Books on the Spitfire

[Crumpp]

Well you can go and tell FOCKE-WULF their doc Technical description 284 for the A-8, dated 9.8.44, is a load of dung.

Your question is answered Milo.  The weight on your doc is a jabo-einsatz not a jagd-einsatz.

So the thread doesn't get derailed.

Crumpp

[Angus]

The piggyness of teh 190 boggles my mind. The RAF pilots almost all refer to it as a MUCH more dangerous opponent than the 109.
None the less, old 109 pilots were not so fascinated about it.

My assumption on this.

On one hand:
1. 109 masters liked their ride more than this "new" thing. The 190 was a new philosophy.
It's vice would be a very vicious stall, and a poorer turn/climb/stallfighting ability. So, when the going went tough, it really did.
In comparison with the 109, the wingloading was high, I presume.

On the other hand:

2. The 190 had simple controls and a phenomenal roll rate. An average pilot could quickly tear holes in the sky.
 The 190 was also fast (well, equal to the 109 at least) and heavily armed.


I have read something about some 190's being able to turn quite nicely, - however Spit and P51 still outturning it. Makes one wonder what happens if it was weighted down a bit. Was it maybe just a wee to heavy for a much nicer performance???

[VO101_Isegrim]

I guess in reality, with each air combats involving multiple, cooperating planes, the worser flight characteristics of the 190 did not mean much, on the other hand, in areas where it mattered it was just as fast, MUCH more heavily armed, more rugged, with better visibility, and a more modern-looking (though IMHO not really better) cocpit than the 109.

I always prefer the 109s though. One area the 190 cannot even nearly compete is the extremely friendly, forgiving nature of the 109. Not even in the most thrilling dogfight, with tons of adrenalin can I do something stupid with the 109, rough handling, hard stick use, snap manouvers - it forgives it all ! It always remains under my control.  Plus, as soon as we are one on one, the 109 shows it`s ability to be successfull 'lone wolf'. It has a very wide fight envelope, it`s good at both high up and down low, it`s good at both energy fighting and a manouvering fight, very good in the horizontal and phenomenal in the vertical. This ensures that until you do something, really, really, really stupid in series, you always dictate the fight, engage and disengage at will against most enemies. Not in the 190s, with that, you have to follow strict tactics and strictly use your best manouvers with care. You can never rest in 190 because of that, plus, if you got used to how nicely the 109 behaves in manouvers, you can never forgive the 190 that it behaves in the way she does.

[Crumpp]

http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

Came across this site while surfing.  It has some good info on WWII fighter comparision.  Let me know what you think.


Angus I agree with everything you have said.  The 190's strengths of accelleration, roll rate, dive, and zoom climb made a great energy dogfighter.

It was certainly not a turnfighter, high altitude fighter, or great climber above lower altitudes.

Isegrim,

I sent you some of the weight charts but have not heard back from you.  Let me know if you go them.

Crumpp

[VO101_Isegrim]

Yep, just checked the mail, I got it nice and warm. Thanks a lot! Let me know if you need anything !

[Crumpp]

Here is a site that list's the wingloading for Several German Planes.

http://www.stfrancisprep.org/departments/socialstudies/ww2/weapons/germany/aircraft.html

I'm not surprised they got the weight of the 190's wrong.  Even Erich Brown lists in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" the weight of a jabo-einsatz's!!  

Anyway, the wingloading of the 190 fighter was not that far off of the 109.

That being said though, the 109 would out-turn the 190.  Wingloading is a major player in turn radius but not the only factor.  The Aspect ratio of the 109 was a little better.  The 109 had a 6.1 and the 190 a 6.01.

I have a copy of a test flight between a 109F4 and a FW-190A2 (BMW801C) conducted at Rechlin by Hauptmann Gollab and Heinrich Beauvais.  

The 190's is rated as much more manuverable especially at high speeds.  It could reverse faster than the 109 in an Energy fight and it's roll rate was a "definate leap in fighter technology that will have positive effects in combat."

