and I get some smarty reply. We know who addog was refering to now.

I supplied "real" data the whole thread.

 

 

Crumpp, how can you say the Spit was outdived by the Fw. You own data, and you, say this is not so, at all altitudes.

Niether did the spit outdive the 109 OR the 190 at all altitudes.   The spits diving "advantage" was not very noticable until it overcame the FW's accelleration advantage. This is evident from your pilot "story".  All in All given the FW's large advantage I would rather be in it in a dive.

Don't preach about providing data.  Your one of the biggest jerk's on the BB for twisting facts. In fact the "data" you posted was over 100kph off at all altitudes.  Your constant attacks on everyone who present's a differing opinion or data are both tiresome and betry your inadequecies.

Have a nice life.  I could care less about you and will no longer respond to your post's.  You and Barbi need to start your own forum where you can trade insults.

Crumpp

[Karnak]

I hate to get involved, but one thing I am curious about is how much of a difference there really was.

When this is said "19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. " and Barbi reads it he'll get something completely different than when MiloMorai reads it.  The problem is that it is subjective.  It doesn't give times, altitudes or distances.

The 109 could have been 5,000ft in front of the Spit or 500ft and it is likely that the two view it something like that.

I'm curious just how big a difference is being talked about here.  The differences in F4UDOA's thread about the A6M5, P-51, P-38 and P-47 were not very pronounced when starting from the same speed.  The steeper dives being discussed here would show a greater rate of separation, but I doubt the Bf109 or Fw190 are going to be going 100mph faster than the Spit after 2 seconds.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I supplied "real" data the whole thread.

??? What ever you say. You might think you did.  


Niether did the spit outdive the 109 OR the 190 at all altitudes.   The spits diving "advantage" was not very noticable until it overcame the FW's accelleration advantage. This is evident from your pilot "story".  All in All given the FW's large advantage I would rather be in it in a dive.

Never it said it did but the Luftluvers said the Spit was always outdived, which is not true, only at specific heights. Gross over generalizing on the Luftluvers part

Don't preach about providing data.  Your one of the biggest jerk's on the BB for twisting facts. In fact the "data" you posted was over 100kph off at all altitudes.  Your constant attacks on everyone who present's a differing opinion or data are both tiresome and betry your inadequecies.

Was not my data but Kurt Tank's data and said so. Up to that point you had supplied NADA. Accept that you are not perfect Crumpp, even though you think you are. You also posted wrong (in your first post even) and deliberate misleading info. Since when is asking for proof or posting alternate data an attack?

Have a nice life.  I could care less about you and will no longer respond to your post's.  You and Barbi need to start your own forum where you can trade insults.

Still being adversarial when others point out you errors.

.........................

Karnak, these general statements don't cut it with me. The specifics such as the case of the claimed dive speed of 750kph for the 109, are missing. It is finally nice to see Issy post that dive speed chart which shows, and I and others pointed out before, could only be reached at a low altitude. Issy and Crumpp are very myoptic when it suits them. Then they get all upset when someone questions them on their info.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Crumpp
BTW,

Downside to C3 Injection.  It cooled the engine while using 1.65 ata but at the expense of fuel consumption.

70 liters/5 min was the rate!  So if you loaded up an FW-190A8 with a 300 liter fuel drop tank and the 115 liter auxilery tank you only had enough fuel for 40 minutes of flight time,

So the Luftwaffe had a good reason for mounting the 115 aux tank in C3 boost equipped 190's.

Crumpp

I suppose the 70 lit/5min (=840lit/h) does refer to the whole fuel consumption of the engine, ie. the amount of C-3 injection into the s/c intake, and the amount being injected into the combustion chamber. I am quite certain former also become a burning fuel after serving the useful purpose of a charge cooler. BTW, 840lit/hour doesn`t seem to me especially high for such a bigbore, high output engine as the 801.

BTW, Crumpp, do you have power output data for 1.58 (low gear) and 1.65ata (high gear) ? From the BMW 801D graphs it`s clear the output was 1800 PS at 1.42ata at SL, but I am looking for something definietive in this subject. I wonder if you have seen soemthing that shows the often mentions 2100 PS special emergency power output of the 801D as valid one. At 1.58ata, I would rather think of something like 2000 PS..


Karnak,

When this is said "19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. " and Barbi reads it he'll get something completely different than when MiloMorai reads it. The problem is that it is subjective. It doesn't give times, altitudes or distances.

The 109 could have been 5,000ft in front of the Spit or 500ft and it is likely that the two view it something like that.