I think I told you about the elevator and nose down trim tendancy, Angus.  Those characteristics along IMO would have made the 190 hard to fight.

I think the 190A8 vs Spit IX (+25) should be one of the most equal fights in the game.  Pilot skill would decide the outcome.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your question is answered Milo.  The weight on your doc is a jabo-einsatz not a jagd-einsatz.

So the thread doesn't get derailed.

Crumpp

Well you started the derailing with the posting of bogus data.

Jabos had some guns removed, so why you are si insistent it is a jabo when ammo for 6 guns is listed.

It is you that is stating the jabo weight.  The 2 outer cannons and ammo weighed ~140kg, which is the difference to arrive at the jagd weight I posted.

jagd = fighter

jabo = fighter-bomber



The Spit I used a Merlin RMII engine of 990hp. The Spit XIV used a Griffon that put out 2035hp. That is an increase of1045hp.



British weights for A-3 W.Nr. 5313 (Arnin Faber's a/c)

Empty weight with all fixed equipment, except weapons - 6544lb
Pilot and chute - 200lb
Fuel(523l) - 860lb
Oil(45l) - 96lb
2 MG151/20 - 1960lb
Ammo for the above - 200lb
2 MF FF - 126lb
Ammo for the above - 90lb
2 MG17 - 65lb
Ammo for the above - 142lb
Radio equipment - 70 lb

Loaded weight - 8580lb

Weight during trials - 8580lb

Now why is your weight ~200lb heavier?

[Crumpp]

MIlo,

I have a copy of the tactical trials from the National Archives.  I don't know where your getting that weight.  It corresponds to nothing in the 190 pilots manual or the report I have.  

If I trusted you not to post the info on the web I would email you a copy.  Since I don't, though.  You can buy one at:

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

It's only a few euros.


The Spit MkI was not a contemprary of the 190.  The Spitfire Mk V and Spitfire Mk IX were it's main rivals.  The Spitfire XVI came in at the end and dominated the 190A.

The others Mk's came nowhere near dominating it.  Equalling, yes for sure.  Each A/C had real advantages over the other that in the end added up to pilot skill deciding the outcome.  Least that is what the RAF says.  Remember it did tell it's Merlin powered spit pilots to "fly at high speed" in areas the 190 operated in and not to "mix it up" with 190's.  Spitfire XIV's on the other hand were told they could "mix it up".  You can read the tactical trials yourself.  

The 190 gained less weight than the Spit did and the same amount of Horsepower.  That is a fact.

[Crumpp]

Your empty weight is around 200 lbs too heavy Milo.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

200 lbs too LIGHT...excuse me!

That is where the decrepency lies.  Your starting with the wrong weight.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Then why did you include the weight for the Spit I?

If you want the life time weight increase, you have to look at the lifetime of both a/c, which you were doing in your first post(no A-1 data given though).  

Spit(I - XIV) - 2500lb and 1000hp
Fw190A(1-8) - 1375lb and 550hp

Both a/c had practically the same ratio increase of weight and hp.

As for the British report, the 'source' goes on and gives speed and climb data from the tests. Included, as well, is a technical description of the a/c.

[Crumpp]

Both a/c had practically the same ratio increase of weight and hp.

Exactly,

So Why is the perception that the 190 became "overwieghted"?

It does not make sense for the fighter version scientifically.  The FW-190A8 would have increased the dive speed(& accelleration) and zoom climb of the 190A series at very little sacrifice to the turn radius or top speed.  

Now there are plenty of examples of R7/R8 pilots, Schlachtflieger, Schnellkampfgeschwader, and Stukageschwader pilots complaining their FW-190 was overweight and rightly so.  They flew a different airplane from most 190 Jagdfliegers.

BTW I am only showing the weight gain from the 190A1 thru A8 as 422kg for the full wing armament fighters.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
BTW I am only showing the weight gain from the 190A1 thru A8 as 422kg for the full wing armament fighters.
 

That is because you still insist that the weight is with all guns in the A-8. As noted previously, your weight is the weight with 2 cannons and ammo removed.

Some data, whether you agree with it or not, from Tank's bio book

A-3 - 2.29 kg/hp
A-6 - 2.37
A-8/R2 - 2.51
F-2 - 2.72
G-1 - 2.90
D-9 - 2.41
H-1 - 2.65
C-1 - 3.09

Vb - 2.03
IX LF - 2.06
IX HF - 1.94
XII - 2.51
XIV - 1.93 (my calc > 3850/2000)

109E - 2.41
109F-4 - 2.10
109G-1/R2 - 1.95

P-38F - 2.72
P-51A - 3.33
Typhoon Ib - 2.37

btw, the bio has a data sheet on the 801TR, TS, TU and F engines @ 1.65. (pg 145)

[Angus]

Umm, something to do with stalling as well is the span loading.
Power loading, Wing loading, Span loading, Aspect ratio.

Bear in mind also, that most figures go for full takeoff weight. The relativity sometimes changes when the tanks are half. Typically in Aces High

Then there is always the C of G.

As an end thing, Control authority. Was the 190 perhaps too easy on being pulled into the stall?
As a comparison, The Spit V had to be modified, it was too easy pulling it into an aft-moving-C-of-G-Lethal-G-load break. What they did was attaching bob weights on the stick so it would no more being so light at higher G's.
Seems that the Spit was the Champion of staying out of Accelerated/high speed stalls.

[Crumpp]

As an end thing, Control authority. Was the 190 perhaps too easy on being pulled into the stall?

Oh yeah, It was really easy to stall at ANY speed.

The 190 had three stalls from what I have read.

1.  High Speed stall - Move the angle of attack too fast at any speed and the plane would practically invert.  Left unchecked the FW-190 would then enter a spin.

2.  Low speed stall - the FW-190 would dip the right wing.  Left unchecked it would enter a spin.

3.  Low speed stall with flaps/gear deployed - The FW-190 would barely dip the right wing and gently slip to the right.  Left unchecked it self recover and continue flight.

Along with this though came great maneuverability at high speed.  Heinrich Beauvias says when they first flew the FW-190; no one had ever seen an A/C's entire wing turn white in a high-speed turn.

I think your assessment of the 190 being easy to fly and hard to fight is right on the money.  In fact both Luftwaffe fighters were hard to fight with the 109 being a fraction easier to fight but much harder to fly.

Beauvias talks about the difficultly of retraining 109 pilots who were used to the "concrete stick" of the 109.  The stick forces of the 190 were very well harmonized and extremely light, around 6-8 pounds, throughout most of the flight envelope.  However, at around 350mph IAS, they suddenly heavied up to around 40 pounds.  Lighter than most WWII fighters at high speed but 4 times the amount of force the pilot needed just seconds ago.

Combine the stick force changes with the 190's elevator control and you have a hard plane to fight.  Beauvias could do a complete loop in a 190 just 50 kph above a low speed stall.  Excellent acrobatic ability.  However he tells of one 109 pilot who couldn't pull a loop at ANY speed.  Every time the pilot pulled the stick up, the plane would nose up and fall to the side.  Use too much stick pressure on the elevator and you would mush the speed quickly.  It must have been hard not to over correct when the stick forces changed over at speed.

Additionally the FW-190, Beauvias says, when trimmed for forward flight at normal cruise, would adopted a marked nose down trim in a dive.  One RAF test pilot comments, "It must have been scary" when fighting close to the ground.  The pilot would have to deal with all these forces changing in a vertical fight as well as dealing with the enemy.  

At the same time the Spit pilot had to deal with horrible control harmonization but much a more forgiving flight envelope.

It seems to all come down to experience.  The Luftwaffe had quite a few pilots rack up some big scores in the 190.  Pretty impressive amounts considering the 109 had several more years of combat under it's belt when the 190 appeared.

http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html#kittel

Did you check out that website on the Swedish interceptor?  I am thinking of starting a thread "Bring the J22 to AH!!"

Crumpp