I'm curious just how big a difference is being talked about here. The differences in F4UDOA's thread about the A6M5, P-51, P-38 and P-47 were not very pronounced when starting from the same speed. The steeper dives being discussed here would show a greater rate of separation, but I doubt the Bf109 or Fw190 are going to be going 100mph faster than the Spit after 2 seconds.

[/b]


I don`t think there was a bug difference, especially in view what F4UDOA posted. Probably the gain was just a few hundred meters. But that was enough.
Diving away was mostly employed an escape manouver, if someone was close behind on your tail, ready to fire. Personally I use it primarly to get out of the worst situation, presenting an easy target when. Somehow I have to increase the range, and get out of his guns envelope quickly before anything else. If I can do that by diving, and quickly, then my aircraft is already superior enough in dives to that be a preferred tactic.

 So I guess when speaking about superior diving ability, we should rather think about an advantage being utilized in combat to quickly gain speed/get out of hot tactical situations, rather than some silly dive race lasting 6000m altitude and the winner being the one who reaches .85 Mach first. F4DOA`s post was most enlightening in this respect.

[Crumpp]

I'm curious just how big a difference is being talked about here. The differences in F4UDOA's thread about the A6M5, P-51, P-38 and P-47 were not very pronounced when starting from the same speed. The steeper dives being discussed here would show a greater rate of separation, but I doubt the Bf109 or Fw190 are going to be going 100mph faster than the Spit after 2 seconds.

Don't know.  I added it up once.  The 109 had only a slight advantage of about 30mph IAS give or take on the deck.  You can look and figure it out.  The 190 had around a 70 mph advantage on the deck.
Big factor is dive accelleration.  I am most familiar with the 190 due to all the research I have done lately since Pyro asked me to determine the best climb speed.  It could outdive the P47 in the first 3000 feet and the Spitfire was intially left behind at altitudes that it's max dive speed was greater than the 190's.

Pips Priller describes using alternating short dives and zoom climbs in his 190A8 to break off combat with P51D's in 1944.

What is most important is the conclusions of F4UDOA's posted report.  The advantages when the A/C were at low speed and co-alt seemed extremely small.  If you read the report, even with a 2000 foot altitude advantage starting right on the 6 on any of the USAAF fighters, the zeke ended up turning in defensive circles.  Those "small" advantages seem to add up to big ones in combat.

BTW, Crumpp, do you have power output data for 1.58 (low gear) and 1.65ata (high gear) ? From the BMW 801D graphs it`s clear the output was 1800 PS at 1.42ata at SL, but I am looking for something definietive in this subject. I wonder if you have seen soemthing that shows the often mentions 2100 PS special emergency power output of the 801D as valid one. At 1.58ata, I would rather think of something like 2000 PS..

I recieved in the mail today from the Luft-archive the rest of the 190A series handbooks and the technical manual for the BMW 801MA, ML,C, and D.  Haven't had the chance to dig through it yet.

The 70L/5min is the total fuel consumption.  The handbook for the A8 read to use it "as long as neccessary".  The Technical manual says 40 minutes.  The 115 liter aux tank was NOT neccessary to use C3, however, it gave you about 7 1/2 minutes of fuel to burn.  Shut down the "C3 boost" and you could run the engine for 10 minutes at 1.65ata without any additional cooling.  This meant 17 minutes of extra power.  The basic fighter did not included the aux tank.  It was generally removed as it added 120kg of weight and is not found on the fighter version weight chart along with the ETC 501 rack.

I think 1870hp is the top output of the BMW801D2.  That is achieved at 1.65ata.  I will check it out though.  You have to remember the BMW801 motor was hundreds of horsepower more powerful than the best inline motors when it first appeared.  Inline motors did not begin to develop 1800 hp until late in the war.  The Griffon 65 and DB605 were both only 2000hp.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Actually,

Having thumbed through the BMW manual I can tell you some pretty neat things about the motor.  Not much of it is relevant to AH though.  

However Barbi, you are correct in that the BMW801D2 did develop 1870hp at 1.42ata at 2700U/min sea level and generated a maximum of 120Kg of exhaust thrust.  At 1.32ata at 2400U/min the BMW 801D2 was a shy under 1600hp.

I don't know what the Hp rating is at 1.62ata or 1.58ata.

I have a USAAF chart on the BMW 801D2 and would be glad to email it.  Think I robbed it from the LEMB.

The Merlin 66 developed around 1650 hp without boost.  With 150 octane gas and (+25lbs) boost it was around 2000hp for 5 minutes.

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/meandgr.htm

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg

However not everyone is agreement on the hp rating of the Merlin 66.  This is probably due to upgrades just like the 801D.
Guppy35, you have any info on what our Spitfire IX should be developing without boost?

http://www.spitfires.flyer.co.uk/marks.html

Crumpp